Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application 18/969,479, filed on 7/9/2019 (or after March 16, 2013), is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA (First Inventor to File).
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 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.
This application is a CON of 17/625,497 01/07/2022 PAT 12197380
17/625,497 is a 371 of PCT/EP2020/066906 06/18/2020 based on GERMANY APPLICATIONS # 10 2019 210 085.6 filed on 07/09/2019
DETAILED ACTION
Amendment Response to RCE-1
Claims 1,4-9,12-15 are pending in this application
Examiner acknowledges applicant’s remarks filed on 8/5/2026
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set
forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this
application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set
forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action
has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on
4/10/2026 has been entered
Drawings
The Drawings filed on 12/5/2024 are acceptable for examination purpose.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for GERMANY foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. APPLICATIONS # 10 2019 210 085.6 filed on 07/09/2019
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/9/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner, a copy of PTO-1449 mailed on 5/5/2026
Double Patenting
In view of terminal disclaimer approved on 11/25/2025, the double patent rejection as set forth in the previous office action is hereby withdrawn
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/5/2026 with respect to claims 1,4-9,12-15 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, for examiner’s response, see discussion below:
a)At page 6-7, under 35 USC 101, applicant argues:
independent claims 1 and 9 have been amended to further define the working steps and the audit-proof records. In particular, the claims now recite that the working steps are carried out in a physical workspace during a process and that the archived
electronic data is protected against subsequent modification by generating a technically immutable record of the process for validation. These amendments address the concerns raised in the Office Action. For example, the addition of in a physical workspace " explicitly grounds the claimed invention in the physical world………………In addition, the limitation " by generating a technically immutable record. " specifies a concrete technical solution to the technical problem of ensuring data integrity and tamper-proofing for validation purposes. A technically immutable record…………….
As amended, the claims no longer merely recite generic data conversion and comparison. Instead, the claims now recite a specific technological implementation in which image data is processed to generate electronic data representations of physical process steps and physical components which provide a concrete, machine-based implementation of the claimed operations.
This processing of image data to generate electronic representations of real-world activities cannot be practically performed in the human mind and therefore does not fall within the "mental processes" grouping of abstract ideas. Moreover, as argued in the last Amendment, the subject matter of claims 1 and 9 requires the use of camera-based acquisition systems and processing of captured image data to generate electronic data that is subsequently used for comparison and evaluation………..
Examiner’s response:
Examiner submits that the pending claims should pass the test set forth in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance published on January 7, 2019 (84 Fed. Reg. 50), as updated October 2019, referred to herein as the PEG 2019. Applicant will focus on Prong Two of Step 2A, in evaluating the pending claims using this section of the test set forth in the PEG 2019
As explained in the 2019 PEG, the evaluation of Prong Two of Step 2A requires the use of the considerations (e.g. improving technology, effecting a particular treatment or prophylaxis, implementing with a particular machine, etc.) identified by the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit, to ensure that the claim as a whole “integrates [the] judicial exception into a practical application [that] will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.” These considerations are set forth in the 2019 PEG, MPEP 2106.05(a) through (c), and MPEP 2106.05(e) through (h). Note, a specific way of achieving a result is not a stand-alone consideration in Step 2A Prong Two. However, the specificity of the claim limitations is relevant to the evaluation of several considerations including the use of a particular machine, particular transformation and whether the limitations are mere instructions to apply an exception. If the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application based upon evaluation of these considerations, the additional limitations impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, and the claim is eligible at Step 2A.
As amended claim 1,9 particularly “physical workspace……”, “ generating a technically immutable record”, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, particularly physical workspace may be mere display device of a generic computer, while technically immutable record may be record and or data gathering. These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic device performing a generic computer function of receiving and storing data) such that these elements amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Examiner looks to Applicant’s specification in at least figures 1-2 and related pages 10 through 23 to understand that the invention may be implemented in a generic environment that “Referring to FIG. 1-3
Furthermore, . It is readily apparent, for example, that the claims 1,9 (as amended 8/5/2026) is not directed to any specific improvements of these elements and the invention is not directed to a technical improvement. When the claims are considered individually and as a whole, the additional elements noted above, appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense – i.e. a generic computer receives information from another generic computer, processes.. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Examiner notes that this activity is recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art, which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See, e.g., Hachisuka, US Pub. No. 2019/0289264 well -known-to-the-arts
Physical workspace (Hachisuka: fig 1-3), and generating a technically immutable record may correspond to digital multimedia data (Hachisuka: fig 2, element 204,206), therefore these elements fail to add significantly more to the abstract idea recited in the claims. As noted, claim 1, 9 (as amended 8/5/2026), claimed invention which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and is not enough to transform an abstract idea into eligible subject matter, do not provide “improvement to another technology or technical field”
Examiner applies above arguments to claims 4-8,12-15 depend from claims 1,9, as such, the pending claims fail Prong Two of Step 2A-2B of the PEG 2019. Therefore, examiner maintains rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101
b)Atpage 7-8, under 35 USC 112, applicant argues:
Initially, Applicant notes that the term "acquisition unit" does not use the word "means," and thus there is a presumption against a means-plus-function interpretation. Second, the specification describes the acquisition system as including optical sensors, particularly cameras and video cameras, configured to acquire working steps and components (see, e.g., description of the acquisition system and working step acquisition unit and component acquisition unit). The claims recite this structure and its role in acquiring the claimed data. Thus, in view of this structure recited in the claims, and the presumption against interpretation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), the term "acquisition unit" should not be interpreted as a means-plus-function term.
Even if § 112(f) were to apply, the specification provides adequate corresponding structure, including camera-based acquisition systems and associated data transfer to the data processing system, for performing the claimed functions. For example, the working step acquisition unit, as claimed, is configured for acquiring working step raw data, wherein the working step raw data includes images of the working steps which are carried out in a physical workspace during a process. The component acquisition unit, as claimed, is configured for acquiring component raw data, wherein the component raw data includes images of the components which are present for the working steps of the process. The optical sensors, including cameras and video cameras, described in the specification and clearly linked to these functions of acquiring working steps and components are adequate to perform the claimed functions. Thus, the term "acquisition unit" is not indefinite
Examiner’s response
As best understood by the examiner, acquisition unit which is a generic placeholder for archiving system (data). The specification recites, acquisition unit, can be hardware or software (such as programming instructions) running on a microprocessor or generic computer, further no specific details about “acquisition unit” that sufficiently defines the structure from the specification page 5-7, 9 through 16, to perform the function in the claim, further as amended claim 1,9, acquisition unit each comprises a “video camera”, no association between the structure and the function found in the specification, i.e., there is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform “acquiring………data”. The use of the term “unit” is not adequate structure, and it does not describe a particular structure for performing the function, those of ordinary skill in the art, the term “unit” may refers to perform[s] in any number of ways in hardware, software or combination of the two. Applicant fail to provide reasonable support from the specification of the adequate structure for performing the function, therefore, examiner maintains rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112.
Further as amended claim 1,9 (8/5/2026), “physical workspace” during a process
“wherein the archiving system……modification by “generating a technically immutable record of the process for validation” and wherein……………., The examiner could find no support in ¶ page 5 through 32 (as originally filed 12/5/2024) or anywhere in the specification describing “physical workspace” during a process and “generating a technically immutable record……….validation……., as such instant specification drawing fig 1-3 suggest working steps which carried out by the operating person on equipping the package with respective medication et al., for example page 18-19, page 26-27, further ”generating a technically immutable record” do not have support in the specification.
Examiner applies above arguments to Claims 4-8,12-15 depend from claim 1,9
c)At page 9-10, claim 1, under 35 USC 103, applicant argues:
Hachisuka does not disclose, teach or even suggest processing captured image data to generate electronic data process steps and components for the purpose of validating execution of a defined process, rather, Hachisuka is concerned with handling and displaying video content…..
The combination of Hachisuka, Onishi, Van Geel fails to teach generating or processing electronic data…….physical workspace …….
The applied combination of Hachisuka, Onishi, Van Geel would therefore not result in the claimed invention and do not teach or suggest generating electronic representation of validate execution…………The cited art, alone or in combination, fail to teach or suggest technically immutable record to ……….and fail to teach or render obvious the subject matter of claim 1,9
Examiner’s response:
As best understood by the examiner, the prior art of Hachisuka is directed to automatically selection of video of a location matching user’s hobby, particularly displaying video content to the user (Abstract). The prior rt of Hachisuka not only collection video data, but also displaying to the users’ required video on the display screen (Hachisuka: 0161-0162), i.e., Hachisuka specifically teaches video acquisition unit (element 204) while acquiring video corresponds to raw data configured to process and display video data and/or content (fig 2, element 204, 0073). Prior art of Hachisuka teaches vehicle mounted image display captures all surrounding scenery and analyzes image results corresponds to processing the images on a physical workspace (Hachisuka: 0013), Hachisuka teaches acquiring video content that including video streaming process and/or delivery from the video server and performing the video process in collecting video data (Hachisuka: fig 1-2, 0069) and physical workspace may corresponds to Hachisuka’s display device, displaying image objects (Hachisuka: fig 1-3). Prior art of Hachisuka teaches video data is protected for privacy and do not allow any modification, while Hachisuka maintaining movement and video history and the time points of the image(s) and/or videos represent the metadata including position information), Hachisuka: 0109-0110,0128-0129, generating a technically immutable record may corresponds to digital multimedia data corresponds to prior art of Hachisuka’s : fig 2, element 204,206,0069,0081 because information in the video acquisition unit is part of the raw video data structure and/or record and cannot be altered as video acquisition unit element 204 delivers live video stream
The prior art of Van is directed to video production particularly capturing videos using multiple video cameras including vial indicators (Van: fig 1, fig 3A) and Van’s camera capture the video frames of the live scene element 140 on a physical workspace (fig , 0033, line 3-4). The prior art of Van teaches display device showing view element 114A may correspond to physical workspace providing captured video frames of live scene element 140 (fig 1, 0054)
The prior art of Onishi teaches object image(s) elemen t 811 presented on the physical workspace (fig 5) and showing differential absolute value image element 841 and image element 811 on to the physical workspace (Onishi: 0054)
It is however, noted that Hachisuka does not disclose “acquisition unit each comprises a video camera”, although Hachisuka teaches video acquisition unit fig 2, element 204 is a live video stream used with the fixed camera element 221. On the other hand, Van disclosed ““acquisition unit each comprises a video camera” (Van: Abstract, fig 1, element 120, video camera, fig 3A, element 120A, 120 B video camera - Van teaches video production camera that captures video frame and generate video data using multiple video camera fig 3A, element 120A, 120B)
PNG
media_image1.png
207
271
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
201
233
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention augmented video production workflow particularly using video production camera that capture video frame and generate video data of Van into acquiring and processing image data of Hachisuka et al., because that would have allowed users of Hachisuka substitute and/or modify one method for the other particularly using video production camera capturing 360 degree view of the live scenes as video content (Van: 0008), allows to capture each video frame(s), further provides augmented video production workflow (Van: 0008-0009), thus improves quality and reliability of the video data and display configured visual indicator corresponding to the video frame captured by the video camera (Van: 0014). The exemplary rationales that may support prima facie conclusion of obviousness includes (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-KSR, 550 US at 398.
It is however, noted that Hachisuka, Van do not disclose “compare the working step actual value data to working step desired value data, to compare the component actual value data to component desired value data, and to evaluate the comparisons to generate evaluation results”, although , Van suggest compare video frame data from video production camera with the field of view data captured by the camera and generate visual indicator for the video frame (Van: 0009,0013-0014,0040, fig 1). On the other hand, Onishi disclosed compare the working step actual value data to working step desired value data, to compare the component actual value data to component desired value data, and to evaluate the comparisons to generate evaluation results (Onishi: Abstract, fig 3, 0042-0045 – Onishi teaches inspecting images particularly acquired images with the reference image in order to obtain desired image particularly computing on the image data because due to large number of image(s) captured and/or acquired using image object 9the comparison part element 55 compares these images , thereby performs inspection of images effetely
PNG
media_image3.png
441
419
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention inspection of images with respect to reference image(s) of Onishi into acquiring and processing image data of Hachisuka et al., augmented video production workflow particularly using video production camera that capture video frame and generate video data of Van because that would have allowed users of Hachisuka, Van substitute and/or modify one method for the other particularly image processing comparing of object image with the reference images thereby minimizes and/or avoids not only defect images, but also only matched and/or desired images stored, thus improves quality and reliability of the inspection of images (Onishi:0011). The exemplary rationales that may support prima facie conclusion of obviousness includes (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-KSR, 550 US at 398.
Examiner applies above arguments to Claims 4-8,12-15 depend from claim 1,9
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 1,4-9,12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Claim 1,4-9,12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, in accordance with the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, hereinafter 2019 PEG
Step 1. In accordance with Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is noted that the system, method of claim 1,9, respectively directed to one of the eligible categories of subject matter and therefore satisfy Step 1.
Step 2A. In accordance with Step 2A prong one of the 2019 PEG, the limitations reciting the abstract idea are highlighted, and the limitations directed to additional elements are highlighted, as set forth in exemplary claim 1
Claim 1,9 An archiving system, comprising:
memory for storing electronic data;
a data processing system for processing the electronic data; and
an acquisition system comprising a working step acquisition unit and a component acquisition unit, wherein the working step acquisition unit and the component acquisition unit each comprises a video camera
wherein the working step acquisition unit is configured for acquiring working step raw data, wherein the working step raw data includes images of the working steps which are carried out in physical workspace during a process,
wherein the component acquisition unit is configured for acquiring component raw data, wherein the component raw data includes images of the components which are present for the working steps of the process,
wherein the data processing system is configured to receive the working step raw data and the component raw data, to convert the working step raw data into working step actual value data, by processing the images to generate electronic data representing the working steps carried out in the process to convert the component raw data into component actual value data, by processing the images to generate electronic data representing the components present for the working steps of the process, and to compare the working step actual value data to working step desired value data, to compare the component actual value data the component desired value data, and to evaluate the comparisons to generate evaluation results, and
wherein the archiving system is configured to archive as archived electronic data at least the working step raw data, the component raw data, the working step actual value data, and the component actual value data on the memory of the archiving system in an audit-proof manner such that the archived electronic data is protected against subsequent modification by generating a technically immutable record of process for validation and wherein the archived electronic data is indexed using metadata so that the archived electronic data can be retrieved from the memory”, these limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example receive the working step raw data, convert the component raw data, compare the working step actual value, in the context of this claim encompasses the user thinking mere matching and/comparing data value(s)
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas set forth in the 2019 PEG. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2A prong two of the 2019 PEG, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements are directed to method steps, however, these elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular data structure, convert the component raw data, compare the working step actual value, audit-proof manner, to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Furthermore, although these elements have been fully considered, they are directed to the use of generic computing elements (page 5-18 of the instant specification make it clear that the disclosed functionality is implemented on well-known computing systems and general purpose computing devices) to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application (as noted in the 2019 PEG) and is tantamount to simply saying "apply it" using a general purpose computer, which merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (computer based operating environment) by using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Since the analysis of Step 2A prong one and prong two results in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception
Step 2B. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional method limitations are directed to a generic computer, at a very high level of generality and without imposing meaningful limitations on the scope of the claim. In addition page 5-18 of the instant specification describe generic off-the-shelf computer-based elements for implementing the claimed invention which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and is not enough to transform an abstract idea into eligible subject matter. Such generic, high-level, and nominal involvement of a computer or computer-based elements for carrying out the invention merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which is not enough to render the claims patent-eligible, as noted at pg. 74624 of Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 241, citing Alice, which in turn cites Mayo. Further, See, e.g., Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1984 (2014). See also OIP Techs. v. Amazon.com, 788 F.3d 1359, 1364, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093-94 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("Just as Diehr could not save the claims in Alice, which were directed to 'implement[ing] the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer', it cannot save O/P's claims directed to implementing the abstract idea of price optimization on a generic computer.") (citations omitted). See also, Affinity Labs of Texas LLC v. DirecTV LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257-1258 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mere recitation of a GUI does not make a claim patent-eligible); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank, 792 F.3d 1363, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("the interactive interface limitation is a generic computer element".)
The additional elements are broadly applied to the abstract idea at a high level of generality ("similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claims in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer,") as explained in MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and they operate in a well-understood, routine, and conventional manner.
MPEP § 2106.05 (d)(II) sets forth the following:
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g. at a high level of generality) as insignificant extra-solution activity.
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec...; TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC...; OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc... ; buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc...;
Performing repetitive calculations, Flook ... ; Bancorp Services v. Sun Life...;
Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp...; Ultramercial... ;
Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc...;
Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank...; and
A web browser's back and forward button functionality, Internet Patent Corp. v. Active Network, Inc...
Courts have held computer-implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).
Claim 2,10, (canceled)
Claim 3,11, (canceled)
Claim 4,12, further elaborates, “wherein the acquisition unit further comprises a weight acquisition unit configured for acquiring weight raw data, wherein the weight raw data represents the weight of at least one of the components, wherein is the data processing system is configured to receive the weight raw data, to convert the weight raw data into weight actual value data, to compare the weight actual value data to weight desired value data, and to evaluate the comparison to generate an evaluation result, and wherein the archiving system is configured to archive as archived electronic data the weight raw data and the weight actual value data on the memory of the archiving system in the audit-proof manner”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 5, further elaborates, “comprising a display system which is connected to the data processing system and which comprises a display unit”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 6,13, further elaborates, “wherein the display system is configured for the display of the evaluation results”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 7,14 , further elaborates “wherein the display unit is designed as a monitor which comprises a projection surface for the display of the evaluation results”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 8,15. The archiving system according to claim 1, wherein the archiving system further comprises a position acquisition unit, for acquiring a current location of an operating person”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 claim 1,4-9,12-15 in this application (18/969,479) is 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 1,9:
In view of three-prong analysis in MPEP 2181, the claim limitation
an acquisition system comprising a working step acquisition unit and a component acquisition unit,
wherein the working step acquisition unit is configured for acquiring working step raw data, wherein the working step raw data includes working steps which are carried out in a process,
wherein the component acquisition unit is configured for acquiring component raw data, wherein the component raw data includes components which are present for the working steps of the process, invokes 35 USC 112(f).
Prong A is met because: the claim element recites a “acquisition unit, which is a generic placeholder for archiving system (data). The specification recites, acquisition unit, can be hardware or software (such as programming instructions) running on a microprocessor or generic computer. No specific definition for the term “acquisition unit” is provided. The term “unit” is not a sufficiently definite name of structure in this art.
Prong B is met because: the generic placeholder (acquisition unit) is modified by 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: archiving system, audit-proof data
Prong C is met because: this claim 1,9 element(s) is not further modified by sufficient structure or material for performing the claimed function. As such specification (page 5 through 23) does not provide adequate structure for performing the entire claimed function and/or fails to clearly link the structure to the function.
Claims 4,5 (display unit),8, 12, 15, are rejected in the analysis of claim 1, and claims 4,5,8,12,15 are rejected on that basis.
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.
Claims 1,4-9,12-15 (as amended 8/5/2026) 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As to claim 1,9, (as amended 8/5/2026) the limitation “wherein the working step acquisition unit is configured for acquiring working step raw data, wherein the working step raw data includes images of the working steps which are carried out in “physical workspace” during a process
“wherein the archiving system……modification by “generating a technically immutable record of the process for validation” and wherein……………., The examiner could find no support in ¶ page 5 through 32 (as originally filed 12/5/2024) or anywhere in the specification describing “physical workspace” during a process and “generating a technically immutable record……….validation……., as such instant specification drawing fig 1-3 suggest working steps which carried out by the operating person on equipping the package with respective medication et al., for example page 18-19, page 26-27, further ”generating a technically immutable record” do not have support in the specification.
Therefore, claim 1,9 limitations (as amended 8/5/2026) lack a written description
Claims 4-8,12-15 depend from claim 1,9 are also rejected in the analysis of claim 1,9, and claims 4-8,12-15 are rejected on that basis.
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.
Claim 1,9 (as amended 8/5/2026), it is unclear what is meant by “wherein the working step acquisition unit is configured for acquiring working step raw data, wherein the working step raw data includes images of the working steps which are carried out in “physical workspace” during a process
“wherein the archiving system……modification by “generating a technically immutable record of the process for validation” and wherein……………., and as explained above, these limitations do not have support from the specification filed 12/5/2024, therefore claim 1,9 is/are indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), for compact prosecution, examiner assumed and treated “physical workspace” may be display device, displaying image objects (Hachisuka: fig 1-3), and generating a technically immutable record may corresponds to digital multimedia data (Hachisuka: fig 2, element 204,206) in the office action.
Claims 4-8,12-15 depend from claim 1,9 are also rejected in the analysis of claim 1,9, and claims 4-8,12-15 are rejected on that basis
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.
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.
Claims 1,4-9,12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hachisuka et al., (hereafter Hachisuka), US Pub. No. 2019/0289264 published Sep, 2019, Van Geel et al., (hereafter Van), US Pub. No. 2018/0270441 published Sep, 2018 in view of Onishi, US Pub. No. 2020/0151863 filed Dec, 2019, published May, 2020
As to claim Claim 1,9, Hachisuka teaches a system which including “an archiving system, comprising: (Hachisuka: fig 2, element 222);
PNG
media_image4.png
169
149
media_image4.png
Greyscale
“memory for storing electronic data;
a data processing system for processing the electronic data” (Hachisuka: fig 2);
; and
“an acquisition system comprising a working step acquisition unit and a component acquisition unit, wherein the working step acquisition unit and the component acquisition unit each comprises video” (Hachisuka: fig 2, 0081-0082, video processing unit and fixed camera detailed),
PNG
media_image5.png
196
227
media_image5.png
Greyscale
“wherein the working step acquisition unit is configured for acquiring working step raw data, wherein the working step raw data includes images (Hachisuka: 0013,0061 – Hachisuka teaches acquisition unit acquires images, image is projected from each of the projectors fig 1) of the working steps which are carried out in a physical workspace during process” (Hachisuka: fig 1-2, 0069 – Hachisuka teaches acquiring video content that including video streaming process and/or delivery from the video server and performing the video process in collecting video data) , and physical workspace may corresponds to Hachisuka’s display device, displaying image objects (Hachisuka: fig 1-3)
“wherein the component acquisition unit is configured for acquiring component raw data, wherein the component raw data includes images of the components (Hachisuka: 0013,0061 – Hachisuka teaches acquisition unit acquires images, image is projected from each of the projectors fig 1) which are present for the working steps of the process” (Hachisuka: fig 2, element 204, 0073 – Hachisuka teaches functional configuration of the system that including video acquisition unit element 204 associated with the display of the video, while acquiring video corresponds to raw data configured to process and display video data and/or content) ,
“wherein the data processing system is configured to receive the working step raw data and the component raw data, to convert the working step raw data into working step actual value data, by processing the images to generate electronic representing the working steps caried out in the process” (Hachisuka: 0013,0061 – Hachisuka teaches acquisition unit acquires images, image is projected from each of the projectors fig 1) to convert the component raw data into component actual value data” (Hachisuka: 0016, 0068-0069,0102 – Hachisuka teaches acquiring and processing video contents including image data using video processing unit element 207, further it is noted that Hachisuka teaches video processing (raw video data) on the basis of movement vector, video read from the frame memory with respect to predetermined value); by processing the images to generate electronic data representing the components present for the working steps of the process (Hachisuka: 0013 – Hachisuka teaches vehicle mounted image display captures all surrounding scenery and analyzes image results corresponds to processing the images); and
“wherein the archiving system is configured to archive as archived electronic data at least the working step raw data, the component raw data, the working step actual value data” (Hachisuka: 0067, 0082, fig 2 – Hachisuka teaches archive unit to store achieved images and/or video data), and the component actual value data on the memory of the archiving system in an audit-proof manner such that the archived electronic data is protected against subsequent modification by generating a technically immutable record of the process for a validation and wherein the archived electronic data is indexed using metadata so that the archived electronic data can be retrieved from the memory” (Hachisuka: 0109-0110,0128-0129 – Hachisuka teaches video data is protected for privacy and do not allow any modification, while Hachisuka maintaining movement and video history and the time points of the image(s) and/or videos represent the metadata including position information), generating a technically immutable record may corresponds to digital multimedia data corresponds to prior art of Hachisuka’s : fig 2, element 204,206,0069,0081 because information in the video acquisition unit is part of the raw video data structure and/or record and cannot be altered as video acquisition unit element 204 delivers live video stream;
It is however, noted that Hachisuka does not disclose “acquisition unit each comprises a video camera”, although Hachisuka teaches video acquisition unit fig 2, element 204 is a live video stream used with the fixed camera element 221. On the other hand, Van disclosed ““acquisition unit each comprises a video camera” (Van: Abstract, fig 1, element 120, video camera, fig 3A, element 120A, 120 B video camera - Van teaches video production camera that captures video frame and generate video data using multiple video camera fig 3A, element 120A, 120B)
PNG
media_image1.png
207
271
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
201
233
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention augmented video production workflow particularly using video production camera that capture video frame and generate video data of Van into acquiring and processing image data of Hachisuka et al., because that would have allowed users of Hachisuka substitute and/or modify one method for the other particularly using video production camera capturing 360 degree view of the live scenes as video content (Van: 0008), allows to capture each video frame(s), further provides augmented video production workflow (Van: 0008-0009), thus improves quality and reliability of the video data and display configured visual indicator corresponding to the video frame captured by the video camera (Van: 0014)
It is however, noted that Hachisuka, Van do not disclose “compare the working step actual value data to working step desired value data, to compare the component actual value data to component desired value data, and to evaluate the comparisons to generate evaluation results”, although , Van suggest compare video frame data from video production camera with the field of view data captured by the camera and generate visual indicator for the video frame (Van: 0009,0013-0014,0040, fig 1). On the other hand, Onishi disclosed compare the working step actual value data to working step desired value data, to compare the component actual value data to component desired value data, and to evaluate the comparisons to generate evaluation results (Onishi: Abstract, fig 3, 0042-0045 – Onishi teaches inspecting images particularly acquired images with the reference image in order to obtain desired image particularly computing on the image data because due to large number of image(s) captured and/or acquired using image object 9the comparison part element 55 compares these images , thereby performs inspection of images effetely
PNG
media_image3.png
441
419
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention inspection of images with respect to reference image(s) of Onishi into acquiring and processing image data of Hachisuka et al., augmented video production workflow particularly using video production camera that capture video frame and generate video data of Van because that would have allowed users of Hachisuka, Van substitute and/or modify one method for the other particularly image processing comparing of object image with the reference images thereby minimizes and/or avoids not only defect images, but also only matched and/or desired images stored, thus improves quality and reliability of the inspection of images (Onishi:0011).
Claim 2,10 (canceled)
Claim 3,11 (canceled)
As to Claim 4,12, the combination of Hachisuka, Van, Onishi disclosed “wherein the acquisition unit further comprises a weight acquisition unit configured for acquiring weight raw data, wherein the weight raw data represents the weight of at least one of the components, (Hachisuka: 0089,0090) wherein is the data processing system is configured to receive the weight raw data, to convert the weight raw data into weight actual value data, to compare the weight actual value data to weight desired value data, and to evaluate the comparison to generate an evaluation result” (Hachisuka: 0124-0126) , and wherein the archiving system is configured to archive as archived electronic data the weight raw data and the weight actual value data on the memory of the archiving system in the audit-proof manner” (Hachisuka:0082-0083, 0142-0143)
As to Claim 5, the combination of Hachisuka, Van, Onishi disclosed “a display system which is connected to the data processing system and which comprises a display unit” (Hachisuka: fig 2,0073)
PNG
media_image6.png
114
207
media_image6.png
Greyscale
As to Claim 6,13, the combination of Hachisuka, Van, Onishi disclosed “wherein the display system is configured for the display of the evaluation results” (fig 2, 0073,0086).
As to Claim 7,14, the combination of Hachisuka, Van, Onishi disclosed “wherein
the display unit is designed as a monitor which comprises a projection surface for the display of the evaluation results” (Hachisuka: fig 2, 0062,0073,0086)
As to Claim 8,15, the combination of Hachisuka, Van, Onishi disclosed “wherein the archiving system further comprises a position acquisition unit, for acquiring a current location of an operating person” (Hachisuka: fig 1-2, Hachisuka teaches location information unit, fig 2, 203)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record
a. US Pub. No. 2019/0289264
b. US Pub. No. 2018/0270441
c. US Pub. No. 2020/0151863
Examiner's Note: Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
SEE MPEP 2141.02 [R-5] VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984) In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201,73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004). >See also MPEP §2123.
In the case of amending the Claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
The prior art made of record, listed on form PTO-892, and not relied upon, if any, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure
Authorization for Internet Communications
The examiner encourages Applicant to submit an authorization to communicate with the examiner via the Internet by making the following statement (from MPEP 502.03):
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Please note that the above statement can only be submitted via Central Fax (not Examiner's Fax), Regular postal mail, or EFS Web using PTO/SB/439.
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 Srirama Channavajjala whose telephone number is 571-272-4108. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 AM to 5:30 PM Eastern Time.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Gorney, Boris, can be reached on (571) 270- 5626. The fax phone numbers for the organization where the application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300 Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free)
/Srirama Channavajjala/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154
Prosecution Insights