DETAILED ACTION
This Non-Final Office Action is in response to the originally filed specification and amended claim limitations [March 8, 2023].
Claims 10 and 17-33 have been cancelled.
Claims 1-9 and 11-16 are currently pending and have been considered below.
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 § 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 1-9 and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed towards non-eligible subject matter.
In terms of step 1, claims 1-9 and 11-16 are directed towards one of the four categories of statutory subject matter.
In terms of step 2(a)(1), independent claims 1, 9, 11, and 16 are directed towards (as represented by claim 1), “An information processing method, the method comprising: an item information acquisition step of acquiring item identification information that enables identification of a check target item, from a serial code attached to the check target item or image information on the check target item; an optical image acquisition step of acquiring optical image information about an optical image that is obtained from a fine line pattern attached to the check target item; and a checking step of checking ground truth information about a ground truth label of the optical image corresponding to the item identification information against the optical image information that is acquired, and generating a check result”. Claim 16 further includes, “a ledger management unit for receiving, from the other information processing apparatus, a check result obtained by checking the ground truth information against the optical image information”. The claims are describing a commercial interaction in terms of product authentication based on fine line pattern (described in dependent claim 7 as a barcode) to acquire a check/validation result. The claims are describing a commercial interaction in terms of product authentication and business relation using barcode or other tagged information to provide product authenticity/validation. As such, the claims are directed towards an abstract idea under the certain method of organizing human activity grouping.
Further, the claims describe a collection, high level of analysis, and display the results of the analysis. This is directed towards the collection of the serial code/ground truth information to provide a check result. This falls into the abstract idea grouping of mental process. A person (with aide of pen and paper) would be able to provide a serial code validation for product information based on collected information. As such, the claims are directed towards an abstract idea under the mental process grouping.
Step 2(a)(II) considers the additional elements of the claims in terms of being transformative into a practical application. The additional elements of the independent claims are, “An information processing apparatus comprising: an item information reading device; an image capturing device (claim 9); performed by an information processing apparatus”. The additional elements are describing the technical/computer elements. The additional elements are described in the originally filed specification [56-61] and merely describes the elements as generic technology to implement the abstract idea. The computer and technical elements are not describing a technical improvement and therefore the additional elements are not transformative into a practical application. Refer to MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2(b) considers the additional elements of the claims in terms of being significantly more than the identified abstract idea. The additional elements of the independent claims are, “An information processing apparatus comprising: an item information reading device; an image capturing device (claim 9); performed by an information processing apparatus”. The additional elements are describing the technical/computer elements. The additional elements are described in the originally filed specification [56-61] and merely describes the elements as generic technology to implement the abstract idea. The computer and technical elements are not describing a technical improvement and therefore the additional elements are not significantly more than the identified abstract idea. Refer to MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claims 2-5 and 12-15 are further describing the abstract idea and are not directed towards additional elements beyond those identified above. The claims are directed towards further aspects of the identified abstract idea. The claims provide aspects towards the ground truth checking information, providing the information utilized for the item identification (two or more and received from another), providing the analysis as a degree of similarity (high level of analysis), and updating the item information based on the check result. The claims are describing further aspects of the collection, high level analysis, and display (mental process) and the commercial interaction in terms of the product authentication. The claims are not directed towards additional elements beyond those identified above. As such, the claims are not transformative into a practical application or significantly more or transformative into a practical application.
Dependent claims 6, 7, and 8 are directed towards additional elements beyond those identified above. The claims are directed towards, “wherein, in the optical image acquisition step, the optical image is a diffraction image that is generated when light is radiated on the fine line pattern at a predetermined angle, or is an interference fringe that is generated when the fine line pattern and a predetermined filter are superimposed on one another”, “wherein the serial code is recorded in an IC chip, or is a two-dimensional code or a barcode”, and “wherein the fine line pattern comprises a fine line with a line width of 5 pm or less”. The additional elements are described in the originally filed specification [16-25 and 44-53]. The additional elements are directed towards generic technology to implement the identified abstract idea. The serial codes and fine line patterns are describing tools using generic technology. These elements are not directed towards a technical improvement. As such, the claims are not directed towards additional elements that are significantly more or transformative into a practical application. Refer to MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claimed invention is directed towards an abstract idea without additional elements that are significantly more or transformative into a practical application. Therefore, claims 1-9 and 11-16 are rejected under 35 USC 101 for being directed towards non-eligible subject matter.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-9, 11-14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishiyama et al [2015/0189238], hereafter Ishiyama, in view of Jung [2020/0215840].
Regarding claim 1, Ishiyama discloses an information processing method performed by an information processing apparatus, the method comprising: an item information acquisition step of acquiring item identification information that enables identification of a check target item, from a serial code attached to the check target item or image information on the check target item; an optical image acquisition step of acquiring optical image information about an optical image that is obtained from a fine line pattern attached to the check target item; and a checking step of checking ground truth information about a ground truth label of the optical image corresponding to the item identification information against the optical image information that is acquired, and generating a check result (Fig 5, 6, 7, and paragraphs [72-82]; Ishiyama discloses providing an optical image to provide authentication and verification information based on the check information. The “ground truth” is based and interpreted on Fig 7 and the table that provides the product/image feature information that is verified based on the captured image.).
Ishiyama discloses the above-enclosed limitations, however, Ishiyama does not specifically disclose from a fine line pattern attached to the check target item.
Jung teaches from a fine line pattern attached to the check target item (Paragraphs [103-108 and 113]; Jung teaches a similar authentication system that specifically provides a barcode/QR code tag that is utilized with the image identification and product verification. The combination is that Ishiyama provides image authentication based on pattern elements of the product image and Jung teaches a similar product authentication that provides the specific fine line pattern attached to the item.).
Ishiyama discloses an item verification based on product and item information utilizing optical imaging of a pattern.
The sole difference between Ishiyama and the claimed subject matter is that Ishiyama does not specifically teach the pattern is a fine line pattern. Ishiyama utilizes pattern recognition of the item and other elements.
Jung teaches a similar item/product authentication that specifically teaches optical verification utilizing barcode/fine line pattern elements. Jung shows that the use of a fine line pattern barcode/qr code was known in the prior art at the time of the invention.
Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself—that is in the substitution of the product imaging of Ishiyama for the barcode/QR code recognition of Jung. Therefore, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 2, the combination teaches the above-enclosed limitations;
Ishiyama further discloses the information processing method according to claim 1, wherein the ground truth information comprises a plurality of pieces of item identification information and information about ground truth labels of optical images corresponding to the plurality of pieces of item identification information, and in the checking step, the check result is generated by checking information, in the ground truth information, about the ground truth label of the optical image corresponding to the item identification information against the optical image information about the optical image (Fig 5, 6, 7, and paragraphs [72-82]; Ishiyama discloses providing an optical image to provide authentication and verification information based on the check information. The “ground truth” is based and interpreted on Fig 7 and the table that provides the product/image feature information that is verified based on the captured image. The plurality of information is based on the image extraction and identification information through both the bag and fastener identification.).
Regarding claim 3, the combination teaches the above-enclosed limitations of the information processing method according to claim 2,
Ishiyama further discloses wherein, in the ground truth information, a common ground truth label is set for two or more pieces of item identification information among the plurality of pieces of item identification information (Fig 5, 6, 7, and paragraphs [72-82]; Ishiyama discloses providing an optical image to provide authentication and verification information based on the check information. The “ground truth” is based and interpreted on Fig 7 and the table that provides the product/image feature information that is verified based on the captured image. The plurality of information is based on the image extraction and identification information through both the bag and fastener identification.).
Regarding claim 4, the combination teaches the above-enclosed limitations of the information processing method according to claim 1,
Ishiyama further discloses wherein the ground truth information is received from another information processing apparatus that manages the item identification information (Fig 5, 6, 7, and paragraphs [72-82]; Ishiyama discloses providing an optical image to provide authentication and verification information based on the check information. The “ground truth” is based and interpreted on Fig 7 and the table that provides the product/image feature information that is verified based on the captured image. The “another” is interpreted in terms of the database and verification apparatus that is utilized from the user device.).
Regarding claim 5, the combination teaches the above-enclosed limitations of the information processing method according to claim 1,
Ishiyama discloses wherein, in the checking step, a degree of similarity between the optical image information and the ground truth information is calculated, and the check result is generated based on the degree of similarity (Paragraph [41]; Ishiyama discloses that the verification is based on degree of similarity.).
Regarding claim 7, the combination teaches the above-enclosed limitations, however, the combination does not specifically teach the serial code is a barcode or two-dimensional code;
Jung teaches the information processing method according tclaim 1, wherein the serial code is recorded in an IC chip, or is a two-dimensional code or a barcode (Paragraphs [104-105]; Jung teaches the similar product authentication system that utilizes barcodes, QR codes, and other tags.).
Ishiyama discloses an item verification based on product and item information utilizing optical imaging of a pattern.
The sole difference between Ishiyama and the claimed subject matter is that Ishiyama does not specifically teach the pattern is a fine line pattern. Ishiyama utilizes pattern recognition of the item and other elements.
Jung teaches a similar item/product authentication that specifically teaches optical verification utilizing barcode/fine line pattern elements. Jung shows that the use of a fine line pattern barcode/qr code was known in the prior art at the time of the invention.
Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself—that is in the substitution of the product imaging of Ishiyama for the barcode/QR code recognition of Jung. Therefore, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 8, the combination teaches the above-enclosed limitations of the information processing method according to claim 1, however, the combination does not specifically teach the pattern comprising a fine line width of 5um or less;
Jung teaches wherein the fine line pattern comprises a fine line with a line width of 5 um or less (Paragraphs [115-116]; Jung teaches that the width includes 20um or less and that is an overlapping range for the 5um or less.).
Ishiyama discloses an item verification system that is based on image captured information, however, Ishiyama does not specifically teach a fine line pattern with a range of widths.
Jung teaches a similar product authentication system that specifically teaches a fine line pattern that provides the overlapping range of the width.
The articulated elements of the range is that the claimed invention is for 5um or less and the secondary reference Jung teaches an overlapping range of 20um or less for the width of the pattern. One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to provide a line pattern at the claimed width based on the overlapping range as provided in Jung. Therefore, it would be obvious to combine the image identification and verification system of Ishiyama with the specific pattern width in a similar image recognition and item verification system as taught by Jung that renders the claim obvious. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 9, Ishiyama discloses an information processing apparatus comprising: an item information reading device for acquiring item identification information that enables identification of a check target item, from a serial code attached to the check target item or image information on the check target item; an image capturing device for acquiring optical image information about an optical image; and a check unit for checking ground truth information about a ground truth label of the optical image corresponding to the item identification information against the optical image information that is acquired, and generating a check result (Fig 5, 6, 7, and paragraphs [72-82]; Ishiyama discloses providing an optical image to provide authentication and verification information based on the check information. The “ground truth” is based and interpreted on Fig 7 and the table that provides the product/image feature information that is verified based on the captured image.).
Ishiyama discloses the above-enclosed limitations, however, Ishiyama does not specifically disclose from a fine line pattern attached to the check target item.
Jung teaches that is obtained from a fine line pattern attached to the check target item (Paragraphs [103-108 and 113]; Jung teaches a similar authentication system that specifically provides a barcode/QR code tag that is utilized with the image identification and product verification. The combination is that Ishiyama provides image authentication based on pattern elements of the product image and Jung teaches a similar product authentication that provides the specific fine line pattern attached to the item.).
Ishiyama discloses an item verification based on product and item information utilizing optical imaging of a pattern.
The sole difference between Ishiyama and the claimed subject matter is that Ishiyama does not specifically teach the pattern is a fine line pattern. Ishiyama utilizes pattern recognition of the item and other elements.
Jung teaches a similar item/product authentication that specifically teaches optical verification utilizing barcode/fine line pattern elements. Jung shows that the use of a fine line pattern barcode/qr code was known in the prior art at the time of the invention.
Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself—that is in the substitution of the product imaging of Ishiyama for the barcode/QR code recognition of Jung. Therefore, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 11, Ishiyama discloses an information processing method performed by an information processing apparatus, the method comprising: a ground truth information transmission step of transmitting, to another information processing apparatus that acquires optical image information about an optical image, ground truth information about a ground truth label of the optical image; and a check result reception step of receiving, from the other information processing apparatus, a check result obtained by checking the ground truth information against the optical image information (Fig 5, 6, 7, and paragraphs [72-82]; Ishiyama discloses providing an optical image to provide authentication and verification information based on the check information. The “ground truth” is based and interpreted on Fig 7 and the table that provides the product/image feature information that is verified based on the captured image.).
Ishiyama discloses the above-enclosed limitations, however, Ishiyama does not specifically disclose from a fine line pattern attached to the check target item.
Jung teaches that is obtained from a fine line pattern attached to a check target item (Paragraphs [103-108 and 113]; Jung teaches a similar authentication system that specifically provides a barcode/QR code tag that is utilized with the image identification and product verification. The combination is that Ishiyama provides image authentication based on pattern elements of the product image and Jung teaches a similar product authentication that provides the specific fine line pattern attached to the item.).
Ishiyama discloses an item verification based on product and item information utilizing optical imaging of a pattern.
The sole difference between Ishiyama and the claimed subject matter is that Ishiyama does not specifically teach the pattern is a fine line pattern. Ishiyama utilizes pattern recognition of the item and other elements.
Jung teaches a similar item/product authentication that specifically teaches optical verification utilizing barcode/fine line pattern elements. Jung shows that the use of a fine line pattern barcode/qr code was known in the prior art at the time of the invention.
Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself—that is in the substitution of the product imaging of Ishiyama for the barcode/QR code recognition of Jung. Therefore, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 12, the combination teaches the above-enclosed limitations of the information processing method according to claim 11,
Ishiyama further discloses wherein the ground truth information that is transmitted to the other information processing apparatus comprises a plurality of pieces of item identification information and information about ground truth labels of optical images corresponding to the plurality of pieces of item identification information (Fig 5, 6, 7, and paragraphs [72-82]; Ishiyama discloses providing an optical image to provide authentication and verification information based on the check information. The “ground truth” is based and interpreted on Fig 7 and the table that provides the product/image feature information that is verified based on the captured image. The plurality of information is based on the image extraction and identification information through both the bag and fastener identification.).
Regarding claim 13, the combination teaches the above-enclosed limitations of the information processing method according to claim 12,
Ishiyama further discloses wherein, in the ground truth information that is transmitted to the other information processing apparatus, a common ground truth label is set for two or more pieces of item identification information among the plurality of pieces of item identification information (Fig 5, 6, 7, and paragraphs [72-82]; Ishiyama discloses providing an optical image to provide authentication and verification information based on the check information. The “ground truth” is based and interpreted on Fig 7 and the table that provides the product/image feature information that is verified based on the captured image. The plurality of information is based on the image extraction and identification information through both the bag and fastener identification.).
Regarding claim 14, the combination teaches the above-enclosed limitations of the information processing method according to claim 11,
Ishiyama further discloses further comprising an item information reception step of receiving, from the other information processing apparatus, item identification information that is acquired from a serial code attached to a check target item or image information on the check target item and that enables identification of the check target item, wherein in the ground truth information transmission step, the ground truth information corresponding to the item identification information that is received is transmitted to the other information processing apparatus (Fig 5, 6, 7, and paragraphs [72-82]; Ishiyama discloses providing an optical image to provide authentication and verification information based on the check information. The “ground truth” is based and interpreted on Fig 7 and the table that provides the product/image feature information that is verified based on the captured image. Within the combination, Jung teaches [70-74 and 90-95] within the similar system that provides a first/second processor unit to provide the item verification as well as the code based on the information utilized for the verification.).
Regarding claim 16, Ishiyama discloses an information processing apparatus comprising: a check unit for transmitting, to another information processing apparatus that acquires optical image information about an optical image, ground truth information about a ground truth label of the optical image; and a ledger management unit for receiving, from the other information processing apparatus, a check result obtained by checking the ground truth information against the optical image information (Fig 5, 6, 7, and paragraphs [72-82]; Ishiyama discloses providing an optical image to provide authentication and verification information based on the check information. The “ground truth” is based and interpreted on Fig 7 and the table that provides the product/image feature information that is verified based on the captured image.).
Ishiyama discloses the above-enclosed limitations, however, Ishiyama does not specifically disclose from a fine line pattern attached to the check target item.
Jung teaches that is obtained from a fine line pattern attached to a check target item (Paragraphs [103-108 and 113]; Jung teaches a similar authentication system that specifically provides a barcode/QR code tag that is utilized with the image identification and product verification. The combination is that Ishiyama provides image authentication based on pattern elements of the product image and Jung teaches a similar product authentication that provides the specific fine line pattern attached to the item.).
Ishiyama discloses an item verification based on product and item information utilizing optical imaging of a pattern.
The sole difference between Ishiyama and the claimed subject matter is that Ishiyama does not specifically teach the pattern is a fine line pattern. Ishiyama utilizes pattern recognition of the item and other elements.
Jung teaches a similar item/product authentication that specifically teaches optical verification utilizing barcode/fine line pattern elements. Jung shows that the use of a fine line pattern barcode/qr code was known in the prior art at the time of the invention.
Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself—that is in the substitution of the product imaging of Ishiyama for the barcode/QR code recognition of Jung. Therefore, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Claim(s) 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishiyama et al [2015/0189238], hereafter Ishiyama, in view of Jung [2020/0215840], further in view of Bakalis [2019/0303951].
Regarding claim 6, the combination teaches the above-enclosed limitations, however, the combination does not specifically teach light is radiated or an interference fringe;
Bakalis teaches the information processing method according tclaim 1, wherein, in the optical image acquisition step, the optical image is a diffraction image that is generated when light is radiated on the fine line pattern at a predetermined angle, or is an interference fringe that is generated when the fine line pattern and a predetermined filter are superimposed on one another (Fig 2, 30, and paragraph [134-140]; Bakalis teaches a similar product authentication system that specifically provides a laser scanner (interpreted as diffraction image) to receive barcode and other product information.).
The combination discloses an item verification based on product and item information utilizing optical imaging of a pattern.
The sole difference between the combination and the claimed subject matter is that Ishiyama does not specifically teach the image acquisition step is a diffraction image generated when light is radiated. Ishiyama utilizes camera/optical capturing.
Bakalis teaches a similar item/product authentication that specifically teaches optical image acquisition utilizing a laser scanner. Bakalis shows that the use of a laser scanner to acquire barcode information was known in the prior art at the time of the invention.
Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself—that is in the substitution of the camera capture of Ishiyama for the barcode/QR scanner of Bakalis. Therefore, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 15, the combination teaches the above-enclosed limitations, however, the combination does not specifically teach updating information based on the check result;
Bakalis teaches further comprising a ledger update step of updating ledger data for managing item identification information, based on the check result (Paragraphs [55-59, 78-79, and 100-108]; Bakalis teaches the similar product authentication system that provides ledger updates.).
The combination discloses an item verification based on product and item information utilizing optical imaging of a pattern.
The sole difference between the combination and the claimed subject matter is that Ishiyama does not specifically teach the information is updated based on the check result. Ishiyama utilizes item verification based on the collected information.
Bakalis teaches a similar item/product authentication that specifically teaches ledger updates based on the information gathered to be stored in a distributed ledger. Bakalis shows that the use of a ledger update based on collected information was known in the prior art at the time of the invention.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the item verification system of the combination the ability to include an update aspect based on the collected information within a ledger as taught by Bakalis since the claimed invention is merely a combination of prior art elements and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the results of the combination as predictable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Roth et al [2008/0129037] (product authentication based on the scanned tag);
Harada et al [2013/0259305] (item identification based on image acquisition analysis);
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW CHASE LAKHANI whose telephone number is (571)272-5687. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 730am - 5pm (EST).
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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at 571-270-1833. 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.
/ANDREW CHASE LAKHANI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629