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 .
Notice to Applications
This communication is in response to the Application filed on October 10, 2023.
Claims 1-16 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS(s)) submitted on October 10, 2023 and December 28, 2023 are in compliance with the provisions of 27 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered and attached by the examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d).
The certified copies have been filed as Application No. 2021109020.2, filed on April 12, 2021.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-16 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 claim 1, the claim recites “the marking content” in lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Claims 2-16 inherit this insufficient antecedent basis in view of their dependency to claim 1. For examination purposes, the limitation “the marking content” will be read as “the optically readable marking content”.
Regarding claim 12, the claim recites “the digital indicator” in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation “the digital indicator” will be read as “indicator data”.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 9 recites the limitation, “at least one processing step”. The Examiner is unsure how to interpret “at least one processing step” because Applicant does not include any prior mention of the limitation nor disclose the meaning of the limitation within the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable of Weiss et al., US 20200099694 A1, (hereinafter “Weiss”) in view of Belt et al., US 20190095658 A1, (hereinafter “Belt”).
Regarding claim 1, Weiss teaches a method for providing a digital identifier
- providing
- display an optically readable marking content, and
- includes marking element features formed separately from the marking content ([0070] “The randomness involved originates from the manufacturing tolerances in the production and/or application process of such security devices and manifest e.g. in the position, distribution and/or optically variable characteristics. By capturing and examining those random features and registering their digital representations 12 to the object identifier 7,” wherein optically readable marking content are optically variable characteristics and marking element features are random features);
- capturing an image by an imaging device, wherein the image shows the marking at least in sections ([0019] “In a preferred embodiment of the present teaching, the irreproducibility is achieved in that the security device comprises a 3-dimensional structure having a random distribution of perspective-dependent optical characteristics which are registered to the object identifier and the uniquely identifiable programmable device comprises a camera which may be used to capture at least two images of said security device from at least two different perspectives or with two different lighting conditions.” wherein an imaging device is a camera);
- determining at least one marking element feature for one or more of the marking elements, wherein to this end digital image data are evaluated for the image ([0070] “Summing up, in a preferable setting such irreproducible security devices 6 comprise random, three-dimensional optically variable, properties, especially changing optical characteristics when observed from different perspectives and/or with different light sources. By having the camera capture at least two images from at least two different perspectives, these properties may be examined by evaluation of the respective appearance and/or a change of appearance.” wherein marking element features are optical characteristics and digital image data is the images);
- generating feature data indicating the at least one marking element feature ([0070] “The randomness involved originates from the manufacturing tolerances in the production and/or application process of such security devices and manifest e.g. in the position, distribution and/or optically variable characteristics. By capturing and examining those random features and registering their digital representations 12 to the object identifier 7,” wherein feature data is digital representations of random features);
- determining a digital identifier ([0020] “The uniquely identifiable object may comprise an object identifier, wherein said object identifier is encoded in human- or machine-readable format, in particular as numerical or alpha-numerical number or as a barcode or 2D code.” wherein a digital identifier is the object identifier and the workpiece is the uniquely identifiable object); and
- storing the digital identifier as an identifier ([0080] “If a programmable device 5 with the unique device identifier 8 “A” establishes a valid link 4 at authentication time 16, this link 4 is stored in a data base 9.” wherein the digital identifier is the unique device identifier and an electronic memory is a database).
Weiss does not specifically disclose a workpiece.
However, Belt teaches a workpiece ([0051] “Automated manufacturing device may include a computer numerical control (CNC) machine or other subtractive device, which forms a workpiece into a product by removal of material as directed by computer instructions;”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the digital identifying method of Weiss to a workpiece, of Belt, to identify and track workpiece components, thereby improving the efficiency of manufacturing production.
Regarding claim 2, Weiss in view of Belt teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein during the determining of the at least one marking element feature, an error feature is determined, which is an actual feature that deviates from a target feature for the one or more marking elements (Weiss - [0105] “Optionally further preconditions (such as that the geographic location or other sensor readings of the programmable device is/are within a predefined acceptable range) may be evaluated 106 before authenticating the irreproducible security device. If the security device cannot be authenticated, the procedure is cancelled without establishing a new link.” wherein an error feature is preconditions for authentication).
The motivation for combining Weiss and Belt is the same motivation as used for claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Weiss in view of Belt teaches the method according to claim 2, wherein the error feature indicates at least one deviation from the following group (Weiss - [0105] “Optionally further preconditions (such as that the geographic location or other sensor readings of the programmable device is/are within a predefined acceptable range) may be evaluated 106 before authenticating the irreproducible security device. If the security device cannot be authenticated, the procedure is cancelled without establishing a new link.” wherein an error feature is preconditions for authentication):
- deviation of a marking element position from a target position (Weiss - [0013] “In a preferred embodiment of the present teaching one or more of a group of additional preconditions are verified to establish a link, said group of additional preconditions comprising: the geographic location of the uniquely identifiable programmable device is within a predefined geographic area;” wherein deviation of a marking element position from a target position is the geographic location being within a predefined geographic area);
- deviation of a marking element shape from a target shape;
- deviation of a marking element size from a target size;
- deviation of a marking element brightness from a target brightness;
- deviation of a marking element contrast from a target contrast;
- deviation of a marking element spacing from a target spacing; and
- deviation of a relative marking element position in relation to another marking element and / or an arrangement grid from a relative target position.
The motivation for combining Weiss and Belt is the same motivation as used for claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Weiss in view of Belt teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the digital identifier is determined as a checksum of the marking data (Belt - [0072] “At least a metadatum may include a metadatum combining user-entered and automatedly generated data, such as a digital signature containing an automatedly generated checksum or hash of the file contents and a user-entered name, which are then automatedly encrypted using a private key.”) (Weiss - [0020] “The uniquely identifiable object may comprise an object identifier, wherein said object identifier is encoded in human- or machine-readable format, in particular as numerical or alpha-numerical number or as a barcode or 2D code.” wherein a digital identifier is the object identifier).
The motivation for combining Weiss and Belt is the same motivation as used for claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, Weiss in view of Belt teaches the method according to claim 4, wherein the checksum is determined as a hash value of the marking data (Belt - [0072] “At least a metadatum may include a metadatum combining user-entered and automatedly generated data, such as a digital signature containing an automatedly generated checksum or hash of the file contents and a user-entered name, which are then automatedly encrypted using a private key.”) (Weiss - [0070] “The randomness involved originates from the manufacturing tolerances in the production and/or application process of such security devices and manifest e.g. in the position, distribution and/or optically variable characteristics. By capturing and examining those random features and registering their digital representations 12 to the object identifier 7,” wherein marking data is optically variable characteristics).
The motivation for combining Weiss and Belt is the same motivation as used for claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, Weiss in view of Belt teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the digital identifier for the workpiece is determined from marking data including content data that at least partially indicate the optically readable marking content (Weiss - [0020] “The uniquely identifiable object may comprise an object identifier, wherein said object identifier is encoded in human- or machine-readable format, in particular as numerical or alpha-numerical number or as a barcode or 2D code.” wherein the digital identifier is the object identifier) (Belt - [0051] “Automated manufacturing device may include a computer numerical control (CNC) machine or other subtractive device, which forms a workpiece into a product by removal of material as directed by computer instructions;”) (Weiss - [0070] “The randomness involved originates from the manufacturing tolerances in the production and/or application process of such security devices and manifest e.g. in the position, distribution and/or optically variable characteristics. By capturing and examining those random features and registering their digital representations 12 to the object identifier 7,” wherein marking data including content data are optically variable characteristics).
The motivation for combining Weiss and Belt is the same motivation as used for claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, Weiss in view of Belt teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the following is further provided:
- determining at least one workpiece feature for an area outside the marking on the workpiece, wherein to this end the digital image data for the image and/or further digital image data for a further image are evaluated (Belt - [0051] “Automated manufacturing device may include a computer numerical control (CNC) machine or other subtractive device, which forms a workpiece into a product by removal of material as directed by computer instructions;” wherein one workpiece feature for an area outside the marking on the workpiece is a workpiece formed by removal of material as directed by computer instructions) (Weiss - [0070] “Summing up, in a preferable setting such irreproducible security devices 6 comprise random, three-dimensional optically variable, properties, especially changing optical characteristics when observed from different perspectives and/or with different light sources. By having the camera capture at least two images from at least two different perspectives, these properties may be examined by evaluation of the respective appearance and/or a change of appearance.” wherein digital image data is the images);
- generating workpiece feature data that indicate the at least one workpiece feature (Belt - [0051] “Automated manufacturing device may include a computer numerical control (CNC) machine or other subtractive device, which forms a workpiece into a product by removal of material as directed by computer instructions;”) (Weiss - [0064] “The physical proximity is ensured by authenticating an irreproducible security device 6 of the uniquely identifiable object 3 by optical authentication means, e.g. by capturing it with a camera,” wherein workpiece feature data is the captured uniquely identifiable object); and
- determining the digital identifier for the workpiece from marking data including the workpiece feature data (Belt - [0051] “Automated manufacturing device may include a computer numerical control (CNC) machine or other subtractive device, which forms a workpiece into a product by removal of material as directed by computer instructions;”) (Weiss - [0080] “If a programmable device 5 with the unique device identifier 8 “A” establishes a valid link 4 at authentication time 16, this link 4 is stored in a data base 9.” wherein the digital identifier is the unique device identifier and an electronic memory is a database) (Weiss - [0070] “The randomness involved originates from the manufacturing tolerances in the production and/or application process of such security devices and manifest e.g. in the position, distribution and/or optically variable characteristics. By capturing and examining those random features and registering their digital representations 12 to the object identifier 7,” wherein marking data is optically variable characteristics).
The motivation for combining Weiss and Belt is the same motivation as used for claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, Weiss in view of Belt teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein a workpiece from the following group is provided as the workpiece: blank, processed blank, component, component group, metal component, processed component, processed component group, processed metal component, semi- finished material, semi-finished product, sub-assemblies, assembly group, assembly part, moulding, finished component, and finished assembly (Belt - [0051] “Automated manufacturing device may include a computer numerical control (CNC) machine or other subtractive device, which forms a workpiece into a product by removal of material as directed by computer instructions;” wherein a workpiece is a semi-finished product).
The motivation for combining Weiss and Belt is the same motivation as used for claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, Weiss in view of Belt teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the image is captured after the workpiece provided with the marking has been processed according to at least one processing step (Weiss - [0019] “In a preferred embodiment of the present teaching, the irreproducibility is achieved in that the security device comprises a 3-dimensional structure having a random distribution of perspective-dependent optical characteristics which are registered to the object identifier and the uniquely identifiable programmable device comprises a camera which may be used to capture at least two images of said security device from at least two different perspectives or with two different lighting conditions.”) (Belt - [0051] “Automated manufacturing device may include a computer numerical control (CNC) machine or other subtractive device, which forms a workpiece into a product by removal of material as directed by computer instructions;”) (Belt - [0023] “With continued reference to FIG. 2, body 200 includes a second part 204 and a first part 208. Second part 208 may be attached to first part 204 by any suitable means, including adhesion, heat-fusion, connection using interlocking projections and/or cavities, and the like.” wherein at least one processing step is heat-fusion).
The motivation for combining Weiss and Belt is the same motivation as used for claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, Weiss in view of Belt teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein a workpiece is provided with a marking including a data matrix code, wherein modules of the data matrix code form the marking elements (Belt - [0051] “Automated manufacturing device may include a computer numerical control (CNC) machine or other subtractive device, which forms a workpiece into a product by removal of material as directed by computer instructions;”) (Weiss - [0020] “The uniquely identifiable object may comprise an object identifier, wherein said object identifier is encoded in human- or machine-readable format, in particular as numerical or alpha-numerical number or as a barcode or 2D code. The use of machine-readable codes, such as barcodes or 2D codes, turned out beneficially, since the identifier has to be read by the uniquely identifiable programmable device.” wherein a data matrix code is a barcode or 2D code).
The motivation for combining Weiss and Belt is the same motivation as used for claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, Weiss in view of Belt teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the provision of the workpiece includes an application of the marking to the workpiece, wherein the marking elements are produced using at least one marking method from the following group: ink printing, laser engraving, needle embossing, applying a label, applying marker elements such as magnetic particles, emitting particles or the like, mechanical engraving, stamping processes, screen printing, coatings, and plotting (Belt - [0051] “Automated manufacturing device may include a computer numerical control (CNC) machine or other subtractive device, which forms a workpiece into a product by removal of material as directed by computer instructions;”) (Belt - [0019] “In an aspect, an electromagnetic marking device includes a first part with a signal generator and a second part that acts as a clip to attach the electromagnetic marking device to an object to be labeled.” wherein a label is applied via electromagnetic marking).
The motivation for combining Weiss and Belt is the same motivation as used for claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, Weiss in view of Belt teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein
- storing workpiece data associated with the digital identifier for the workpiece in the electronic memory (Belt - [0051] “Automated manufacturing device may include a computer numerical control (CNC) machine or other subtractive device, which forms a workpiece into a product by removal of material as directed by computer instructions;”) (Weiss - [0080] “If a programmable device 5 with the unique device identifier 8 “A” establishes a valid link 4 at authentication time 16, this link 4 is stored in a data base 9.” wherein the digital identifier is the unique device identifier and an electronic memory is a database);
- receiving a request to access the workpiece data in an access device capable of accessing data in the electronic memory, wherein indicator data indicating a digital request identifier are received with the request (Weiss - [0105] “One possibility to authenticate the irreproducible security device 6 is: to request 103 a reference of a digital representation of an irreproducible security device from a data base using the unique object identifier (i.e. querying the database for digital representations associated with the unique object identifier);” wherein an access device is the irreproducible security device and indicator data is a digital representation);
- checking whether the digital request identifier matches the digital indicator (Weiss - [0105] “to extract 104 characteristic features of the irreproducible security device 6 from captured images, determine a digital representation of the irreproducible security device 6 and compare the digital representation with the requested reference.” wherein the digital request identifier is the requested reference and the digital indicator is a digital representation); and
- granting the requested access to the workpiece data if it is established that the digital request identifier matches the digital identifier within a specified error tolerance (Weiss - [0105] “If this comparison is successful 105 (i.e. the comparison determines a match), physical proximity between the uniquely identifiable programmable device and the uniquely identifiable object is guaranteed. Optionally further preconditions (such as that the geographic location or other sensor readings of the programmable device is/are within a predefined acceptable range) may be evaluated 106 before authenticating the irreproducible security device. If the security device cannot be authenticated, the procedure is cancelled without establishing a new link.” wherein a specified error tolerance is a predefined acceptable range).
The motivation for combining Weiss and Belt is the same motivation as used for claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, Weiss in view of Belt teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the following is provided for tracking the workpiece:
- capturing a current image showing the marking on the workpiece at least in sections;
- determining at least one current marking element feature for one or more of the marking elements, wherein to this end digital image data are evaluated for the following image (Belt - [0051] “Automated manufacturing device may include a computer numerical control (CNC) machine or other subtractive device, which forms a workpiece into a product by removal of material as directed by computer instructions;”) (Weiss - [0019] “In a preferred embodiment of the present teaching, the irreproducibility is achieved in that the security device comprises a 3-dimensional structure having a random distribution of perspective-dependent optical characteristics which are registered to the object identifier and the uniquely identifiable programmable device comprises a camera which may be used to capture at least two images of said security device from at least two different perspectives or with two different lighting conditions.” wherein a current image is captured by a camera and current marking element features are optical characteristics);
- generating current feature data indicating the at least one current marking element feature (Weiss - [0070] “The randomness involved originates from the manufacturing tolerances in the production and/or application process of such security devices and manifest e.g. in the position, distribution and/or optically variable characteristics. By capturing and examining those random features and registering their digital representations 12 to the object identifier 7,” wherein current feature data is digital representations of random features);
- determining a current digital identifier for the workpiece from current marking data including the current feature data (Weiss - [0020] “The uniquely identifiable object may comprise an object identifier, wherein said object identifier is encoded in human- or machine-readable format, in particular as numerical or alpha-numerical number or as a barcode or 2D code.” wherein a current digital identifier is the object identifier); and
- determining whether the current digital identifier matches the digital identifier in the electronic memory (Weiss - [0044] “authenticating the irreproducible security device if the digital representation matches (either exactly or by having a suitable distance measure smaller than a certain threshold) the reference.”).
The motivation for combining Weiss and Belt is the same motivation as used for claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, Weiss in view of Belt teaches an electronic database for electronically registering and tracking workpieces, including digital identifiers that are electronically stored in a database storage element, are respectively stored associated with a workpiece, and have been determined in accordance with a method according to claim 1 (Belt - [0051] “Automated manufacturing device may include a computer numerical control (CNC) machine or other subtractive device, which forms a workpiece into a product by removal of material as directed by computer instructions;”) (Weiss - [0080] “If a programmable device 5 with the unique device identifier 8 “A” establishes a valid link 4 at authentication time 16, this link 4 is stored in a data base 9.” wherein the digital identifier is the unique device identifier and an electronic database is a database).
The motivation for combining Weiss and Belt is the same motivation as used for claim 1.
Regarding claim 15, Weiss in view of Belt teaches a token, comprising a digital identifier associated with a workpiece and determined in accordance with a method according to claim 1 (Weiss - [0087] “Physical restricted token; Place a physical object in a physically restricted area. Only people allowed to the physically restricted area are able to authenticate the token-object and therefore only these people are allowed to access a certain digital service (i.e. acquire the privilege to access to said service via a link to the physical object).”) (Belt - [0051] “Automated manufacturing device may include a computer numerical control (CNC) machine or other subtractive device, which forms a workpiece into a product by removal of material as directed by computer instructions;”).
The motivation for combining Weiss and Belt is the same motivation as used for claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, Weiss in view of Belt teaches a device for generating a token, comprising one or more processors that are configured to generate a token according to claim 15 (Belt - [0072] “At step 1110, and still viewing FIG. 11, at least a metadatum is generated at receiving device 128. A metadatum, as used herein, is an element of data describing the file, as distinguished from an element of data making up the contents of the file… At least a metadatum may include, without limitation,… a digital signature encrypting a datum having a mathematical relationship to the file using the private key of a public key cryptographic system” wherein a token is a private key).
The motivation for combining Weiss and Belt is the same motivation as used for claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMANDA PEARSON whose telephone number is (703)-756-5786. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 - 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, Emily Terrell can be reached on (571)- 270-3717. 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.
/AMANDA H PEARSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2666
/MING Y HON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2666