DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 22 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 9-10 the applicant argues that the amendments to claims 1 and 13 are not taught by Howard. Specifically, the applicant argues on page 9 that Howard does not disclose a data matrix region including both fixed pattern regions and a random pattern region because all of the elements in Howard’s code have defined, predictable structures for encoding and decoding purposes and Howard has no disclosure of a “random pattern region.” However, the applicant’s claimed “random pattern region”: is not actually random at all in the true sense of the definition of “random.” Instead, in applicant’s specification, page 12, lines 9-18, just state that the “random” pattern region contains shapes and information depending on the product information or characteristics. Thus, the region is not actually random. Instead, the random pattern is merely dynamic, i.e. not fixed, much like a barcode for a specific product. As explained in the rejection below, Howard does disclose of fixed and dynamic pattern regions, and also discloses of using only a fixed pattern region and not the dynamic region for abnormality determination. Therefore, Howard teaches the claims as amended as explained in the rejection below.
On pages 10-11 the applicant argues that new claim 22 is not taught by Howard. Specifically, first, the applicant argues that Howard does not disclose adjusting an inspection region based on an area of the fixed pattern region because the transforms and trimming for decoding purposes is not the same as adjusting an inspection region based on the area of a fixed pattern region to reduce over-inspection rates caused by skewed labels. 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., to reduce over-inspection rates caused by skewed labels) 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). The applicant continues that the adjusting step of claim 22 specifically addresses the problem of physical misalignment on a production line, etc. on pages 15-16 of the specification and that this is conceptually and fundamentally different from Howard’s perspective normalization during decoding, however, none of this is recited in the claim. The claim is broad and uses “based on” language, and therefore Howard teaches the claimed limitation.
Second, the applicant argues that the abnormality being based on “the number of white pixels” within the adjusted region is a specific quality inspection technique not found in Howard, stating that in Howard it is for decode-grade scoring purposes, not white pixel counts for manufacturing quality assessment. However, the claim is broad, and merely says “based on.” The code is made up of only black and white pixels. Thus, as explained previously in the rejection of claims 5 and 6, paragraphs [0245]-[0247] and Table 3 of Howard teach this feature, which will be “based on” the number of pixels since there are a number of pixels in the image, where pixels that are white are 0 [1 are black] as shown in Figure 18, thus it will be “based on” the number of white pixels. “Based on” language is overly broad and if the applicant wants specific meaning then the claim should be amended to give it specific meaning instead of using overly board language which can be interpreted different ways. Paragraph [0245] specifically says this is for fixed pattern damage grading, i.e. abnormality in quality, which will be “of the label” since that is what is being inspected.
Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 22 July 2026. These drawings are accepted.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“an imaging unit configured to…” in claim 13 (Page 11 of the specification, lines 19-21 state that the imaging unit is a camera.); and
“an inspection unit configured to…” in claim 13 (Page 10 of the specification, lines 5-28 say that “unit” can be processors, meaning that this limitation is a computer-implemented means-plus-function limitation, which requires an algorithm. See MPEP § 2181. Figure 8 shows an algorithm [flowchart].).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-9 and 13-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Howard et al. (US 2020/0042849).
Regarding claim 1, Howard et al. disclose a method for inspecting quality of a label (Paragraph [0118] and [0225], for example.), the method comprising:
receiving from an imaging unit an image including the label (Figure 15, “grayscale image” and paragraph [0136]. See paragraphs [0107] and [0228] which explain an imaging unit is used.);
extracting, using an inspection unit, a data matrix region of the label from the image (Figure 15, “Quad extraction” and paragraphs [0229]-[0230]. The “computing device” is the inspection unit.), with the data matrix region including at least one fixed pattern region and a random pattern region (Paragraph [0006] explains there is a “static” [fixed] region and a “dynamic” [random] region. See also paragraph [0073] and Figure 2A, for example. Then, in Figure 18, the finder areas are fixed, see paragraphs [0036]-[0037].);
extracting, using the inspection unit, at least one fixed pattern region from the data matrix region (Figure 15, “Finder search” and paragraphs [0140] and [0235]-[0236].); and
determining, using the inspection unit, an abnormality in quality of the label based on the extracted at least one fixed pattern region and not based on the random pattern region (Figure 18 and paragraphs [0244]-[0246], and, as explained above, the finder areas are fixed and are the only regions used to determine abnormality in quality of the label, and thus this is done based on the extracted at least one fixed pattern region and not based on the random pattern region as claimed.).
Regarding claim 2, Howard et al. disclose the method as recited in claim 1, wherein the at least one fixed pattern region comprises a line region and a dot region (Figure 18, for example, shows “dot” regions and “line” regions.).
Regarding claim 3, Howard et al. disclose the method as recited in claim 2, wherein the determination of the abnormality in the quality of the label is based on the number of dots included in the dot region (Paragraphs [0245]-[0247], see Table 3.).
Regarding claim 4, Howard et al. disclose the method as recited in claim 1, wherein the extracting of the at least one fixed pattern region from the data matrix region comprises:
binarizing the data matrix region (Paragraphs [0096], [0235] and [0246].); and
extracting the at least one fixed pattern region from the binarized data matrix region (Paragraph [0236].).
Regarding claim 5, Howard et al. disclose the method as recited in claim 4, wherein the determination of the abnormality in the quality of the label is based on the number of pixels of the at least one fixed pattern region extracted from the binarized data matrix region (Paragraphs [0245]-[0247], see Table 3. Of course it is “based on” the number of pixels since there are a number of pixels in the image.).
Regarding claim 6, Howard et al. disclose the method as claimed in recited 5, wherein the pixels are white pixels included in the at least one fixed pattern region (Paragraphs [00246], pixels that are 0 are white [1 are black], see Figure 18.).
Regarding claim 7, Howard et al. disclose the method as recited in claim 1, wherein the extracting of the at least one fixed pattern region from the data matrix region comprises:
binarizing the data matrix region (Paragraphs [0096], [0235] and [0246].);
inverting the binarized data matrix region (Paragraphs [0190], [0206] and [0234].); and
extracting the at least one fixed pattern region from the binarized and inverted data matrix region (Paragraph [0236].).
Regarding claim 8, Howard et al. disclose the method as recited in claim 7, wherein the determination of the abnormality in the quality of the label is based on the number of pixels of the at least one fixed pattern region extracted from the binarized and inverted data matrix region (Paragraphs [0245]-[0247], see Table 3. Of course it is “based on” the number of pixels since there are a number of pixels in the image.).
Regarding claim 9, Howard et al. disclose the method as recited in claim 1, wherein the determination of the abnormality in the quality of the label comprises:
adjusting an inspection region based on an area of the at least one fixed pattern region (Paragraphs [0232]-[0233].); and
determining the abnormality in the quality of the label based on the adjusted inspection region (Paragraph [0245], if the region is adjusted, then the determining of the abnormality will be based on the adjusted inspection region.).
Regarding claim 12, Howard et al. disclose a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing instructions (Paragraphs [0279]-[0280]) for executing the method according to claim 1 on a computer (See the rejection of claim 1 above.).
Regarding claim 13, please refer to the rejection above, and also Howard et al. also disclose a vision inspection apparatus comprising at least one processor configured to read out and execute instructions stored in at least one memory (Paragraphs [0279]-[0280]) to thereby cause the apparatus to function as the imaging unit and the inspection unit (See the rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 14, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 2.
Regarding claim 15, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 3.
Regarding claim 16, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 4.
Regarding claim 17, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 5.
Regarding claim 18, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 6.
Regarding claim 19, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 7.
Regarding claim 20, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 8.
Regarding claim 21, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 9.
Regarding claim 22, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claims 1, 4-6 and 9.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howard et al. (US 2020/0042849) in view of Choi (KR 10-2189063 B1).
Regarding claim 10, Howard et al. disclose the method as recited in claim 1.
Howard et al. fail to teach the method further comprising transmitting information associated with the label to an external apparatus when it is determined that there is the abnormality in the quality of the label.
Choi discloses transmitting information to an external apparatus when it is determined that there is the abnormality (Page 23 of the provided document, lines 19-20: “When it is determined that the abnormal event has occurred, the image analysis device 70 may further include a communication unit for transmitting the abnormal event to an external system.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to “one of ordinary skill” in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the external transmitting teachings of Choi in the method taught by Howard et al. such that information associated with the label would be transmitted to an external apparatus when it is determined that there is the abnormality in the quality of the label. The motivation to combine would have been in order to provide notification of an abnormality such that repair, or the like, can be performed, thus reducing errors in the labels.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howard et al. (US 2020/0042849) in view of An (US 2020/0083503).
Regarding claim 11, Howard et al. disclose the method as recited in claim 1.
While Howard et al. disclose of labels in general, Howard et al. fail to explicitly teach wherein the label is attached to a secondary battery.
An discloses wherein a label is attached to a secondary battery (Figures 2 and 6, label 300 is attached to a secondary battery. See paragraphs [0041] and [0049], for example.).
Hence the prior art includes each element claimed although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of the actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In combination Howard et al. performs the same function as it does separately of providing a label, and An performs the same function as it does separately of putting a label on a secondary battery.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performed the same function as it does separately. The results of the combination would have been predictable and resulted in the label being attached to a secondary battery.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
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 STEPHEN G SHERMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2941. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00am - 4pm ET.
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, AMR AWAD can be reached at (571)272-7764. 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.
/STEPHEN G SHERMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621
13 August 2026
Prosecution Insights