DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: On page 18, lines 14-15 under the section labeled “Processing Unit” the specification as filed refers to a “container processing unit 20” in figures 2 and 3. However, this reference character cannot be found in figures 2 and 3.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
On page 22, lines 16, under the section “Control electrical circuitry” the specification as filed refers to “input unit 46” however reference character 46 has been disclosed on the 2nd to last line of page 21 as referring to “code reader 45.” It appears that the input unit should be labeled “50.”
On page 23, lines 8, the specification as filed refers to “electrical circuitry 16, 44,” however reference character 44 is referring to the code, as disclosed on page 21, for example. It would appear that reference character “44” on page 23, line 8 should be corrected to “48.”
On page 23, line 12 under the section labeled “Container” the specification as filed recites, “Referring to figure 8, an example of a container 6.” However, figure 8 does not show a container.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 recites, “at a boundary between two or more adjoining primary elements and/or at a boundary between two or more adjoining primary element absences.” (see lines 2-3). For matters of form, this limitation should be amended to recite, “at a boundary between the two or more adjoining primary elements and/or at a boundary between the two or more adjoining primary element absences.”
Claim 2 recites, “entirely separate the adjoining primary elements and/or adjoining primary element absences.” (see lines 5-6). For matters of form, this limitation should be amended to recite, “entirely separate the two or more adjoining primary elements and/or the two or more adjoining primary element absences.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation, “the boundary elements are of different reflective properties to a primary element and/or a primary element absence” (see lines 11-12). It is not clear as to which primary element or primary element absence are being referred to: “an absence or presence of a primary element” as recited on lines 5-6 or “two or more adjoining primary elements” or “two or more adjoining primary element absences” as recited on lines 8-10.
Claim 1 recites, “the discrete positions” on line 13; claim 5 recites, “the discrete positions” on line 2; claim 10 recites, “the discrete positions” on line 2. These limitations lack proper antecedent basis. It is not clear as to whether this is intending to refer to “adjoining discrete positions” as recited on claim 1, line 5, or “a discrete position” as recited on claim 1, line 6.
Claims 3-10 are also rejected based on their dependence to a rejected claim.
Claim 2 recites that “so that a boundary between a primary element and a primary element absence does not include a boundary element.” (see lines 3-4). It is not clear as to whether this is “the boundary” between the two or more adjoining primary elements” and/or “the boundary” between the two or more adjoining primary element absences or some other boundary between a primary element and a primary element absence.
The above claim 2 limitation is also unclear because claim 1 recites that there is either an absence or presence of a primary element at a discrete position to encode the preparation information and that boundary elements are between two or more adjoining primary elements or two or more primary element absences. That is, claim 1 recites that there is either primary elements or an absence of primary elements. In view of this, it is not clear whether claim 2 is intending to recite an additional primary element and an additional primary element absence, or whether it is referring to the primary element and primary element absence as recited in claim 1.
Claim 6 recites, “have the same viability” on line 3. It is not clear as to what it means for the boundary elements to have the same viability as a primary element or primary element absence in the infrared wavebands.
Claim 6 recites, “a primary element or primary element absence” on lines 3-4. It is not clear as to whether this limitation is intending to refer to “an absence or presence of a primary element” as recited on claim 1, line 6 or is intending to refer to another and different primary element and primary element absence.
Claim 6 recites the limitation, “wherein the boundary elements are configured to be visible to a code reader in visible or ultraviolet wave bands and not visibile to the code reader in infrared wave bands or have the same viability….” It is not clear as to what the “or” is modifying. That is, it is unclear whether the boundary elements are configured to be visible in visible or ultraviolet wave bands and not visible to the code reader in infrared wavebands, or alternatively the boundary elements have the same viability as a primary element or primary element absence in the infrared wavebands. Or does the claim require the boundary elements to be visible in the visible and ultraviolet wave bands and either be visible or not visible in the infrared wave bands? Clarification is required.
Claim 7 recites, “a primary element arranged at a discrete position is configured to reflect comparatively less power in the infrared wavebands than a primary element absence.” (see lines 2-3). Since claim 1 recites that the code can comprise an absence or presence of a primary element, claim 7 is unclear as to whether a primary element or a primary element absence is required as part of the code. The above claim 7 limitation is also unclear as to whether it is intending to refer to “an absence or presence of a primary element” as recited on claim 1, line 6 or is intending to refer to another and different primary element and primary element absence.
Claim 8 recites the limitation, “for an experimental setup as defined herein with reference to the accompanying description.” This limitation is indefinite because to “reference the accompanying description” does not does not particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention, as required under 35 U.S.C. 112b. Where possible, claims are to be complete in themselves and incorporation by reference is permitted only in exceptional circumstances where there is no practical way to otherwise define the invention.
Claim 8 recites, “a primary element,” “a primary element absence” and “a boundary element.” (see line 10-12). It is not clear whether these are a separate primary element, primary element absence and boundary element from those which are recited in claim 1. Additionally, claim 1 recites the presence or absence of a primary element in the alternative, thus further making claim 8 unclear as to whether it is referring to a different primary element and primary element absence. In view of this, claim 8 is further unclear as to how the claim would further limit claim 1, since claim 8 does not appear to be directed to the container comprising machine readable code, but rather appears directed to an experiment related to how “a primary element,” “a primary element absence” and “a boundary element” reflect a laser source.
Claim 9 recites, “the primary elements or primary element absences.” This limitation lacks proper antecedent basis because claim 1 recites, “an absence or presence of a primary element” and “a primary element” and “a primary element absence.”
Claim 13 recites the limitation, “the boundary elements are formed with different reflective properties to a primary element and/or a primary element absence” (see lines 6-7). It is not clear as to which primary element or primary element absence are being referred to: “an absence or presence of a primary element” as recited on lines 3-4 or “two adjoining primary elements” or “two adjoining primary element absences” as recited on lines 5-6.
Claim 13 recites “the container” on line 9, which lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 14 recites, “processing the signal to identify in said signal an absence or presence of a primary element at a discrete position based on identifying an boundary element arranged at a boundary between two adjoining primary elements, and/or at a boundary between two adjoining primary element absences.” (see lines 6-9). It is not clear that the signal itself would comprise a boundary element arranged at a boundary between two adjoining primary elements and/or between two adjoining primary element absences. Rather, in light of Applicant’s specification it would appear that the arrangement of the boundary element between two adjoining primary elements or between two adjoining primary element absences is part of the code and not the signal.
Claim 14 recites the limitation, “them” on line 9. It is not clear as to what “them” is referring to.
Claim 14 recites, “the boundary elements” on line 9, which lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 14 recites the limitation, “different reflective properties to a primary element and/or a primary element absence” (see line 10). It is not clear as to which primary element or primary element absence are being referred to: “an absence or presence of a primary element” as recited on line 6-7 or “two adjoining primary elements” or “two adjoining primary element absences” as recited on lines 8-9.
Claims 1, 13 and 14 also recite, “a primary element” and “an absence or presence” of the primary element. In this regard, the claim is not clear as to what constitutes a primary element or an absence of a primary element. For example, on page 2, lines 6-9 the specification as filed refers to an absence or presence of a primary element at a discrete position as encoding the preparation information as a logical 1 or a 0. Therefore, both the presence and absence of a primary element can serve the same function of encoding a logical 1 or 0, and therefore make the claims unclear as to what constitutes a primary element and what would differentiate a primary element presence from a primary element absence.
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.
Claims 1-10, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jarisch (US 20130064929) in view of Magri (US 20140295032), Flick (US 20180177331) and Aker (US 20100078480).
Regarding claim 1, Jarisch teaches container arranged for containing a precursor material (Paragraph 34) for use with a machine for preparing a beverage (see figure 1 and 5, item 3), the container including a machine readable code storing preparation information for use with a preparation process performed by said machine (see figure 2 and figure 5, item 62 and paragraph 16 and 88), the code comprising a plurality of elements, the code is arranged as a plurality of directly adjoining discrete positions and an absence of a primary element at a discrete position encodes the preparation information (Figure 2 and 3 which shows a plurality of directly adjoining discrete positions and where the white sections, for example, can be construed as an absence of a primary element; see paragraph 26 where each symbol may encode one or several binary bits; see paragraph 27 disclosing a pattern comprising elements with different reflective and/or absorbing properties; see figure 8 showing successive adjoining colors; see paragraph 66 teaching successive arch-shape segments).
Regarding the boundary elements, Jarisch further teaches in figure 2 that there can be sequences of code, S1-S4 (see paragraph 51 and also paragraph 68 which discloses repeating sections of code). Jarisch further teaches that there can be boundary elements such as start and stop symbols as preambles in each sequence (see paragraph 29). At paragraph 60, Jarisch further teaches that two adjacent sequences may have a common preamble symbol representing the stop of one sequence and the start of the other one, and therefore is suggesting boundary elements arranged at a boundary between two or more adjacent and therefore adjoining primary element absences, for example. Jarisch further teaches that start and stop boundary elements can have different physical characteristics compared with the other symbols (see paragraph 29) and where the different characteristics also encompass having different reflectance (paragraph 27) and therefore is teaching that the boundary elements can have a different reflective property to the primary element absence.
If it could have been construed that Jarisch did not specifically teach a plurality of elements with directly adjoining discrete positions and that the boundary elements are between two or more adjoining primary elements or two or more adjoining primary element absences and where the boundary elements are of different reflective properties to a primary element or a primary element absence, then it is further noted that:
Magri (US 20140295032) teaches providing code comprising a plurality of elements, the code arranged as a plurality of directly adjoining discrete positions (see figure 5, item 64 and figure 9 and 10, item 410-414 and 400-403). Magri teaches that at least one of the symbols in a section of code can be a start symbol and a stop symbol (see paragraph 75), and where such symbols would have been between two or more adjoining primary elements (see figure 9-10, item 400-403 and item 528). Magri teaches that symbols such as 410-414 can have different reflective properties from the symbols 400-403 (see paragraph 89). Magri further teaches that providing variation in the light reflecting and light absorbing portions of the code is advantageous for providing a discriminable single that is easy to read by the code reader (see paragraph 10 and 15).
Flick (US 20180177331) further teaches machine readable code (see figure 4, item 94) comprising a plurality of elements 98 and where there are boundary elements (Figure 4, item 106) positioned between primary elements 96a, 96h or primary element absences (see figure 5). Flick teaches that these markers can simplify the processing to read and decode the data sequence (see paragraph 13).
Aker (US 20100078480) has only been relied on to teach that it has been conventional to provide machine readable code that comprises directly adjoining discrete positions (see figure 4B and paragraph 19 and figure 4C and paragraph 20).
Since Jarisch already teaches the code comprising a plurality of directly adjoining discrete positions and a primary element absence that can encode the preparation information, to modify Jarisch and to include boundary elements at a boundary between two adjoining primary elements or between two adjoining absences of the primary element and which boundary elements have different reflective properties to a primary element and/or a primary element absence would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art for enhancing the optical signal and simplifying the processing to read and decode the code on the capsule while also providing a discriminable single that is easy to read.
Regarding the limitation of, “the boundary elements of the code are arranged circumferentially to be read sequentially when the container is rotated about an axis of rotation relative a code reader,” Jarisch (paragraph 16, 29), Magri (paragraph 14, 75) and Flick (paragraph 15, 26) machine readable code and start and stop symbols that are part of a container and which code and start and stop symbols are arranged circumferentially and are read sequentially about an axis of rotation of the capsule relative to a code reader.
Regarding claim 2, in view of Flick, the combination teaches that the boundary elements would only be arranged between two or more adjoining primary elements absences (see figure 4, item 106). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that a boundary between another primary element and an absence of a primary element (such as between figure 5, item 96a and 96b) would not have included a boundary element. Flick also teaches that the boundary elements 106 would separate adjoining primary element absences.
Regarding claim 3, Flick teaches that there can be marker locations that do not comprise a marker as a variable to at least partially encode the preparation information (see the abstract) and therefore teaches “a boundary element” that would not encode the preparation information and which would indicate the start of a data sequence, for example (see paragraph 23).
To therefore modify the combination to comprise markers (i.e. “a boundary element”) that does not encode the preparation information would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, as taught by Flick for making it easier for the reader to locate the start of a data sequence.
Regarding claim 4, Jarisch teaches that the code can have start and stop symbols (paragraph 29) that are arc-shaped (see paragraph 27).
Claim 4 differs from Jarisch in specifically reciting that the boundary elements have: have an average arc length of less than 50% and greater than 5% of an average arc length of a discrete position.
It is initially noted that this reads on the boundary elements having an average arc length that is between 5-50% of an average arc length of “a discrete position.” Therefore, this limitation does not specify which “a discrete position” is being referred to and reads on any discrete position. Flick teaches that the plurality of directly adjoining discrete positions can have an average length of for example 20mm (see paragraph 27 - “wherein the markers are circumferentially arranged aforesaid can be considered average distances). Flick also teaches that read distance of X2, associated with the boundary elements 106a can be 2-8 times less than the read distance of “a discrete position” such that Flick encompasses that the average arc length of the boundary element can be 5-50% of an average arc length of a discrete position.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the combination and provided an average arc length of the boundary elements to be between 5-50% of the arc length of “a discrete position” based on the desired read length of the boundary position compared to that of “a discrete position.”
Regarding claim 5, Jarisch teaches that the code can have start and stop symbols (paragraph 29) that are arc-shaped (see paragraph 27).
Claim 5 differs from Jarisch in specifically reciting the discrete positions have an average arc length of 2.6 degrees ± 20%; and the boundary elements have an average arc length of 0.5 or 0.44 degrees ± 5%.
However, Magri teaches that arcuate sectors of the code (i.e. discrete positions) can have an arcuate sector that is 5 degrees or less (see paragraph 26, 78 and 80). Flick teaches that a discrete position can have an average length of 1-20mm (see paragraph 27) and that location markers can have a length that is 10 times less than the distance of discrete positions. Together, this is seen teach and suggest to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide a smaller arc length for the boundary elements compared to the discrete positions. In view of this where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (see MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A)). That is, to provide a smaller arc length to the boundary element compared to the discrete positions would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art based on the desired read length of the boundary elements compared to that of the discrete positions.
Regarding claim 6, Jarsich teaches that the start and stop symbols can be provided via ink that is UV visible (see paragraph 27) and therefore would have been visible to a code reader in UV wave bands. Since UV visible ink is at a different wavelength than infrared, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the boundary elements can be configured to be visible in the UV wave band but would therefore not have been visible in infrared wavebands.
Regarding claim 7, Jarisch teaches that “a primary element” at a discrete position can be printed with ink that is more absorbing or more reflecting (see paragraph 27 and 59).
Claim 7 differs in specifically reciting, wherein: a primary element arranged at a discrete position is configured to reflect comparatively less power in the infrared wavebands than a primary element absence, and; a boundary element is configured to reflect comparatively more power in the infrared wavebands than the primary element and comparatively less power in the infrared wavebands than the primary element absence.
However, Magri further teaches providing elements with varying degrees of reflectance and absorbance (see the abstract). Magri teaches that this difference in reflectivity is useful for providing a distinct and discriminable single for the code reader (see paragraph 15, last sentence; paragraph 16). Magri further teaches using an infrared light emitter as part of the reader (see paragraph 56).
Jarisch also suggests using infrared (see paragraph 82).
To therefore modify Jarisch and to provide “a primary element” that is configured to reflect less power (i.e. absorb more) than an absence of a primary element and a boundary element is configured to reflect more power than the primary element and less power than the primary element absence, all within the infrared wavebands would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as a matter of routine experimentation for the purpose of ensuring that the produced signal was a distinct and discriminable signal that is easy to read.
Regarding claim 8, the claim is not clear in light of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112b.
However, it is noted that Magri teaches providing inks that can reflect and absorb light at 830-850nm such that it that would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have experimented with the particular degree of absorbance and reflectance of the infrared light for the purpose of providing a signal that was distinct and discriminable such that it would have been easy to read.
Regarding claim 9, Jarisch teaches printing of the code (see paragraph 84). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art for the primary element absences and boundary elements as taught by the combination, to have been printed onto the container. Regarding the particular density or size of units of the primary element absences compared to the boundary elements, Flick teaches that there is a greater density of the primary element or primary element absences compared to the boundary element (106) (see figure 4). Therefore, it would have bene obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the combination to use a greater density of the primary element absences compared to the boundary element, as an obvious matter of engineering and/or design, based on the particular type of code provided by the primary element or primary element absences and the amount of start/stop locations desired between repeating code.
Regarding claim 10, Jarisch teaches wherein the discrete positions encode a logical 1 or 0 based on the absence or presence of a primary element (see paragraph 74 and 76). Jarisch also teaches the code is arranged on an exterior wall of a flange portion, that interconnects a storage portion and a closing member, wherein said exterior wall faces away from an exterior wall of the closing member. (see figure 5, item 72 and paragraph 90). Jarisch further teaches that a preamble can provide a start and/or a stop position, which can include logical 0s and 1s to define a locator sequence (see paragraph 30).
Regarding claim 13, Jarisch teaches a method of encoding preparation information with a code, the method comprising: forming the code as a plurality of directly adjoining discrete positions, with an absence or presence of a primary element in a discrete position encoding the preparation information (Figure 2 and 3 which shows a plurality of directly adjoining element and where the dark sections can be construed as a primary element; see paragraph 26 where each symbol may encode one or several binary bits; see paragraph 27 disclosing a pattern comprising elements with different reflective and/or absorbing properties; see figure 8 showing successive colors; see paragraph 66 teaching successive arch-shape segments).
Regarding forming boundary elements at a boundary of two adjoining primary elements, and/or at a boundary of two adjoining primary element absences, Jarisch further teaches in figure 2 that there can be repeating sections of code, S1-S4 (see also paragraph 68) and further teaches that there can be boundary elements such as start and stop symbols (see paragraph 29) in the section of each sequence. At paragraph 60, Jarisch further teaches that two adjacent sequences may have a common preamble symbol representing the stop of one sequence and the start of the other one, and therefore is suggesting boundary elements arranged at a boundary between two or more adjacent and therefore adjoining primary elements.
Regarding the boundary elements are formed with different reflective properties to a primary element or a primary element absence, Jarisch further teaches that start and stop boundary elements can have different physical characteristics compared with the other symbols (see paragraph 29) and where the different characteristics also encompass having different reflectance (paragraph 27) and therefore is teaching that the boundary elements can have a different reflective property to the primary element or primary element absence.
If it could have been construed that Jarisch did not specifically teach a plurality of elements with directly adjoining discrete positions and that the boundary elements are between two or more adjoining primary elements and where the boundary elements are of different reflective properties to a primary element or a primary element absence, then it is further noted that:
Magri (US 20140295032) teaches providing code comprising a plurality of elements, the code arranged as a plurality of directly adjoining discrete positions (see figure 5, item 64 and figure 9 and 10, item 410-414 and 400-403). Magri teaches that at least one of the symbols in a section of code can be a start symbol and a stop symbol (see paragraph 75), and where such symbols would have been between two or more adjoining primary elements (see figure 9-10, item 400-403 and item 528). Magri teaches that symbols such as 410-414 can have different reflective properties from the symbols 400-403 (see paragraph 89). Magri further teaches that providing variation in the light reflecting and light absorbing portions of the code is advantageous for providing a discriminable single that is easy to read by the code reader (see paragraph 10 and 15).
Flick (US 20180177331) further teaches machine readable code (see figure 4, item 94) comprising a plurality of elements 98 and where there are boundary elements (Figure 4, item 106) positioned between primary elements 96a, 96h or primary element absences (see figure 5). Flick teaches that these markers can simplify the processing to read and decode the data sequence (see paragraph 13).
Aker (US 20100078480) has only been relied on to teach that it has been conventional to provide machine readable code that comprises directly adjoining discrete positions (see figure 4B and paragraph 19 and figure 4C and paragraph 20).
Since Jarisch already teaches the code comprising a plurality of directly adjoining discrete positions and a primary element that can encode the preparation information, to modify Jarisch and to include boundary elements at a boundary between two adjoining primary elements or between two adjoining absences of the primary element and which boundary elements have different reflective properties to a primary element and/or a primary element absence would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art for enhancing the optical signal and simplifying the processing to read and decode the code on the capsule while also providing a discriminable single that is easy to read.
Regarding the limitation of, “the boundary elements of the code are arranged circumferentially to be read sequentially when the container is rotated about an axis of rotation relative a code reader,” Jarisch (paragraph 16, 29), Magri (paragraph 14, 75) and Flick (paragraph 15, 26) machine readable code and start and stop symbols that are part of a container and which code and start and stop symbols are arranged circumferentially and are read sequentially about an axis of rotation of the capsule relative to a code reader.
Regarding claim 14, Jarisch teaches a method of reading preparation information for use in a preparation process in which a machine is controlled based on the preparation information to prepare a beverage and/or foodstuff (see paragraph 39), the method comprising: implementing relative rotation between a container comprising a code and a code reader (paragraph 16); obtaining a signal from the code reader based on the code (see paragraph 107, reflected into a reflective beam 75 to the sensor “S” with intensity; see paragraph 108-110); processing the signal to identify the signal (see paragraph 48, “The analysed data is then transferred to the processor 12).
Regarding an absence or presence of a primary element at a discrete position based on identifying an boundary element arranged at a boundary between two adjoining primary elements, and/or at a boundary between two adjoining primary element absences, wherein the boundary elements are identified in the signal based on them having different reflective properties to a primary element and/or a primary element absence, in view of Magri, Flick and Aker, the combination teaches using a boundary element between adjoining primary element absences, which boundary elements can be a start and stop symbol readable by the processing unit. Magri, Flick, and Aker have been incorporated herein as already discussed above with respect to claims 1 and 13 to teach that a boundary element is desirable for making it easier to read when to start and stop reading code, which can therefore make the reading process easier.
Since Jarisch already teaches the code comprising a plurality of directly adjoining discrete positions and a primary element that can encode the preparation information, to modify Jarisch and to include boundary elements at a boundary between two adjoining primary elements or between two adjoining absences of the primary element and which boundary elements have different reflective properties to a primary element and/or a primary element absence would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art for enhancing the optical signal and simplifying the processing to read and decode the code on the capsule while also providing a discriminable single that is easy to read.
Regarding extracting preparation information based on the identified absence or presence of a primary element, Jarisch already teaches reading the code to extract preparation information such that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the combination is teaching extracting information from identified code present on a primary element or the absence thereof.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yang (US 20220335236) teaches a circumferentially arranged code that can be part of a capsule container (see paragraph 9) and where there are a plurality of elements as part of a machine readable code (see figure 6, item 100) and where there can be a boundary element (see figure 2, item BR; paragraph 7; see page 4, claim 1) between two adjoining primary elements that are part of code 100. Yang teaches that the boundary region can help to make the code more easily visible (see paragraph 34). Yang teaches that the boundary regions can help to align the code (see paragraph 10). Yang also teaches varying the color and intensity of the boundary region (see paragraph 19 and 23) and therefore is teaching varying reflective properties.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIREN THAKUR whose telephone number is (571)272-6694. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10:30-7:00pm.
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, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at 571-270-3475. 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.
/VIREN A THAKUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights