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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ching, US Pub. 2015/0227947, in view of Wang et al, CN 110008779.
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 9, Ching discloses a system and method for authenticity verification comprising: (figure 1, paragraphs 2 and 30, "computer implemented system") at least one processor (figure 1, paragraphs 2 and 30, "computer implemented system", a computer implemented system implies at least one computer/processor) configured to: acquire check data generated by scanning a printed product of an image including
Ching does not expressly teach mapping the scan derive check data onto a digital 3D data representing the attachment target in a virtual space and viewing the mapped data from a predetermined virtual viewpoint.
Wang et al disclose a stereoscopic two-dimensional code processing method and device comprising: selecting a 3D object model and obtaining special-coordinate information for the model; using the 3D object model as a reference; establishing a world coordinate system, an observation coordinate system, and a camera/screen coordinate system; constructing a 3D curved surface representing the object geometry and maps the planar QR-code information onto the surface; scanning the resulting 3D QR-code representing from the front at an appropriate (see Figs. 1-3 and the US translation).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ching’s system by employing the 3D modeling, mapping, and viewing technique taught by wang et al when evaluating a printed QR-code image to be associated with a 3D product. Such modification would permit evaluation of the machine readable code while accounting for the surface geometry and viewing position as an effective QR-code recognition. Therefore, it would have been an obvious extension as taught by the prior art.
Regarding claim 2, Ching teaches that the processor is configured to: acquire an instruction to start printing of the image by an image forming apparatus; and if the 3D data is present, attach the check data generated by scanning the printed product of the image to the 3D data (figure 3C, numbers 315 and 317 may be regarded to be 3D data, as opposed to figure 3B, numbers 309 and 311).
Regarding claim 3, Ching teaches that the processor is configured to: if the 3D data is not present, generate 2D check data by scanning the printed product of the image; and check the validity of the URL link information in the 2D check data (figure 38, numbers 309 and 311 may be regarded to be 2D data, as opposed to figure 3C, numbers 315 and 317).
Regarding claim 4, Ching teaches that the processor is configured to further check the validity of the URL link information by viewing the check data from a viewpoint different from the predetermined viewpoint (figure 3, figure 6, steps 601 to 602, paragraph 95, "the 2D code is read and decoded", implies any appropriate viewpoint for reading and decoding the 2D code symbol).
Regarding claim 5, Ching teaches that the processor is configured to output a result of checking on the validity of the URL link information to a display screen of an image forming apparatus (figure 6, steps 613, 631 and 632, paragraph 95, "a notification is sent to the consumer or the business user that the product is authentic ... all stakeholders of the product will be notified of possible counterfeit", outputting a notification on a display screen is deemed normal).
Regarding claim 6, Ching teaches that the processor is configured to: generate correct data by rasterizing the image (paragraph 37, "such information is formatted to suit a specific requirement to be printed", rasterizing is deemed to be a normal printing technique); and
compare the correct data and the check data (figure 6, steps 603 to 640, paragraph 95).
Regarding claim 7, Ching teaches that the processor is configured to output a result of comparison between the correct data and the check data and a result of checking on the validity of the URL link information to a display screen of an image forming apparatus (figure 6, steps
613, 631 and 632, paragraph 95, "a notification is sent to the consumer or the business user that the product is authentic ... all stakeholders of the product will be notified of possible counterfeit", outputting a notification on a display screen is deemed normal).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-9 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Remarks:
In response to the applicant argument that the prior art fails to disclose checking validity by viewing the check data mapped onto a 3D data from a predetermined viewpoint in a virtual space, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The new prior art (Wang et al) discloses a stereoscopic two-dimensional code processing method and device comprising: selecting a 3D object model and obtaining special-coordinate information for the model; using the 3D object model as a reference; establishing a world coordinate system, an observation coordinate system, and a camera/screen coordinate system; constructing a 3D curved surface representing the object geometry and maps the planar QR-code information onto the surface; scanning the resulting 3D QR-code representing from the front at an appropriate (see Figs. 1-3 and the US translation). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ching’s system by employing the 3D modeling, mapping, and viewing technique taught by wang et al when evaluating a printed QR-code image to be associated with a 3D product. Such modification would permit evaluation of the machine readable code while accounting for the surface geometry and viewing position as an effective QR-code recognition. Therefore, it would have been an obvious extension as taught by the prior art. The applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Refer to the rejection above.
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 DANIEL ST CYR whose telephone number is (571)272-2407. The examiner can normally be reached M to F 8:00-8:00.
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, Pham Thomas can be reached at 571-272-3689. 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.
DANIEL ST CYR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2876
/DANIEL ST CYR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
Prosecution Insights