Detailed Action
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . See 35 U.S.C. § 100 (note).
Oath/Declaration
The receipt of Oath/Declaration is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawing(s) filed on December 11, 2024 are accepted by the Examiner.
Status of Claims
Claims 1–10 are pending in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on December 11, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Objections
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1–3 is/are objected to for miner informalities.
Claim 1 recites:
“and, when a minimum portion of the characters of the scheme are relocated…”
The comma after “and” is not clearly erroneous because the intervening “when” clause may be set off by commas. However, for improved readability, consider deleting the comma after “and.”. Appropriate correction is required by deleting the comma after “and.”
Claim 2 is objected to because of a minor capitalization informality. The word “Wherein” should be changed to “wherein.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because it contains a punctuation error. The claim ends with a comma rather than a period. Appropriate correction is required by replacing the comma at the end of the claim with a period.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Issues Under 35 U.S.C. § 112
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a control” in claim(s) 10.
“evaluating unit” in claim(s) 10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Claim(s) 10: ‘evaluating unit’ corresponds to FIG. 1 – element 26 – The code reader 10 detects image data of the conveyed objects 14 and of the code zones 20 by a light receiver 24 and said image data are further processed by a control and evaluation unit 26 by means of image evaluation and decoding processes. The control and evaluation unit 26 comprises, for example, at least one processing module such as a microprocessor or a CPU (central processing unit), an FPGA (field programmable gate array), a DSP (digital signal processor), an ASIC (application specific integrated circuit), an AI processor, an NPU (neural processing unit), a GPU (graphics processing unit), a VPU (video processing unit), or the like. It is not the specific imaging process that is furthermore important for the invention so that the code reader 10 can be set up in accordance with any principle known per se. For example, only one respective line is detected, either by means of a linear image sensor or by means of a scanning process, and the control and evaluation unit assembles the lines detected in the course of the conveying movement to form the image data. A larger zone can already be detected in a recording using a matrix-like image sensor, with the assembly of recordings here also being possible both in the conveying direction and transversely thereto. The central function of the code reader 10 is the decoding, i.e. the reading of the message encoded in an optical code as clear text. The message is a character chain of utility characters, preferably with at least one check character that is typically at the end. The code reader 10 outputs information such as messages read from the codes or image data via an interface 28, Applicant Spec Page 14 lines 10–30.
Claim(s) 10: ‘evaluating unit’ corresponds to FIG. 1 – element 26– The code reader 10 detects image data of the conveyed objects 14 and of the code zones 20 by a light receiver 24 and said image data are further processed by a control and evaluation unit 26 by means of image evaluation and decoding processes. The control and evaluation unit 26 comprises, for example, at least one processing module such as a microprocessor or a CPU (central processing unit), an FPGA (field programmable gate array), a DSP (digital signal processor), an ASIC (application specific integrated circuit), an AI processor, an NPU (neural processing unit), a GPU (graphics processing unit), a VPU (video processing unit), or the like. It is not the specific imaging process that is furthermore important for the invention so that the code reader 10 can be set up in accordance with any principle known per se. For example, only one respective line is detected, either by means of a linear image sensor or by means of a scanning process, and the control and evaluation unit assembles the lines detected in the course of the conveying movement to form the image data. A larger zone can already be detected in a recording using a matrix-like image sensor, with the assembly of recordings here also being possible both in the conveying direction and transversely thereto. The central function of the code reader 10 is the decoding, i.e. the reading of the message encoded in an optical code as clear text. The message is a character chain of utility characters, preferably with at least one check character that is typically at the end. The code reader 10 outputs information such as messages read from the codes or image data via an interface 28, Applicant Spec Page 14 lines 10–30.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Patent Subject Matter Eligibility
Claim Rejection - 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 1–10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In January, 2019 (updated October 2019), the USPTO released new examination guidelines setting forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g., an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that the claims are directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below:
STEP 1: Do the claims fall within one of the statutory categories? Yes.
Claim 1 recites a “method,” which falls under the statutory category of a Process. Claim 10 recites an “optoelectronic code reader,” which falls under the statutory category of a Machine.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Claims 1–10 are a Mental Processes (concepts that can be performed in the human mind, such as observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions) and Mathematical Concepts (mathematical algorithms and calculations) and, therefore, an abstract idea.
With regard to independent claim 1, the method recites the steps of:
[1] recording image data having the optical code;
[2] evaluating the image data by reading the message, including a first check code read from the optical code;
[3] comparing the read characters of the message with at least one scheme that, for a plurality of positions of the message, contains a character that is expected at this position in optical codes to be read; and,
[4] when a minimum portion of the characters of the scheme are relocated in the message on the comparison, taking over characters of the scheme into the message,
[5] wherein a second check code of the message is determined after a taking over of characters from a scheme into the message; and
[6] wherein the first check code is compared with the second check code to validate the message changed by taking over characters from the scheme.
With regard to claim 10: recites:
[1] An optoelectronic code reader having at least one light reception element for generating image data from received light and
[2] having a control and evaluation unit in which a method of reading optical codes in accordance with claim 1 is implemented.
The claims recite judicial exceptions, specifically Mental Processes (concepts that can be performed in the human mind, such as observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions) and Mathematical Concepts (mathematical algorithms and calculations).
“evaluating the image data by reading the message”
“comparing the read characters of the message with at least one scheme”
“determining a second check code” (which inherently requires a mathematical calculation/algorithm as described in the specification, e.g., modulo arithmetic)
“comparing the first check code with the second check code to validate the message”
These limitations describe a series of logical comparisons and mathematical check-code calculations that could practically be performed in the human mind or with a pen and paper.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
With regards to Claim 1 [10] – the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements in Claim 1 (“recording image data having the optical code”) constitute mere data gathering, which is considered insignificant extra-solution activity. While the specification asserts that the invention improves the reading rate of optical codes and reduces “MisReads,” the claims themselves do not recite a specific technological improvement to computer functionality or to the operation of the image sensor itself. Instead, the claims recite a generic process of gathering data (recording an image) and then applying the abstract logical and mathematical rules (comparing strings, calculating check codes, replacing characters) to that data. Claim 10 merely recites generic hardware (“at least one light reception element”, “control and evaluation unit”) to execute the abstract idea, which is merely an instruction to apply the exception on a generic computer component.
Accordingly, the additional elements amount to nothing more than generic computer implementation of the mathematical model and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208 (2014); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
The following computer functions have been recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality): receiving or transmitting data over a network. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
The additional elements do not amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself. “Recording image data” and utilizing a “light reception element” or “control and evaluation unit” are well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) activities and components in the field of optical code reading. The specification itself acknowledges that camera-based code readers and image sensors are conventional in the background section (e.g., [0002]-[0003]). There is no inventive concept in the hardware or the data gathering steps; the only purported novelty lies in the abstract logical rules for correcting and validating the character strings. Therefore, the claims fail Step 2B.
Accordingly, the claims do not recite any additional elements sufficient to amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself. See Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018); SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Thus, since claims 1 [10] are: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claims 1 [10] are directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Further, The dependent claims recite additional judicial exceptions, specifically further Mental Processes (evaluations, judgments, and logical rules) and Mathematical Concepts (calculations, statistical majorities, and data translations). Offending clauses:
“comprises at least two characters or at least half the characters” (Claim 2 - mathematical concept/quantification).
“within a permitted value range”, “results in at least a majority of cases” (Claim 4 - mathematical concept/statistical evaluation).
“raw values then being converted into the characters… using an encoding scheme” and “converted into raw values” (Claims 5 and 6 - mental process/data translation).
“taken over into the message experimentally for every scheme… considered validated whose second check code agrees” (Claim 8 - mental process/logical evaluation loop).
“considered as not validated” (Claim 9 - mental process/judgment).
These limitations merely add further abstract logical rules, data formatting steps, and mathematical evaluations to the underlying abstract idea identified in Claim 1. Each of the claimed limitations either expand upon or add either 1) new mathematical process, 2) a new additional element, 3) previously presented mathematical process, and/or 4) a previously presented additional element. As such, claims 2–9 are similarly rejected as being directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Allowable Subject Matter
Objection
Claims 1–10 would be allowed provided the 101 rejection is overcome.
Examiner's Statement of Reason for Allowance
Claims 1–10 are allowed. Claim 1 is independent claim. Claims 2 and 10 depend on claim 1.
Claim 1 is allowable over the prior art of record because in view of the “means for’ language employed and the resultant 1126th invocation limiting the following to the support as provided in the specification, the Examiner found neither prior art cited in its entirety, nor based on the prior art, found any motivation to combine any of the said prior art that teaches the features of claim 1.
Claim 1recites the following specific features as shown in the excerpt below.
[1] “recording image data having the optical code; evaluating the image data by reading the message, including a first check code read from the optical code;
comparing the read characters of the message with at least one scheme that, for a plurality of positions of the message, contains a character that is expected at this position in optical codes to be read; and, when a minimum portion of the characters of the scheme are relocated in the message on the comparison, taking over characters of the scheme into the message, wherein a second check code of the message is determined after a taking over of characters from a scheme into the message; and
wherein the first check code is compared with the second check code to validate the message changed by taking over characters from the scheme.” as recited by independent claim 1, in combination with the other elements/steps of the claim.
These features, considered in combination with the remainder of the claim’s limitations are not fairly disclosed, thought or suggested by the cited prior art. Specifically, the closest prior art, Wu et al. (2011/0309138), He et al. (2011/0127335), Scherly et al. (2021/0312151) and Simpson (2022/0100980), as further discussed in Table 1 below, fails to either anticipate or render obvious the above underlined limitations. Accordingly, claim 1 is allowable over the prior art of record. It follows that claims 2–10 are then inherently allowable for depending on an allowable base claim.
Additional Citations
The following table lists several references that are relevant to the subject matter claimed and disclosed in this Application. The references are not relied on by the Examiner, but are provided to assist the Applicant in responding to this Office action.
Citation
Relevance
Wu et al. (2011/0309138)
Describe a system has an image processing module (30) that receives an image and determines a barcode region according to a characteristic of the image. A barcode recognition module (40) is coupled with the image processing module, for recognizing the barcode region and outputting several characters associated with the image. Barcode image recognition system for handheld device e.g. mobile phone. Can also be used in personal digital assistant (PDA), notebook computer, digital camera and camcorder. The barcode image recognition can be performed easily with high precision. The error can be reduced by reduction of noise.
He et al. (2011/0127335)
Describe a method involves identifying a region of a captured image frame corresponding to an image of target barcode (102). A reference point within the imaged barcode and desired acquisition area (100) of the barcode is determined. An image of the border (108) of the acquisition area utilizing information provided to the imaging system relating the size of the target barcode is searched. The imaged border is identified and a portion of the captured image frame is saved in memory corresponding to an image within the imaged border. Method of utilizing imaging-based barcode reader (claimed) used in product packaging field. The extents or bounds of the desired acquisition area can be identified accurately.
Scherly et al. (2021/0312151)
Describe an apparatus for decoding optical patterns e.g. barcode such as stock keeping code (SKU) in retail setting and quick response (QR) code (RTM: Two-dimensional code). The apparatus can quickly identify and decode optical codes in an efficient manner. The apparatus allows a user to quickly and easily identify and/or decode the optical pattern in the images by using the mobile device with the wide-angle lens in an effective manner, so that the images can be acquired at a frame rate equal to or greater than thirty frames per second, thus increasing the frame rate of the camera in an easy manner.
Simpson (2022/0100980)
Describe a system for extracting a region of interest (barcode) from captured image of an item. System improves accuracy of barcode data extracted from the captured image of the item.
Table 1
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENOK A SHIFERAW whose telephone number is (571)272-4637. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30AM - 5:00PM, (EST).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Henok Shiferaw can be reached at 571-272-4637. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
HENOK A. SHIFERAW
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2676
/Henok Shiferaw/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2676
Prosecution Insights