DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-7 and 8,9 and 10,11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim(s) 8,9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YOSHIDA (JP 2005-196679 A) with SEARCH machine translation plus SEARCH machine translation II in view of LV (CN 104527238 A) with SEARCH machine translation:
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YOSHIDA (JP 2005-196679 A) with SEARCH machine translation plus SEARCH machine translation II in view of LV (CN 104527238 A) with SEARCH machine translation as applied in claims 8,9 further in view of Simpson et al. (US 2017/0364981 A1):
Claim(s) 1,4,5 and 10,11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YOSHIDA (JP 2005-196679 A) with SEARCH machine translation plus SEARCH machine translation II in view of LV (CN 104527238 A) with SEARCH machine translation as applied in claims 8,9 further in view of Berkheimer (US 7,447,713 B1):
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YOSHIDA (JP 2005-196679 A) with SEARCH machine translation plus SEARCH machine translation II in view of LV (CN 104527238 A) with SEARCH machine translation as applied in claims 8.9 further in view of Berkheimer (US 7,447,713 B1) as applied in claims 1,4,5 and 10,11 further in view of Simpson et al. (US 2017/0364981 A1) as applied in claim 9:
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YOSHIDA (JP 2005-196679 A) with SEARCH machine translation plus SEARCH machine translation II in view of LV (CN 104527238 A) with SEARCH machine translation as applied in claims 8,9 further in view of Berkheimer (US 7,447,713 B1) as applied in claims 1,4,5 and 10,11 further in view of Horn et al. (US 2004/0215552 A1):
Claim(s) 6,7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YOSHIDA (JP 2005-196679 A) with SEARCH machine translation plus SEARCH machine translation II in view of LV (CN 104527238 A) with SEARCH machine translation as applied in claims 8,9 further in view of Berkheimer (US 7,447,713 B1) as applied in claims 1,4,5 and 10,11 further in view of Walker et al. (US 10,515,419 B1):
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YOSHIDA (JP 2005-196679 A) with SEARCH machine translation plus SEARCH machine translation II in view of LV (CN 104527238 A) with SEARCH machine translation as applied in claims 8,9 further in view of Berkheimer (US 7,447,713 B1) as applied in claims 1,4,5 and 10,11 further in view of Walker et al. (US 10,515,419 B1) as applied in claims 6,7 further in view of Lisinski et al. (US 5,260,866):
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 1-7 and 8,9 and 10,11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
PNG
media_image1.png
396
100
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Step zero: establish broadest reasonable interpretation primarily in footnotes;
Step 1: Claim 1 a process; claim 8 a process; claim 10 a machine;
Step 2A, prong 1:
The claim(s) recite(s) the abstract idea (representative claim 10 for claims 1,8):
identifying…an object…
determining…presence of a text string…
determining…text information…
checking that the text string meets one or more design rules
10. A system, comprising:
a memory having instructions stored thereon;
a processor coupled to the at least one memory and configured to execute the instructions to perform one or more method steps, the method steps comprising:
receiving, via an input port connected to the processor, the graphics artwork file, wherein the processor is programmed with a set of algorithms for performing machine vision to read the graphics artwork file;
identifying, by the processor using the set of algorithms for performing machine vision, an object in the graphics artwork file;
automatically determining, with the processor, presence of a text string comprised in the object;
automatically determining, by the processor, text information stored in the graphics artwork file associated with the identified object comprising the text string; and
preflighting the file using the text information, wherein the preflighting comprises checking that the text string meets one or more design rules;
wherein the one or more guidelines for the text string include a size specification, a font specification, a stylization specification, or a color specification, wherein the text information stored in the graphics artwork file further comprises, respectively, information regarding a size of the text in the text string, a font of the text in the text string, a style of the text in the text string, or a color of the text in the text string.
Step 2A, prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements:
--a memory having instructions stored thereon;
a processor coupled to the at least one memory and configured to execute the instructions to perform one or more method steps, the method steps comprising:
receiving, via an input port connected to the processor, the graphics artwork file, wherein the processor is programmed with a set of algorithms for performing machine vision to read the graphics artwork file ;…
using the set of algorithms for performing machine vision …in the graphics artwork file;
text information stored in the graphics artwork file associated with the identified object comprising the text string…
preflighting the file using the text information, wherein the preflighting comprises…
wherein the one or more guidelines for the text string include a size specification, a font specification, a stylization specification, or a color specification, wherein the text information stored in the graphics artwork file further comprises, respectively, information regarding a size of the text in the text string, a font of the text in the text string, a style of the text in the text string, or a color of the text in the text string.--
considered with the abstract is not improving the functioning of a computer in view of applicant’s disclosure:
[0019] In exemplary aspects of the invention, computer vision is used for checking that certain logos, graphics or images appear, or do not appear in the job. The user may create a ‘white list’ (information that is desired to be present—e.g. the current form of a corporate logo) or ‘black list’ (information not desired to be present—e.g. an older form of the corporate logo). Information for use by the processor, such as the foregoing lists, or other characteristics to be detected and checked, may be stored locally or in a distributed asset management (DAM) system. The information may be referenced by a SKU, a customer, or a brand, depending upon specific job requirements. Exemplary embodiments may be particular useful for ensuring that correct logos/graphics are used instead of old ones, and also to ensure that required logos/graphics are in place. Additional functionality available using computer vision techniques may include ‘reading’ barcodes and braille, and optical character recognition for spell checking. Exemplary embodiments that provide an accurate automated solution are expected to save time, increase accuracy, and reduce deadlines and waste.
Step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements (such as the claimed “processor” (data-)“file” and “guidelines” and “machine vision”) considered individually or in combination with the abstract idea adheres to the conventional or is well-known in view of applicant’s disclosure [0002][0003][0021]:
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
[0002] In the field of packaging design, each new package design is typically checked against a Corporate Identity/Brand Guideline before going to print, because, for example, brand owners may wish to ensure the latest company logo is used in a design as specified within corporate brand guidelines.
[0003] Currently, manual1 visual checks are performed on a hard copy proof or an electronic2 soft proof on a screen3, against rules or requirements enumerated in a Corporate/Brand Guide. This is a tedious process, and the inherency of human error creates an undesirable error rate.
PNG
media_image2.png
1058
1035
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Suggestions
MPEP 2106.07(a) Formulating a Rejection For Lack of Subject Matter Eligibility [R-07.2022]
II. WHEN MAKING A REJECTION, EXPLAIN WHY THE ADDITIONAL CLAIM ELEMENTS DO NOT RESULT IN THE CLAIM AS A WHOLE INTEGRATING THE JUDICIAL EXCEPTION INTO A PRACTICAL APPLICATION OR AMOUNTING TO SIGNIFICANTLY MORE THAN THE JUDICIAL EXCEPTION (STEP 2A PRONG TWO AND STEP 2B), last para:
In the event a rejection is made, it is a best practice for the examiner to consult the specification (paragraphs [0002] & [0022] of US 20240319930 A1) to determine if there are elements ([0022]:“Machine visions systems…as part of the quality control process at the design stage for product packaging to ensure a file meets corporate and legal guidelines before the design is approved for print”) that could be added to the claim to make it eligible4. If so, the examiner should identify those elements in the Office action and suggest them as a way to overcome the rejection.
[0002] In the field of packaging design, each new package design is typically checked against a Corporate Identity/Brand Guideline before going to print, because, for example, brand owners may wish to ensure the latest company logo is used in a design as specified within corporate brand guidelines.
[0022] Machine vision systems, however, have not previously been used as part of the quality control process at the design stage for product packaging to ensure a file meets corporate and legal guidelines before the design is approved for print. While it is known to compare a scanned image of a product sample against a corresponding master file (e.g. a PDF), such as is performed by systems made by Global Vision Inc., of Montreal, Quebec, Canada, embodiments of the present invention do not compare objects against a specific file, but rather against a set of rules based upon corporate and design guidelines.
Response to Arguments
I. Response to Claim Objections
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, page 6, filed 6/26/2026, with respect to the claim objection of claim 7 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim objection of claim 7 has been withdrawn.
II. Response to Rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101
Applicant's arguments filed 6/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive:
Step 2A Prong 1
Applicants state in page 7, 2nd para:
The Office asserts that independent claim 10 (representative of independent claims 1, 8, and 10) recites abstract ideas including "identifying . . . an object", "determining . . . presence of a text string", "determining ... text information", and "checking that the text string meets one or more design rules." Applicant respectfully disagrees. Applicant respectfully submits that the rejection proposed by the Office is insufficient. The Office fails to explain specifically how any of the identified steps are abstract and fails to categorize any of the steps into any one of the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a) ("If the identified limitation(s) do not fall within any of the groupings of abstract ideas, it is reasonable to find that the claim does not recite an abstract idea.").
In response via:
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) Abstract Idea Groupings [R-07.2022]
III. MENTAL PROCESSES, 1st para, 2nd S:
“As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)).”
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., remarks, page 7, 3rd para, penult S: “operations….to process”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Step 2A Prong 2
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., remarks, page 8 ,1st para: “machine vision algorithms programmed into the processor”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., remarks, page 8 ,2nd para: “compare objects… against a set of rules based upon corporate and design guidelines.") are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., remarks, page 8 ,3rd para, last S: “to be programmed with particular machine vision algorithms") are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicants state in page 8, last para:
Furthermore, the Specification describes concrete technical improvements resulting from the claimed subject matter. Exemplary embodiments that provide "an accurate automated solution are expected to save time, increase accuracy, and reduce deadlines and waste." Specification, iJ[0019]. The system can use "image/shape matching for detection and extraction of information from the digital image to be analyzed" and can extract "text information (e.g. font, size, style, content) ... from information stored in the graphics artwork file itself, rather than having to extract such information using machine vision from the rendered image, once machine vision identifies the object in the file subject to design rules checking." Specification, iJ[0020].
In response via:
MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) Evaluating Improvements in the Functioning of a Computer, or an Improvement to Any Other Technology or Technical Field in Step 2A Prong Two [R-10.2019], 2nd para:
“Conversely, if the specification [0019] explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim (claims 1, 8,10) improves technology.” via:
The courts have not provided an explicit test for this consideration, but have instead illustrated how it is evaluated in numerous decisions. These decisions, and a detailed explanation of how examiners should evaluate this consideration are provided in MPEP § 2106.05(a). In short, first the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. That is, the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. The claim itself does not need to explicitly recite the improvement described in the specification (e.g., "thereby increasing the bandwidth of the channel").
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., remarks, page 9 ,1st para, 2nd S: “a processor programmed with machine vision algorithms") are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Step 2B
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., remarks, page 10 ,1st para, 2nd to last S: “compare objects…against a set of rules based upon corporate and design guidelines”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., remarks, page 10 , 2nd para, 1st S: “a processor programmed with machine vision algorithms that identifies objects in graphics artwork files and checks them against design rules rather than against a master file.”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicants state in page 10, 2nd para:
The claims therefore require an unconventional technical arrangement in the field of graphics preflighting-a processor programmed with machine vision algorithms that identifies objects in graphics artwork files and checks them against design rules rather than against a master file. The claims recite a specific, unconventional implementation that was not routine in the art. Applicant respectfully submits that the Office has failed to provide any evidence that the specific claimed combination was conventional. The Office only references Applicant's own Background section of the Specification.
In response via:
MPEP 2106.07(a) Formulating a Rejection For Lack of Subject Matter Eligibility [R-07.2022]
III. EVIDENTIARY REQUIREMENTS IN MAKING A § 101 REJECTION
At Step 2A Prong Two or Step 2B, there is no requirement for evidence to support a finding that the exception is not integrated into a practical application or that the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the exception unless the examiner asserts that additional limitations are well-understood, routine, conventional activities in Step 2B.
Examiners should not assert that an additional element (or combination of elements) is well-understood, routine, or conventional unless the examiner finds, and expressly supports the rejection in writing with one or more of the following:
(A) A citation to an express statement in the specification (US 2024/0319930 A1: paragraph [0021], reproduced below) or to a statement made by an applicant during prosecution that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s). A specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of additional elements when it describes the additional elements as well-understood or routine or conventional (or an equivalent term5: said [0021]: “known”6), as a commercially available product, or in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a). A finding that an element is well-understood, routine, or conventional cannot be based only on the fact that the specification is silent with respect to describing such element.
PNG
media_image2.png
1058
1035
media_image2.png
Greyscale
III. Response to Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§102 and 103
a.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, pages 10,11, filed 6/26/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 8 under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of 35 USC 103:
Claim(s) 8,9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YOSHIDA (JP 2005-196679 A) with SEARCH machine translation plus SEARCH machine translation II in view of LV (CN 104527238 A) with SEARCH machine translation, wherein LV teaches using computer/machine vision (fig. 2: “analysis”) driving 24,25 PDF printer 1 documents to a waste container via arm 22:
PNG
media_image3.png
476
756
media_image3.png
Greyscale
b.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, page 11, filed 6/26/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1,4-5 and 10-11 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of 35 USC 103:
Claim(s) 1,4,5 and 10,11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YOSHIDA (JP 2005-196679 A) with SEARCH machine translation plus SEARCH machine translation II in view of LV (CN 104527238 A) with SEARCH machine translation as applied in claims 8,9 further in view of Berkheimer (US 7,447,713 B1), wherein LV teaches using computer/machine vision (fig. 2: “analysis”) driving 24,25 PDF printer 1 documents to a waste container via arm 22:
PNG
media_image3.png
476
756
media_image3.png
Greyscale
c.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YOSHIDA (JP 2005-196679 A) with SEARCH machine translation plus SEARCH machine translation II in view of LV (CN 104527238 A) with SEARCH machine translation as applied in claims 8.9 further in view of Berkheimer (US 7,447,713 B1) as applied in claims 1,4,5 and 10,11 further in view of Simpson et al. (US 2017/0364981 A1) as applied in claim 9.
d.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YOSHIDA (JP 2005-196679 A) with SEARCH machine translation plus SEARCH machine translation II in view of LV (CN 104527238 A) with SEARCH machine translation as applied in claims 8,9 further in view of Berkheimer (US 7,447,713 B1) as applied in claims 1,4,5 and 10,11 further in view of Horn et al. (US 2004/0215552 A1).
e.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., remarks, page 13, 2nd para, penult S: “machine vision algorithms specifically
programmed to read a graphics artwork file”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicants state in page 13, last para:
The Office asserts that it would have been obvious to combine Walker with Berkheimer and YOSHIDA because of "design incentives or other market forces." See Office Action, pp.26-
27. Specifically, the Office states that YOSHIDA "teaches a document, one of skill in the art of documents can make, due to said purchasing, financing, transactional market forces, YOSHIDA's document of the combination of YOSHIDA, Berkheimer be as Walker's seeing in the change 'data can be collected efficiently and persist through the end of a process"'. Office Action, p.27. Applicant is not clear on how these statements explain why one of skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Walker with YOSHIDA and Berkheimer. The Office further generally asserts that these cited references teach "documents" and "computers", but the Office fails to provide adequate explanation of why a person of skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these references or explain how one of skill in the art, once motivated, would have combined these references to arrive at the subject matter of claims 6 or 7. Thus, Applicant respectfully submits that the Office fails to establish a primafacie case of obviousness over claims 6 and 7 (as originally recited) and further in view of amended independent claim 1.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
In this case, YOSHIDA suggests7 to one of skill in the art selecting various editing functions such as enlargement / reduction and shaping8/copying via trapping/containing of data in a record-field in page 12, second txt blk:
As an interface between the RIP manager 501 and the intermediate data editing module 503, an input 509 is intermediate data 1, and the intermediate data editing module503 performs various editing processes in the form of intermediate data 1. The intermediate data 1 after editing such as enlargement / reduction or9 shaping of data such as trapping is returned as an output 510.
Thus the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some editing function such as enlargement / reduction and shaping10/copying via trapping/containing of data in a record-field to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. Thus Wlaker teaches a copying of data up for consideration to be combined with YOSHIDA via Walker’s teaching of extraction found at Walker’s c.1,ll.40-45:
In an embodiment, a method can include receiving an image of a user item, recognizing the user item based on the image, extracting11 identity information about the user or the user item based on recognizing the user item and populating a form with extracted data based on the identity information.
Thus YOSHIDA-LV-Berkheimer-Walker are combined in the 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 6,7:
Claim(s) 6,7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YOSHIDA (JP 2005-196679 A) with SEARCH machine translation plus SEARCH machine translation II in view of LV (CN 104527238 A) with SEARCH machine translation as applied in claims 8,9 further in view of Berkheimer (US 7,447,713 B1) as applied in claims 1,4,5 and 10,11 further in view of Walker et al. (US 10,515,419 B1)
as detailed below.
f.
g.
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.
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) 8,9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YOSHIDA (JP 2005-196679 A) with SEARCH machine translation plus SEARCH machine translation II in view of LV (CN 104527238 A) with SEARCH machine translation:
PNG
media_image4.png
494
311
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Re 8., YOSHIDA teaches A method for using a graphics artwork file comprising at least one object comprising a text string and text information in the graphics artwork file that is associated with the at least one object comprising the text string, the method comprising:
receiving12 the graphics artwork file (or likewise “The RIP manager receives PDF file and PS file documents”, pg. 8, 1st text blk) via an input port connected to a computer processor programmed with a set of algorithms for performing machine vision to13 read the graphics artwork file (or likewise “a schematic configuration of the…CPU 101… performs… a system activation program, a basic I/O program…for converting a character code into a bit pattern, and the like…for display, graphic data, image data, and the like”, machine translation II, page 7, last txt blk, fig. 1:
PNG
media_image5.png
522
527
media_image5.png
Greyscale
) ; and
preflighting (or likewise via “a button for preflight check”, pg. 9 last txt blk) the graphics artwork file (resulting in “the document is read…The document is a PDF file, a PD file, and SVG file, or the like”, pg. 9 last txt blk) using the text information (such as “the data saved at the time of the preflight check is effectively used”, pg. 10, last txt blk),
wherein the preflighting (likewise) comprises checking that text string meets ath txt blk) size specification, a (“checked”, pg. 2, 4th txt blk) font14 specification, a (“checked”, pg. 2, 4th txt blk) stylization specification, or a (“checked”, pg. 2, 4th txt blk) color specification, wherein the text information comprises, respectively,
a (“checked”, pg. 2, 4th txt blk) size of the text string, a (“checked”, pg. 2, 4th txt blk) font of the text string, a (“checked”, pg. 2, 4th txt blk) stylization of the text string, or a (“checked”, pg. 2, 4th txt blk) color of the text string.
YOSHIA does not teach the difference of claim 8 of:
machine vision.
LV teach the difference of claim 8 of:
machine vision (or likewise:
“[0001] This invention relates to an automatic printing technology field, especially relates to a machine vision automatic printing system.”, LV’s machine translation, page 2, [0001]).
Since YOSHIDA teaches a printing problem via page 3, 1st txt blk:
TECH-PROBLEM
In the preflight check process, an interpreter is executed on the PDF file, PS file, or SVG file, and the check is performed after interpreting the contents of the document data. On the other hand, since the interpreter is also executed in the printing process, there is a problem that the process is duplicated, and the processing time from when the file is received until the printing is finished becomes long.
one of skill in the art could or would have done is refer to others for solution and thus make YOSHIDA’s be as LV’s seeing in the change goodness via LV’s machine translation, page 5, [0014]:
[0014] This invention utilizes machine vision technology to realize the sorting of the print medium and the unqualified reprint of the print medium so as to ensure printing work continuity and ensures the high-quality printing.
via explicit, creative, routing, inferential Supreme court steps, A,B,C:
print a PDF15 document via YOSHIDA’s fig. 1:”A”: “printer” or fig. 4:216: “PRT”:
PNG
media_image6.png
1635
1081
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
980
872
media_image7.png
Greyscale
B) use the printed-document arm-sorting “waste” (LV, page 3 [0007])-bin system of LV’s figure 2:
B1) take a picture of the printed PDF document via LV’s fig. 2:31: “camera”:
PNG
media_image3.png
476
756
media_image3.png
Greyscale
C) see what happens (I foresee:
[0014] This invention utilizes machine vision technology to realize the sorting/wasting of the PDF print medium and the unqualified/wasted PDF reprint of the print medium so as to ensure PDF printing work continuity and ensures the un-wasted high-quality PDF printing.).
Re 9. (Original), YOSHIDA of the combination of YOSHIDA-LV teaches The method of claim 8, {{wherein the size specification, a font specification, a stylization specification, or color specification are based upon a set of predetermined guidelines for the at least one object, the predetermined guidelines comprising corporate, legal, design, or branding guidelines, wherein the predetermined guidelines include at least one rule that has a first list of information that is desired to be present and a second list of information that is not desired to be present}}16.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YOSHIDA (JP 2005-196679 A) with SEARCH machine translation plus SEARCH machine translation II in view of LV (CN 104527238 A) with SEARCH machine translation as applied in claims 8,9 further in view of Simpson et al. (US 2017/0364981 A1):
PNG
media_image8.png
494
407
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Re 9., YOSHIDA teaches, under “a narrow subset of claim scope”17 (“It is the subject matter of the properly construed claim that must be examined”), The method of claim 8, wherein the size specification, a font specification, a stylization specification, or
color specification are based upon a (“printable points”, pg. 8, 1st txt blk) set of predetermined guidelines for the at least one object, the predetermined guidelines comprising corporate, legal, design, or branding guidelines, wherein the predetermined guidelines include at least one rule that has a first (“font”, pg. 9, 1st txt blk) list of information that is desired to be present and a second (“font”, pg. 9, 1st txt blk) list of information that is not desired to be present.
YOSHIDA does not teach the difference18 of claim 9 of:
predetermined guidelines …19
the predetermined guidelines comprising corporate, legal, design, or branding
guidelines, wherein the predetermined guidelines include at least one rule that has a first (list)20…that is desired to be present and a second list … that is not desired to be present.
Simpson teach the difference21 of claim 9 of:
predetermined (or “formatted” [0083] last S) guidelines …22
the predetermined guidelines comprising corporate, legal, design, or branding (via “brand”-“guideline” [0083] 1st S) guidelines (wherein “The interactive style guideline can comprise…guidelines” [0083] 2nd S), wherein the predetermined guidelines include at least one rule (“defined in the brand style guide 38” [0083] 2nd S) that has a first (“importance” [0043] 4th S) (list)23…that is desired to be present and a second (or “not relevant” [0043] penult S) list … that is not desired to be present.
Since YOSHIDA teaches a computer and suggests selecting a file via machine translation II, page 13, 1st text blk:
FIG. 7 shows a preflight check according to an embodiment of the present invention. In step S701, the printer A receives a preflight check request. For example, when a button for preflight check is pressed in the user interfaces of the client personal computers X and Y, the request is accepted by the print instruction information included in the print request to the printer A. In step S702, as described above, the document is read by requesting data constituting the web page from the web server WS. The document is a PDF file, a PS file, an SVG file, or24 the like.
, one of skill in the art of computers can make YOSHIDA’s be, due to market forces, as Simpson’s seeing in the change an improved manner in which the “computer system can enforce use of a desired branding for the entity while products for the entity are defined and/or created… For example, the computer system 20 can use data corresponding to a set of standards or best practices 39B in generating one or more recommendations or requirements for use in conjunction with…typography25…printing, etc.”, Simpson [0021] penult S & [0093] 2nd ,4th S & last Ss via explicit, creative, routine, inferential Supreme Court steps, A,B,C:
create tone-and-mood program by Simpson’s fig. 6:
PNG
media_image9.png
1094
1030
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Create print-request program by YOSHIDA’s fig. 8:
PNG
media_image10.png
918
1095
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
918
1095
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Create code connecting programs:
C1) see below arrow-connections as guide to connect program:
PNG
media_image11.png
2033
1109
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Run program;
See what happens (I foresee goodness:
For example, the computer system 20 can use PDF data corresponding to a set of PDF standards or best PDF practices 39B in generating one or more PDF recommendations or PDF requirements for use in conjunction with…PDF typography …PDF printing, PDF etc.)
MPEP 2143 I. F. Known Work in One Field of Endeavor May Prompt Variations of It for Use in Either the Same Field or a Different One Based on Design Incentives or Other Market Forces if the Variations Are Predictable to One of Ordinary Skill in the Art
To reject a claim (claim 9) based on this rationale, Office personnel must resolve the Graham factual inquiries. Then, Office personnel must articulate the following:
(1) a finding that the scope and content of the prior art (YOSHIDA (JP 2005-196679 A) & Simpson et al. (US 2017/0364981 A1) ), whether in the same field of endeavor as that of the applicant’s invention or a different (I’d say different fields) field of endeavor, included a similar or analogous device [a computer taught by both YOSHIDA & Simpson] (method, or product [“a document” YOSHIDA, pg. 2, 1st txt blk, & “a marketing document”, Simpson [0035] 2nd S );
(2) a finding that there were design incentives or market forces (or “marketing material” Simpson [0024] or said “a marketing document”, Simpson [0035] 2nd S or “[0075] Additionally, the computer system 20 can utilize additional brand information included in the brand style guide 38 that can influence color palette generation. For example, the computer system 20 can evaluate marketing imagery and generate metadata based on characteristics of the imagery (e.g., excitement, action, calmness, and/or the like) which can influence color palette generation… (e.g., adjust brightness or contrast of the colors, shift colors, and/or the like) “, Simpson [0075] 1st,2nd & 4th Ss) which would have prompted adaptation of the known device (method, or product) [or said [“a document”, YOSHIDA, pg. 2, 1st txt blk, to be adjusted or corrected as well];
(3) a finding that the differences (the difference of claim 9, below, now moved above, as mapped to Simpson et al. (US 2017/0364981 A1)) between the claimed invention and the prior art were encompassed in known variations (for printing according to mood & tone) or in a principle known in the prior art (as mapped below , now moved above, to Simpson et al. (US 2017/0364981 A1));
(4) a finding (“To this extent, embodiments can provide a solution that generates a brand asset repository, which includes various assets that can be utilized to improve the manner in which a computer system can enforce use of a desired branding for the entity while products for the entity are defined and/or created. “ Simpson [0021] 3rd S) that one of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the identified design incentives or other market forces (influencing the look/tone of an image), could have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art (“to improve the manner in which a computer can enforce use of a desired branding” Simpson, [0021] 3rd S, via said best practices for PDF printing/typography), and the claimed variation would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (seeing in the change an improved manner in which a computer enforces desired product branding via said best practices for PDF printing/typography); and
(5) whatever additional findings (YOSHIDA suggests selecting a PDF and thus look to others when selecting a PDF and thus combine as shown above) based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claimed invention would have been obvious is that design incentives or other (mood & tone) market forces (for selling a colorful document product) could have prompted one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the prior art (or the PDF document of YOSHIDA) in a predictable (PDF-best-practices) manner to result in the claimed invention. If any of these findings cannot be made, then this rationale cannot be used to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 1,4,5 and 10,11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YOSHIDA (JP 2005-196679 A) with SEARCH machine translation plus SEARCH machine translation II in view of LV (CN 104527238 A) with SEARCH machine translation as applied in claims 8,9 further in view of Berkheimer (US 7,447,713 B1):
PNG
media_image12.png
497
460
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Claim 1 is rejected like claim 8:
Re 1., YOSHIDA of the combination of YOSHIDA-LV teaches A method ||for26 modifying a graphics artwork file||27, the method comprising:
receiving28||for modifying a graphics artwork file||29, via an input port30 (comprising “an input”31, pg. 8, last txt blk) connected to a computer processor, the graphics artwork (PDF) file {{, wherein the processor is programmed with a set of algorithms for32 performing machine vision to read the graphics artwork file}}33;
identifying ||for modifying a graphics artwork file|| (via a “file” or “filename” pg. 10, 4th txt blk), by the processor using the set of algorithms for performing machine vision, an object34 (or “file”-“data”-“contents”, pg. 10, 2nd txt blk) in the graphics artwork file;
automatically (via a computer) determining ||for modifying a graphics artwork file||{{, with the processor,}} presence of a text string (or likewise “code”-“character pattern data strings”, pg. 6, 1st txt blk) comprised in the object (“of the page to be printed exists (S806), pg. 11, 2nd txt blk) ;
automatically (via a computer) determining ||for modifying a graphics artwork file||, by the processor, text information (“of the page to be printed exists (S806), pg. 11, 2nd txt blk) stored in the graphics artwork file associated with the identified object comprising the text string; and
preflighting ||for modifying a graphics artwork file|| the file using the text information (see rejection of claim 8),
{{3536
(A)
(B)
37
(A)
(B)
38
(C)
(D)
3940”, pg. 10, 1st txt blk) }}
{{414243
(E)
(F)
(G)
(H)
44
(I)
(J)
(K)
(L) }}45.
YOSHIDA does not teach, under “a narrow subset of claim scope”46, the difference of claim 1 of:
(A) one or (B) more design rules47, the (A) one or (B) more design rules comprising … (C) one or (D) more rules…
each rule relating to at least one predetermined value for…
wherein the one or more guidelines48.
Berkheimer teach the difference of claim 1 of:
(A) one or (B) more design rules49 (via “a. Establishing Design Rules or Standards.”, c.13,ll. 35), the (A) one or (B) more design rules comprising (“features necessary to establish design rules or standards are identical to the features identified in previously discussed section 49”, c.13,ll.35-40)… (C) one or (D) more rules (i.e., “certain element properties and values”, c.12,ll.20-25) …
each rule (or element type properties and element values “in the case of text elements, the font reference, the type size reference, the leading (line spacing) reference, reference to the type's tracking”, c.9,ll.20-25) relating to at least one predetermined value (via “the user to designate…’rules’”, c.12,ll.20-25) for (“correctly executed elements”)…
wherein the one or more guidelines50 (“and standards to used as the basis of differentiating, clarifying, correcting and eliminating redundancies associated with objects and object relationships derived from imported documents prior to their being archived in the invention's document object model archive”, c.5,ll.5-10).
Since Yoshida suggests selection of a document and editing via page 12, 2nd text blk:
As an interface between the RIP manager 501 and the intermediate data editing module 503, an input 509 is intermediate data 1, and the intermediate data editing module503 performs various editing processes in the form of intermediate data 1. The intermediate data 1 after editing such as enlargement / reduction or51 shaping of data such as trapping is returned as an output 510.
, one of skill in the art of documents and editing could or would have done is consider the editing of others as the edit selection to combine with YOSHIDA and thus can make YOSHIDA’s be as Berkheimer’s seeing in the change goodness:
“5. Allows for the automatic application of work effort for single documents, across multiple documents in a project or through out the archive, which can radically reduce turnaround time and cost in executing document edits and projects.
6. Automates execution of mid-production text edits, which can eliminate the principal time consuming cause of production work stoppage and rework.” and
“standards to used as the basis of differentiating, clarifying, correcting and eliminating redundancies associated with objects and object relationships derived from imported documents prior to their being archived in the invention's document object model archive”, Berkheimer c.5,ll.5-10 & c.15, bullets 5.& 6., via creative, explicit, routine, inferential Supreme Court steps A,B,C:
Create a print request program based on YOSHIDA’s fig. 8:
A1) at steps S809 & S816 create code calling/returning from an editing program:
PNG
media_image10.png
918
1095
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Create the editing program with document rules via Berkheimer’s figs 2 & 5:
PNG
media_image13.png
1292
917
media_image13.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image14.png
1156
784
media_image14.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image15.png
1182
778
media_image15.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image16.png
1159
767
media_image16.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image17.png
1305
887
media_image17.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image18.png
1159
882
media_image18.png
Greyscale
Run print request program
See what happens (I foresee goodness:
“5. Allows for the automatic application of work effort for single PDF documents, across multiple PDF documents in a project or through out the archive, which can radically reduce turnaround time and cost in executing PDF document edits and projects.
6. Automates execution of mid-production PDF text edits, which can eliminate the principal time consuming cause of production work stoppage and rework.” &
“In an environment where the documents or graphical items represent packaging, the present invention and archive system can be used to identify cylinders and plates from previously produced packaging SKUs. The existing cylinders and plates can be used to reduce turn around time and costs in printing new packaging.”, Berkheimer, c. 3.ll.40-45.
Claim 4 is rejected like claim 8:
Re 4. (Original), YOSHIDA of the combination of YOSHIDA-LV-Berkheimer teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the graphics artwork file is a PDF file.
Re 5. (Original) , YOSHIDA of the combination teaches The method of claim 1, further comprising rendering (or making) an image (via “raster image conversion” “Generation step”, pg. 3, 1st text blk) from the graphics artwork (document-) file.
Claim 10 is rejected like claim 1:
Re 10. (Currently Amended), YOSHIDA of the combination of YOSHIDA-LV-Berkheimer teaches A system, comprising:
a memory having instructions stored thereon;
a processor coupled to the at least one memory and programmed with a set of algorithms for performing machine vision52 to read a graphics artwork file, the processor being configured to execute the instructions to perform one {{
receiving, via an input port connected to the processor, the graphics artwork file;
{{identifying, by the processor using the set of algorithms for performing machine vision, an object in the graphics artwork file;
automatically determining {{}} presence of a text string comprised in the object;
automatically determining {{}} text information stored in the graphics artwork file associated with the identified object comprising the text string; and53
preflighting the file using the text information, wherein the preflighting comprises checking that the text string meets one or more design rules;
}}}54.
Claim 11 is rejected like claims 1 & 2:
Re 11. (Original) , YOSHIDA of the combination of YOSHIDA,Berkheimer teaches The system of claim 10, wherein the one or more design rules comprising a set of machine-readable expressions of one or more rules corresponding to one or more objects, each rule relating to at least one predetermined value for a predetermined characteristic of the one or more objects (see rejection of claim 1: YOSHIDA teaches this limitation),
wherein the one or more rules are based upon a set of predetermined guidelines for the one or more objects (see rejection of claim 2: Berkheimer teaches this limitation),
the predetermined guidelines comprising corporate, legal, design, or branding guidelines (see rejection of claim 2: Berkheimer teaches this limitation).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YOSHIDA (JP 2005-196679 A) with SEARCH machine translation plus SEARCH machine translation II in view of LV (CN 104527238 A) with SEARCH machine translation as applied in claims 8.9 further in view of Berkheimer (US 7,447,713 B1) as applied in claims 1,4,5 and 10,11 further in view of Simpson et al. (US 2017/0364981 A1) as applied in claim 9:
PNG
media_image19.png
497
552
media_image19.png
Greyscale
Claim 2 is rejected like claim 9:
Re 2. (Original), YOSHIDA of the combination of YOSHIDA-LV-Berkheimer teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more rules are based upon a (said print) set of (user) predetermined guidelines (or element-type properties and element values “in the case of text elements, the font reference, the type size reference, the leading (line spacing) reference, reference to the type's tracking”, Berkheimer: c.9,ll.20-25) for the one or more objects, the predetermined guidelines comprising
corporate (or “corporate logo and name…standards…in accordance with user established rules and standards”, Berkheimer: c.2,ll. 5-10 & c.2,ll.30-35 & c.2, last line)…,
legal,
design, or
branding
guidelines (mapped to corporate-rules, above),
wherein the predetermined guidelines include at least one rule that has a first list of information that is desired to be present and a second list of information that is not desired to be present.
YOSHIDA of the combination of YOSHIDA,Berkheimer does not teach the difference of claim 2 of:
wherein the predetermined guidelines include at least one rule …first … that is desired to be present and a second list … that is not desired to be present.
Simpson already teaches/makes obvious the difference of claim 2 in the rejection of claim 9.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YOSHIDA (JP 2005-196679 A) with SEARCH machine translation plus SEARCH machine translation II in view of LV (CN 104527238 A) with SEARCH machine translation as applied in claims 8,9 further in view of Berkheimer (US 7,447,713 B1) as applied in claims 1,4,5 and 10,11 further in view of Horn et al. (US 2004/0215552 A1):
PNG
media_image20.png
497
552
media_image20.png
Greyscale
Re 3. (Original), YOSHIDA of the combination of YOSHIDA,Berkheimer teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the presence of the text string comprised in the object is determined using optical character recognition.
YOSHIDA of the combination of YOSHIDA,Berkheimer does not teach the difference of claim 3 of:
optical character recognition.
Horn teach the difference of claim 3 of:
optical character recognition (“(OCR) operations on the document, as described above, to determine the presence of certain key words, phrases, numbers, or alphanumeric strings” [0242] 2nd S).
Since Berkheimer teaches a business document, one of skill in the art of business documents can make Berkheimer’s of the combination of YOSHIDA,Berkheimer be as Horn’s seeing that the change “facilitates the identification and ordering of needed documents, as well as the receipt, verification, and general tracking of such documents during use by the embodiment.” Horn, [0234] last S.
Claim(s) 6,7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YOSHIDA (JP 2005-196679 A) with SEARCH machine translation plus SEARCH machine translation II in view of LV (CN 104527238 A) with SEARCH machine translation as applied in claims 8,9 further in view of Berkheimer (US 7,447,713 B1) as applied in claims 1,4,5 and 10,11 further in view of Walker et al. (US 10,515,419 B1):
PNG
media_image21.png
497
572
media_image21.png
Greyscale
Re 6., YOSHIDA of the combination of YOSHIDA-LV-Berkheimer teaches The method of claim 5, further comprising the processor using machine vision to identify a representation (converted) of the object (or “strings”, pg. 6, 1st txty blk) in the image (“data, and the like”, pg. 6, 1st txt blk) rendered (or made) from the graphics artwork file (or document).
YOSHIDA of the combination does not teach the difference of claim 6 of:
machine vision to identify.
Walker teach the difference of claim 6 of:
machine vision to identify (“objects or characters thereon”, c.7,ll.20-25: fig. 3:314: “IMAGE RECOG. MODULE”).
Since YOSHIDA teaches a document and suggests selecting “various editing5556 processes…such as enlargement / reduction or shaping57 of data58 such as trapping”, YOSHIDA, translation II, pg12, 2nd txt blk, and copying data & text and capturing data in fields and filling-in spaces, one of skill in the art of documents could or would have done is refer to or consider others as the selection and thus can make, due to said purchasing, financing, transactional market forces, YOSHIDA’s document of the combination be as Walker’s seeing in the change “fields of the document can be populated…In addition…more detailed59 documents may be drafted60 based on extracted information….In still further…complementary embodi-ments…further aspects can include saving the extracted data as state data…In this fashion…data can be collected efficiently and persist61 through the end of a process”, Walker, c.10,ll. 15-20 & c.10,ll. 35-40, such as the drafting process comprising writing subject to revision, copying etc. via explicit, creative, routine, inferential Supreme Court steps A,B,C:
create a trapping62-editing program based on YOSHIDA’s fig. 8:
A1) at image editing steps S809 & S816 create code calling an editor program:
PNG
media_image10.png
918
1095
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
918
1095
media_image10.png
Greyscale
create an image data-population editor program based on Walker’s fig. 4:
B1) at step 410: USE IDENTITY INFORMATION write code returning to said steps S809 & S816:
PNG
media_image22.png
1246
878
media_image22.png
Greyscale
Run the editing program:
C1) at step S809 & S816 perform editing functions on data63:
Reduction edit function;
Enlarge edit function;
Shape64 or Copy edit function;
See what happens (I foresee:
organized output fields for optimum efficiency of the document can be populated…In addition…more detailed65 documents may be drafted66 based on extracted information ….In still further…complementary embodi-ments…further aspects can include saving the extracted data as state data…In this fashion…data can be collected efficiently and persist through the end of a process , such as the drafting process comprising writing subject to revision67, copying etc. in order improve the documents.
MPEP 2143 I. F. Known Work in One Field of Endeavor May Prompt Variations of It for Use in Either the Same Field or a Different One Based on Design Incentives or Other Market Forces if the Variations Are Predictable to One of Ordinary Skill in the Art
To reject a claim (claim 9) based on this rationale, Office personnel must resolve the Graham factual inquiries. Then, Office personnel must articulate the following:
(1) a finding that the scope and content of the prior art (YOSHIDA (JP 2005-196679 A) & Berkheimer (US 7,447,713 B1) & Walker et al. (US 10,515,419 B1)), whether in the same field of endeavor as that of the applicant’s invention or a different field of endeavor, included a similar or analogous device [a computer taught by both YOSHIDA & Walker] (method, or product [“a document” YOSHIDA, pg. 2, 1st txt blk/Walker, pg. 10,ll.15-20]);
(2) a finding that there were design incentives or market forces (or “purchases, financing, or other transactions”, Walker, c.10,ll.20-25 ) which would have prompted adaptation of the known device (method, or product);
(3) a finding that the differences (the difference of claim 6 as mapped to Walker) between the claimed invention and the prior art were encompassed in known variations (for drafting/populating a document) or in a principle known in the prior art (as mapped to Walker);
(4) a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the identified design incentives or other market forces, could have implemented (as shown in Supreme Court step B comprising machine vision recognition) the claimed variation (for drafting/populating a document) of the prior art (since “data can be collected efficiently and persist through the end of a process”, Walker, c.10,ll.35-40), and the claimed variation (for drafting/populating a document) would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (and thus seeing in the change said “fields of the document can be populated…In addition…more detailed documents may be drafted based on extracted information….In still further…complementary embodi-ments…further aspects can include saving the extracted data as state data…In this fashion… data can be collected efficiently and persist through the end of a process”, Walker, c.10,ll. 15-20 & c.10,ll.35-40, such as the drafting process comprising writing subject to revision, copying etc); and
(5) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claimed invention would have been obvious is that design incentives or other market forces could have prompted one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the prior art in a predictable manner to result in the claimed invention. If any of these findings cannot be made, then this rationale cannot be used to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Re 7. (Currently Amended), Berkheimer & Walker of the combination of YOSHIDA-LV-Berkheimer-Walker teaches, under the broadest reasonable interpretation (via Markush alternative (M)) of claim 7, The method of claim 5, further comprising the steps of:
identifying68 (M) one (via said “objects or characters thereon”, Walker: c.7,ll.20-25: fig. 3:314: “IMAGE RECOG. MODULE”)69 {{or (N) more (via said “objects or characters thereon”, Walker: c.7,ll.20-25: fig. 3:314: “IMAGE RECOG. MODULE”) characteristics}} (mapped to either Markush alternative (A) or (B)) of the70 identified object7172 identified characteristic, determining a value corresponding to the characteristic73 (or likewise “Information extraction component 316 can extract74 information based on the image itself, letters or numbers recognized in the image, or various combinations thereof.”, Walker, c.7.ll. 40-45);
checking the value of {{each of}} the (A) one {{or (B) more}} characteristic{{s}} identified in the identified object against75 the76 corresponding predetermined value{{s}} of the77 predetermined characteristic{{s}} embodied (or said likewise “Information extraction component 316 can extract78 information based on the image itself, letters or numbers recognized79 in the image”, Walker, c.7.ll. 40-45) in80 the rules (or likewise “rules and standards to used as the basis of differentiating, clarifying, correcting and eliminating redundancies associated with objects”, Berkheimer, c.14,c.14, bullet “6.”) {{}}81; and
providing an output of the checking step (or said likewise “Information extraction component 316 can extract information based on the image itself, letters or numbers recognized in the image”, Walker, c.7.ll. 40-45).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YOSHIDA (JP 2005-196679 A) with SEARCH machine translation plus SEARCH machine translation II in view of LV (CN 104527238 A) with SEARCH machine translation as applied in claims 8,9 further in view of Berkheimer (US 7,447,713 B1) as applied in claims 1,4,5 and 10,11 further in view of Walker et al. (US 10,515,419 B1) as applied in claims 6,7 further in view of Lisinski et al. (US 5,260,866):
PNG
media_image23.png
497
657
media_image23.png
Greyscale
Re 7., YOSHIDA of the combination of YOSHIDA-LV-Berkheimer-Walker teaches, under the NON-broadest reasonable interpretation (via Markush alternative (N)), The method of claim 582, further comprising the steps of:
identifying83
(M) one (via said “objects or characters84 thereon”, c.7,ll.20-25: fig. 3:314: “IMAGE RECOG. MODULE”)85 or
(N) more (via said “objects or characters thereon”, c.7,ll.20-25: fig. 3:314: “IMAGE RECOG. MODULE”) characteristics (mapped to either Markush alternative (M) or (N)) of the identified object in the identified (“at least a portion of” Walker, c.7,ll.15-20) representation and
for each8687 identified characteristic, determining a value corresponding to the characteristic88;
checking (via preflighting) the value of each89 of90 the (M) one or (N) more characteristics identified in the representation against the corresponding predetermined values of the predetermined (editorial) characteristics embodied in the rules91, wherein the predetermined values of the predetermined (editorial) characteristics are independent from a master file of the graphics artwork file92; and
providing an output of the checking step9394.
YOSHIDA of the combination does not teach , under the NON-broadest reasonable interpretation, the difference of claim 7 of:
determining a value corresponding to (the characteristic95)96 …
the value of each97 of98 (the one or more characteristics identified) … against the corresponding predetermined values of (the predetermined characteristics) embodied in (the rules99)100, wherein the predetermined values of (the predetermined characteristics) are independent from a master file.
Lisinski teach, under the NON-broadest reasonable interpretation, the difference of claim 7 of:
determining a (“unique”) value corresponding to (the characteristic101)102 (character “keys”, c.19,ll. 25-30) …
the value (“M”: c. 21: TABLE 19: “M…Multiple variable103 table”) of each104 of105 (the one or more characteristics identified) … (“checked”, c.20,ll.20-25) against the corresponding predetermined values of (the predetermined characteristics) embodied in (“rule statements”, c.20,ll.20-25: via a manufacturing rule-“TABLE 25”, c.28) (the rules106)107, wherein the predetermined (rule) values (M/Internal Variable used in TABLE 25) of (the predetermined characteristics) are independent from a master file (i.e., “not limited to, the following files of the preferred system: Part Master, Customer Master, Sales Order Header, Sales Order Line, and Warehouse Balance. “, c.18,ll.5-10).
Since Berkheimer of the combination teaches ruled-documents used for manufacturing and problems thereof:
Associated with the hard-copy based paradigm that unnecessarily encumbers the efficient document use and archiving mentioned above is a similarly constraining and longstanding paradigm, which addresses the work processes and methods involved with converting documents for mass reproduction of as a work-in-turn, custom-manufacturing process. In this paradigm, over time the same reproduction-related preparation tasks are executed over and over again to the same basic elements, which are part of multiple documents prepared for reproduction. Because of the document archiving systems that are driven by this paradigm, those involved with the preparation of documents for mass production reproduction are unable to take advantage of the opportunities of a components-based manufacturing approach that are made possible by the methods, devices and processes of the invention.
, one of skill in the art of rules and manufacturing can make Berkheimer’s of the combination of YOSHIDA-LV-Berkheimer-Walker be as Lisinski’s seeing that the change “solves” “difficulty organizing construction of a product in one location according to one work order and construction of a part for the product in another location according to another work order, especially since the work orders are not logically related within the manufacturing system”, Lisinski, c.2,ll.35-50.
Conclusion
The prior art “nearest to the subject matter defined in the claims” (MPEP 707.05) made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following table lists several references that are relevant to the subject matter claimed and disclosed in this Application. The references are not relied on by the Examiner, but are provided to assist the Applicant in responding to this Office action.
Citation
Relevance
IDS cited Powell et al. (US 11,449,698 B2)
Powell teaches “artwork…files” and “machine vision”:
c.1,l.60 to c.2,l.10:
“Other errors may occur due to conflicting codes inserted in product packaging artwork or printing errors. In the former case, a package design file may encompass design elements, each bearing a different product code, which may conflict in some cases. Also, the package design file may include references to artwork in other files, which is composited to produce the package108 design image prior to printing. In this image assembly process, conflicting codes may be incorporated from the artwork in the reference files. In the latter case, conflicting codes may be printed due to printing plates that apply imagery with conflicting codes. Also, printing may occur with plural print stages, in which a first print technology like flexography or offset applies a first design to a package substrate, and a second print technology like a digital offset or inkjet applies a second design to a package substrate.”
c.7,ll.45-55:
“For the sake of illustration, FIG. 4 is a diagram of components in an imager-based scanner. Our description is primarily focused on fixed, multi-plane imager-based scanner. However, it is not intended to be limiting, as the embodiments may be implemented in other imaging devices, such as hand-held scanners, smartphones, tablets, machine vision systems, etc”
as the closest to the claimed “a graphics artwork file…machine vision” of claim 1.
R. MUMBY (Packaging109 Technology: Chapter 19 - Printing for packaging)
MUMBY teaches “Trapping” (as also taught by YOSHIDA (JP 2005-196679 A) as applied above in the rejection of claim 6 under 35 USC 103); “artwork file” and “Machine vision” via MUMBY, pages 456, 457,486,487:
Page 456
“19.8.2 Reprographics and pre-press
The term reprographics (repro) essentially refers to the reproduction of graphics in some form or another and pre-press refers to the work required for an artwork to be printable including platemaking. In terms of packaging printing this means the conversion of the graphic design artwork file to a file that is able to be reproduced by the chosen printing method. Each printing method has different requirements based on its individual properties and limitations. It is vital for the reprographics operations to be run in close communication with the print production, since the final product is highly dependent on not only the design itself but the way it has been set to print. The processes of graphic design and reprographics tend to be sold as a service to packaging manufacturers where in-house capabilities are not available and to packaging buyers seeking consistency across multiple items of a particular brand. The following sections show examples of typical repro operations.”
Page 457:
“Trapping (choking, spreading, gripping)
The trapping of two or more colours refers to the overprint (or underprint) at the interface between the two (or more) colours in the artwork.” and
Pages 486,487:
“Machine vision systems
Simple versions of these types of systems take still images of printing material as it is running with the aid of stroboscopes (strobe lighted image capture) or from freeze frame continuous image capture. These systems allow the printer to monitor the quality during production at running speeds. They are popular in reel to reel applications and are often linked to labelling systems to allow defective areas of print to be marked up clearly so that they can be removed during downstream processing treatments.
Advancements in technology now allow for the more complex systems of optical character recognition/verification. These systems allow comparison of individual measurements against a given standard (Anon., 2009). Capable of spotting a whole host of print defects, these systems are being introduced/retrofitted to print machinery. They have gained popularity particularly in sheet-fed application with double delivery systems which allow product affected by defects to be segregated from good quality product whilst in full production in a separate delivery section of a press. However, the sensitivity of these systems may potentially add to increase wastage and labour costs for sorting acceptable defect levels from unacceptable defect levels.
as the closest to the claimed “a graphics artwork file…machine vision” of claim 1.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DENNIS ROSARIO whose telephone number is (571)272-7397. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9AM-5PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Henok Shiferaw can be reached at 571-272-4637. 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.
/DENNIS ROSARIO/Examiner, Art Unit 2676
/Henok Shiferaw/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2676
1 MPEP 2106/05(a) I. IMPROVEMENTS TO COMPUTER FUNCTIONALITY:
“Examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality:…
iii. Mere automation of manual processes, such as using a generic computer to process an application for financing a purchase, Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017) or speeding up a loan-application process by enabling borrowers to avoid physically going to or calling each lender and filling out a loan application, LendingTree, LLC v. Zillow, Inc., 656 Fed. App'x 991, 996-97 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential);”
2 electronic: of, relating to, or controlled by computers or computerized systems: an electronic document, wherein computer is defined: a programmable electronic device designed to accept data, perform prescribed mathematical and logical operations at high speed, and display the results of these operations.. (Dictionary.com)
3 screen: The surface on which an image is displayed, as on a television, computer monitor, or radar receiver. (Dictionary.com)
4 MPEP 2106.05(d) Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity [R-07.2022]
EVALUATING WHETHER THE ADDITIONAL ELEMENTS ARE WELL-UNDERSTOOD, ROUTINE, CONVENTIONAL ACTIVITY
2. A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) (e.g., [0022]:“Machine visions systems…as part of the quality control process at the design stage for product packaging to ensure a file meets corporate and legal guidelines before the design is approved for print”) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018). However, this does not mean that a prior art search is necessary to resolve this inquiry. Instead, examiners should rely on what the courts have recognized, or those in the art would recognize, as elements [“Machine learning systems”] that are well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the relevant field (said [0002] “the field of packaging design”) when making the required determination (not decided but this is learning to being favorable).
5 i.e., to be well-understand (understood) with
6 know: to be acquainted or familiar with, wherein familiar is defined: well-known; easily recognized, wherein know is defined: (also intr; may take a clause as object) to understand, be aware of, or perceive (facts, etc)
7 suggest: to mention or introduce (an idea, proposition, plan, etc.) for consideration or possible action, wherein proposition is defined: the act of offering or suggesting something to be considered, accepted, adopted, or done (Dictionary.com)
8 shape: something used to give form, as a mold or a pattern, wherein pattern is defined: an example, instance, sample, or specimen, wherein example is defined: a pattern or model, as of something to be imitated or avoided, wherein imitated is defined: to make a copy of; reproduce closely. (Dictionary.com)
9 or: (used to connect words, phrases, or clauses representing alternatives), wherein alternative is defined: a choice limited to one of two or more possibilities, as of things, propositions, or courses of action, the selection of which precludes any other possibility , wherein proposition is defined: the act of offering or suggesting something to be considered, accepted, adopted, or done. (Dictionary.com)
10 shape: something used to give form, as a mold or a pattern, wherein pattern is defined: an example, instance, sample, or specimen, wherein example is defined: a pattern or model, as of something to be imitated or avoided, wherein imitated is defined: to make a copy of; reproduce closely. (Dictionary.com)
11 extract: to take or copy out (matter), as from a book. (Dictionary.com)
12 BROAD CLAIM LANGIAGE: -ing (of “receiving” or ”preflighting” or any word in the claim set with “-ing”): a suffix of nouns formed from verbs, expressing the action of the verb or its result, product, material, etc. (the art of building; a new building; cotton wadding ), wherein etc is defined: and others; and so forth; and so on (used to indicate that more of the same sort or class might have been mentioned, but for brevity have been omitted)., wherein so is defined: likewise or correspondingly; also; too.(Dictionary.com)
13 to: preposition: any member of a class of words found in many languages that are used before nouns (“file”), pronouns, or other substantives to form phrases ( to read the graphics artwork file) functioning as modifiers of verbs (participle: “receiving”), nouns (gerund: “receiving”), or adjectives (“graphics”), and that typically express a spatial, temporal, or other relationship, as in, on, by, to, since, wherein or is defined: (used to connect words, phrases, or clauses representing alternatives). (Dictionary.com)
14 font: a complete assortment of type of one style and size. (Dictionary.com)
15 PDF: Digital Technology. portable document format: a file format that makes it possible to display text and graphics in the same fixed layout on any computer screen. (Dictionary.com)
16 The text in {{squiggles}} is not “a limitation in a claim…where the clause gave ‘meaning and purpose to the manipulative steps’ “ via MPEP 2111.04 "Adapted to," "Adapted for," "Wherein," "Whereby," and Contingent Clauses [R-10.2019]
"ADAPTED TO," "ADAPTED FOR," "WHEREIN," and "WHEREBY"
Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure. However, examples of claim language, although not exhaustive, that may raise a question as to the limiting effect of the language in a claim are:
(A) "adapted to" or "adapted for" clauses;
(B) "wherein" clauses (in claim 9); and
(C) "whereby" clauses.
The determination of whether each of these clauses is a limitation in a claim depends on the specific facts of the case. See, e.g., Griffin v. Bertina, 285 F.3d 1029, 1034, 62 USPQ2d 1431 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (finding that a "wherein" clause limited a process claim where the clause gave "meaning and purpose to the manipulative steps": the “wherein” clause of claim 9 is not giving meaning and purpose to the manipulative steps via the preamble’s “for using a graphics artwork file” or the intended use of “for performing machine vision to read the graphics artwork file”: for example how does “the size specification” manipulate (i.e., give meaning & purpose to) “using a graphics artwork file”? (Is the claimed invention adjusting the size specification to properly fit the file/document?) How does “a first list of information” give meaning & purpose to “performing machine vision to read the graphics artwork file”? (Is the claimed invention providing a first list information of computer/machine vision steps such that each machine/computer vision step is in the first list)?.
17 MPEP 2143.03 All Claim Limitations Must Be Considered [R-01.2024]
"All words in a claim must be considered in judging the patentability of that claim against the prior art." In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385, 165 USPQ 494, 496 (CCPA 1970).
Examiners must consider all claim limitations when determining patentability of an invention over the prior art. In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 403-04 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The subject matter of a properly construed claim is defined by the terms that limit the scope of the claim when given their broadest reasonable interpretation. In Axonics, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., 73 F.4th 950, 958-59, 2023 USPQ2d 795 (Fed. Cir. 2023), the court found the claims were improperly narrowed based on a preferred embodiment to sacral anatomy or sacral neuromodulation, whereas the patent claims made no reference to sacral anatomy or sacral neuromodulation. Thus, the relevant prior art was improperly limited to a narrow subset of claim scope. See also MPEP § 2111 et seq. It is the subject matter of the properly construed claim that must be examined. The determination of whether particular language is a limitation in a claim depends on the specific facts of the case. See, e.g., Griffin v. Bertina, 285 F.3d 1029, 1034, 62 USPQ2d 1431 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
18 THE CLAIMED INVENTION AS A WHOLE
The problem is via applicant’s disclosure, page 1:
Currently, manual visual checks are performed on a hard copy proof or an electronic soft proof on a screen, against rules or requirements enumerated in a Corporate/Brand Guide. This is a tedious process, and the inherency of human error creates an undesirable error rate.
The solution is:
[0019] In exemplary aspects of the invention, computer vision is used for checking that certain logos, graphics or images appear, or do not appear in the job. The user may create a ‘white list’ (information that is desired to be present—e.g. the current form of a corporate logo) or ‘black list’ (information not desired to be present—e.g. an older form of the corporate logo). Information for use by the processor, such as the foregoing lists, or other characteristics to be detected and checked, may be stored locally or in a distributed asset management (DAM) system. The information may be referenced by a SKU, a customer, or a brand, depending upon specific job requirements. Exemplary embodiments may be particular useful for ensuring that correct logos/graphics are used instead of old ones, and also to ensure that required logos/graphics are in place. Additional functionality available using computer vision techniques may include ‘reading’ barcodes and braille, and optical character recognition for spell checking. Exemplary embodiments that provide an accurate automated solution are expected to save time, increase accuracy, and reduce deadlines and waste.
The lack in claims 8,9 of “In exemplary aspects of the invention, computer vision is used for checking that certain logos, graphics or images appear, or do not appear in the job.” is an indication of obviousness.
19 ellipses (…) represent claim limitations already taught
20 (italics) represent claim limitations already taught
21 THE CLAIMED INVENTION AS A WHOLE
The problem is via applicant’s disclosure, page 1:
Currently, manual visual checks are performed on a hard copy proof or an electronic soft proof on a screen, against rules or requirements enumerated in a Corporate/Brand Guide. This is a tedious process, and the inherency of human error creates an undesirable error rate.
22 ellipses (…) represent claim limitations already taught
23 (italics) represent claim limitations already taught
24 or: (used to connect words, phrases, or clauses representing alternatives), wherein alternative is defined: a choice limited to one of two or more possibilities, as of things, propositions, or courses of action, the selection of which precludes any other possibility. (Dictionary.com)
25 typography: the art or process of printing with type. (Dictionary.com)
26 for: preposition: any member of a class of words found in many languages that are used before nouns (“file”), pronouns, or other substantives to form phrases (“for modifying a graphics artwork file”) functioning as modifiers of verbs [“receiving”; “identifying”; “determining”; “preflighting”], nouns, or adjectives, and that typically express a spatial, temporal, or other relationship, as in, on, by, to, since. (Dictionary.com)
27 MPEP 2111.02 Effect of Preamble [R-07.2022]
II. PREAMBLE STATEMENTS RECITING PURPOSE OR INTENDED USE, 2nd para, 1st S:
--During examination, statements in the preamble reciting the purpose or intended use [||for modifying a graphics artwork file||] of the claimed invention must be evaluated to determine whether or not the recited purpose or intended use results in a structural difference (or, in the case of process claims, manipulative difference) between the claimed invention and the prior art. If so, the recitation serves to limit the claim.—wherein manipulative is defined: of or relating to manipulation of objects or parts of the body; serving to manipulate, wherein manipulate (a manipulation of words is not apparent/explicit in claim 1 using ”for modifying a graphics artwork file”) is defined: to adapt or change (accounts, figures, etc. [or something in claim 1: “something” is in the realm of 35 USC 112(f)] as “means”) to suit one's purpose or advantage [i.e., modifying a graphics artwork file]. (Dictionary.com)
28 BROAD CLAIM LANGUAGE: -ing (of “receiving” or “identifying” or ”preflighting”): a suffix of nouns formed from verbs, expressing the action of the verb or its result, product, material, etc. (the art of building; a new building; cotton wadding ), wherein etc is defined: and others; and so forth; and so on (used to indicate that more of the same sort or class might have been mentioned, but for brevity have been omitted)., wherein so is defined: likewise or correspondingly; also; too.(Dictionary.com)
29 I see no explicit logical manipulation of words in this “receiving” limitation using the grammatical manipulator “for modifying a graphics artwork file”: for example how is “an input port” logically modified with “modifying a graphics artwork file”? I would say invoke 35 USC 112(f) to determine what disclosed means or acts are disclosed to achieve the manipulation of “an input port” with “modifying a graphics artwork file”. Note that 35 USC 112(f) is not invoked in claim 8.
30 port: Computers. a physical connection in a computer to which a peripheral device or a transmission line from a remote terminal can be attached. (Dictionary.com)
31 input: computing the data fed into a computer from a peripheral device (Dictionary.com)
32 For: with the object or purpose of, wherein with is defined: in some particular relation to (especially implying interaction, company, association, conjunction, or connection). (Dictionary.com)
33 Text in {{squiggles}} is not “a limitation in a claim… where the clause gave "meaning and purpose to the manipulative steps””: via:
MPEP 2111.04 "Adapted to," "Adapted for," "Wherein," "Whereby," and Contingent Clauses [R-10.2019]
I. "ADAPTED TO," "ADAPTED FOR," "WHEREIN," and "WHEREBY"
Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure. However, examples of claim language, although not exhaustive, that may raise a question as to the limiting effect of the language in a claim are:
(A) "adapted to" or "adapted for" clauses;
(B) "wherein" clauses; and
(C) "whereby" clauses.
The determination of whether each of these clauses is a limitation in a claim depends on the specific facts of the case. See, e.g., Griffin v. Bertina, 285 F.3d 1029, 1034, 62 USPQ2d 1431 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (finding that a "wherein" clause limited a process claim where the clause gave "meaning and purpose to the manipulative steps").
34 BROAD CLAIM LANGUAGE: object: Digital Technology. any item that can be individually selected or manipulated, as a picture, data file, or piece of text. (Dictionary.com)
35 BROAD CLAIM LANGUAGE: -ing (of “receiving” or “identifying” or ”preflighting”): a suffix of nouns formed from verbs, expressing the action of the verb or its result, product, material, etc. (the art of building; a new building; cotton wadding ), wherein etc is defined: and others; and so forth; and so on (used to indicate that more of the same sort or class might have been mentioned, but for brevity have been omitted)., wherein so is defined: likewise or correspondingly; also; too.(Dictionary.com)
36 Markush element of Markush alternatives follows: [(A) or (B)]
37 “rule”: a principle or regulation governing conduct, action, procedure, arrangement, etc.. the rules of chess. Synonyms: order, dictate, decree, regulation, law, guideline, bylaw, standard, precept (Dictionary.com)
38 Markush element of Markush alternatives follows: [(C) or (D)]
39 “each rule” is directed to Markush alternatives (B) & (D): “more”
40 edit: Computers. to modify or add to (data or text), wherein text is defined: any of the various forms in which a writing exists, wherein form is defined: a particular condition, character, or mode in which something appears. (Dictionary.com)
41 regarding “guidelines” see “rule” footnote above regarding the synonym “guideline”
42 “the one or more guidelines” refers to Markush alternatives (A)(B)(C)(D)
43 Markush element of Markush alternatives follow: [(E),(F),(G), or (H)]
44 Markush element of Markush alternatives follow: [(I),(J),(K), or (L)]
45 The text in {{}} is not “a limitation in a claim… where the clause gave "meaning and purpose to the manipulative steps””: via:
MPEP 2111.04 "Adapted to," "Adapted for," "Wherein," "Whereby," and Contingent Clauses [R-10.2019]
I. "ADAPTED TO," "ADAPTED FOR," "WHEREIN," and "WHEREBY"
Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure. However, examples of claim language, although not exhaustive, that may raise a question as to the limiting effect of the language in a claim are:
(A) "adapted to" or "adapted for" clauses;
(B) "wherein" clauses; and
(C) "whereby" clauses.
The determination of whether each of these clauses is a limitation in a claim depends on the specific facts of the case. See, e.g., Griffin v. Bertina, 285 F.3d 1029, 1034, 62 USPQ2d 1431 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (finding that a "wherein" clause limited a process claim where the clause gave "meaning and purpose to the manipulative steps": ||for modifying a graphics artwork file||).
46 MPEP 2143.03 All Claim Limitations Must Be Considered [R-01.2024]:
"All words in a claim must be considered in judging the patentability of that claim against the prior art." In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385, 165 USPQ 494, 496 (CCPA 1970).
Examiners must consider all claim limitations when determining patentability of an invention over the prior art. In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 403-04 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The subject matter of a properly construed claim is defined by the terms that limit the scope of the claim when given their broadest reasonable interpretation. In Axonics, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., 73 F.4th 950, 958-59, 2023 USPQ2d 795 (Fed. Cir. 2023), the court found the claims were improperly narrowed based on a preferred embodiment to sacral anatomy or sacral neuromodulation, whereas the patent claims made no reference to sacral anatomy or sacral neuromodulation. Thus, the relevant prior art was improperly limited to a narrow subset of claim scope. See also MPEP § 2111 et seq. It is the subject matter of the properly construed claim that must be examined. The determination of whether particular language is a limitation in a claim depends on the specific facts of the case. See, e.g., Griffin v. Bertina, 285 F.3d 1029, 1034, 62 USPQ2d 1431 (Fed. Cir. 2002)
47 rule: a principle or regulation governing conduct, action, procedure, arrangement, etc.. the rules of chess. Synonyms: order, dictate, decree, regulation, law, guideline, bylaw, standard, precept (Dictionary.com)
48 regarding “guidelines” (a synonym for rule) see “rule” footnote above
49 BROAD CLAIM LANGUAGE: rule: a principle or regulation governing conduct, action, procedure, arrangement, etc.. the rules of chess. Synonyms: order, dictate, decree, regulation, law, guideline, bylaw, standard, precept (Dictionary.com)
50 regarding “guidelines” see “rule” footnote above
51 or: (used to connect words, phrases, or clauses representing alternatives), wherein alternative is defined: one of the things, propositions, or courses of action that can be chosen, wherein proposition is defined: the act of offering or suggesting something to be considered, accepted, adopted, or done (Dictionary.com)
52 machine vision: Computers. computer vision, wherein computer vision is defined: Digital Technology. a robot analogue of human vision in which information about the environment is received by one or more video cameras and processed by computer: used in navigation by robots, in the control of automated production lines, etc.(Dictionary.com)
53 and: (used to connect alternatives): pick one step in claim 10 under broadest reasonable interpretation
54 The text in {{}} is not “a limitation in a claim… where the clause gave "meaning and purpose to the manipulative steps””: via:
MPEP 2111.04 "Adapted to," "Adapted for," "Wherein," "Whereby," and Contingent Clauses [R-10.2019]
I. "ADAPTED TO," "ADAPTED FOR," "WHEREIN," and "WHEREBY"
Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure. However, examples of claim language, although not exhaustive [I am also adding non-restrictive comma phrases: , with the processor,], that may raise a question as to the limiting effect of the language in a claim are:
(A) "adapted to" or "adapted for" clauses;
(B) "wherein" clauses (see claim 10, last “wherein” (twice) limitation); and
(C) "whereby" clauses.
The determination of whether each of these clauses is a limitation in a claim depends on the specific facts of the case. See, e.g., Griffin v. Bertina, 285 F.3d 1029, 1034, 62 USPQ2d 1431 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (finding that a "wherein" clause limited a process claim where the clause gave "meaning and purpose to the manipulative steps": “for performing machine vision to read a graphics artwork file” ).
55 edit: Computers. to modify or add to (data or text).(Dictionary.com: AMERICAN)
56 edit: (tr) to modify (a computer file) by, for example, deleting, inserting, moving, or copying text (Dictionary.com: BRITISH)
57 shape: something used to give form, as a mold or a pattern, wherein pattern is defined: an example, instance, sample, or specimen, wherein example is defined: a pattern or model, as of something to be imitated or avoided, wherein imitated is defined: to make a copy of; reproduce closely. (Dictionary.com)
58 data: (usually used with a singular verb) information in digital format, as encoded text or numbers, or multimedia images, audio, or video, wherein format is defined: Computers. the arrangement of data for computer input or output, such as the number and size of fields in a record or the spacing and punctuation of information in a report, wherein report is defined: Computers. output, especially printed, containing organized information. (Dictionary.com)
59 detailed: thorough in the treatment of details; minute. (Dictionary.com)
60 drafted: to draw the outlines or plan of; sketch, wherein outline is defined: a general sketch, account, or report, indicating only the main features, as of a book, subject, or project. Synonyms: summary, synopsis, rough, draft, plan, wherein draft is defined: a first or preliminary form of any writing, subject to revision, copying, etc. (Dictionary.com)
61 persist: Computers. to cause (a record, configuration, value, etc.) to be written to permanent storage by the scripted process that created it, so that it continues to exist in the same state after the script has finished running, wherein record is defined: the state of being recorded, as in writing, wherein recorded is defined: to set down, register, or fix by characteristic marks, incisions, magnetism, etc., for the purpose of reproduction by a phonograph or magnetic reproducer, wherein reproduction is defined: the act or process of reproducing wherein reproducing is defined: to make a copy, representation, duplicate, or close imitation of. (Dictionary.com)
62 Note that “trapping” was interpreted as a machine-translation error and as a text-field held/trapped in a record of a file or even boxed-in text; however, “trap” appears as a tern of art: see below discussion of R. MUMBY (Packaging Technology: Chapter 19 - Printing for packaging) teaching “trapping”.
63 data: (usually used with a singular verb) information in digital format, as encoded text or numbers, or multimedia images, audio, or video, wherein format is defined: Computers. the arrangement of data for computer input or output, such as the number and size of fields in a record or the spacing and punctuation of information in a report, wherein report is defined: Computers. output, especially printed, containing organized information, wherein organized is defined: characterized by neatness and order, with tasks planned, materials arranged, etc., for optimum efficiency. (Dictionary.com)
64 shape: something used to give form, as a mold or a pattern, wherein pattern is defined: an example, instance, sample, or specimen, wherein example is defined: a pattern or model, as of something to be imitated or avoided, wherein imitated is defined: to make a copy of; reproduce closely. (Dictionary.com)
65 detailed: thorough in the treatment of details; minute (Dictionary.com)
66 drafted: to draw the outlines or plan of; sketch, wherein outline is defined: a general sketch, account, or report, indicating only the main features, as of a book, subject, or project. Synonyms: summary, synopsis, rough, draft, plan, wherein draft is defined: a first or preliminary form of any writing, subject to revision, copying, etc. (Dictionary.com)
67 Revision: the act or work of revising, wherein revise is defined: to alter something already written or printed, in order to make corrections, improve, or update. (Dictioanry.com)
68 Markush element follows: [(M) or (N)]
69 Since Markush alternative (M):one characteristic is taught, the Markush element [(M) or (N)] is taught
70 The: (used distributively, to note any one separately) for, to, or in each; a or an. (Dictionary.com)
71 each: every one of two or more considered individually or one by one. (Dictionary.com)
72 “each” is directed to Markush alternative (N): “more characteristics”.
73 This claim limitation is directed to Markush alternative (N)
74 extract: to take or copy out (matter), as from a book, wherein take is defined: to determine by inquiry, examination, measurement, scientific observation, etc..(Dictionary.com) .
75 against: preposition: any member of a class of words found in many languages that are used before nouns, pronouns, or other substantives to form phrases functioning as modifiers of verbs, nouns, or adjectives, and that typically express a spatial, temporal, or other relationship, as in, on, by, to, since. (Dictionary.com)
76 the: (used distributively, to note any one separately) for, to, or in each; a or an. (Dictionary.com)
77 the: (used distributively, to note any one separately) for, to, or in each; a or an. (Dictionary.com)
78 extract: to take or copy out (matter), as from a book, wherein take is defined: to determine by inquiry, examination, measurement, scientific observation, etc..(Dictionary.com) .
79 recognize: to perceive (a person, creature, or thing) to be the same as or belong to the same class as something previously seen or known; know again, wherein known is defined: specified and identified, wherein identify is defined: to prove or recognize as being a certain person or thing; determine the identity of , wherein prove is defined: (may take a clause as object or an infinitive) to establish or demonstrate the truth or validity of; verify, esp by using an established sequence of procedures or statements, wherein verify is defined: to check or determine the correctness or truth of by investigation, reference, etc (Dictionary.com)
80 in: preposition: any member of a class of words found in many languages that are used before nouns, pronouns, or other substantives to form phrases functioning as modifiers of verbs, nouns, or adjectives, and that typically express a spatial, temporal, or other relationship, as in, on, by, to, since. (Dictionary.com)
81 The text in {{}} is not “a limitation in a claim… where the clause gave "meaning and purpose to the manipulative steps””: via:
MPEP 2111.04 "Adapted to," "Adapted for," "Wherein," "Whereby," and Contingent Clauses [R-10.2019] I. "ADAPTED TO," "ADAPTED FOR," "WHEREIN," and "WHEREBY"
Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure. However, examples of claim language, although not exhaustive [I am also adding non-restrictive comma phrases: , with the processor,], that may raise a question as to the limiting effect of the language in a claim are:
(A) "adapted to" or "adapted for" clauses;
(B) "wherein" clauses (see claim 10, last “wherein” (twice) limitation); and
(C) "whereby" clauses.
The determination of whether each of these clauses is a limitation in a claim depends on the specific facts of the case. See, e.g., Griffin v. Bertina, 285 F.3d 1029, 1034, 62 USPQ2d 1431 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (finding that a "wherein" clause limited a process claim where the clause gave "meaning and purpose to the manipulative steps": “for performing machine vision to read a graphics artwork file”
82 “claim 5” is interpreted as: claim [[5]] 6.
83 Markush element follows: [(M) or (N)]
84 character: one such feature or trait; characteristic. (Dictionary.com)
85 Since Markush alternative (M):one characteristic is taught, the Markush element [(M) or (N)] is taught
86 each: every one of two or more considered individually or one by one. (Dictionary.com)
87 “each” is directed to Markush alternative (N): “more characteristics”.
88 This claim limitation is directed to Markush alternative (N)
89 This particular “each” and thus the corresponding claim limitation is directed to Markush alternative (N):.
90 this “of” (of “of the one or more characteristics”) is broad and generally refers back to the Markush element [(M) or (N)].
91 “the corresponding predetermined values of the predetermined characteristics embodied in the rules” refers back to claim 1’s Markush alternatives (B) & (D): more
92 This claim limitation is directed to claim 1’s Markush alternative (B)
93 This claim limitation is directed to Markush alternative (B)
94 Since Markush alternative (A) is taught, the Markush element [(A) or (B)] is taught under the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 7.
95 This claim limitation is directed to Markush alternative (N)
96 (italics) represent claim limitations already taught
97 This particular “each” and thus the corresponding claim limitation is directed to Markush alternative (N):.
98 this “of” (of “of the one or more characteristics”) is broad and generally refers back to the Markush element [(M) or (N)].
99 “the corresponding predetermined values of the predetermined characteristics embodied in the rules” refers back to Markush alternatives (B) & (D): more
100 (italics) represent claim limitations already taught
101 This claim limitation is directed to Markush alternative (N)
102 (italics) represent claim limitations already taught
103 variable: Mathematics, Computers. A. a quantity or function that may assume any given value or set of values. B. a symbol that represents this (Dictionary.com).
104 This particular “each” and thus the corresponding claim limitation is directed to Markush alternative (N):.
105 this “of” (of “of the one or more characteristics”) is broad and generally refers back to the Markush element [(M) or (N)].
106 “the corresponding predetermined values of the predetermined characteristics embodied in the rules” refers back to Markush alternatives (B) & (D): more
107 (italics) represent claim limitations already taught
108 “package” (in the same field of applicant’s invention) was not used as a search term; thus “package” is a coincidence
109 “packaging” (in the same field of applicant’s invention) was not used as a search term; thus “packaging” is a coincidence
Prosecution Insights