DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 1, 4, and 6-36 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 Examiner notes that the specification / claims do not clarify the algorithm/ software for how an optical code reader is an RFID emulator.
Per the MPEP 2161.01: When examining computer-implemented functional claims, examiners should determine whether the specification discloses the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor possessed the claimed subject matter at the time of filing. An algorithm is defined, for example, as "a finite sequence of steps for solving a logical or mathematical problem or performing a task." Microsoft Computer Dictionary (5th ed., 2002). Applicant may "express that algorithm in any understandable terms including as a mathematical formula, in prose, or as a flow chart, or in any other manner that provides sufficient structure." Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Grp., Inc., 523 F.3d 1323, 1340, 86 USPQ2d 1609, 1623 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (internal citation omitted). It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See, e.g., Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 681-683, 114 USPQ2d 1349, 1356, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Therefore, there is not support for such limitations drawn to RFID emulator functionality without the specification/ claims conveying details of the algorithm for the functionality.
Appropriate correction is requested.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites that the optical sensor “using codes” which is vague/ indefinite because optical sensors/ code readers read code, but the code is not part of the optical sensor itself.
Claim 1 is vague/ indefinite because the “code reader” of the claim appears to reference an optical code reader as suggested by the application and the amendment which recites “exclusively reads optical codes”, but it is unclear how an optical code reader can be an RFID emulator. Additionally, an RFID emulator sensor is unclear as is the RFID emulator a sensor for detecting an RFID or an emulator sensor for RFID. RFID emulation is often used for NFC type systems where a field is generated and output and an RFID reader receives a response from, but that does not appear to the be case in the claim and thus an RFID emulator sensor is unclear. Additionally, it is unclear how a sensor array writes data to a memory or reads data from a memory, as a sensor array would detect or sense a signal. It is also unclear how a code reader reads from a memory, as code readers typically read an optical code and convert it to an electrical signal.
Claim 1 also states “i.e.” which is vague/ indefinite as to the scope of the claim.
Additionally, the use of the term “RFID” is vague/ indefinite because it is being unconventionally used. There is not a transponder with an antenna and chip. Further, “emulator” is also vague/ indefinite because it is being unconventionally used. Finally, “transponder” is vague/ indefinite because there is no transponder being used and thus it has unconventional use, and “memory range” is vague/ indefinite because it has no metes/ bounds.
Finally, the Examiner notes that as the applicant has not specified the details of the software/ algorithms for the optical code reader to function as an RFID emulator, the lack of clarity on the specifics of the algorithm/ software also render the claims vague/ indefinite.
The dependent claims are rejected at least based on their dependency.
Appropriate correction is requested.
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) 1, 4, 6-18 and 24-36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ptak et al. (US 8145531).
Re claim 1, Ptak et al. teaches:
a sensor array with at least one code reader that is designed for reading codes and thus configured as an optical sensor with/ for codes read by the at least one code reader (barcode reader FIG. 2A where an array such as a CCD is an obvious expedient for imaging and reading codes for reduced complexity, and increased accuracy compared to laser based), and
at least one computing unit (interpreted as the processor of the POS), characterized in that the code reader with the computing unit constitutes an RFID emulator sensor in that they (code reader and computing unit) are connected via an emulator data channel (the reader and POS are connected so as to permit communication of barcode data read into the POS, as is implicit), and that object identification of the code reader is combined with decentralized mobile data storage via the barcodes read by the system of Ptak et al.,
via which channel exclusively subsystem data and/or transponder emulator data can be written by the code reader to a memory range of a memory unit of the computing unit or subsystem data and/or transponder emulator data can be read from this memory unit by means of the code reader (cashier 202 looks up the scanned code in a database access system 206 and thus reads data from the memory unit), wherein this memory range is defined by a code read by the code reader. The data read from the database is interpreted as subsystem or transponder emulator data.
Re the limitation of the transponder emulator data is object data that refers to an object that is identified by a code that is read by the code reader that constitutes the RFID emulator sensor, the Examiner notes that the transponder emulator data is optional given the and/or clause in the claim.
Re the limitation that the subsystem data is data of the code reader or of units interfacing with the code reader, as discussed above, the subsystem data is interpreted as the memory obtained via the reading process and therefore is interpreted as data of the code reader or units interacting with the code reader, such as the code reader or the databases/ storage (FIG. 1+).
Re the newly added limitation that a simulation of the RFID sensor in a code reader that exclusively reads optical codes, the Examiner notes that the prior art reads optical codes. It is interpreted as a simulation of an RFID sensor because it has decentralized mobile data storage because the database is accessible over a network/ internet and its access is mobile and decentralized.
Re claim 4, transponder emulator data is optional as the object data can be seen as subsystem data.
Re claim 6, though silent to metadata, it would have been obvious to have metadata such as related data (price, item information, etc.) linked to the scanned item identifier as known in the art to provide information about the item.
Re claim 7, though silent to a segmented and scaled database, it would have been obvious to be segmented and scaled for data storage, organization, and sizing.
Re claim 8, a database has been discussed above.
Re claim 9, as elements of the sensor array are connected a secure interface is an obvious expedient for security.
Re claim 10, the claim appears to be an intended use and therefore not a positive structural recitation.
Re claim 11, lock mechanism is interpreted as provided in the user interface 114 receiving an ID number and password as the user logs into system 112.
Re claim 12, the limitations have been discussed above as a plurality of point of sales.
Re claim 13, as there is a system 100, this is interpreted to read on multiple readers as recited.
Re claim 14, a local computer/ server is interpreted to be read on by the POS of Ptak et al. Specifying an automation plant is intended use.
Re claim 15, as FIG. 1+ of Ptak et al. teaches network connectivity, the use of a router is an obvious expedient.
Re claim 16, though silent to cloud connectivity, as there is network and internet connectivity, the use of a cloud is an obvious expedient for performance, efficiency, lower IT costs, etc.
Re claim 17, as database are provided for the POS system it would have been obvious to synchronize or update the memory/ database be provided to maintain accurate data/ pricing.
Re claim 18, the use of plural readers is an obvious expedient as the system 100 has a plurality of point of sale systems in the store.
Re claim 24, software is interpreted as part of the scanning and reading of the prior art.
Re claim 25, an interface is an obvious expedient for ease of use.
Re claim 26, though silent it would have been obvious for the interface to be on a different computing unit, such as on a display, such as for distributed computing, wherein scanners are typically in housings separate from the display itself, at a POS, for example.
Re claim 27, though silent to cloud connectivity, as there is network and internet connectivity, the use of a cloud is an obvious expedient for performance, efficiency, lower IT costs, etc.
Re claim 28, absent a structural limitation, as memory access is provided this is interpreted as a type of logic.
Re claim 29, the Examiner has interpreted that usage of the system via the interface gives access to software (using it).
Re claim 30, usage of the software/ system is interpreted to read on such limitations.
Re claim 31, the Examiner notes that the limitations are drawn to a type of data and not to the sensor array and therefore are not germane to the array structure itself. Data is interpreted as operable of being evaluated or replicated as a function of data.
Re claim 32, as the prior art system is interpreted of comprising software, it would have been obvious to have an interface or way to see/modify the software such as for updates/ changes as is conventional for programming/ software.
Re claim 33, the Examiner has interpreted the claim as software controlling the emulator, which is implicit via the code reading of the prior art.
Re claim 34, though silent to updating software, updating software is an obvious expedient to add new features, correct bugs, etc.
Re claim 35, as the system is networked it would have been obvious to be connected to a host system for network connectivity.
Re claim 36, though silent authentication systems for POS systems is an obvious expedient such as passwords or codes for operation.
Claim(s) 18-21 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ptak et al., as discussed above, in view of Traikovic et al. (US 20180300519).
Re claims 18 and 23, the prior art to Ptak et al. have been discussed above but are silent to multiscan and stitching fragments.
Traikovic et al. teaches such limitations (paragraph [0016]+).
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings in order to merge fragments of data for intelligent reading.
Re claim 19, the code readers are networked in the system 100 and they are operable to read.
Re claim 20, this is an intended use of the array. A reader is interpreted as operable to read codes.
Re claim 21, the claim limitations are drawn to a code structure and not to the structure of the sensor array and therefore is not germane to the sensor array. A sensor array is interpreted as operable to read codes. The use of different format codes is an obvious expedient for different data types/ products.
Claim(s) 21 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ptak et al./ Traikovic et al., as discussed above, in view of Hudetz et al. (US 6199048).
The teachings of Ptak et al./ Traikovic et al. have been discussed above but are silent to the code structure having a same starting but different ending.
Hudetz et al. teaches such limitations (FIG. 4).
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings in order to accommodate different objects/ data types.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ptak et al./ Traikovic et al., as discussed above, in view of Ozserin et al. (US 20220019780).
Re claim 22, the teachings of Ptak et al./ Traikovic et al. have been discussed above but are silent to filtering.
Ozserin et al. teaches such limitations (paragraph [0034]+).
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings in order to read/ decode the barcode.
Additional Remarks
The Examiner notes that depending on the resolution of the various issues above, the applicant could be subject to a restriction as it appears claims might be drawn to different inventions within the 36 pending claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive in light of the rejections above. The Examiner has made 112 rejections above in addition to art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL I WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2409. The examiner can normally be reached 7-9pm.
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, Steven Paik can be reached on 571-272-2404. 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.
/DANIEL I WALSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876