DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) limitations to the creating and reading of a code. This falls under the mental process/ math categories for 101 purposes. For example, claim 1 recites steps of obtaining information (routine data gathering), converting (math/ mental), and coloring is tantamount to encoding, which falls under a mental step. Limitations drawn to the specifics of the data or the types of information as per the dependent claims are also ineligible as they are merely specifying details of the abstract idea of encoding. The Examiner notes that though some types of encoding could be eligible (MPEP 2106.04a2 wherein a claim to a specific data encryption method for computer communication involving a several-step manipulation of data, Synopsys., 839 F.3d at 1148, 120 USPQ2d at 1481 (distinguishing the claims in TQP Development, LLC v. Intuit Inc., 2014 WL 651935 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 19, 2014)), such methods are not recited in the instant claims. The corresponding reading method and terminal claims are also rejected under 101 for similar reasons in that the reading falls under generic computer processing by generic computer components, seen as the computerization of mental steps and the terminal creating the code is seen as the generic computerization of mental steps. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims are drawn to an abstract idea that is (in some instances) being performed by generic computer components and in other claims does not recite a particular structure for the codes to be created. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the abstract idea is being applied to a generic computer environment. Dependent claims reciting limitations of the type of data/ details of the data are merely specifying details of the abstract idea and are rejected for similar reasons.
Appropriate correction is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The independent claims recite limitations drawn to algorithms but the specification does not describe the algorithms in clear fashion so as to show possession of the invention. The dependent claims are rejected based on their dependency.
Appropriate correction is requested.
Claims 1-18 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. As discussed above, the claims recite algorithms but the scope of the invention is vague/ indefinite without clarity about the algorithm. Additionally, it is unclear if the code is a 2d code in that data is encoded in two different dimensions (a linear barcode with a second dimension encoded in the color of individual modules) or if a 2d code is a 2d barcode (QR for example) that has second data encoded in individual modules of an already 2d code.
Appropriate correction is requested.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shoobridge (US 7185816).
Re claim 1, Shoobridge (US 7185816) teaches: A generating method for a one-code multi-content two-dimensional code, comprising:
obtaining first data information and second data information (abstract+ as the barcode has first information and then second information added with colors or shades of gray)
converting the first data information into a black-and-white two-dimensional code according to a first conversion algorithm (160);
coloring the black portion of the black-and-white two-dimensional code according to a second conversion algorithm and the second data information (180), and the generated color two-dimensional code contains the first data information and the second data information.
As per FIG. 6, the additional data can be encoded into colors or shades of gray into the black bars, white spaces, black boxes, or background of the barcode. Therefore, the first data can be the code and the second data can be in the bars. Though silent to first and second algorithms, it would have been obvious to use algorithms in order to encode the data.
Re claim 2, the limitations have been discussed above wherein the color information is used to color the black portion (bars).
Re claim 3, FIG. 4B+ teaches plural colors.
Re claim 4, col 3, lines 5+ teaches reading of both types of information from the code from both the color and the barcode itself. Additionally, the Examiner notes
Re claims 5-6, as discussed above, the algorithms have not been specified. Therefore, the decoding of the first and second data can be interpreted as a single algorithm (software) as the color coding can be separate or integrated into the barcode.
Re claim 7-8, the limitations have been discussed above wherein the coloring can be different colors and can be the spaces, bars, etc.
Re claim 9, decoding the color information to obtain second information has been discussed above.
Re claim 10, Shoobridge teaches creating the code as discussed above, and a terminal/ computing device is an obvious expedient to do so, with a processor and memory being implicit in a computer based system.
Re claim 11, the limitations have been discussed above re the creation of the code.
Re claim 12, plural colors have been taught above.
Re claims 13-14, Shoobridge teaches a reader (abstract+) wherein a memory and processor is implicit to read.
Re claim 15-18, as discussed above, second processing/ software is taught to read the second information. Preset coding information is taught as the different sections of encoded information are encoded and decoded to be read to obtain the first and second information, including colors.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL I WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2409. The examiner can normally be reached 7-9pm.
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, Steven Paik can be reached at 571-272-2404. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANIEL I WALSH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876