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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 26- 34, 36, and 80-82 directed to an allowable product. Pursuant to the procedures set forth in MPEP § 821.04(B), and due to the amendment filed February 17th, 2026, claims 64-70 and 83 directed to the process of making or using an allowable product, previously withdrawn from consideration as a result of a restriction requirement, are hereby rejoined and fully examined for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104.
Because all claims previously withdrawn from consideration under 37 CFR 1.142 have been rejoined, the restriction requirement as set forth in the Office action mailed on 11/18/2025 is hereby withdrawn. In view of the withdrawal of the restriction requirement as to the rejoined inventions, applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application. Once the restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
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 64-70 and 83 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Specifically, claim 64, the claim recites an apparatus, comprising: at least one memory storing at least one computer program comprising computer program instructions; and at least one processor that, when executing the computer program instructions, is configured to: determine…decode the key at least in part by determining a size of a cut in the blade of the key at each of the examining positions in the selected set of examining positions. ” As a result of the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed invention, determining, for each corresponding examining position, how long the edge of the blade remains substantially parallel; determining a value to store; determining a selected set of examining positions; and decoding the key by determining a size of a cut amounts to a mental process that could be practically performed in the human mind. Such a process is considered an abstract idea in view of, for example, CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d, 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011), as the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper" to be an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no positively recited limitations of this system other than a memory and a processor. These are generic computer components performing their ordinary functions of storing and executing instructions. As such, they do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, provides nothing more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons set forth above as to why the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The overall processor limitation amounts to the equivalent of the use of a generic computer along with mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on that computer.
Therefore, claim 64 is rejected as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly
more.
As for claims 65-70 and 83, this limitation is considered to be part of the abstract idea without
significantly more as they are directed to further details of the abstract idea itself; as a result, the
claim stands rejected for the same reasons as set forth above regarding claim 64.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 26- 34, 36, and 80-82 are allowed over the prior art of record.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 26, the prior arts of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious the claimed subject matter of the instant application as a whole either taken alone or in combination, in particular,
prior art of record does not teach “determine, from a look-up table comprising data indicating decoding spacings of various different keys, a plurality of decoding spacings for the key, wherein the decoding spacings for the key indicate spacings, in a frame of reference of the key, at which the blade of the key is to be scanned in order to decode the key” in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim.
Grice et al. (US Pub 2020/0002975 A1)(hereinafter, “Grice”)is the closet prior art to claim 26. Grice teaches a key alignment and tip-based imaging identification module used in a key-making machine. The system is mechanically configured to receive only the shank of a key, position it using a tip guide and slot, and capture an image of the key’s tip end through a fixed opening for identification.
Wills et al. (US Pub 2001/0033781 A1) discloses an apparatus and method for determining a key’s bitting pattern by optically capturing an image of the key blade profile within a housing, digitizing that image, and extracting width measurements at multiple selected longitudinal positions along the blade, including at cut locations.
Almblad et al. (US Patent 6,065,911) discloses a fully automated, non-contact key making apparatus and method that uses optical imaging to extract key characteristics. The system backlights the object and uses structured light (light stripe) to capture both silhouette information and surface features. It automatically determines the key’s orientation, aligns it, and digitizes the captured images to extract shape, cut locations, grooves, and other features.
However, the above prior arts fail to teach the limitations of claim 26. Specifically “determine, from a look-up table comprising data indicating decoding spacings of various different keys, a plurality of decoding spacings for the key, wherein the decoding spacings for the key indicate spacings, in a frame of reference of the key, at which the blade of the key is to be scanned in order to decode the key ”.
Therefore, prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious the instant application claimed invention as a whole either taken alone or in combination.
Claims 27-34, 36 and 80-82 are allowed due to their dependency on claim 26.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the rejoinder which 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 CHRISTINA XING whose telephone number is (571)270-7743. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9AM - 5 PM.
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, Kara Geisel can be reached at 571-272-2416. 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.
/C.X./Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/Kara E. Geisel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights