DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
This Final Office Action is in reply to Applicant’s response filed December 17, 2025.
Claims 1, 2, 5-9 are currently cancelled. Claims 10-14 are new.
Claims 10-14 are currently pending.
Claims 10-14 have been examined.
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 Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 6 of claim 10 refers to “the IT system”. There is a lack of antecedent basis because there is no prior reference to an IT system.
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 14 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 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.
Claim 14 recites:
The method of claim 10, wherein the tagging comprises generating and storing usage information associated with the data, the usage information indicating that the data has been used and enabling subsequent determination of prior use, wherein the tagging comprises generating new usage information rather than merely modifying a pre-existing usage parameter assigned prior to first processing of the data.
“Tagging” is only mentioned once in the specification, on page 4. It reads “tagging the data in a way that would allow the user to unambiguously determine during further analysis of data saved in the QR code, whether the data has been used previously.” “Generating and storing” is not mentioned. There is also no mention of the tagging not consisting of “merely modifying a pre-existing usage parameter”. The above therefore is new matter not disclosed in the application as originally filed.
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.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 13
Claims 13 recites:
The method of claim 10, wherein the analyzing, processing, and tagging are performed by a single module or by separate modules in the IT system.
There is no step of analyzing, and it is therefore unclear what action is being referred to. For examination purposes in this action, it is interpreted as referring to the action of “determining whether the extracted data has been used previously” from claim 10 because prior iterations of the claims used the word “analyzing” for this step.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 20150059819 A, machine translation, cited on 3/28/22 IDS, figure 2 translation cited on June 5, 2024 PTO-892) in view of Kuehnel et al. (US 20130144879 A1).
Regarding claim 10
Kim teaches:
A method of single-use processing of data saved in a quick response (QR) code, the method comprising: {[0001] “The present invention is a process”}
obtaining an image of the QR code using a scanning module; {[0008] “The camera recognizes the QR code”; Figure 2 (translated below) 310.}
decoding the obtained image using a decoding module to extract data saved in the QR code; {[0008] “The camera recognizes [scanning] the QR code”; Figure 2 (translated below) 310.}
PNG
media_image1.png
939
667
media_image1.png
Greyscale
during processing of the extracted data in the IT system, determining whether the extracted data has been used previously; {[0009] “The medium connected to the camera and the communication device recognizes the ID, matches the ID to the server”; Figure 2 320 and 330.}
Matching the ID to the server reads on determining because the ID is only present in the case where the data has not been used previously.
enabling processing of the extracted data only if it is determined that the data has not been used previously; {[0008] “a database including all ID values”; [0013] “The server determines whether the corresponding database value exists (330), and if the value exists [data was not used previously], deletes the value (340) and imports the sound source list [processing the extracted data] included in the prepared FIG. 2 (360). The play event is executed based on the sound source list and the process ends (380).”; Figure 2 360}
Kim teaches a QR code containing an ID ([0009]), and a database containing all ID values ([0008]). Kim further teaches when reading an ID value, both deleting it from the database and using the QR code data only if the ID value is present in the database ([0013]). It is therefore implied that the data-using and ID-deleting steps only occur when the data has not been used previously.
preventing further processing of the extracted data when it is determined that the data has already been used. {[0009] “When there is no ID value [already been used], a process for single-use sound source reproduction is made by ending all events [preventing further processing]”; Figure 2 350}
Kim teaches deleting ID values from a database to prevent re-use (see paragraph [0013]). Kim does not teach tagging the data to prevent re-use. However, Kuehnel teaches:
performing a tagging operation in connection with processing of the extracted data, the tagging operation comprising generating and storing usage information associated with the data, the usage information indicating that the data has been used and enabling subsequent determination of prior use; {[0003] “The single-use data tag in the received packet is validated by searching for the single-use data tag in a tag store maintained by the cloud service. The collected data is stored based on the validation. The tag store is updated to prevent re-use of the single-use data tag.”; [0025] “The data tags 206 are "single-use" because each data tag 206 cannot be used for more than one submission to the cloud service 104. For example, as described herein, after submission of the tagged sensor data 314 to the cloud service 104, the probe device 102 discards, deletes, alters, voids, expires, or otherwise prevents the used data tag 206 from subsequent use.”; [0055] “For example, updating the tag store 504 may include removing the used data tag 206 from the tag store 504, updating a manifest of valid data tags 206, marking the data tag 206 as used [generating and storing usage information], or otherwise preventing the data tag 206 from being used to store collected data again.”}
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the deleting of data of Kim with the altering/voiding of data of Kuehnel because Kim teaches deleting data, while Kuehnel teaches “discard[ing], delet[ing], alter[ing], void[ing], expir[ing]” is an equivalent method of making data single-use.
Regarding claim 11
Kim does not teach, however Kuehnel teaches:
The method of claim 10, wherein the data saved in the QR code remains stored in the IT system after being processed, and wherein the tagging is applied while the data remains stored. {[0003] “The single-use data tag in the received packet is validated by searching for the single-use data tag in a tag store maintained by the cloud service. The collected data is stored based on the validation. The tag store is updated to prevent re-use of the single-use data tag.”; [0025] “The data tags 206 are "single-use" because each data tag 206 cannot be used for more than one submission to the cloud service 104. For example, as described herein, after submission of the tagged sensor data 314 to the cloud service 104, the probe device 102 discards, deletes, alters, voids, expires, or otherwise prevents the used data tag 206 from subsequent use.” [0055] “For example, updating the tag store 504 may include removing the used data tag 206 from the tag store 504, updating a manifest of valid data tags 206, marking the data tag 206 as used [tagging], or otherwise preventing the data tag 206 from being used to store collected data again.”}
The reasons for substituting the marking data as used of Kuehnel for the deleting data of Kim is the same as given above in relation to claim 10.
Regarding claim 12
Kim does not teach, however Kuehnel teaches:
The method of claim 10, wherein the IT system removes the data saved in the QR code, and wherein the tagging is applied while the data has been removed. {[0038] “For example, the data tag 206 may be altered by removing the identified single-use data tag 206 from the memory area, and/or altering the expiration data 312 to indicate that the identified single-use data tag 206 has expired.”}
The reasons for substituting the marking and deleting data of Kuehnel for the deleting data of Kim is the same as given above in relation to claim 10.
Regarding claim 13
The method of claim 10, wherein the analyzing, processing, and tagging are performed by a single module or by separate modules in the IT system.
The term “module” is interpreted as merely a logical division of software functionality, and therefore this language is non-limiting as it has no manipulative effect on the method.
Regarding claim 14
Kim does not teach, however Kuehnel teaches:
The method of claim 10, wherein the tagging comprises generating and storing usage information associated with the data, the usage information indicating that the data has been used and enabling subsequent determination of prior use, wherein the tagging comprises generating new usage information rather than merely modifying a pre-existing usage parameter assigned prior to first processing of the data. {[0055] “For example, updating the tag store 504 may include removing the used data tag 206 from the tag store 504, updating a manifest of valid data tags 206, marking the data tag 206 as used [generating and storing usage information], or otherwise preventing the data tag 206 from being used to store collected data again.”}
The reasons for substituting the marking data as used of Kuehnel for the deleting data of Kim is the same as given above in relation to claim 10.
Response to Arguments
35 USC § 112
All previous 112 rejections are withdrawn due to the cancellation of all previously pending claims.
35 USC § 103
Applicant argues “independent claim 10 expressly excludes implementations in which reuse prevention is achieved solely by updating a pre-existing usage status” and that Kuehnel does not teach or suggest the tagging mechanism now recited in claim 10. Applicant appears to be referring to language in claim 14 which excludes merely modifying a pre-existing usage parameter. However, this does not differentiate the claim from the teachings of Kuehnel, which teaches [0055] “updating a manifest” or “marking the data tag as used”. Both of these involve creating data and there is no suggestion that it is merely updating an existing parameter. It is further noted that this explicit exclusion of subject matter in claim 14 is not disclosed in the application as originally filed and a 112(a) rejection has been given.
Applicant further argues that the operation of Kuehnel depends on maintaining a complete registry of issued codes and updating pre-assigned status values in that registry, and that the present invention does not require maintaining a registry of issued codes and these differences reflect distinct system architectures. However, this argument merely discusses supposed differences between the art and the disclosed invention but does not point to any claim element which is not met by the cited references.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT MICHAEL DIROMA whose telephone number is (571)272-6430. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:30 pm MST.
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, Patrick McAtee can be reached on (571) 272-7575. 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.
/S.M.D./Examiner, Art Unit 3698
/PATRICK MCATEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3698