Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicant’s preliminary amendment filed 09/17/2025 is entered. Claims 1-20 are canceled. New claims 21-40 are added.
2. Continuity: This application filed 06/09/2025 is a Continuation of 17153159 , filed 01/20/2021, now abandoned, 17153159 is a Continuation of 15441755 , filed 02/24/2017 ,now U.S. Patent # 10929901 and 15441755 Claims Priority from Provisional Application 62299096 , filed 02/24/2016.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim 38 contains subject matter, “ The method of claim 34, further comprising printing the manufactured article.”, which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Printing a manufactured article in its literal meaning involves producing physical goods or documents or parts using 2D print or 3D additive manufacturing technologies , which the Applicant’s Specification does not describe. Instead, the Applicant’s Specification uses the printing term for printing the identification number on the pelt to the skin.
Note: If the claim 38 is amended to recite: “The method of claim 34, further comprising printing an identification number of the manufactured article on the manufactured article .”, it can overcome 112 (a) rejection.
Double Patenting
4. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. US 10929901 B2, hereinafter Patent’ 901. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are directed to the same inventive concept of confirming a provenance of a fur, a leather skin, a reptile skin, or an ostrich skin and the limitations of the independent claim 21 of the instant application are covered by the limitations of claim 1 of the Patent’ 901, see the comparison below, wherein all the underlined limitations of claim 21 are covered by the highlighted limitations of claim1 of the patent’ 901:
Patent’ 901
1. A method of tracking a provenance of a fur, a leather skin, a reptile skin, or an ostrich skin, the method comprising:
providing a live animal;
imaging the live animal;
removing a first DNA sample from the live animal;
electronically storing information associated with the first DNA sample in a computer-based system;
assigning a globally unique identifier number to the live animal;
electronically storing the identifier number in the computer-based system;
associating the identifier number with the information associated with the first DNA sample in the computer-based system;
electronically storing sale information in the computer-based system;
electronically associating the sale information with the identifier number and the information associated with the first DNA sample in the computer-based system;
processing the live animal to provide at least one of a fur pelt, a leather skin, a reptile skin, and an ostrich skin;
removing a second DNA sample from the at least one of the fur pelt, the leather skin, the reptile skin, and the ostrich skin;
electronically comparing information associated with the second DNA sample to the information associated with the first DNA sample with a processing device, wherein the processing device is selected from the group consisting of a desktop computer, a laptop computer, a server, a tablet, a smart phone, a cell phone, and
wherein the processing device includes at least one of a camera and a scanner; and
electronically verifying the information associated with the second DNA sample matches the information associated with the first DNA sample with the processing device.
Claim 21 of the instant application:
21. A method of confirming a provenance of a fur, a leather skin, a reptile skin, or an ostrich skin, the method comprising:
providing an animal; physically extracting a first DNA sample from the animal;
electronically storing information associated with the first DNA sample in a computer-based system;
assigning an identifier number to the animal; electronically storing the identifier number in the computer-based system;
associating the identifier number with the information associated with the first DNA sample in the computer-based system;
physically processing the animal to transform the animal into a fur pelt, a leather skin, a reptile skin, or an ostrich skin;
physically extracting a second DNA sample from the fur pelt, the leather skin, the reptile skin, or the ostrich skin;
electronically comparing information associated with the second DNA sample to the information associated with the first DNA sample with a processing device, wherein the processing device is selected from the group consisting of a desktop computer, a laptop computer, a server, a tablet, a smart phone, a cell phone; and
electronically verifying the information associated with the second DNA sample matches the information associated with the first DNA sample with the processing device, thereby confirming the provenance of the fur pelt, the leather skin, the reptile skin, or the ostrich skin.
From the above comparison, it is evident that the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are directed to the same inventive concept of confirming a provenance of a fur, a leather skin, a reptile skin, or an ostrich skin and the limitations of the independent claim 21 of the instant application are covered by the limitations of claim 1 of the Patent’ 901, with only difference that the claim 21 also recites thereby confirming the provenance of the fur pelt, the leather skin, the reptile skin, or the ostrich skin, which however is the obvious result of the steps recited and stated in the preamble of the claim 21.
Examiner has reviewed the limitations of the dependent claims 22-27 of the instant application and they are similar and covered by the limitations of claims 2-7 of the patent. The limitations of the rest of the claims 28-33, and 34-40 of the instant application are similar to the limitations of claims 21-27, except for additional limitations in dependent claims 33, 38 and 30 which recite limitations conducting a second price auction, printing steps of the identifier and embedding radio frequency identification device, which are covered in the limitations of claims 9, 13, 18, and 19 of the Patent’ 901.
In view of the foregoing, all pending claims 21-40 are subject to rejection on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. US 10929901 B2, hereinafter Patent’ 901.
21. (New) A method of confirming a provenance of a fur, a leather skin, a reptile skin, or an ostrich skin, the method comprising:
providing an animal; physically extracting a first DNA sample from the animal;
electronically storing information associated with the first DNA sample in a computer-based system;
assigning an identifier number to the animal; electronically storing the identifier number in the computer-based system;
associating the identifier number with the information associated with the first DNA sample in the computer-based system;
physically processing the animal to transform the animal into a fur pelt, a leather skin, a reptile skin, or an ostrich skin;
physically extracting a second DNA sample from the fur pelt, the leather skin, the reptile skin, or the ostrich skin;
electronically comparing information associated with the second DNA sample to the information associated with the first DNA sample with a processing device, wherein the processing device is selected from the group consisting of a desktop computer, a laptop computer, a server, a tablet, a smart phone, a cell phone; and
electronically verifying the information associated with the second DNA sample matches the information associated with the first DNA sample with the processing device, thereby confirming the provenance of the fur pelt, the leather skin, the reptile skin, or the ostrich skin.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
5 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, when analyzed per MPEP 2106.
Step 1 analysis:
Claims 21-40 are to a process comprising a series of steps, which are statutory (Step 1: Yes).
Step 2A Analysis:
Claim 21 recites:
21. A method of confirming a provenance of a fur, a leather skin, a reptile skin, or an ostrich skin, the method comprising:
(i) providing an animal;
(ii) physically extracting a first DNA sample from the animal;
(iii) electronically storing information associated with the first DNA sample in a computer-based system;
(iv) assigning an identifier number to the animal;
(v) electronically storing the identifier number in the computer-based system;
(vi) associating the identifier number with the information associated with the first DNA sample in the computer-based system;
(vii) physically processing the animal to transform the animal into a fur pelt, a leather skin, a reptile skin, or an ostrich skin;
(viii) physically extracting a second DNA sample from the fur pelt, the leather skin, the reptile skin, or the ostrich skin;
(ix) electronically comparing information associated with the second DNA sample to the information associated with the first DNA sample with a processing device, wherein the processing device is selected from the group consisting of a desktop computer, a laptop computer, a server, a tablet, a smart phone, a cell phone; and
(x) electronically verifying the information associated with the second DNA sample matches the information associated with the first DNA sample with the processing device, thereby confirming the provenance of the fur pelt, the leather skin, the reptile skin, or the ostrich skin.
The claim 1 recites the highlighted limitations of “assigning an identifier number to the animal; associating the identifier number with the information associated with the first DNA sample; comparing information associated with the second DNA sample to the information associated with the first DNA sample, wherein the processing device is selected from the group consisting of a desktop computer, a laptop computer, a server, a tablet, a smart phone, a cell phone; and verifying the information associated with the second DNA sample matches the information associated with the first DNA sample with the processing device, thereby confirming the provenance of the fur pelt, the leather skin, the reptile skin, or the ostrich skin”, in the computer -based system” and “by the processing device”, fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.. That is, other than reciting “in a computer-based system” and “by the processing device” nothing in the claim elements precludes these steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for “in the computer-based system” and the “by the processing device” language, the claim encompasses a person to assign an identifier to an animal from whom a DNA sample has been extracted, and associate the identifier with the DAN sample information, compare this DNA sample information with another DNA sample from the fur pelt or an animal skin and then verify if the information of the two samples match. Further, a selection of a type of computer device is a random and can be done by the person. Thus, the claim 21 and its dependent claims 22-27 recite “Mental Processes”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) Abstract Idea Groupings [R-07.2022] II. MENTAL PROCESSES: claims do recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Examples of claims that recite mental processes include:• a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016); • a claim to collecting and comparing known information (claim 1), which are steps that can be practically performed in the human mind, Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057, 1067, 100 USPQ2d 1492, 1500 (Fed. Cir. 2011);
Since the limitations of the other two independent claims 28 and 34 recite similar limitations as claim 1, they are analyzed on the same basis reciting abstract ideas with their dependent claims 29-33, and 35-40.
Step 2A, prong 1= Yes. Claims 21-40 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 analysis: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Claim 21 recites the additional elements performed by the computer in the steps (iii), (v), (vi), (ix) and (x). The limitations in steps (iii) and (v) to receive and store data representing identifiers, which represent an abstract representations amounting to generic concept of storing data as insignificant extra-solution activity. The computer is recited at a high level of generality and is used as a tool to perform the generic computer function of receiving data. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The limitations in steps “(vi) associating the identifier number with the information associated with the first DNA sample in the computer-based system; (ix) electronically comparing information associated with the second DNA sample to the information associated with the first DNA sample with a processing device, wherein the processing device is selected from the group consisting of a desktop computer, a laptop computer, a server, a tablet, a smart phone, a cell phone; and (ix) electronically verifying the information associated with the second DNA sample matches the information associated with the first DNA sample with the processing device,”; the computer is used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The limitations in steps “(i) providing an animal; (ii) physically extracting a first DNA sample from the animal; (iv) assigning an identifier number to the animal; (vi) physically processing the animal to transform the animal into a fur pelt, a leather skin, a reptile skin, or an ostrich skin; and (vii) physically extracting a second DNA sample from the fur pelt, the leather skin, the reptile skin, or the ostrich skin;”, recite generic steps of providing an animal and receiving DNA samples by extracting it from an animal and from a fur pelt or skin of an animal, assigning an identifier to an animal and physically processing an animal to manufacture skin are conceptual ideas and do not add any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Even when viewed individually and in combination, the additional elements in claim 21 do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, because they do not recite any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES). Since the limitations of the other two independent claims 28 and 34 recite similar to the limitations of claim 1, they are analyzed on the same basis as directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
Dependent claims 22-27, 29-32, 35-37 and 40 have been considered and reviewed and thy recite limitations further extending the limitation of their base claims directed to storing data, associating steps and non-functional descriptive subject matter, which do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 26 recites storing DNA sample data using at least one of spanning tree protocol, homomorphic encryption, Internet key exchange, IPsec, Kerberos, point-to-point protocol, off-the-record messaging, transport layer security, and ZRTP, claim 33 recites the step of conducting an auction with a second price algorithm, claims 38 and 39 recite the step of printing the identifier and embedding RFID in the skin of the animal, which relate to long-standing practices without providing details reflecting a technical improvement.
Accordingly, dependent claims 26, 33, 38-39 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2A=Yes. Claims 21-40 are directed to abstract ideas.
Step 2B analysis: The claims 21-40 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Since claims are as per Step 2A are directed to an abstract idea, they have to be analyzed per Step 2B, if they recite an inventive step, i.e., the claim recites additional elements or a combination of elements that amount to “Significantly More” than the judicial exception in the claim.
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claims 21-40 amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components, and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components, and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use using a generic computer components cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element or elements is/are extra-solution activity, or are well-understood, conventional and routine activity in step 2A should be re-evaluated in step 2B. Here the receiving, and storing data related to DNA samples were considered are extra-solution activity, or are well-understood, conventional and routine activity activities in step 2A and thus it is re-evaluated in step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background of the example does not provide any indication that the computer components are anything other than a generic, off the shelf computer component and the Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs, Versata court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d) (ii) indicate that mere receiving, acquiring, transmitting, and storing steps using a generic computer is a well-understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). See: MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere display of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting, and storing steps are well‐understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.
Further the steps of storing DNA sample data using at least one of spanning tree protocol, homomorphic encryption, Internet key exchange, IPsec, Kerberos, point-to-point protocol, off-the-record messaging, transport layer security, and ZRTP, conducting an auction with a second price algorithm and printing identifier such as embedding an identifier in an animal’s skin are long-standing practices and as recited do not reflect any technical improvement in the computer functioning. Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d));
Accordingly, a conclusion that the receiving, acquiring, storing, conducting an auction with a second price-algorithm, embedding a RFID in an animal’s skin, processing the animal steps are well-understood, routine conventional activities are supported under Berkheimer Option 2.
Even when considered in combination, the additional elements in claims 21-40 represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. (Step 2B: NO).
Step 2B: The claims 1-20 are patent ineligible.
6. Prior art Discussion:
Reference independent claims 21, 28 and 34, the prior art of record, alone or combined, neither teaches nor render obvious at least the limitations, “ electronically comparing information associated with the second DNA sample extracted from the fur pelt , the leather skin, the reptile skin, or the ostrich skin to the information associated with the first DNA sample extracted from an animal with a processing device”, as a whole with the rest of the limitations of the claims 21, 28 and 34 respectively.
7. Discussion of the most relevant prior art: The following references have been identified as the most relevant prior art to the claimed invention. The following references do teach some elements of the independent claims 21, 28, and 34, but none of them , aloe or combined, teaches at least the limitations, “ electronically comparing information associated with the second DNA sample extracted from the fur pelt , the leather skin, the reptile skin, or the ostrich skin to the information associated with the first DNA sample extracted from an animal with a processing device”, as a whole. Further, the limitations of claims 21-40 are very similar to the limitations recited in claims 1-20 of the parent application 17153,159 , now abandoned .
(i) Stroman et al. [US 2008/0059330 A1 cited in the IDS filed 09/17/2026 and in the parent application 17153,159 , now abandoned ,teaches a method of tracking provenance of a fur, a leather skin, a reptile skin, or an ostrich skin, the method comprising receiving a first DNA sample from an animal; receiving an identifier number assigned to the animal; electronically storing information associated with the first DNA sample in a computer-based system; electronically storing the identifier number in the computer-based system; associating the identifier number with the information associated with the first DNA sample in the computer-based system (See Stroman para 0137, wherein the animals are sorted based on suitable process attributes including DNA tested “Sorting system 130 may sort animals so that additional value is generated. Animals may be sorted into groups based on physical attributes, process attributes, any other attributes........ Process attributes may include...., DNA tested, ultrasound measurements, or any other suitable process attribute”. Stroman teaches sorting animals based on DNA tests which reads on the limitations of taking/receiving a DNA sample from an animal and storing it , because then only the DNA test can be used for sorting the animals based on DNA testing. Further Stroman , see paragraphs 0028 and 0179 which disclose storing animal information electronically in an EID tag and also information is stored in a central database 109 [Fig.1], see paragraphs 0166-0171 ). Stroman further teaches assigning a globally unique identifier number to the at least one of the live animal, the fur pelt, the leather skin, the reptile skin, and the ostrich skin; electronically storing the identifier number in the computer based system (see para 0098, wherein the tracking system require animals to have an unique identifier in the form of RFID tags or could be barcode tags, etc. [see para 0140 and the EID tags can electronically store the identifier number in the computer based system]. Stroman does not specifically teach storing step of the DNA information , processing the animal to make at least one of a fur pelt, a leather skin, a reptile skin, and an ostrich skin, receiving a second DNA sample from at least one of a fur pelt, a leather skin, a reptile skin, and an ostrich skin; electronically comparing information associated with the second DNA sample to the information associated with the first DNA sample with a processing device, wherein the processing device is selected from the group consisting of a desktop computer, a laptop computer, a server, a tablet, a smart phone, a cell phone; and electronically verifying the information associated with the second DNA sample matches the information associated with the first DNA sample with the processing device. Stroman also teaches that the method of claim 1, further comprising electronically storing sale information in the computer-based system and electronically associating the sale information with at least one of the identifier number and the first DNA sample in the computer-based system [[see para 0096, “Tracking system 145 may monitor the growth and performance of each animal from conception to harvest. Tracking system 145 may require users (e.g., owners of animals) to document, for example, all processes and treatments performed, medical history, average daily weight gain in different environments. Buyers desiring to purchase animals through branded beef programs or other marketing programs may use the tracking information to verify the source and/or condition of the animals. Since the ownership of the animal may change several times throughout its life, each user (e.g., stakeholder) in the supply chain may be required to acquire relevant data and enter the data into the central database......”.
(ii) Burnett et al. [US 20130071847 A1 cited in the IDS filed 09/17/2026 and in the parent application 17153,159 , now abandoned], , in the similar field of tracking animal waste based upon DNA samples, teaches receiving DNA samples from fur pelt [See para 0007, “ The kit includes at least one first DNA sample collector to collect DNA samples from a known group of animals, wherein the DNA samples from the known group of animals can be extracted from cheek cells, saliva, fur, blood, or waste, and at least one second DNA sample collector for collecting a sample of fecal matter from an unknown animal”] to conduct DNA analysis on the DNA samples to prepare a genetic profile for each animal from the group, preparing a database of the genetic profiles, collecting a specimen of waste from an unknown source, conducting DNA analysis on the specimen, and comparing the DNA analysis from the specimen to the database to determine the source of the waste [See Abstract].
(iii) Skocic [US 2014-0046698 Al cited in the IDS filed 09/17/2026 and in the parent application 17153,159 , now abandoned, discloses a method comprising: storing animal data and a first identifier in a database and associating the first identifier with the animal data in the database (See paragraph [0007), wherein the identifier includes an RFID tag, an implanted multifunction chip, and an identification number from e.g. a dog tag, an earmark, an image of an animal, DNA, and a barcode from a pet identification card (See paragraph [0047] in D1).
(iv) Amit et al. [US20130325585 A1, Al cited in the IDS filed 09/17/2026 and in the parent application 17153,159 , now abandoned, ], in the field of conducting auctions teaches running an auction according to a second price algorithm for items [see para 0014 , “ The advertisement selection module 103 includes a bidding algorithm to select the individual advertisements to include on social network display 200. The bidding algorithm can use a generalized second price auction, a Vickrey-Clarke-Groves (VCG) auction, or other auction methodology for selling several like-kind items.”].
(v) Filion et al. [US 5,448,028, Al cited in the IDS filed 09/17/2026 and in the parent application 17153,159 , now abandoned, ] in the analogous field of printing indicia on skins [See Filion col.2, line 6, “indicia printed on the flexible skin”] teaches that an indicia is printed on a skin and therefore reads on the limitation printing the identifier on the at least one of the fur pelt, the leather skin, the reptile skin, and the ostrich skin, where the identifier corresponds to an indicia which can be used for identification.
(vi) Gray [US20050145187 A1, Al cited in the IDS filed 09/17/2026 and in the parent application 17153,159 , now abandoned,], in the field of managing livestock, teaches implanting RFIS under the skin of an animal for identification [see para 0074 “FIG. 4 illustrates the preferred form of the invention with the identification tag indicating visually a unique identification number 46 that is electronically linked to a specific electronic data record and unique identification number of the RFID 24. The RFID chip 24 is shown in FIG. 4 as being optionally mounted in the external tag casing 40 or implanted under the livestock animals' skin. Either method will work with this invention, but the preferred method is that the RFID device 24 is implanted since this method is more tamper resistant and can stay with the animal for its entire production cycle with a low possibility of being removed from the animal by accident.”].
Foreign reference:
(vii) WO 0061802 A [2see pages 5-6 ] describes that to provide positive identification on a document describing one or more animals, wherein the document a written number or letter identifier and a sample strip with a sample attached to a page of the document, including description of animal registration or licensing systems, bills of sale, movement or import and export of animals or products from animals (animal passport) and to eliminate any doubt as to the documentation then a DNA sample is taken from the animal and compared to the DNA sample in the document of description produced in relation to that animal.
NPL reference:
Brandt et al.; “. Species identification of archaeological skin objects from Danish bogs: comparison between mass spectrometry-based peptide sequencing and microscopy-based methods”; PLOS One. 2014 Sep 26;9(9):e106875; ; retrieved from IP. COM 09172026, describes that Denmark has an extraordinarily large and well-preserved collection of archaeological skin garments found in peat bogs, dated to approximately 920 BC – AD 775 which enable study prehistoric skin costume and technologies and also to investigate the animal species used for the production of skin garments, by comparing species assignment results of twelve archaeological skin samples from Danish bogs using Mass Spectrometry (MS)-based peptide sequencing, against results obtained using light and scanning electron microscopy.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YOGESH C GARG whose telephone number is (571)272-6756. The examiner can normally be reached Max-Flex.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Maria-Teresa Thein can be reached at 571-272-6764. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YOGESH C GARG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688
Prosecution Insights