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 .
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 18-34 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.
Claim 18 recites “which optionally partially overlap” in lines 3-4. The term “optionally” in claim 18 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “optionally” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear to the Examiner what conditions make the limitation “partially overlapping” as optional.
Similarly, claims 26, 29, 30, 34, recite “which optionally partially overlap”. Therefore, the claims are indefinite for the same reason as claim 18.
Claim 18 recites “as-signed” in line 6. The Examiner believes this to be a grammatical error. The Examiner suggests amending the limitation to “assign”.
Claim 18 recites “value documents” in lines 2, 5. This limitation was already recited in line 1. The Examiner suggests amending the limitation to read as “the value documents”.
Claim 18 recites “digital training images in line 5 and “training images” in lines 8 and 14. It is unclear to the Examiner whether these limitations are the same or different from each other.
Claim 18 recites “template” in line 14. The limitation was already recited in line 1. Therefore, it is unclear to the Examiner whether the template in line 14 is the same or different from the templates in line 1.
Claim 18 recites “predefined production elements” in line 3 and “the production elements” in lines 9-10. It is unclear to the Examiner whether these limitations are the same or different from each other.
Claim 19 recites “double the predefined number or more than double the predefined number of position data sets” in lines 4-5. The Examiner believes the limitation has one or more grammatical errors.
Claim 19 recites “the respective current position sub-region” in line 8 (emphasis added). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites “position sub-region” in line 11. It is unclear to the Examiner whether the limitation in line 11 is the same or different from the limitations “current position sub-region”, “the respective current position sub-region”, or “the newly formed position sub-regions” in lines 3, 6, 8, respectively.
Claim 19 recites “the first division step” in line 11 (emphasis added). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites “division steps” in line 12. This limitation was already recited in line 2. Therefore, the Examiner suggests amending the limitation to read as “the division steps”.
Claim 20 recites “one of the dimensions” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites “a position sub-region” in line 3. It is unclear to the Examiner whether the limitation in line 3 is the same or different from the limitations in line 11 of claim 19 and line 11 of claim 18.
Claim 21 recites “the criterion” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 22 recites “the criterion” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 23 recites “the criterion” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 24 recites “the criterion” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 25 recites “those training value documents” in lines 2-4 (emphasis added). This limitation was already recited in line 5 of claim 18. It is unclear to the Examiner whether the limitation in lines 2-4 of claim 25 is the same or different from the limitation in line 5 of claim 18.
Claim 25 recites “whose position data sets (emphasis added)” in line 2. This limitation was already recited in line 8 of claim 18. It is unclear to the Examiner whether the limitation in line 2 of claim 25 is the same or different from the limitation in line 8 of claim 18.
Claim 25 recites “the respective position sub-region (emphasis added)” in lines 3, 5. This limitation was already recited in line 11 of claim 18. It is unclear to the Examiner whether the limitation in lines 3, 5 of claim 25 is the same or different from the limitation in line 11 of claim 18.
Claim 25 recites “training images” in line 4. This limitation was already recited in lines 5, 8 of claim 18. It is unclear to the Examiner whether the limitation in line 4 of claim 25 is the same or different from the limitation in lines 5, 8 of claim 18.
Claim 25 recites “the boundary” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 26 recites “method according to the invention according to claim” in lines 10-11. It is unclear to the Examiner which claim number that claim 26 is using as its method. The Examiner suggests amending the limitation to read as “method according 18”.
Claim 26 recites a device using the method of claim 18 (although the claim number is missing, the Examiner will interpret the method to be of claim 18 in order to expedite prosecution). Claim 26 recites similar limitations as claim 18, so claim 26 requires similar corrections as claim 18. In addition, the claim recites “a storage unit and/or the storage unit” in line 15. The limitation seems to have grammatical errors due to repeating storage units.
Claim 29 recites “a value document” in line 7. This limitation was already recited in line 1. It is unclear to the Examiner whether the limitation in line 7 is the same or different from the limitation in line 1.
Claim 29 recites “a template” in line 11. This limitation was already recited in line 4. It is unclear to the Examiner whether the limitation in line 11 is the same or different from the limitation in line 4.
Claim 31 recites “a value document” in line 2. This limitation was already recited in line 1 of claim 30. It is unclear to the Examiner whether the limitation in line 2 of claim 31 is the same or different from the limitation in line 1 of claim 30.
Claim 31 recites “a digital value document image” in lines 3-4. This limitation was already recited in line 2. It is unclear to the Examiner whether the limitation in lines 3-4 is the same or different from the limitation in line 2.
Claim 34 recites “individual or separated value documents” in line 9. This limitation was already recited in line 6. It is unclear to the Examiner whether the limitation in line 9 is the same or different from the limitation in line 6.
Claim 34 recites “the image capture unit” in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 34 recites “the transport path” in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 34 recites “value documents” in line 13. This limitation was already recited in line 2. It is unclear to the Examiner whether the limitation in line 13 is the same or different from the limitation in line 2.
Claims 27, 28, 32, 33 contain the entirety of at least claim 18. Therefore, the claims 27, 28, 32, 33 are rejected for at least the same reason as claim 18.
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 27 and 32 recites a program per se and therefore do not qualify as a statutory subject matter according to MPEP. In regards to claims 27 and 32, data structures not claimed as embodied in computer-readable media are descriptive material per se and are not statutory because they are not capable of causing functional change in the computer. See, e.g., Warmerdam, 33 F.3d at 1361, 31 USPQ2d at 1760 (claim to a data structure per se held nonstatutory). Such claimed data structures do not define any structural and functional interrelationships between the data structure and other claimed aspects of the invention which permit the data structure's functionality to be realized. In contrast, a claimed non-transitory computer-readable medium encoded with a data structure defines structural and functional interrelationships between the data structure and the computer software and hardware components which permit the data structure's functionality to be realized, and is thus statutory. (MPEP 2106). Applicant is suggested to add “non-transitory” in front of the “computer program” recited in claims 27 and 32 in order to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection.
Claims 28 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. While claims 28 and 33 recite a “computer-readable data carrier”, the Applicant's disclosure fails to define the claimed tangible computer-readable medium. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is obliged to give the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specifications during proceedings before the USPTO (see In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319 Fed. Cir. 1989). The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent (see MPEP 2111.01). Thus, the definition of Applicants computer readable medium in the disclosure fails to limit the claim to only non-transitory tangible media, and therefore is non-statutory (see 1351 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 212 (February 23, 2010)). Applicant is suggested to add “non-transitory” in front of the “computer-readable data carrier” recited in claims 28 and 33 in order to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection.
To expedite a complete examination of the instant application, the claims 27, 28, 32 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as non-statutory subject matter are further rejected as set forth below in anticipation of applicant amending the claims to place them within the four categories of invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
In regards to claim 18, He 1 (U.S. Patent Application 20070140551) teaches a method for generating templates for checking value documents [Fig. 1; e.g. method of creating a classifier for banknote validation, 0063, also see 0039] of a predefined value document type [e.g. same type taken of banknotes of the same currency and denomination, 0064], in which method value documents of the predefined value document type have at least two predefined production elements [e.g. extracted features from each segment in each of the training set images, 0066], which optionally partially overlap,
wherein digital training images of training value documents [Fig. 1; e.g. training set of images of genuine banknotes, 0064] of the predefined value document type are used, each of which have pixels each as-signed pixel data [e.g. the information from all images in the training set comprises information about a pixel at the same location in each of the training set images. This can comprise pixel intensity profiles, 0019];
the method comprising the following steps:
for each of the training images [e.g. for each of the training set images, 0073-0074], determining position data sets having position coordinates in a coordinate space each describing the positions of the production elements on the value document at least relative to one an-other [e.g. determining pixel positions in the image plane that are clustered into segments, where pixel positions in those segments have similar or correlated pixel intensity profiles, 0073-0074].
He 1 does not explicitly teach
forming at least two position sub-regions of the coordinate space, each comprising at least one predefined number of position data sets, the position sub-regions containing no common position data sets,
for each of the position sub-regions, determining a template using training images of the value documents whose position coordinates lie in the position sub-region, and storing the template and position sub-region data describing the position and extent of each position sub-region.
However, He 2 (U.S. Patent Application 20150310268) teaches
forming at least two position sub-regions [Fig. 9; e.g. two segments, 0112] of the coordinate space [Fig. 9; e.g. segmentation map, 0112], each comprising at least one predefined number of position data sets [Fig. 9; e.g. each segment contains a plurality of pixel positions, 0113], the position sub-regions containing no common position data sets [Fig. 9; e.g. segments, labeled 1 and 2 in Figure 9, have different pixel positions within the banknote, 0113],
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified He 1’s method with the features of
forming at least two position sub-regions of the coordinate space, each comprising at least one predefined number of position data sets, the position sub-regions containing no common position data sets,
in the same conventional manner as taught by He 2 because performing segmentation is well known and commonly used in image processing systems.
He 1 as modified by He 2 fails to teach or suggest
for each of the position sub-regions, determining a template using training images of the value documents whose position coordinates lie in the position sub-region, and storing the template and position sub-region data describing the position and extent of each position sub-region.
Therefore, claim 18 is allowed over the prior art of record if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
In regards to claims 19-25, the claims depend on at least claim 18. Therefore, the claims 19-25 are allowed for at least the same reason as claim 18 if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
In regards to claim 26, the claim recites a device using the method of claim 18 (although the claim number is missing, the Examiner will interpret the method to be of claim 18 in order to expedite prosecution). Because claim 18 is incorporated into claim 26 in its entirety, claim 26 is allowed for at least the same reason as claim 18 if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
In regards to claim 27, the claim recites similar limitations as claim 18 but in the form of a computer program. Therefore, claim 27 is allowed for at least the same reason as claim 18 if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph and 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
In regards to claim 28, the claim recites similar limitations as claim 18 but in the form of a computer-readable data carrier. Therefore, claim 28 is allowed for at least the same reason as claim 18 if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph and 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
In regards to claim 29, the claim recites a method for checking value documents using templates produced by a method according to claim 18. Because claim 18 is incorporated into claim 29 in its entirety, claim 29 is allowed for at least the same reason as claim 18 if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
In regards to claim 30, the claim recites a device for checking value documents using a method according to claim 29. Because claim 18 is incorporated into claims 29 and 30 in its entirety, claim 30 is allowed for at least the same reason as claim 18 if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
In regards to claim 31, the claim depends on at least claim 30. Therefore, the claim is allowed for at least the same reason as claim 30 if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
In regards to claim 32, the claim recites similar limitations as claim 29 but in the form of a computer program. Therefore, claim 32 is allowed for at least the same reason as claim 29 if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph and 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
In regards to claim 33, the claim recites similar limitations as claim 29 but in the form of a computer-readable data carrier. Therefore, claim 33 is allowed for at least the same reason as claim 29 if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph and 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
In regards to claim 34, the claim recites a device for processing value documents using a checking device according to claim 30. Because claim 18 is incorporated into claims 29 and 30 in its entirety, claim 30 is allowed for at least the same reason as claim 18 if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW SHIN whose telephone number is (571)270-5764. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday from 11:00AM to 7:00PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Said Broome can be reached at 571-272-2931. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANDREW SHIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2612
/Said Broome/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2612