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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 7, 15, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 contains a written description requirement that is separate and distinct from the enablement requirement. AriadPharms., Inc. v. EliLilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). To satisfy the written description requirement, the specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1562-63 (Fed. Cir.1991). Specifically, the specification must describe the claimed invention in a manner understandable to a person of ordinary skill in the art and show that the inventor actually invented the claimed invention. Vas-Cath, 935 F.2d at 1562-63; Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1351. The written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph applies to all claims including original claims that are part of the disclosure as filed. Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1349. As stated by the Federal Circuit, "[a]lthough many original claims will satisfy the written description requirement, certain claims may not." Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1349; see also LizardTech, Inc. v. Earth Res. Mapping, Inc., 424 F.3d 1336, 1343-46 (Fed.Cir. 2005); Regents of the University of Cal. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 119 F.3d 1559, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1997). For instance, generic claim language in the original disclosure does not satisfy the written description requirement if it fails to support the scope of the genus claimed. See Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1350; Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 968 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (holding that generic claim language appearing in ipsis verbis in the original specification did not satisfy the written description requirement because it failed to support the scope of the genus claimed); Fiers v. Revel, 984 F.2d 1164, 1170 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (rejecting the argument that "only similar language in the specification or original claims is necessary to satisfy the written description requirement"). In addition, original claims may fail to satisfy the written description requirement when the invention is claimed and described in functional language but the specification does not sufficiently identify how the invention achieves the claimed function. Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1349 ("[A]n adequate written description of a claimed genus requires more than a generic statement of an invention's boundaries.") (citing Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568).
For claims 7, 15, the claims recite that environmental state data associated with the garment is received from a sensor. This part of the claim is fully disclosed and supported by the disclosure of the specification. The claim further recites that the receipt of the digital asset is further based on the environmental state data. Upon consulting the specification for guidance as to how the receipt of the digital asset is further based on the environmental state data, it is noted that the specification does not even state that the receipt of the digital asset is based on the environmental state data. The specification does not disclose what has been claimed so the specification does not provide an adequate written description of the invention because the original claims 7, 15 do not themselves provide for an adequate written description. While the specification discloses that the garment can include a sensor that collects and sends environmental state data to the device reading the tag, the examiner notes that the specification does not disclose anything about how the receipt of the digital asset itself is based on the environmental state data, such as the disclosed temperature or humidity or motion from the sensor that is taught in the specification. The specification does not disclose that the receipt of the digital asset is based on the environmental state data as claimed and the specification does not disclose anything about how the environmental state data is being used in conjunction with the unique identifier and the instructions from the tag to cause the receipt of the digital asset. While the claim itself provides support for what is claimed and does not constitute new matter, the claim and the specification together do not provide for an adequate written description of the invention that teaches how the environmental state data is being used in conjunction with the unique identifier and the instructions of the tag to cause the receipt of the digital asset such that one could conclude that the applicant was in possession of the claimed invention. The original claims 7, 15, do not provide written description support for the claimed element of having the receipt be based on the environmental state data that is sufficient to convey possession to one of skill in the art. The original claims 7, 15 do not disclose how the invention is achieving the claimed result because they are claiming a functional end result with no details. Without a disclosure in the specification to provide an adequate written description of the invention, the claims 7, 15, do not provide for an adequate written description of the invention that is sufficient to convey possession to one of skill in the art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims recite a system and a method; therefore, the claims pass step 1 of the eligibility analysis.
For step 2A, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea of verifying/confirming the authenticity of a garment and providing an asset to a user such as a song or other content.
Using claim 1 as a representative example that is applicable to claims 9 and 17, the abstract idea is defined by the elements of:
receive a unique identifier associated with the garment and instructions for accessing the asset;
authenticate the garment based on the unique identifier and the instructions;
receive an indication that the garment is authenticated; and
receive, based on the indication that the garment is authenticated, the asset.
The above limitations are reciting a process of authenticating a garment by confirming a unique identifier associated with the garment is legitimate. This is the act of detecting fraud and providing a user with an indication that a garment is authentic. This is a commercial practice that can be used in many different fields to authenticate objects or items. Verifying the authenticity of an item, such as a garment or other type of item is a way to mitigate fraud and is a commercial practice that amounts to claiming a certain method of organizing human activities.
For claims 1, 9, 17, the additional elements of the claim are the recited:
a garment comprising a contactless technology tag, wherein the contactless technology tag is associated with a digital asset; (as association is not a step or structure and defines nothing to the claim)
a device comprising a memory and at least one processor configured to: send a signal configured to energize the contactless technology tag;
the use of a cloud service,
calling the asset a digital asset
Note: Claim 17 recites first and second tags that are also found to be additional elements.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (2nd prong of eligibility test for step 2A) because the additional elements of the claim when considered individually and in combination with the claim as a whole, amount to the use of a computing device (a processor and memory) that is being merely used as a tool to execute the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) that uses a cloud service (networked computers), in combination with the use of a contactless tag(s) such as NFC (RFID) in its ordinary and customary manner, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). With respect to the use of the device that has a processor and memory, this is claiming the use of a generic computing device to perform the steps that defines the abstract idea. The processor and memory are simply being used as a tool to accomplish the recited steps/functions. The claimed use of a cloud service is claiming the use of the Internet and storing of data in the “cloud”, which is the act of using a network to enable access to stored data that is not stored locally. By claiming the cloud service the applicant is instructing one to practice the abstract idea using networked computers. With respect to the use of the contactless tag that can be energized and that can send a signal to the device, this is claiming the use of a tag such as an RFID tag and is claiming what an RFID tag is designed to do, which is to transmit data upon energizing the tag. Passive RFID tags are contactless tags that need to be energized to be able to communicate data to an RFID reader/computer. The applicant is simply using a contactless tag in its ordinary and customary manner to store and allow a device to receive a unique identifier, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). The claim is simply using the RFID tag to send data to the claimed device, so that it can be used for the abstract idea. This is using a contactless tag in its ordinary manner as a tool to receive the unique identifier (that could also be written on the garment with text). The use of the contactless tag is simply as a tool to store the unique identifier and provide the identifier upon energizing the tag. The use of the device with a processor and memory, using a cloud service, and the use of the contactless tag as is recited in the claims does not provide for more than simply using a computer connected to other networked computers as a tool to execute the abstract idea in combination with the use of a contactless tag in its ordinary capacity. The claimed additional elements when viewed with the claim as a whole does not provide for integration into a practical application; therefore, the claim is found to be directed to the abstract idea identified by the examiner.
For step 2B, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered individually and in combination with the claim as a whole because the additional elements of the claim when considered individually and in combination with the claim as a whole, amount to the use of a computing device (a processor and memory) that is being merely used as a tool to execute the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) that uses a cloud service (networked computers), in combination with the use of a contactless tag(s) such as RFID in its ordinary and customary manner, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). With respect to the use of the device that has a processor and memory, this is claiming the use of a generic computing device to perform the steps that defines the abstract idea. The processor and memory are simply being used as a tool to accomplish the recited steps/functions. The claimed use of a cloud service is claiming the use of the Internet and storing of data in the “cloud”, which is the act of using a network to enable access to stored data that is not stored locally. By claiming the cloud service the applicant is instructing one to practice the abstract idea using networked computers. With respect to the use of the contactless tag that can be energized and that can send a signal to the device, this is claiming the use of a tag such as an RFID tag and is claiming what an RFID tag is designed to do, which is to transmit data upon energizing the tag. Passive RFID tags are contactless tags that need to be energized to be able to communicate data to an RFID reader/computer. The applicant is simply using a contactless tag in its ordinary and customary manner to store and allow a device to receive a unique identifier, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). The claim is simply using the RFID tag to send data to the claimed device, so that it can be used for the abstract idea. This is using a contactless tag in its ordinary manner as a tool to receive the unique identifier (that could also be written on the garment with text). The use of the contactless tag is simply as a tool to store the unique identifier and provide the identifier upon energizing the tag. The use of the device with a processor and memory, using a cloud service, and the use of the contactless tag as is recited in the claims does not provide for more than simply using a computer connected to other networked computers as a tool to execute the abstract idea in combination with the use of a contactless tag in its ordinary capacity. The claimed additional elements when viewed with the claim as a whole does not provide for significantly more. Therefore, for the above reasons claims 1, 9, 17, are not found to be eligible.
For claims 2, 3, 10, 11, 18, 19, the applicant recites the contactless tag as being NFC and/or RFID. This is claiming two types of contactless tags that are still being used to simply store and transmit the unique identifier to the device. The additional elements that is/are the use of the tags (NFC or RFID) is still claiming the use of a contactless tag in its ordinary capacity to store and convey the unique identifier upon being energized. As was stated for claims 1, 9, 17, the claimed use of the contract less tag is using a contactless tag in its ordinary manner (store and transmit data upon being energized) in conjunction with a judicial exception (abstract idea). This does not amount to integration into a practical application or significantly more, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). The claims do not recite any additional elements that when viewed with the claim(s) as a whole provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims are not considered to be eligible.
For claims 4, 12, 20, the applicant recites the cloud service as being a blockchain service that is verifying the unique identifier is associated with a transaction that is stored by the blockchain service. This has been interpreted as being the use of blockchain technology to verify a transaction (verifying step is itself part of the abstract idea). The applicant is simply linking the execution of the verification step to the use of blockchain technology in a broad manner. This is linking the execution of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment that is the use of blockchain to store and verity the authenticity of transactions. The applicant is simply using blockchain technology as a tool to perform the verifying step that is itself part of the abstract idea. This does not amount to more than a link to a particular technological environment that is that of blockchain technology executed by computers. See MPEP 2106.05(f), (h). The claims do not recite any additional elements that when viewed with the claim(s) as a whole provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims are not considered to be eligible.
For claims 5, 13, the comparing of the unique identifier with a predefined identifier associated with the garment is a further recitation to the same abstract idea that was found for claim 1. Comparing one identifier to another, which is being done so as to determine if they match, is part of the abstract idea and is a data comparison step that one can arguably performed mentally. No further additional element has been recited for consideration. The claims do not recite any additional elements that when viewed with the claim(s) as a whole provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims are not considered to be eligible.
For claims 6, 14, reciting that the asset is an audio recording is an element that is part of the abstract idea. The asset that is received upon authentication of the garment is claimed as being an audio recording and is something that can be done manually by people. The fact that the claim recites the asset as being digital is an instruction for one to use computers as the medium by which the abstract idea is being executed, as was addressed for claim 1. The claims do not recite any additional elements that when viewed with the claim(s) as a whole provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims are not considered to be eligible.
For claims 7, 15, the abstract idea is being further defined by claiming that environmental state data associated with the garment is received, and where the receiving of the asset is based on the environmental state data. Claiming the receipt of data and further conditioning the receipt of the asset on the received data is simply claiming more about the abstract idea of the claims. The sensor of the claim is an additional element. The examiner notes that the sensor is generically recited and is simply claiming as being the source for the data that is received. The sensor can be any type of data that can arguably sense environmental data, which is itself a broad term and does not require any particular type of sensor. The use of a sensor to sense data is considered to be using a sensor in its ordinary capacity and does not provide for integration or significantly more. Sensors sense data and are used to allow the data to be received or known to others. The sensor of the claim is simply being used as a tool to allow for the sensor data to be received so that it can be used with the abstract idea. The claims do not recite any additional elements that when viewed with the claim(s) as a whole provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims are not considered to be eligible.
For claims 8, 16, the claimed frequency of the signals is reciting more about the contactless tags that are being used as a tool in conjunction with the abstract idea. Reciting the frequencies does not alter the analysis and is still just claiming that the tags are used in their ordinary manner to store and transmit data to the device. The claimed frequencies correspond to claiming an RFID tag that has a high frequency (13.56MHz), low frequency (125-135KHZ), and/or ultra-high frequency (860-960MHz). Linking the execution of the abstract idea to low frequency, high frequency, or ultra-high frequency tags is still just using a contactless tag in its ordinary capacity in conjunction with an abstract idea, which does not provide for integration into a practical application or significantly more. The claims do not recite any additional elements that when viewed with the claim(s) as a whole provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims are not considered to be eligible.
Therefore for the above reasons claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 9-13, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Vorbrich (20250378145).
For claims 1-4, 9-12, Vorbrich (20250378145, provisional goes back to 06/10/24) discloses a system and method for verifying the authenticity of a product, such as a garment (clothing) that includes contactless tags (RFID, NFC) that are energized to send identifiers to a reader that is used to authenticate the product using blockchain stored data. Vorbrich discloses that clothing can be provided with contactless tags such as RFID tags, see paragraphs 033, 041, 071. Paragraph 071 discloses the use of an RFID tag on a piece of clothing as being used to determine if the clothing is authentic or not. A contactless tag 106 (see paragraph 048) is used to store and send information to a reader device that comprises a processor and memory (the device 102 that can be a mobile device such as a smartphone or a tablet computer, see paragraph 036, 037, 071). This satisfies the claimed device that is used to receive the tag data from the tag that is being energized. Upon a reader (tag reader, mobile device) interrogating an RFID tag or NFC tag (see paragraph 041 of Vorbrich where RFID and NFC tags are disclosed), it is inherent that the tag is energized as claimed. RFID tags such as passive RFID tags need to be energized to be able to transmit data to the claimed device. Vorbrich teaches passive RFID tags as being used in paragraph 037. This is inherent to the use of a contactless tag such as RFID or NFC tags as claimed. The claimed receiving of the unique identifier is disclosed in paragraph 035. Upon a reader interrogating the tag on the garment, a signal is sent from the tag to the reader that conveys a unique identifier for the tag, and that is used to determine if the tag is authentic. Vorbrich teaches that additional information is received from the tag and can be used in the authentication of the tag such as an authentication code in addition to the unique identifier, see paragraph 013. Vorbrich teaches that blockchain technology is used (satisfies the claimed cloud service) to authenticate the contactless tag data to determine if the garment is authenticated or not. See paragraph 013 where it is disclosed that a blockchain server system is used to compare the data received from the tag to pre-stored data stored on the blockchain to determine if the tag (the garment) is authenticated or not. Also see paragraphs 035040 where the use of blockchain and a blockchain server is disclosed. With respect to the claimed instructions for accessing the digital asset, the examiner notes that this language is directed at non-functional descriptive material that is claiming instructions for doing something as being part of the data that is received from the tag. The instructions for accessing the digital asset are not claimed as being used to access the digital asset but are claimed as being used in the authentication of the tag step, where the garment is claimed as being authenticated based on the unique identifier and the instructions for accessing the digital asset. The claimed “instructions for accessing the digital asset” has been found to be non-functional descriptive material that is data being received and used for authenticating the tag. This satisfies the claimed “instructions” that are non-functional in nature and are being used for the authentication of the tag. Based on the claim language itself, the receipt of the digital asset is based on the authentication of the tag with nothing claimed pertaining to the instructions for accessing the digital tag such that they are doing more than being used for the authentication of the tag. Upon verification of the tag Vorbrich discloses that a notification is provided to a user that informs them of the garment being authenticated or not authenticated. See paragraph 036. With respect to receiving a digital asset based on the garment being authenticated, Vorbrich teaches in paragraph 046 that an NFT in the form of a collectible is provided to the user, where the product (a garment) is associated with an NFT (a digital asset). Also see paragraph 079 where it is disclosed that the product (garment) can be associated with a certificate of authenticity (a digital asset) and an NFT (a digital asset). This satisfies the claimed receipt of a digital asset upon authentication. The digital asset can be a collectible NFT or a certificate or authenticity as taught by Vorbrich.
For claims 5, 13, as was stated for claims 1, 9, Vorbrich teaches that identifying data from the tag is used and compared to blockchain stored data to determine if the tag is authentic and thereby determining that the garment is authentic. See paragraph 013.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 6, 14, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vorbrich (20250378145) in view of Evans (20150120535).
For claims 6, 14, not disclosed is that the digital asset is an audio recording. Evans teaches a system and method that can provide a free download of music to a user when the user makes a purchase of a shirt. See paragraph 082. Disclosed is an example where a user can purchase a shirt and receive a fee download of audio. This is teaching the well known concept in advertising and sales of bundling a product with a free product. It is known in the prior art to sell an item of clothing such as a shirt and allowing a user to download free music. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Vorbrich with the ability to have the digital asset for an item of clothing be music or audio, as is taught by Evans. Vorbrich already teaches that an NFT or a collectible can be provided to the user and that is associated with a product (can be a garment). It would have been obvious from a marketing perspective to provide the garment to a user with a digital asset in the form of downloadable music so that the user is incentivized to obtain the garment. This would have been obvious and would yield the predictable result of incentivizing a user to obtain the garment so that they can also obtain a free music download (a digital asset).
Claim(s) 8, 16, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vorbrich (20250378145) in view of examiner official notice of the fact that RFID tags operate in the claimed frequencies.
Not expressly disclosed by Vorbrich is that the signa frequency is one of the frequencies that is claimed. The claimed frequencies correspond to claiming an RFID tag that has a high frequency (13.56MHz), low frequency (125-135KHZ), and/or ultra-high frequency (860-960MHz), which are all well-known to those of ordinary skill in the art. The applicant is simply claiming the frequencies that RFID tags operate. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Vorbrich with the use of RFID tags that have a high frequency (13.56MHz), low frequency (125-135KHZ), and/or ultra-high frequency (860-960MHz), which are all well-known to those of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vorbrich (20250378145) in view of Zhou et al. (20080191882).
For claims 17, 20, Vorbrich discloses a system and method for verifying the authenticity of a product, such as a garment (clothing) that includes contactless tags (RFID, NFC) that are energized to send identifiers to a reader that is used to authenticate the product using blockchain stored data. Vorbrich discloses that clothing can be provided with contactless tags such as RFID tags, see paragraphs 033, 041, 071. Paragraph 071 discloses the use of an RFID tag on a piece of clothing as being used to determine if the clothing is authentic or not. A contactless tag 106 (see paragraph 048) is used to store and send information to a reader device that comprises a processor and memory (the device 102 that can be a mobile device such as a smartphone or a tablet computer, see paragraph 036, 037, 071). This satisfies the claimed device that is used to receive the tag data from the tag that is being energized. Upon a reader (tag reader, mobile device) interrogating an RFID tag or NFC tag (see paragraph 041 of Vorbrich where RFID and NFC tags are disclosed), it is inherent that the tag is energized as claimed. RFID tags such as passive RFID tags need to be energized to be able to transmit data to the claimed device. Vorbrich teaches passive RFID tags as being used in paragraph 037. This is inherent to the use of a contactless tag such as RFID or NFC tags as claimed. The claimed receiving of the unique identifier is disclosed in paragraph 035. Upon a reader interrogating the tag on the garment, a signal is sent from the tag to the reader that conveys a unique identifier for the tag, and that is used to determine if the tag is authentic. Vorbrich teaches that additional information is received from the tag and can be used in the authentication of the tag such as an authentication code in addition to the unique identifier, see paragraph 013. Vorbrich teaches that blockchain technology is used (satisfies the claimed cloud service) to authenticate the contactless tag data to determine if the garment is authenticated or not. See paragraph 013 where it is disclosed that a blockchain server system is used to compare the data received from the tag to pre-stored data stored on the blockchain to determine if the tag (the garment) is authenticated or not. Also see paragraphs 035040 where the use of blockchain and a blockchain server is disclosed. With respect to the claimed instructions for accessing the digital asset, the examiner notes that this language is directed at non-functional descriptive material that is claiming instructions for doing something as being part of the data that is received from the tag. The instructions for accessing the digital asset are not claimed as being used to access the digital asset but are claimed as being used in the authentication of the tag step, where the garment is claimed as being authenticated based on the unique identifier and the instructions for accessing the digital asset. The claimed “instructions for accessing the digital asset” has been found to be non-functional descriptive material that is data being received and used for authenticating the tag. This satisfies the claimed “instructions” that are non-functional in nature and are being used for the authentication of the tag. Based on the claim language itself, the receipt of the digital asset is based on the authentication of the tag with nothing claimed pertaining to the instructions for accessing the digital tag such that they are doing more than being used for the authentication of the tag. Upon verification of the tag Vorbrich discloses that a notification is provided to a user that informs them of the garment being authenticated or not authenticated. See paragraph 036. With respect to receiving a digital asset based on the garment being authenticated, Vorbrich teaches in paragraph 046 that an NFT in the form of a collectible is provided to the user, where the product (a garment) is associated with an NFT (a digital asset). Also see paragraph 079 where it is disclosed that the product (garment) can be associated with a certificate of authenticity (a digital asset) and an NFT (a digital asset). This satisfies the claimed receipt of a digital asset upon authentication. The digital asset can be a collectible NFT or a certificate of authenticity as taught by Vorbrich.
Not disclosed by Vorbrich is that the garment includes first and second contactless tags that are associated with the digital asset and the garment respectively. The examiner notes that the claim scope does not preclude the first tag and second tag from both being associated with the garment and the digital asset because the claim uses comprising as the transitionary phrase.
Zhou discloses a system and method of combating counterfeiting by using a plurality of contactless tags on an product. Paragraph 022 discloses that more than one RFID tag can be used and that by using more than one tag the chances of somebody pirating the tag and counterfeiting it (cloning the single tag) is greatly reduced, see paragraphs 002, 003, 052.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Vorbrich with the use of first and second tags (and potentially more than just 2), as taught by Zhou, so that the combination of the data from the tags can be used for authentication and so that the chances of the tag being cloned (pirated, counterfeited) is greatly reduced. Zhou is teaching the desirability of using more than one contactless tag on a product that is to be used for authentication of the product. This feature would have been obvious to provide to Vorbrich so that the predictable result of having a more robust and harder to pirate authentication system can be realized, as is taught by Zhou.
For claims 18, 19, Vorbrich teaches the use of NFC and/or RFID tags, and when combined with Zhou as set forth for claim 17, the result is that Vorbrich is provided with more than one RFID or NFC tag. The combination satisfies what is claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Rinehart et al. (9177186) discloses the use of RFID tags on items of clothing, see paragraphs 002-003.
Diorio et al. (8941469) discloses a system and method for authenticating products using tags such as RFID tags that are attached to items of clothing, see paragraphs 007, 052, 103.
Nordin et al. (20130320079) teaches a system and method of using RFID tags attached to items/products, that is used to provide for authentication and to combat counterfeiting. See paragraphs 007, 014.
Ivanov (20110107263) discloses the use of RFID tags that are attached to items of clothing. Attaching contactless tags to garments (clothing) is well known and is something that is done for numerous reasons such as authentication and tracking of items.
Buchanan et al. (20050119936) discloses in paragraph 032 that it is known in the art of media content and distribution to provide a user with a free download for a particular artist. Disclosed is that two sponsors, both of which are in the clothing business, can offer free downloads but would not want to offer the same artist. This is relevant to the part of the claim that is reciting the providing of a digital asset associated with clothing.
The examiner has included a copy of provisional application for the Vorbrich reference ((US20250378145), provisional 63658260, as a courtesy to show that the disclosure in Vorbrich goes back to the date of the provisional. The Vorbrich reference constitutes valid prior art to the claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DENNIS WILLIAM RUHL whose telephone number is (571)272-6808. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-3:30pm.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at 5712703445. 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.
/DENNIS W RUHL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
