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 .
Response to Arguments
The present action is responsive to communications that was filed on 02/25/2026. Claims 1, 6, 9, 12, 15, and 18 are amended. Claims 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, and 19 have been previously cancelled. Claims 21-23 have been currently cancelled. Claims 1, 6, 8, 9, 12, 14, 15, 18, and 20 are currently pending.
Applicant arguments filed 02/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive. With regards to applicant’s argument regarding the rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112 on pg. 8-10:
Applicant argues:
“When a disclosure describes a claimed invention in a manner that permits one skilled in the art to reasonably conclude that the inventor possessed the claimed invention the written description requirement is satisfied. (MPEP §2163). This possession may be shown in any number of ways and an Applicant need not describe every claim feature exactly because there is no in haec verba requirement. (MPEP § 2163). Rather, to satisfy the written description requirement, all that is required is "reasonable clarity." (MPEP § 2163.02). Also, an adequate description may be made in any way through express, implicit, or even inherent disclosures in the application, including words, structures, figures, diagrams, and/or formulae. (MPEP § § 2163(I), 2163.02). Finally, it is important to be mindful of the generally inverse correlation between the level of skill and knowledge in the art and the specificity of disclosure necessary to satisfy the written description requirement. (MPEP § 2163(II)(A)(2)) (inventions in "predictable" or "mature" require a lesser showing of possession than inventions in more "unpredictable" arts).
Applicant submits that one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably conclude that Applicant's disclosure adequately described the claimed invention at the time of filing. A review of the present application reveals that Applicant describes the features that are the subject of the written description rejection. For example, paragraph 23 of the application provides that "...when a QR code is detected by a camera on a mobile device, a camera application on the mobile device can execute a visual inspection with a computer learning algorithm...." Paragraph 26 provides: "[e]dges...of the QR code can be detected using algorithms in Open CV, such as Canny, Sobel, etc." Paragraph 27 provides "...contrast levels between the QR code and objects in the background and surrounding areas can be compared. Packages in OpenCV can be used to contrast and compare the QR code with general background contrast levels." Paragraph 26 provides: "...if there are any objects that can be located behind the QR code, the QR code could be indicated as untrustworthy...." Paragraph 27 provides: "[i]f contrast levels between the QR code and the background vary greatly, then it can indicate that QR code is 'new' and may be a scam." Paragraph 29 provides: "[t]ext appearing in any picture or surrounding area of the QR code can be checked for misspellings using an Open CV test detection package..." Those of ordinary skill in the art would understand that such a disclosure at least implies the presence of constructs to perform the features of the claims, especially in view of the maturity and predictability of the subject art.“
The argument is not persuasive. The written description does not provide ‘reasonable clarity’. Applicant cites in paragraphs 23-26 the use of a computer learning algorithm, and specifically in paragraph 26 wherein algorithms in Open CV, such as Canny, Sobel, etc. to detect edges of the QR code. However, the specification does not disclose a concrete algorithm, parameter values (such as threshold settings), region of interest, or decision criteria for how “edge detection” is to be performed in the context of QR code tampering detection. As previously stated, generic references to OpenCV do not substitute for disclosure of the particular algorithms or metric definitions necessary to show possession of the claimed contrast detection limitation. Additionally, disclosure is limited to generic statements that edge detection algorithms “can be used,” (such as Canny and Sobel) without specifying which algorithm, how it is configured, or how its output is interpreted for the claimed purpose. As such, the specification does not reasonably convey possession of the full scope of “detecting edges” as claimed, especially since the claim reads on any method of edge detection. Additionally, Applicant cites paragraph 27 wherein [i]f contrast levels between the QR code and the background vary greatly, then it can indicate that QR code is 'new' and may be a scam. The term “vary greatly” is indefinite. It is not clear what the ‘vary greatly’ represents to a person having ordinary skill in the art and what the metes and bounds of the introduced terms should mean to a person having ordinary skill in the art. There is no disclosure of specific contrast metric(s) (for example, RMS contrast, Michelson contrast, Weber contrast), which spatial computation window(s), which color/luminance channel(s), nor any stepwise computation for contrast that a POSITA could use to practice the full scope of the claim. No objective decision criteria, parameter ranges, or processing details are provided. The §112(a) written description and §112(b) rejection therefore remains proper.
With regards to applicant’s argument regarding the rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101 on pg. 10-14:
“Claims 1, 6, 8, 9, 12, 14, 15, 18, 20, 21, 22, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is provided to be "directed to an abstract idea without significantly more." Applicant traverses the rejection.
Claim 1 recites: "A computer-implemented method (CIM) comprising: receiving an image, including a QR code and a surrounding area adjacent the QR code and within the image, by a mobile device; providing a bounding box around edges of the QR code within the image by the mobile device; determining the surrounding area outside the bounding box within the image by the mobile device; inspecting the QR code and the surrounding area within the image by the mobile device; detecting the edges of the QR code within the image by the mobile device; detecting contrast sensitivity of the image by the mobile device; determining presence of any objects located within the surrounding area in the image; determining a first contrast level of the QR code and a second contrast level of the surrounding area within the image; determining that the first contrast level and the second contrast level differ, wherein a difference indicates tampering; and when tampering is indicated, alerting a user of the mobile device to physically check the QR code and the surrounding area for tampering."
First, the broadest reasonable interpretation does not mean the broadest possible interpretation. Rather, the meaning given to a claim term must be consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning of the term and must be consistent with the use of the claim term in the specification and drawings. Further, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims must be consistent with the interpretation that those skilled in the art would reach. See In re Cortwright, One of skill in the art would recognize that the steps in the independent claims, such as claim 1, are done by a computer and not a human mind. Therefore, the claims do not involve an abstract idea that can be performed in the human mind.
Assuming, arguendo, that the claims recite a judicial exception, it is submitted that the claims, as a whole, integrate any alleged judicial exception into a practical application pursuant to Step 2A, Prong Two of the section 101 inquiry. As stated in the 2019 PEG, section II, an improvement in the functioning of a computer or other technology field can render a claim patent-eligible at step one of the Alice/Mayo test even if it recites an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon. As stated in MPEP 2106.05(a), "[a]n important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome." In making this determination, MPEP 2106.05(a) further states that "the examiner should analyze the 'improvement' consideration by evaluating the specification and the claims to ensure that a technical explanation of the asserted improvement is present in the specification, and that the claim relates the asserted improvement."
The application as filed provides how the subject of the application is an improvement over prior technology. The application include an inventive concept that results in improving security that relates to "a method and system for verifying quick response (QR) codes." (Application, paragraph 1).
It is respectfully submitted that claim 1 is directed to a specific implementation of a solution to a technical problem in the technical field of security that relates to "a method and system for verifying quick response (QR) codes." (Application, paragraph 1). The claim reflects some improvement in the functioning of a computer and another device, as well as some improvement in another technology or technological field.
Applicant respectfully submits that the recent USPTO memo titled "Reminders on
evaluating subject matter eligibility of claims under 35 U.S.C. 101" and dated August 4, 2025 (hereinafter, "Reminders Memo") has bearing on the present claims. As the Reminders Memo states, "Examiners should be careful to distinguish claims that recite an exception (which require further eligibility analysis) from claims that merely involve an exception (which are eligible and do not require further eligibility analysis" (Reminders Memo, Pg. 3). The Reminders Memo goes on to articulate the distinction between Examples 39 and 47, and more specifically, that "the claim limitation 'training the neural network in a first stage using the first training set' of example 39 does not recite a judicial exception. Even though 'training the neural network' involves a broad array of techniques and/or activities that may involve or rely upon mathematical concepts, the limitation does not set forth or describe any mathematical relationships, calculations, formulas, or equations using words or mathematical symbols" (Reminders Memo, Pg. 3). Similar to example 39, the independent claims do not recite a judicial exception. For example, the independent claims (claim 1 being used to represent the independent claims) recite, "receiving an image, including a QR code and a surrounding area adjacent the QR code and within the image, by a mobile device; providing a bounding box around edges of the QR code within the image by the mobile device; determining the surrounding area outside the bounding box within the image by the mobile device; inspecting the QR code and the surrounding area within the image by the mobile device; detecting the edges of the QR code within the image by the mobile device; detecting contrast sensitivity of the image by the mobile device; determining presence of any objects located within the surrounding area in the image; determining a first contrast level of the QR code and a second contrast level of the surrounding area within the image; determining that the first contrast level and the second contrast level differ, wherein a difference indicates tampering; and when tampering is indicated, alerting a user of the mobile device to physically check the QR code and the surrounding area for tampering." These limitations "may involve or rely upon mathematical concepts" but "the limitation does not set forth or describe any mathematical relationships, calculations, formulas, or equations using words or mathematical symbols" (Reminders Memo, Pg. 3). Therefore, the independent claims are directed to patent-eligible subject matter for at least the same reasons as example 39 and in light of the Reminders Memo.
The Reminders Memo also states, "The examiner is reminded to consult the specification to determine whether the disclosed invention improves technology or a technical field, and evaluate the claim to ensure it reflects the disclosed improvement" (Reminders Memo, Pg. 4). The disclosure describes an improvement over prior technology that advantageously improves security that relates to "a method and system for verifying quick response (QR) codes." (Application, paragraph 1).
Applicant's claim 1 is integrated into a practical application because it provides a
technical solution that improves a field of technology. For this additional reason, the independent claims are directed toward patent-eligible subject matter.
The Reminders Memo further discusses the "Apply It" consideration and states, "[c]laims that are determined to improve computer capabilities or improve technology or a technical field support a finding that the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application or amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself' (Reminders Memo, Pg. 5). As discussed in the Ex Parte Desjardins et al. Rehearing Decision, 2024-000567, Sept. 26, 2025: "Enfish ranks among the Federal Circuit's leading cases on the eligibility of technological improvements. In particular, Enfish recognized that '[m]uch of the advancement made in computer technology consists of improvements to software that, by their very nature, may not be defined by particular physical features but rather by logical structures and processes.' 822 F.3d at 1339. Moreover, because '[s]oftware can make non-abstract improvements to computer technology, just as hardware improvements can,' the Federal Circuit held that the eligibility determination should turn on whether 'the claims are directed to an improvement to computer functionality versus being directed to an abstract idea.' Id. At 1336." (Desjardins, p. 8). The independent claims clearly apply any judicial exception to realize an improvement in technology for at least the reason that the disclosure describes an improvement over prior technology that advantageously improves security that relates to "a method and system for verifying quick response (QR) codes." (Application, paragraph 1). The independent claims, such as claim 1, reflects the improvements as well. For example the claim recites: "receiving an image, including a QR code and a surrounding area adjacent the QR code and within the image, by a mobile device; providing a bounding box around edges of the QR code within the image by the mobile device; determining the surrounding area outside the bounding box within the image by the mobile device; inspecting the QR code and the surrounding area within the image by the mobile device; detecting the edges of the QR code within the image by the mobile device; detecting contrast sensitivity of the image by the mobile device; determining presence of any objects located within the surrounding area in the image; determining a first contrast level of the QR code and a second contrast level of the surrounding area within the image; determining that the first contrast level and the second contrast level differ, wherein a difference indicates tampering; and when tampering is indicated, alerting a user of the mobile device to physically check the QR code and the surrounding area for tampering." For this additional reason, the independent claims are directed toward patent-eligible subject matter.
In addition, the Reminders Memo states that, "Examiners are reminded that if it is a 'close call' as to whether a claim is eligible, they should only make a rejection when it is more likely than not (i.e., more than 50%) that the claim is ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101" (Reminders Memo, Pg. 5). Applicant respectfully submits that, in view of the above arguments there is certainly a less than 50% chance that the independent claims are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. As such, Applicant respectfully submits that the independent claims are directed to patent- eligible subject matter. Thus, Applicant respectfully requests the withdrawal of the 35 U.S.C 101 rejection of Applicant's claim 1.
The other two independent claims, claims 9 and 15, are to a system and a computer program product (including steps as in the method claim, claim 1). Thus, these claims are patent- eligible for the same reasons above that claim 1 is patent-eligible.
The dependent claims 6, 8, 12, 14, 18, and 20 depend on one of the independent claims (namely, claims 1, 9 or 15) discussed above, and are therefore believed to be patent-eligible for at least the same reasons discussed above that claims 1, 9 and 15 are patent-eligible. Each dependent claim also recites additional features which help provide technological improvement and further justification for a determination of patent-eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101. Thus, it is requested that the rejection of the dependent claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 also be withdrawn.”
Examiner disagrees. Applicant argues One of skill in the art would recognize that the steps in the independent claims, such as claim 1, are done by a computer and not a human mind. Therefore, the claims do not involve an abstract idea that can be performed in the human mind. Applicant uses Example 39 and Example 47 to overcome the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection. In Example 39, the claimed invention is creating training set and applying transformations to digital facial image. Example 39 is transforming an image and creating a training set while the claimed invention discloses visually inspecting the QR code, such as detecting contrasts, surrounding objects, and contrasts levels between surrounding and the QR code. The QR code is not being digitally transformed or used to create a training set. All the actions that are being applied the QR Code, as discussed in the independent claims, can be performed in the human mind. For example, a person can visually inspect an image for any abnormalities, such as misspellings and noticing a great contrast between surrounding and QR code without using mobile device. Example 47, discloses generating a input data and outputting anomaly data. In Example 47 the input data is being manipulated/change to output anomaly data which cannot be performed by the human mind. As disclosed when discussing in Example 39, the QR code is not being transformed or manipulated rather the QR code is merely being visually inspected which can be performed within the human mind. Additionally, a person of the ordinary skill in the art can physically alert someone if there was any tampering such as methods of texting/calling or word of mouth. The USC §101 rejection therefore remains proper.
On pages 15-17, Applicant argues the prior art of record does not teach “…an image, including a QR code and a surrounding area adjacent the QR code and within the image, by a mobile device…” Examiner respectfully disagrees. Todasco discloses a Figure 2A being an exemplary real-world environment where a user may capture a QR code that is analyzed to determine if it has been fraudulently placed in the real-world, and in paragraph [0057] discloses with regards to Figure 2A wherein, “In particular, user 102 may utilize user device 110 to capture an image 1002 of stand 1008 having QR code 1004 and additional objects 1006 in proximity to QR code 1004, such as located on stand 1008. Image 1002 may be displayed by code processing interface 170 in environment 100b, where code image 180 from environment 100b may correspond to QR code 1004. Image 1002 may also capture additional information at merchant location 1000, including a menu 1012 in a background and/or menu data 1014 in the background”, which discloses the limitation of surrounding area adjacent the QR code and within the image, by a mobile device, such as the machine identifier located in proximity to the displayable code (QR code). Therefore, based on at least the above paragraphs, Examiner respectfully maintains that Todasco teaches the amended limitation.
Applicant further arguments filed on with respect to claim 1, 6, 8, 8, 12, 14, 15, 18,and 20 in view of Todasco et al. (US PGPub No.20220083660-A1) in view of Yu et al. (US PGPub No. 20220129688-A1), Wei et al. (US PGPub No.20230015096-A1), Smith et al. (US PGPub No. 20200285825-A1), Lev et al. (US PGPub No. 20210295745-A1), and Martin et al. (US PGPub No. 20180004948-A1) specifically to the amended limitations “…determining the surrounding area outside the bounding box within the image by the mobile device…” and “…determining a first contrast level of the QR code and a second contrast level of the surrounding area within the image…” have been fully considered and persuasive. Todasco does allude to determining surrounding area outside bounding box as illustrated in Figures 1B, 2A, 2B, 2C, and 3, but the prior art fails to explicitly state that a bounding box is surrounded by QR code within the Specification. Examiner does concede that the current prior art of record does not disclose explicitly disclose amended limitation of a bounding box. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection, is made in additional view of Yu et al. (US Pat No. 9626577-B1) and and Fleisher et al. (US PGPub No. 20130121529-A1).
The office action has been updated reflecting the claims as currently presented.
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, 6, 8, 9, 12, 14, 15, 18, 20, 21, 22, and 23 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.
Regarding claims 1, 9, and 15:
“inspecting the QR code and the surrounding area within the image”
The specification references a "visual inspection module" and generically refers to use of known image-processing and machine-learning techniques (e.g., OpenCV routines, ML classification). However, the specification does not disclose a concrete, stepwise algorithm or processing pipeline that ties inputs to outputs for the full breadth of "inspecting." The specification provides higher-level descriptions and examples of possible inspection activities but does not supply algorithmic steps, flowchart logic, or equations that define how the visual inspection is to be performed in all the ways claimed. Thus, while narrower support exists for individual CV steps recited elsewhere, the specification does not convey possession of the full functional genus “inspecting” as broadly claimed.
“detecting edges of the QR code”
The specification references edge detection using OpenCV (e.g., Canny, Sobel) and generally discusses detecting edges of the QR code and surrounding objects. However, it does not disclose a concrete algorithm, parameter values (such as threshold settings), region of interest, or decision criteria for how “edge detection” is to be performed in the context of QR code tampering detection. The disclosure is limited to generic statements that edge detection algorithms “can be used,” without specifying which algorithm, how it is configured, or how its output is interpreted for the claimed purpose. As such, the specification does not reasonably convey possession of the full scope of “detecting edges” as claimed, especially since the claim reads on any method of edge detection.
“detecting contrast sensitivity of the image”
The specification defines the concepts “contrast” and “contrast sensitivity” in general terms and states that “OpenCV packages can be used” to contrast and compare QR code and background levels. There is no disclosure, however, of which specific contrast metric(s) (for example, RMS contrast, Michelson contrast, Weber contrast), which spatial computation window(s), which color/luminance channel(s), nor any stepwise computation for contrast that a POSITA could use to practice the full scope of the claim. No objective decision criteria, parameter ranges, or processing details are provided. The generic references to OpenCV do not substitute for disclosure of the particular algorithms or metric definitions necessary to show possession of the claimed contrast-detection limitation.
“determining presence of any objects located within the surrounding area in the image”
The specification suggests that underlay/overlay detection may be inferred from “edge detection,” “shadows,” and identification of other shapes located within the surrounding area in the image , but it does not disclose algorithmic criteria, feature extraction steps, morphological or statistical tests, or thresholds that operationalize an “object under” determination across varying surfaces, lighting, occlusion, and image quality. No feature vector composition, decision rule, or explicit test (e.g., specific edge density threshold or shadow profile metric) is provided that would enable a POSITA to practice the full genus of methods for making that determination.
“…determining a first contrast level of the QR code and a second contrast level of the surrounding area within the image…”
The specifications does not reasonably convey to those skilled in the art that the inventors in possession of the full scope of this limitation at the time of the filing. Although, the specifications in ¶0026-0027 discloses “Additionally, or alternatively, contrast levels between the QR code and objects in the background and surrounding areas can be compared. Packages in OpenCV can be used to contrast and compare the QR code with general background contrast levels. If contrast levels between the QR code and the background vary greatly, then it can indicate that the QR code is “new” and may be a scam. The user can be alerted to double-check the QR code. “ . The application fails to both convey any structure or implementation details for how the contrast levels are determined or classified. Further, specification does not mention what type of packages are used to determine the contrast level based on the QR code and the surrounding area.
Claims 6, 8, 12, 14, 18, 20, 21, 22, and 23 do not overcome the rejections of their respective base claims that have been rejected above, and therefore rejected under the same grounds provided to claims 1, 9, and 15.
Regarding claims 8, 14, and 20:
“determine that the identified text includes one or more misspelled words, wherein a presence of misspelled words indicates tampering.”
The specification references checking text in the picture or surrounding area for misspellings (e.g., via OpenCV text detection) but does not disclose an OCR/text‑recognition pipeline, tokenization rules, dictionary sources or language/locale handling, error‑tolerance criteria, whitelist/blacklist handling, or the decision rules for when an OCR result constitutes a misspelling sufficient to indicate tampering. The broad claim entitlement to any method of detecting misspellings is unsupported by the disclosed examples.
Claims 6 and 8 depend from claim 1 and thereby inherit all the deficiencies of claim 1. Claims 12 and 14 depend from claim 9 and thereby inherit all the deficiencies of claim 9. Claims 18 and 20 depend from claim 15 and thereby inherit all the deficiencies of claim 15. Therefore, claims 6, 8, 12, 14, 18, and 20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for lack of written description.
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, 6, 8, 9, 12, 14, 15, 18, 20, 21, 22, and 23 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.
Regarding claims 1, 9, and 15:
“inspecting the QR code and the surrounding area within the image”
The limitation “visually inspecting the image of the QR code and the surrounding area” is indefinite because it lacks objective boundaries as to both who performs the inspection and what the inspection consists of when implemented by software. The claim provides no definition of what “inspecting” entails in algorithmic terms—i.e., whether it includes any of decoding/locating the QR code, segmentation, edge detection (e.g., Canny/Sobel), contrast computation (which metric/channel/window), shadow/crease detection, color analysis (which color space/distance metric), OCR/text detection, and/or ML classification; in what sequence; with what parameter ranges; over what regions of interest (how the “surrounding area” is defined); and what measurable outputs or decision criteria signal completion of the step or trigger subsequent actions. This dual ambiguity—regarding the actor and the substantive operations—permits multiple reasonable interpretations and prevents a POSITA from determining the metes and bounds of the limitation with reasonable certainty.
“edges of the QR code”
While QR codes are generally known to have structural features, the claim does not specify what constitutes the “edges” of the QR code. It is unclear whether this refers to the outer boundary of the QR code as a whole, the edges of individual QR code modules, boundaries between the QR code and the quiet zone, or other high-contrast transitions within or around the QR code. Therefore, the precise scope of “edges of the QR code” is ambiguous and not clearly defined, lacking objective boundaries.
“contrast sensitivity of the image”
The term “contrast sensitivity” is not clearly defined or an inherent property of a digital image and is commonly used to describe characteristics of human visual perception or perceptual models, rather than a specific, objective image attribute. The claim does not specify what is meant by contrast sensitivity in this context, how it is measured or detected, or what output results from such detection. The claim further does not clarify whether the contrast sensitivity is detected for the QR code, the surrounding area, or the image as a whole. Because the claim lacks objective boundaries for what constitutes “contrast sensitivity” and how it is detected, a POSITA would not be informed with reasonable certainty of the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
“determining presence of any objects located within surrounding area in the image”
This limitation fails to particularly point out the scope of the claimed invention because neither “object” nor “under the QR code” is defined with objective boundaries. The term “object” is entirely open-ended and may reasonably encompass any detectable feature in an image, including another QR code, a sticker, a substrate, a background surface, a shadow, or an image artifact. The claim does not specify any characteristics that distinguish the object from background elements or from the QR code itself.
“…determining the first contrast level of the QR code and a second contrast level of the surrounding area…”
Indefinite because the claim does not recite what the contrast level represents (e.g., score, numerical value, RMS contrast, Michelson contrast, Weber contrast, edge density, or another measure), how it is derived, or from what inputs it is calculated Functional limitations must be supported by structure in the specification, but the application fails to disclose any algorithms, flow charts, pseudo-code, etc. that offer structural support for this limitation.
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, 6, 8, 9, 12, 14, 15, 18, 20, 21, 22, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites a computer-implemented method which appears to be a ‘process’ and one of the four statutory subject matter categories of invention (Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test).
However, the claim appears to not qualify for a streamlined analysis thus a full eligibility and thus a full eligibility analysis is necessary (Step 2A and Step 2B of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test).
In Step 2A, Prong One, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e., whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. The claim recites the steps of:
“…receiving an image…”
“…providing a bounding box around the QR code…”
“…determining the area surrounding the QR code…”
“…inspecting the image of the QR code and the surrounding area…”
“…detecting edges of the QR code…”
“…detecting contrast sensitivity of the image…”
“…determining a first contrast level of the QR code and a second contrast level of the surrounding area…”
“…determining that the first contrast level and the second contrast level differ…
“…alerting a user of the mobile device to physically check the QR code…”
The steps performing amount to an abstract idea which falls under a judicial exception (Step 2A Prong 1, of Subject Matter Eligibility). Abstract ideas fall in the category. The abstract idea falls in the categories of a mental process, for example evaluation, judgements, and opinion and mathematical concepts (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) & MPEP 2106.06) such as visually inspecting the image of the QR code and the surrounding area and determining a first contrast level of the QR code and a second contrast level of the surrounding area, and wherein the difference of the two contrast levels to indicate tampering. For example, the courts found that a claim “detecting fraud in a credit card transaction over the Internet” where attempt to patent the use of the abstract idea of [obtaining information about other transactions that utilized an Internet address that is identified with the credit card transaction] and then instruct the [construction of a map] to help determine if the credit card transaction is valid, Cybersource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., No. 09-1358 (Fed. Cir. 2011) . Further providing a bounding box around the QR code, determining the area surrounding the QR code, and alerting the user could be done without the need of a mobile device (e.g., an admin alerting a user that QR code needs to physically check and a user visually inspecting an QR code).
In Step 2A, Prong Two, examiner determine whether the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application to disqualify abstract as a judicial exception. However, the judicial exception in claim 1 is not integrated into practical application because the generically recited computer elements do not add meaningful limitation to an abstract idea because they do not add a meaningful limitation to an abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The implementation of receiving an image, providing a bounding box, visually inspecting the image, determining contrast levels, determining a confidence score results enabling human decision making without using the mobile device and user actions in any meaningful to improve the functioning of a computer or another technology without reference to what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. The claim do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer function that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984.
Thus, the analysis concludes is ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as it is directed to a judicial
exception.
Regarding claims 6, 8, and 21 :
Claims 6 and 8 do not add any additional elements than those already disclosed in claim 1, and merely adds further abstract ideas. Furthermore, none of the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 9 recites a system which appears to be a ‘machine’ and one of the four statutory subject matter categories of invention (Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test).
However, the claim appears to not qualify for a streamlined analysis thus a full eligibility and thus a full eligibility analysis is necessary (Step 2A and Step 2B of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test).
In Step 2A, Prong One, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e., whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. The claim recites the steps of:
“…receive an image…”
“…provide a bounding box around the QR code by mobile device…”
“…determine the area surrounding the QR code…”
“…inspect the image of the QR code and the surrounding area…”
“…detect edges of the QR code…”
“…detect contrast sensitivity of the image…”
“…determine a first contrast level of the QR code and a second contrast level of the surrounding area…”
“…determine that the first contrast level and the second contrast level differ…”
“…alert a user of mobile device to physically check the QR code…”
The steps performing amount to an abstract idea which falls under a judicial exception (Step 2A Prong 1, of Subject Matter Eligibility). Abstract ideas fall in the category. The abstract idea falls in the categories of a mental process, for example evaluation, judgements, and opinion and mathematical concepts (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) & MPEP 2106.06) such as visually inspecting the image of the QR code and the surrounding area and determining a first contrast level of the QR code and a second contrast level of the surrounding area, and wherein the difference of the two contrast levels to indicate tampering. For example, the courts found that a claim “detecting fraud in a credit card transaction over the Internet” where attempt to patent the use of the abstract idea of [obtaining information about other transactions that utilized an Internet address that is identified with the credit card transaction] and then instruct the [construction of a map] to help determine if the credit card transaction is valid, Cybersource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., No. 09-1358 (Fed. Cir. 2011) . Further providing a bounding box around the QR code, determining the area surrounding the QR code, and alerting the user could be done without the need of a mobile device (e.g., an admin alerting a user that QR code needs to physically check and a user visually inspecting an QR code).
In Step 2A, Prong Two, examiner determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the judicial exception into a practical application to disqualify abstract as a judicial exception. However, the judicial exception in claim 9 is not integrated into practical application because the generically recited computer elements:
“…a memory …”
“…a processor…”
do not add meaningful limitation to an abstract idea because they do not add a meaningful limitation to an abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The implementation of receiving an image, providing a bounding box, visually inspecting the image, determining contrast levels, determining a confidence score results enabling human decision making without using the mobile device and user actions in any meaningful to improve the functioning of a computer or another technology without reference to what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. The claim do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer function that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984.
Thus, the analysis concludes is ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as it is directed to a judicial
exception.
Regarding to claims 12 and 14 :
Claims 12 and 14 do not add any additional elements than those already disclosed in claim 9, and merely adds further abstract ideas. Furthermore, none of the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 15 recites a computer program product which appears to be a ‘machine’ and one of the four statutory subject matter categories of invention (Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test).
However, the claim appears to not qualify for a streamlined analysis thus a full eligibility and thus a full eligibility analysis is necessary (Step 2A and Step 2B of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test).
In Step 2A, Prong One, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e., whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. The claim recites the steps of:
“…receive an image…”
“…providing a bounding box around the QR code by mobile device…”
“…determine the area surrounding the QR code…”
“…inspect the image of the QR code and the surrounding area…”
“…detect edges of the QR code…”
“…detect contrast sensitivity of the image…”
“…determine a first contrast level of the QR code and a second contrast level of the surrounding area…”
“…determine that the first contrast level and the second contrast level differ…”
“…alert a user of mobile device to physically check the QR code…”
The steps performing amount to an abstract idea which falls under a judicial exception (Step 2A Prong 1, of Subject Matter Eligibility). Abstract ideas fall in the category. The abstract idea falls in the categories of a mental process, for example evaluation, judgements, and opinion and mathematical concepts (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) & MPEP 2106.06) such as visually inspecting the image of the QR code and the surrounding area and determining a first contrast level of the QR code and a second contrast level of the surrounding area, and wherein the difference of the two contrast levels to indicate tampering. For example, the courts found that a claim “detecting fraud in a credit card transaction over the Internet” where attempt to patent the use of the abstract idea of [obtaining information about other transactions that utilized an Internet address that is identified with the credit card transaction] and then instruct the [construction of a map] to help determine if the credit card transaction is valid, Cybersource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., No. 09-1358 (Fed. Cir. 2011) . Further providing a bounding box around the QR code, determining the area surrounding the QR code, and alerting the user could be done without the need of a mobile device (e.g., an admin alerting a user that QR code needs to physically check and a user visually inspecting an QR code).
In Step 2A, Prong Two, examiner determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the judicial exception into a practical application to disqualify abstract as a judicial exception. However, the judicial exception in claim 15 Is not integrated into practical application because the generically recited computer elements:
“…a computer readable storage medium …”
“…a computer readable program…”
“…a processor…”
do not add meaningful limitation to an abstract idea because they do not add a meaningful limitation to an abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The implementation of receiving an image, providing a bounding box, visually inspecting the image, determining contrast levels, determining a confidence score results enabling human decision making without using the mobile device and user actions in any meaningful to improve the functioning of a computer or another technology without reference to what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. The claim do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer function that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984.
Thus, the analysis concludes is ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as it is directed to a judicial
exception.
Regarding to claims 18 and 20:
Claims 18 and 20 do not add any additional elements than those already disclosed in claim 15, and merely adds further abstract ideas. Furthermore, none of the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
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 1, 6, 8, 9, 12, 14, 15, 18,and 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Todasco et al. (US PGPub No.20220083660-A1) in view of Yu et al. (US PGPub No. 20220129688-A1), Yu et al. (US Pat No. 9626577-B1), Wei et al. (US PGPub No.20230015096-A1), Smith et al. (US PGPub No. 20200285825-A1), and Fleisher et al. (US PGPub No. 20130121529-A1).
With respect to claim 1, Todasco teaches a computer-implemented method (CIM) comprising: (¶0082-0083: In various embodiments of the present disclosure, execution of instruction sequences to practice the present disclosure may be performed by computer system ) receiving an image, including a QR code and a surrounding area adjacent the QR code and within the image, by a mobile device; (¶0016-0017: When capturing (receiving) an image or broadcast of the code (QR code), additional data may also be captured at a time corresponding to the capture data. The image may also directly include the additional data, such as background objects within the image and/or nearby the code within the image. Thus, the additional data may correspond to any contextual data that assists in further describing the capture data of the code or wireless device.)
inspecting the QR code and the surrounding area within the image by the mobile device; (¶0033-0035: As seen in Figure 1A, once the capture data of code data 142 from code output object 140 is detected, code processing application 130 may process the additional data to determine whether the code is fraudulent, or the device is transmitting fraudulent data. Code processing application 130 may also process a layout, placement, or detection (visually inspecting) of additional objects within the capture data to determine if the code/wireless device is placed at an expected or valid location.);
determining presence of any objects located within the surrounding area in the image; (¶0057: Figure 2A is exemplary real-world environment where a user may capture a QR code that is analyzed to determine if it has been fraudulently placed in the real-world environment. Environment 200a of Figure 2A includes user device 110 discussed in system 100a of Figure 1A. In particular, user 102 may utilize user device 110 to capture an image 1002 of stand 1008 having QR code 1004 and additional objects 1006 in proximity to QR code 1004, such as located on stand 1008. Similarly, the placement and/or proximity of QR code 1004 and/or wireless device 1010 to additional objects 1006, stand 1008, and/or menu 1012 may be used to determine if QR code 1004 and/or wireless device 1010 is expected by located in that area. Thus, the layout of merchant location 1000 and registered or expected codes/devices at the location may be utilized in the determination of fraudulent codes or devices.)’
when tampering is indicated, alerting a user of the mobile device to physically check the QR code and the surrounding area for tampering. (¶0021: If the capture data indicates fraud, the user's computing device may delay and/or refuse processing and may further notify the user of the fraudulent code/wireless device. The user may be notified through a message displayed with the malicious or fraudulent capture data on the user's device. The message may indicate that the code/wireless device is suspicious or fraudulent and may provide further information on removal of the code/wireless device or where a valid or trustworthy code/wireless device is located.);
Todasco does not disclose:
providing a bounding box around edges of the QR code within the image by the mobile device;
However, Yu teaches providing a bounding box around edges of the QR code within the image by the mobile device; (¶0020-0033: In some embodiments, the data extraction system may generate a bounding box for each group characters identified in the image. The user device 110, in one embodiment, includes a user interface (UI) application 112 (e.g., a web browser, a mobile payment application, etc.), which may be utilized by the user 140 to interact with the merchant server 120 and/or the service provider server 130 over the network 160.Further in ¶0080: As seen in Figure 6, in some embodiments, at least a portion of processing 600 may be performed by data extraction module 132. The process 600 begins by processing (at step 605) an image to determine bounding boxes in the image. For example, the image processing module 204 may use one or more OCR techniques to identify characters in the image. The image processing module 204 may also translate any code (e.g., bar codes, QR codes) in the image into characters. ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention utilize the teachings of Yu with regards to providing a bounding box around the QR code by mobile device determining the area surrounding the QR code by mobile device to the method of Todasco in order to better analyze images and identify relationships within an image (Yu ¶0002-0016).
Todasco in view of Yu does not disclose:
determining the surrounding area outside the bounding box within the image by the mobile device;
However, Yu et al. (US Pat No. 9626577-B1) teaches determining the surrounding area outside the bounding box within the image by the mobile device; (¶0001: Mobile electronic devices such as tablet computers and smart phones commonly include cameras. Software on mobile device may process captured images to identify image to identify and recognize text and glyph symbols ¶0030: In the preprocessor, a bounding box may be generated that bounds a line of text. The bounding box may bound the glyph region. Value(s) for the image/region suitability metric(s) may be calculated for the portion of the image outside bounding box (surrounding are outside bounding box) . The value(s) for inside the bounding box. The value(s) for inside the bounding box may then be compared to value(s) outside the boundary box to make another determination on the suitability of the image. This determination may also use a classifier.);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention utilize the teachings of Yu et al. (US Pat No. 9626577-B1) with regards to determining the surrounding area outside the bounding box within the image by the mobile device to the method of Todasco in view of Yu in order to better analyze image (Yu et al. (US Pat No. 9626577-B1) ¶0009-0010).
Todasco in view of Yu and Yu et al. (US Pat No. 9626577-B1) does not disclose:
detecting the edges of the QR code within the image by the mobile device;
Todasco does teach detecting the QR code via mobile device, Todasco does not disclose the detecting the edges of the QR code. However, Wei teaches detecting the edges of the QR code within the image by the mobile device; (¶0043-0047: Illustrated in Figure 2, step S201, wherein the method includes identifying edges of the QR code. According to the edges of the QR code obtained at step S201, the area within the edges where the QR code is located according to the coordinate information.);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention utilize the teachings of Wei with regards to detecting edges of the QR Code to the method of Todasco in view of Yu and Yu et al. (US Pat No. 9626577-B1) in order to determine the presence and locate the QR code on a product or picture (Wei ¶0035).
Todasco in view of Yu, Yu et al. (US Pat No. 9626577-B1), and Wei does not disclose:
detecting contrast sensitivity of the image by the mobile device;
Todasco does teach detecting an image via mobile device, but Todasco does not disclose detecting contrast sensitivity of the image. However, Smith teaches detecting contrast sensitivity of the image by the mobile device; (¶0042: More specifically, in an embodiment, method 300 comprises obtaining an image of each of the two codes (one of the codes include QR code ¶0017) and determining, for each image, a contrast ratio between one or more elements of the code and the background of the code).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention utilize the teachings of Smith with regards to detecting contrast sensitivity of the image to the method of Todasco in view of Yu, Yu et al. (US Pat No. 9626577-B1), and Wei in order to determine the code on the product is authentic and ensures that the product is not reused or a counterfeit . (Smith ¶0002 & 0014).
Todasco in view of Yu, Yu et al. (US Pat No. 9626577-B1), Wei, and Smith does not disclose:
determining a first contrast level of the QR code and a second contrast level of the surrounding area within the image; determining that the first contrast level and the second contrast level differ, wherein a difference indicates tampering; and
However, Fleisher teaches determining a first contrast level of the QR code and a second contrast level of the surrounding area within the image; determining that the first contrast level and the second contrast level differ, wherein a difference indicates tampering; and (¶0071: As example and referring to Figure 6, the characteristics of test-image features of test data corresponding to image portion 144 from test image 140 may be compared to characteristics of reference-image features of reference data corresponding to image portion 146 of reference image 142. In this simple example of comparing two intensity images, it is seen that an area of interest (e.g., QR code) that shows up as a bright area in the test image is given a higher level of contrast to the surrounding body areas (surrounding area), indicating that there is an anomaly in this area. The difference image or more generally the FOM can then be compared to the known statistics or images for objects, or pixels patterns and features characteristic of known objects or otherwise analyzed to determine the presence or absence of an object, and if present the likely type of object that it is. Additionally or alternatively, the suspect area may be identified in a display to an operator to alert her or him to examine the test subject to determine what the object is);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention utilize the teachings of Fleisher with regards to comparing the contrast levels between selected area, such as a QR code, and surrounding area to indicate tampering to the method of Todasco in view of Yu and Yu et al. (US Pat No. 9626577-B1), Wei, and Smith in order to improve the accuracy of monitoring (Fleisher ¶0012 & ¶0071 ).
With respect to claim 6, the combination of Todasco in view of Yu and Yu et al. (US Pat No. 9626577-B1), Wei, Smith, and Fleisher teaches method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above) further comprising: comparing the received image (Todasco ¶0062 :As seen in Figure 1A and Figure 2B, user device 110 captures image 1100 to determine whether the additional data within image 1100 or detected when image 1100 is captured indicates that a displayable code in image 1100 is potentially fraudulent and includes malicious data.) to a plurality of images of QR codes that both include and do not include tampering, (Todasco: ¶0062-0063: Menu 1102 may have been captured through one or more past images by user device 110 and/or another device, which may have previously been used to determine whether code 1116 is fraudulent or valid, or may have been used to validate code 1116 or add code 1116 to a blacklist (e.g., based on computing attack attempt or success)).
wherein the plurality of images of QR codes (Todasco: ¶0062: Such data may be compared to stored data or expected, learned, or registered locations of valid codes, as well as a blacklist of invalid or fraudulent codes. This allows user device 110 to determine whether code 1116 is fraudulent in the merchant environment.) were stored in a computer; and (Todasco: ¶0050: As seen in Figure 1A, the transaction processor 150 includes database 156. Database 156 may also store one or more blacklists of invalid and fraudulent codes or devices, which may be used to determine if code output object 140 is fraudulent & ¶0047 Transaction processing application 152 may correspond to one or more processes to execute modules and associated specialized hardware of transaction processor 150 to process a transaction.)
determining that the received image is similar to at least one of the plurality of images of QR codes stored in the computer. (Todasco: ¶0062-0063: Based on the layout of the previous images of menu 1102 and/or registered information of placement of code 1116 on menu 1102 or within a merchant location corresponding to image 1100, a risk and/or fraud score of a likelihood of fraud or validity of code 1116 may be determined).
With respect to claim 8, the combination of Todasco in view of Yu and Yu et al. (US Pat No. 9626577-B1), Wei, Smith, and Fleisher teaches method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above) further comprising: identifying any text in the image; and determining that the identified text includes one or more misspelled words, wherein a presence of misspelled words indicates tampering. (Todasco: ¶0064: As seen in Figure 2B, additional data in image 1100, such as font, color, fading or age, misspelling or of nuanced textual/image data, or other characteristics of the displayed information on menu 1102 may be used to determine if menu 1102 appears as expected or may be fraudulently placed with malicious data for code 1116.).
With respect to claim 9, Todasco teaches a system comprising: (¶0078-0079: As seen, in Figure 5 is a block diagram of a computer system suitable for implementing one or more components in Figure 1A, according to an embodiment.) a memory; and a processor communicatively coupled to the memory, wherein the processor is configured to perform a method comprising: (¶0079-0080: Shown in Figure 5, the computer system 500 includes a memory 514 and processor 512. Wherein computer system perform specific operations by the processor 512 in system memory component 514. Logic may be encoded in a computer medium which may refer to any medium that participates in providing instructions to processor 512 for execution)
receive an image, including a QR code and a surrounding area adjacent the QR code and within the image, by a mobile device; (¶0016-0017: When capturing (receiving) an image or broadcast of the code (QR code), additional data may also be captured at a time corresponding to the capture data. The image may also directly include the additional data, such as background objects within the image and/or nearby the code within the image. Thus, the additional data may correspond to any contextual data that assists in further describing the capture data of the code or wireless device.);
inspect the QR code and the surrounding area within the image by the mobile device; (¶0033-0035: As seen in Figure 1A, once the capture data of code data 142 from code output object 140 is detected, code processing application 130 may process the additional data to determine whether the code is fraudulent, or the device is transmitting fraudulent data. Code processing application 130 may also process a layout, placement, or detection (visually inspecting) of additional objects within the capture data to determine if the code/wireless device is placed at an expected or valid location.);
determine presence of any objects located within the surrounding area in the image; (¶0057: Figure 2A is exemplary real-world environment where a user may capture a QR code that is analyzed to determine if it has been fraudulently placed in the real-world environment. Environment 200a of Figure 2A includes user device 110 discussed in system 100a of Figure 1A. In particular, user 102 may utilize user device 110 to capture an image 1002 of stand 1008 having QR code 1004 and additional objects 1006 in proximity to QR code 1004, such as located on stand 1008. Similarly, the placement and/or proximity of QR code 1004 and/or wireless device 1010 to additional objects 1006, stand 1008, and/or menu 1012 may be used to determine if QR code 1004 and/or wireless device 1010 is expected by located in that area. Thus, the layout of merchant location 1000 and registered or expected codes/devices at the location may be utilized in the determination of fraudulent codes or devices.);
when tampering is indicated, alert a user of the mobile device to physically check the QR code and the surrounding area for tampering. (¶0021: If the capture data indicates fraud, the user's computing device may delay and/or refuse processing and may further notify the user of the fraudulent code/wireless device. The user may be notified through a message displayed with the malicious or fraudulent capture data on the user's device. The message may indicate that the code/wireless device is suspicious or fraudulent and may provide further information on removal of the code/wireless device or where a valid or trustworthy code/wireless device is located.);
Todasco does not disclose:
provide a bounding box around edges of the QR code within the image by the mobile device;
However, Yu teaches provide a bounding box around edges of the QR code within the image by the mobile device; (¶0020-0033: In some embodiments, the data extraction system may generate a bounding box for each group characters identified in the image. The user device 110, in one embodiment, includes a user interface (UI) application 112 (e.g., a web browser, a mobile payment application, etc.), which may be utilized by the user 140 to interact with the merchant server 120 and/or the service provider server 130 over the network 160.Further in ¶0080: As seen in Figure 6, in some embodiments, at least a portion of processing 600 may be performed by data extraction module 132. The process 600 begins by processing (at step 605) an image to determine bounding boxes in the image. For example, the image processing module 204 may use one or more OCR techniques to identify characters in the image. The image processing module 204 may also translate any code (e.g., bar codes, QR codes) in the image into characters. ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention utilize the teachings of Yu with regards to providing a bounding box around the QR code by mobile device determining the area surrounding the QR code by mobile device to the method of Todasco in order to better analyze images and identify relationships within an image (Yu ¶0002-0016).
Todasco in view of Yu does not disclose:
determine the surrounding area outside the bounding box within the image by the mobile device;
However, Yu et al. (US Pat No. 9626577-B1) teaches determine the surrounding area outside the bounding box within the image by the mobile device; (¶0001: Mobile electronic devices such as tablet computers and smart phones commonly include cameras. Software on mobile device may process captured images to identify image to identify and recognize text and glyph symbols ¶0030: In the preprocessor, a bounding box may be generated that bounds a line of text. The bounding box may bound the glyph region. Value(s) for the image/region suitability metric(s) may be calculated for the portion of the image outside bounding box (surrounding are outside bounding box) . The value(s) for inside the bounding box. The value(s) for inside the bounding box may then be compared to value(s) outside the boundary box to make another determination on the suitability of the image. This determination may also use a classifier.);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention utilize the teachings of Yu et al. (US Pat No. 9626577-B1) with regards to determining the surrounding area outside the bounding box within the image by the mobile device to the method of Todasco in view of Yu in order to better analyze image (Yu et al. (US Pat No. 9626577-B1) ¶0009-0010).
Todasco in view of Yu and Yu et al. (US Pat No. 9626577-B1) does not disclose:
detect the edges of the QR code within the image by the mobile device;
detect contrast sensitivity of the image by the mobile device;
Todasco does teach detecting the QR code via mobile device, Todasco does not disclose the detecting the edges of the QR code. However, Wei teaches detect the edges of the QR code within the image by the mobile device; (¶0043-0047: Illustrated in Figure 2, step S201, wherein the method includes identifying edges of the QR code. According to the edges of the QR code obtained at step S201, the area within the edges where the QR code is located according to the coordinate information.);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention utilize the teachings of Wei with regards to detecting edges of the QR Code to the method of Todasco in view of Yu and Yu et al. (US Pat No. 9626577-B1) in order to determine the presence and locate the QR code on a product or picture (Wei ¶0035).
Todasco in view of Yu, Yu et al. (US Pat No. 9626577-B1), and Wei does not disclose:
detecting contrast sensitivity of the image by the mobile device;
Todasco does teach detecting an image via mobile device, but Todasco does not disclose detecting contrast sensitivity of the image. However, Smith teaches detect contrast sensitivity of the image by the mobile device; (¶0042: More specifically, in an embodiment, method 300 comprises obtaining an image of each of the two codes (one of the codes include QR code ¶0017) and determining, for each image, a contrast ratio between one or more elements of the code and the background of the code).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention utilize the teachings of Smith with regards to detecting contrast sensitivity of the image to the method of Todasco in view of Yu, Yu et al. (US Pat No. 9626577-B1), and Wei in order to determine the code on the product is authentic and ensures that the product is not reused or a counterfeit . (Smith ¶0002 & 0014).
Todasco in view of Yu, Yu et al. (US Pat No. 9626577-B1), Wei, and Smith does not disclose:
determine a first contrast level of the QR code and a second contrast level of the surrounding area within the image; determine that the first contrast level and the second contrast level differ, wherein a difference indicates tampering; and
However, Fleisher teaches determine a first contrast level of the QR code and a second contrast level of the surrounding area within the image; determining that the first contrast level and the second contrast level differ, wherein a difference indicates tampering; and (¶0071: As example and referring to Figure 6, the characteristics of test-image features of test data corresponding to image portion 144 from test image 140 may be compared to characteristics of reference-image features of reference data corresponding to image portion 146 of reference image 142. In this simple example of comparing two intensity images, it is seen that an area of interest (e.g., QR code) that shows up as a bright area in the test image is given a higher level of contrast to the surrounding body areas (surrounding area), indicating that there is an anomaly in this area. The difference image or more generally the FOM can then be compared to the known statistics or images for objects, or pixels patterns and features characteristic of known objects or otherwise analyzed to determine the presence or absence of an object, and if present the likely type of object that it is. Additionally or alternatively, the suspect area may be identified in a display to an operator to alert her or him to examine the test subject to determine what the object is);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention utilize the teachings of Fleisher with regards to comparing the contrast levels between selected area, such as a QR code, and surrounding area to indicate tampering to the method of Todasco in view of Yu and Yu et al. (US Pat No. 9626577-B1), Wei, and Smith in order to improve the accuracy of monitoring (Fleisher ¶0012 & ¶0071 ).
With respect to claim 12, the combination of Todasco in view of Yu and Yu et al. (US Pat No. 9626577-B1), Wei, Smith, and Fleisher teaches the system of claim 9 (see rejection of claim 9 above) wherein the processor is further configured to perform the method further comprising: compare the received image (Todasco: ¶0062 :As seen in Figure 1A and Figure 2B, user device 110 captures image 1100 to determine whether the additional data within image 1100 or detected when image 1100 is captured indicates that a displayable code in image 1100 is potentially fraudulent and includes malicious data.) to a plurality of images of QR codes that both include and do not include tampering, (Todasco: ¶0062-0063: Menu 1102 may have been captured through one or more past images by user device 110 and/or another device, which may have previously been used to determine whether code 1116 is fraudulent or valid, or may have been used to validate code 1116 or add code 1116 to a blacklist (e.g., based on computing attack attempt or success))
wherein the plurality of images of QR codes (Todasco: ¶0062: Such data may be compared to stored data or expected, learned, or registered locations of valid codes, as well as a blacklist of invalid or fraudulent codes. This allows user device 110 to determine whether code 1116 is fraudulent in the merchant environment.) were stored in a computer; (Todasco: ¶0050: As seen in Figure 1A, the transaction processor 150 includes database 156. Database 156 may also store one or more blacklists of invalid and fraudulent codes or devices, which may be used to determine if code output object 140 is fraudulent & ¶0047 Transaction processing application 152 may correspond to one or more processes to execute modules and associated specialized hardware of transaction processor 150 to process a transaction.)
and determine that the received image is similar to at least one of the plurality of images of QR codes stored in the computer. (Todasco: ¶0062-0063: Based on the layout of the previous images of menu 1102 and/or registered information of placement of code 1116 on menu 1102 or within a merchant location corresponding to image 1100, a risk and/or fraud score of a likelihood of fraud or validity of code 1116 may be determined).
With respect to claim 14, the combination of Todasco in view of Yu and Yu et al. (US Pat No. 9626577-B1), Wei, Smith, and Fleisher teaches the system of claim 9 (see rejection of claim 9 above) wherein the processor is further configured to perform the method further comprising: identify any text in the image; and determine that the identified text includes one or more misspelled words, wherein a presence of misspelled words indicates tampering. (Todasco: ¶0064: As seen in Figure 2B, additional data in image 1100, such as font, color, fading or age, misspelling or of nuanced textual/image data, or other characteristics of the displayed information on menu 1102 may be used to determine if menu 1102 appears as expected or may be fraudulently placed with malicious data for code 1116.).
With respect to claim 15, Todasco teaches computer program product (¶0083: Where applicable, various embodiments provided by the present disclosure may be implemented using hardware, software, or combinations of hardware and software) comprising a computer readable storage medium having a computer readable program stored therein, wherein the computer readable program, when executed by a processor, causes the processor to perform a method comprising: (¶0084: Software, in accordance with the present disclosure, such as program code and/or data, may be stored on one or more computer readable mediums. It is also contemplated that software identified herein may be implemented using one or more general purpose or specific purpose computers and/or computer systems, networked and/or otherwise.);
receive an image, including a QR code and a surrounding area adjacent the QR code and within the image, by a mobile device; (¶0016-0017: When capturing (receiving) an image or broadcast of the code (QR code), additional data may also be captured at a time corresponding to the capture data. The image may also directly include the additional data, such as background objects within the image and/or nearby the code within the image. Thus, the additional data may correspond to any contextual data that assists in further describing the capture data of the code or wireless device.);
inspect the QR code and the surrounding area within the image by the mobile device; (¶0033-0035: As seen in Figure 1A, once the capture data of code data 142 from code output object 140 is detected, code processing application 130 may process the additional data to determine whether the code is fraudulent, or the device is transmitting fraudulent data. Code processing application 130 may also process a layout, placement, or detection (visually inspecting) of additional objects within the capture data to determine if the code/wireless device is placed at an expected or valid location.);
determine presence of that any objects located within the surrounding area in the image; (¶0056: Figure 2A, is an exemplary environment real-world environment where a user may capture a QR code that is analyzed to determine it was been fraudulently placed in the real-world environment, according to an environment. Environment 200a of Figure 2A includes user device 110 discussed in reference to system 100a of Figure 1A. Additionally, environment 200a includes a stand 1008 (object is located the QR code) that displays a QR code 1004, where stand 1008 and QR code 1004 may correspond to code output object 140 and code data 142, respectively, in a system 100a.);
when tampering is indicated, alert a user of the mobile device to physically check the QR code and the surrounding area for tampering. (¶0021: If the capture data indicates fraud, the user's computing device may delay and/or refuse processing and may further notify the user of the fraudulent code/wireless device. The user may be notified through a message displayed with the malicious or fraudulent capture data on the user's device. The message may indicate that the code/wireless device is suspicious or fraudulent and may provide further information on removal of the code/wireless device or where a valid or trustworthy code/wireless device is located.);
Todasco does not disclose:
provide a bounding box around edges of the QR code within the image by the mobile device;
However, Yu teaches provide a bounding box around edges of the QR code within the image by the mobile device; (¶0020-0033: In some embodiments, the data extraction system may generate a bounding box for each group characters identified in the image. The user device 110, in one embodiment, includes a user interface (UI) application 112 (e.g., a web browser, a mobile payment application, etc.), which may be utilized by the user 140 to interact with the merchant server 120 and/or the service provider server 130 over the network 160.Further in ¶0080: As seen in Figure 6, in some embodiments, at least a portion of processing 600 may be performed by data extraction module 132. The process 600 begins by processing (at step 605) an image to determine bounding boxes in the image. For example, the image processing module 204 may use one or more OCR techniques to identify characters in the image. The image processing module 204 may also translate any code (e.g., bar codes, QR codes) in the image into characters. ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention utilize the teachings of Yu with regards to providing a bounding box around the QR code by mobile device determining the area surrounding the QR code by mobile device to the method of Todasco in order to better analyze images and identify relationships within an image (Yu ¶0002-0016).
Todasco in view of Yu does not disclose:
determine the surrounding area outside the bounding box within the image by the mobile device;
However, Yu et al. (US Pat No. 9626577-B1) teaches determine the surrounding area outside the bounding box within the image by the mobile device; (¶0001: Mobile electronic devices such as tablet computers and smart phones commonly include cameras. Software on mobile device may process captured images to identify image to identify and recognize text and glyph symbols ¶0030: In the preprocessor, a bounding box may be generated that bounds a line of text. The bounding box may bound the glyph region. Value(s) for the image/region suitability metric(s) may be calculated for the portion of the image outside bounding box (surrounding are outside bounding box) . The value(s) for inside the bounding box. The value(s) for inside the bounding box may then be compared to value(s) outside the boundary box to make another determination on the suitability of the image. This determination may also use a classifier.);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention utilize the teachings of Yu et al. (US Pat No. 9626577-B1) with regards to determining the surrounding area outside the bounding box within the image by the mobile device to the method of Todasco in view of Yu in order to better analyze image (Yu et al. (US Pat No. 9626577-B1) ¶0009-0010).
Todasco in view of Yu and Yu et al. (US Pat No. 9626577-B1) does not disclose:
detect the edges of the QR code within the image by the mobile device;
Todasco does teach detecting the QR code via mobile device, Todasco does not disclose the detecting the edges of the QR code. However, Wei teaches detecting the edges of the QR code within the image by the mobile device; (¶0043-0047: Illustrated in Figure 2, step S201, wherein the method includes identifying edges of the QR code. According to the edges of the QR code obtained at step S201, the area within the edges where the QR code is located according to the coordinate information.);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention utilize the teachings of Wei with regards to detecting edges of the QR Code to the method of Todasco in view of Yu and Yu et al. (US Pat No. 9626577-B1) in order to determine the presence and locate the QR code on a product or picture (Wei ¶0035).
Todasco in view of Yu, Yu et al. (US Pat No. 9626577-B1), and Wei does not disclose:
detect contrast sensitivity of the image by the mobile device;
Todasco does teach detecting an image via mobile device, Todasco does not disclose the detecting contrast sensitivity. However, Smith teaches detect contrast sensitivity of the image by the mobile device; (¶0042: More specifically, in an embodiment, method 300 comprises obtaining an image of each of the two codes (one of the codes include QR code ¶0017) and determining, for each image, a contrast ratio between one or more elements of the code and the background of the code).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention utilize the teachings of Smith with regards to detecting contrast sensitivity of the image to the method of Todasco in view of Yu, Yu et al. (US Pat No. 9626577-B1), and Wei in order to determine the code on the product is authentic and ensures that the product is not reused or a counterfeit . (Smith ¶0002 & 0014).
Todasco in view of Yu, Yu et al. (US Pat No. 9626577-B1), Wei, and Smith does not disclose:
determine a first contrast level of the QR code and a second contrast level of the surrounding area within the image; determine that the first contrast level and the second contrast level differ, wherein a difference indicates tampering; and
However, Fleisher teaches determine a first contrast level of the QR code and a second contrast level of the surrounding area within the image; determining that the first contrast level and the second contrast level differ, wherein a difference indicates tampering; and (¶0071: As example and referring to Figure 6, the characteristics of test-image features of test data corresponding to image portion 144 from test image 140 may be compared to characteristics of reference-image features of reference data corresponding to image portion 146 of reference image 142. In this simple example of comparing two intensity images, it is seen that an area of interest (e.g., QR code) that shows up as a bright area in the test image is given a higher level of contrast to the surrounding body areas (surrounding area), indicating that there is an anomaly in this area. The difference image or more generally the FOM can then be compared to the known statistics or images for objects, or pixels patterns and features characteristic of known objects or otherwise analyzed to determine the presence or absence of an object, and if present the likely type of object that it is. Additionally or alternatively, the suspect area may be identified in a display to an operator to alert her or him to examine the test subject to determine what the object is);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention utilize the teachings of Fleisher with regards to comparing the contrast levels between selected area, such as a QR code, and surrounding area to indicate tampering to the method of Todasco in view of Yu and Yu et al. (US Pat No. 9626577-B1), Wei, and Smith in order to improve the accuracy of monitoring (Fleisher ¶0012 & ¶0071 ).
With respect to claim 18, the combination of Todasco in view of Yu and Yu et al. (US Pat No. 9626577-B1), Wei, Smith, and Fleisher teaches the computer program product of claim 15 (see rejection of claim 15 above) wherein the computer readable program causes the processor to: compare the received image of the QR code (Todasco: ¶0062 :As seen in Figure 1A and Figure 2B, user device 110 captures image 1100 to determine whether the additional data within image 1100 or detected when image 1100 is captured indicates that a displayable code in image 1100 is potentially fraudulent and includes malicious data.) to a plurality of images of QR codes that both include and do not include tampering, (Todasco: ¶0062-0063: Menu 1102 may have been captured through one or more past images by user device 110 and/or another device, which may have previously been used to determine whether code 1116 is fraudulent or valid, or may have been used to validate code 1116 or add code 1116 to a blacklist (e.g., based on computing attack attempt or success)).
wherein the plurality of images of QR codes (Todasco: ¶0062: Such data may be compared to stored data or expected, learned, or registered locations of valid codes, as well as a blacklist of invalid or fraudulent codes. This allows user device 110 to determine whether code 1116 is fraudulent in the merchant environment.) were stored in a computer; (Todasco: ¶0050: As seen in Figure 1A, the transaction processor 150 includes database 156. Database 156 may also store one or more blacklists of invalid and fraudulent codes or devices, which may be used to determine if code output object 140 is fraudulent & ¶0047 Transaction processing application 152 may correspond to one or more processes to execute modules and associated specialized hardware of transaction processor 150 to process a transaction.)
and determine that the received image of the QR code is similar to at least one of the plurality of images of QR codes stored in the computer. (Todasco: ¶0062-0063: Based on the layout of the previous images of menu 1102 and/or registered information of placement of code 1116 on menu 1102 or within a merchant location corresponding to image 1100, a risk and/or fraud score of a likelihood of fraud or validity of code 1116 may be determined).
With respect to claim 20, the combination of Todasco in view of Yu and Yu et al. (US Pat No. 9626577-B1), Wei, Smith, and Fleisher teaches the computer program product of claim 15 (see rejection of claim 15 above) wherein the computer readable program causes the processor to: identify any text in the image; and determine that the identified text includes one or more misspelled words, wherein a presence of misspelled words indicates tampering. (Todasco: ¶0064: As seen in Figure 2B, additional data in image 1100, such as font, color, fading or age, misspelling or of nuanced textual/image data, or other characteristics of the displayed information on menu 1102 may be used to determine if menu 1102 appears as expected or may be fraudulently placed with malicious data for code 1116.).
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 TAYLOR P VU whose telephone number is (703)756-1218. The examiner can normally be reached MON - FRI (7:30 - 5:00).
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, Alexander Lagor can be reached at (571) 270-5143. 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.
/T.P.V./Examiner, Art Unit 2437
/MENG LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2437
Prosecution Insights