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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 22 May 2025 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR §§ 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because the list of references contains either one or more non-compliances with format requirements. According to § 1.98(b)(5):
"Each publication listed in an information disclosure statement must be identified by publisher, author (if any), title, relevant pages of the publication, date, and place of publication."
In view of the IDS Submission of 22 May 2025
In particular, one or more references lack one or more of these elements. Importantly, identification of relevant pages of each publication ensures that the Office was informed of the specific portion to be considered, especially for voluminous works, and that it has received all identified pages. Moreover, in the case of voluminous works such as books and websites, failure to cite relevant pages or webpages presents a boundless search. Specific references to particular contents within these works by page number or similar indices are suggested.
The IDS submission cumulatively amounts to 153 U.S. Patent, U.S. PgPub, Foreign, and Non-Patent Literature Documents. This is voluminous. The lack of explicit page numbers in numerous documents that sets forth subject matter relevant to the claimed invention provides a boundless search.
While the Applicant is charged with a duty to disclose pertinent documents and information pertaining to the patentability of the claimed invention, the MPEP 2004 states:
"It is desirable to avoid submission of long lists of documents if it can be avoided. Eliminate clearly irrelevant and marginally pertinent cumulative information. If a long list is submitted, highlight those documents which have been specifically brought to applicant's attention and/or are known to be of most significance. See Penn Yan Boats. Inc. v. Sea Lark Boats. Inc., 359 F. Supp. 948, 175 USPQ 260 (S.D. Fla. 1972), 479 F.2d 1338, 178 USPQ 577 (5th Cir.1973), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 874 (1974). But cf. Molins PLC v. Textron. Inc.,48 F.3d 1172, 33 SPQ2d 1823 (Fed. Cir. 1995)."
The submission presents both a long list of documents and lengthy documents, such that, in totality, the submission sets forth a voluminous burden.
The information disclosure statement filed 22 May 2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. In particular, the copy provided for non-patent literature document cite no. 6 does not include the cited document. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 7, and 9 are inconsistently and improperly formatted. In particular, each limitation inconsistently ends with either a semi-colon or a comma which causes a decrease in clarity regarding any meaning with the difference. Additionally, colons are missing after terms such as “wherein” and “comprises” which end a limitation followed by a sub-limitation beginning on a new line. Lastly, the term “and” should end the penultimate limitation to indicate that the following limitation is the last. It is noted that, in claim 9, the “and” begins the last limitation which is improper.
Claim 8 is missing the term “to” between “adjacent” and “each of the symbol portions” in line 3 of the claim.
Claim 9 is missing the term “to” between “adjacent” and “each of the symbol portions” in line 17 of the claim.
Dependent claims 2-6 and 8 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus objected to under the same rationale.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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 QR code reader configured to read the raised substrate QR code to enable a user of the substrate to receive aural instructions on the location of each symbol of the plurality of adhesive raised symbols on the substrate” in claim 1.
“a QR code reader configured to read the raised substrate QR code to enable a user of the substrate… to use the raised locator marking to locate, select and remove one of the plurality of adhesive raised symbols to apply to packaging identified as corresponding to one of the specific objects” in claim 1.
“using a QR code reader to retrieve aural instructions associated with the raised substrate QR code on how to use the substrate” in claim 9.
“using a QR code reader to retrieve aural instructions about the product associated with one or more of the symbol QR codes located adjacent one or more of the plurality of adhesive symbols” in claim 9.
“using the QR code reader to read the symbol QR code associated with the raised symbol corresponding to the corresponding object package” in claim 9.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-6, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitation “a QR code reader configured to read the raised substrate QR code to enable a user of the substrate to receive aural instructions on the location of each symbol of the plurality of adhesive raised symbols on the substrate” in claim 1, “using a QR code reader to retrieve aural instructions associated with the raised substrate QR code on how to use the substrate” in claim 9, “using a QR code reader to retrieve aural instructions about the product associated with one or more of the symbol QR codes located adjacent one or more of the plurality of adhesive symbols” in claim 9, and “using the QR code reader to read the symbol QR code associated with the raised symbol corresponding to the corresponding object package” in claim 9 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. In particular, the specification merely recites similar language as the claim without any indication of what Applicant considers a QR code reader to be. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Dependent claims 2-6 and 8 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim limitation “a QR code reader configured to read the raised substrate QR code to enable a user of the substrate… to use the raised locator marking to locate, select and remove one of the plurality of adhesive raised symbols to apply to packaging identified as corresponding to one of the specific objects” in claim 1 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. In particular, the specification merely recites similar language as the claim without any indication of what Applicant considers a QR code reader to be. Furthermore, it is unclear how a QR code reader enables a user to “use the raised locator marking to locate, select and remove one of the plurality of adhesive raised symbols to apply to packaging identified as corresponding to one of the specific objects”. One of ordinary skill in the art wound understand that a user of the substrate does not require enablement from a QR code reader to use the raised locator marking to locate, select, and remove the adhesive raised symbols to apply to packaging. The user would be able to perform those functions without a QR code reader as it is merely physically removing an adhesive label from a backing sheet and placing the label onto packaging. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Dependent claims 2-6 and 8 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Printed Matter
It is noted that the majority of the content of the claims are directed to printed matter. Since a claim must be read as a whole, USPTO personnel may not disregard claim limitations that include printed matter. See Id. at 1384, 217 USPQ at 403; see also Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191, 209 USPQ 1, 10 (1981). The first step of the printed matter analysis is the determination that the limitation in question is in fact directed toward printed matter. "Our past cases establish a necessary condition for falling into the category of printed matter: a limitation is printed matter only if it claims the content of information." See In re DiStefano, 808 F.3d 845, 848, 117 USPQ2d 1265, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2015). "[O]nce it is determined that the limitation is directed to printed matter, [the examiner] must then determine if the matter is functionally or structurally related to the associated physical substrate, and only if the answer is ‘no’ is the printed matter owed no patentable weight." Id. at 850, 117 USPQ2d at 1268. If a new and nonobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate does exist, the examiner should give patentable weight to printed matter. See In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583-84, 32 USPQ2d 1031, 1035 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 403-04 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The rationale behind the printed matter cases, in which, for example, written instructions are added to a known product, has been extended to method claims in which an instructional limitation is added to a method known in the art. Similar to the inquiry for products with printed matter thereon, in such method cases the relevant inquiry is whether a new and nonobvious functional relationship with the known method exists. See In re DiStefano, 808 F.3d 845, 117 USPQ2d 1265 (Fed. Cir. 2015); In re Kao, 639 F.3d 1057, 1072-73, 98 USPQ2d 1799, 1811-12 (Fed. Cir. 2011); King Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Eon Labs Inc., 616 F.3d 1267, 1279, 95 USPQ2d 1833, 1842 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
In particular, a raised substrate QR code providing aural instructions for use of the substrate, a plurality of adhesive raised symbols with a symbol portion corresponding to a plurality of specific objects with each of the plurality of adhesive raised symbols, and a plurality of symbol QR codes corresponding to each of the plurality of symbol portions of the adhesive raised symbols recited in semantically equal language in independent claims 1, 7, and 9 and dependent claims 5, 6, and 8 are directed to printed matter that carry no patentable weight as they are printed matter, but are not functionally or structurally related to the associated physical substrate as they are merely used to convey information. Similarly, with further respect to claim 9, the entirety of claim 9 amounts to written instructions being added to a known product wherein no new or nonobvious functional relationship exists as it amounts to mere instructions of using an adhesive label by a person with a vision impairment which has been conventionally known for decades and reading the information on the label.
Regardless of the significant amount of nonfunctional descriptive material found in the claims, prior art teach these elements in the claims as evidenced below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by HALOS Tactile Icons1 evidenced by the HALOS sales pages on LS&S2 and Etsy3. It is noted that the picture in LS&S HALOS sales page referenced in the rejections below is merely a larger version of the same picture shown in the Etsy HALOS sales page and is provided so that the picture can be more easily viewed..
Regarding claim 7, HALOS teaches a substrate for the selection of object symbols by the visually impaired (HALOS, pg. 1, “HALOS stands for Home Appliance Label and Overlay System. The concept was created from a crowd-funded experiment to test tactile appliance overlays for the visually impaired. We discovered there is a need to standardize tactile cues and provide helpful tactile labels for people to locate and identify buttons on their home appliances.”), the substrate comprising:
a first side and a second side, the first side containing a first layer and a second layer, and an upper portion and a lower portion (HALOS tactile icons packaging. See pictures at least in reviews in the Etsy page as well as in LS&S page.), wherein
the first layer comprises a flat surface (HALOS, backing sheet. Pictures illustrating the white backing sheet are evidenced at least in reviews in the Etsy page as well as in LS&S page. A backing sheet is the sheet that stickers and adhesive labels are provided on so that the stickers or labels can be easily peeled off to be applied for their intended use.);
the second layer comprises
a raised orienting marking to identify the upper portion of the first side of the substrate (The QR code is at the bottom portion of the first side as illustrated in the pictures at least in the LS&S page and in the reviews in the Etsy page. This is construed as an orienting marking identifying the bottom portion of the side and thus also identifies the opposite side as the upper portion.),
a raised substrate QR code oriented in relation to the orientation of the substrate and providing aural instructions for use of the substrate (QR code description in pictures illustrating the QR code are evidenced at least in reviews in the Etsy page as well as in LS&S page.),
a plurality of adhesive raised symbols with symbol portions corresponding to a plurality of specific objects with each of the plurality of adhesive raised symbols surrounded by a raised locator marking configured to enable selection of one of the plurality of adhesive raised symbols by tactile orientation alone (HALOS, HALOS tactile icons. As the tactile icons also amount to being a raised locator marking, they enable selection of themselves by tactile orientation alone.).
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.
Claim 1-6, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HALOS Tactile Icons4, further evidenced by the HALOS sales pages on LS&S5 and Etsy6, in view of Dunleavy et al. (US 2016/0106625, hereinafter referred to as Dunleavy). It is noted that the picture in LS&S HALOS sales page referenced in the rejections below is merely a larger version of the same picture shown in the Etsy HALOS sales page and is provided so that the picture can be more easily viewed.
Regarding claim 1, HALOS teaches a system for product identification and the selection of object symbols by the visually impaired (HALOS, pg. 1, “HALOS stands for Home Appliance Label and Overlay System. The concept was created from a crowd-funded experiment to test tactile appliance overlays for the visually impaired. We discovered there is a need to standardize tactile cues and provide helpful tactile labels for people to locate and identify buttons on their home appliances.”), the system comprising:
a substrate comprising:
a first side and a second side, the first side having a first layer and a second layer, and an upper portion and a lower portion, wherein the first layer comprises a flat surface (HALOS, backing sheet. Pictures illustrating the white backing sheet are evidenced at least in reviews in the Etsy page as well as in LS&S page. A backing sheet is the sheet that stickers and adhesive labels are provided on so that the stickers or labels can be easily peeled off to be applied for their intended use.);
the second layer comprises:
a raised orienting marking to identify the upper portion of the first side of the substrate (The QR code is at the bottom portion of the first side as illustrated in the pictures at least in the LS&S page and in the reviews in the Etsy page. This is construed as an orienting marking identifying the bottom portion of the side and thus also identifies the opposite side as the upper portion.),
a raised substrate QR code oriented in relation to the orientation of the substrate and providing aural instructions for use of the substrate (HALOS, QR code description. Pictures illustrating the QR code are evidenced at least in reviews in the Etsy page as well as in LS&S page.);
a plurality of adhesive raised symbols with a symbol portion corresponding to a plurality of specific objects with each of the plurality of adhesive raised symbols surrounded by a raised locator marking configured to enable selection of one of the plurality of symbols by tactile orientation alone (HALOS, HALOS tactile icons. As the tactile icons also amount to being a raised locator marking, they enable selection of themselves by tactile orientation alone.).
use the raised locator marking to locate, select and remove one of the plurality of adhesive raised symbols to apply to packaging identified as corresponding to one of the specific objects (The QR code is at the bottom portion of the first side as illustrated in the pictures at least in the LS&S page and in the reviews in the Etsy page. This is construed as an orienting marking identifying the bottom portion of the side and thus also identifies the opposite side as the upper portion.).
While HALOS provides a QR code, HALOS does not explicitly include a QR code reader configured to read the raised substrate QR code.
However, Dunleavy teaches a QR code reader to read the raised substrate QR code to enable a user of the substrate to receive aural instructions on the location of each symbol of the plurality of adhesive raised symbols on the substrate (Dunleavy, para. 34, “a QR or other such scannable code 154 that may enable the blind person to point their smartphone or other computer scanning device (including cell phones and other mobile devices with a camera) at the scannable code 154… and hear pre-recorded audio instructions… (in the conventional way such QR or other codes work, that is, by connecting the smartphone via wireless communications to an internet website which may stream the pre-recorded audio via the smartphone).”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to for a user to use their smartphone as a QR code reader to read the raised substrate QR code to enable a user of the substrate to receive aural instructions on the location of each symbol of the plurality of adhesive raised symbols on the substrate because this is “the conventional way such QR or other codes work”. Dunleavy at para. 34.
Regarding claim 2, HALOS in view of Dunleavy teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the first layer is removably attached to the second layer (HALOS, The HALOS tactile icons are removably attached to the backing sheet.).
Regarding claim 3, HALOS in view of Dunleavy teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the raised orienting indicia identify a top end of the substrate (As illustrated in the pictures found in the Etsy page and the LS&S page, the QR code is at the bottom end of the substrate which is thus considered in relation to the top end as identifying the bottom end further identifies the opposite end as the top end.).
Regarding claim 4, HALOS in view of Dunleavy teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the raised substrate QR code is oriented in relation to the top end of the substrate (As illustrated in the pictures found in the Etsy page and the LS&S page, the QR code is at the bottom end of the substrate which is thus considered in relation to the top end as identifying the bottom end further identifies the opposite end as the top end.).
Regarding claim 5, HALOS in view of Dunleavy teaches the system of claim 1, wherein a first symbol QR code relating to the specific object corresponding to at least one of the symbol portions of the plurality of adhesive raised symbols is oriented on the first side of the substrate in close proximity to at least one of the symbol portions of the adhesive raised symbols (This is illustrated at least in the pictures found in the LS&S page and the reviews in the Etsy page.).
Regarding claim 6, HALOS in view of Dunleavy teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the object comprises at least one of the following: a real-world object, a specific good, a specific consumer product (HALOS, pg. 1, Microwave; pg. 2, Oven/Cooker, Washing Machine; pg. 3-5, Home Package includes “four groups of tactile icons – starts and stops, cleaning/washing/ cooking, and a keypad package”; pg. 5-6, Custom Labels “to label anything that needs tactile identification”).
Regarding claim 8, HALOS in view of Dunleavy teaches the substrate of claim 1.
HALOS does not explicitly teach wherein the second layer further comprises a plurality of symbol QR codes corresponding to the plurality of specific objects, wherein each of the plurality of symbol QR codes is oriented adjacent each of the symbol portions of the corresponding adhesive raised symbols and within the raised locator marking.
However, in a related art, Dunleavy teaches wherein the second layer further comprises a plurality of symbol QR codes corresponding to the plurality of specific objects, wherein each of the plurality of symbol QR codes is oriented adjacent each of the symbol portions of the corresponding adhesive raised symbols and within the raised locator marking (Dunleavy, para. 34, “tactile features including raised features 156 which may include a raised frame containing a QR or other such scannable code 154 that may enable the blind person to point their smartphone or other computer scanning device (including cell phones and other mobile devices with a camera) at the scannable code 154 (which they may locate by touch via the raised features 156) and hear pre-recorded audio instructions on how to use the dispensing box (in the conventional way such QR or other codes work, that is, by connecting the smartphone via wireless communications to an internet website which may stream the pre-recorded audio via the smartphone).”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the HALOS tactile icons to include a QR code as taught by Dunleavy because it enables a user with vision impairment to gain additional information by hearing audio instructions associated with the object on which the associated tactile icon is affixed. Thus, it is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 9, HALOS teaches a method for enabling the visually impaired to identify objects (HALOS, pg. 1, “HALOS stands for Home Appliance Label and Overlay System. The concept was created from a crowd-funded experiment to test tactile appliance overlays for the visually impaired. We discovered there is a need to standardize tactile cues and provide helpful tactile labels for people to locate and identify buttons on their home appliances.”) comprising the steps of:
selecting a substrate comprising:
a first side and a second side, the first side containing a first layer and a second layer, and an upper portion and a lower portion (HALOS tactile icons packaging. See pictures at least in reviews in the Etsy page as well as in LS&S page.), wherein
the first layer comprises a flat surface (HALOS, backing sheet. Pictures illustrating the white backing sheet are evidenced at least in reviews in the Etsy page as well as in LS&S page. A backing sheet is the sheet that stickers and adhesive labels are provided on so that the stickers or labels can be easily peeled off to be applied for their intended use.);
the second layer comprises:
a raised orienting marking to identify the upper portion of the first side of the substrate (The QR code is at the bottom portion of the first side as illustrated in the pictures at least in the LS&S page and in the reviews in the Etsy page. This is construed as an orienting marking identifying the bottom portion of the side and thus also identifies the opposite side as the upper portion.),
a raised substrate QR code oriented in relation to the orientation of the substrate and providing aural instructions for use of the substrate (HALOS, QR code description. Pictures illustrating the QR code are evidenced at least in reviews in the Etsy page as well as in LS&S page.),
a plurality of adhesive raised symbols with symbol portions corresponding to a plurality of specific objects with each of the plurality of adhesive raised symbols surrounded by a raised locator marking configured to enable selection of a desired symbol by tactile orientation alone (HALOS, HALOS tactile icons. As the tactile icons also amount to being a raised locator marking, they enable selection of themselves by tactile orientation alone.);
locating the raised substrate QR code by tactile orientation (HALOS, QR code description. Pictures illustrating the QR code are evidenced at least in reviews in the Etsy page as well as in LS&S page.);
locating the raised orienting marking to identify the top of the first layer of the substrate (The QR code is at the bottom of the first layer as illustrated in the pictures at least in the LS&S page and in the reviews in the Etsy page. This is construed as an orienting marking identifying the bottom of the first layer and thus also identifies the opposite side as the top of the first layer.);
locating the raised locator marking configured to enable selection of a raised adhesive symbol by tactile orientation alone (HALOS, HALOS tactile icons. As the tactile icons also amount to being a raised locator marking, they enable selection of themselves by tactile orientation alone.);
identifying at least one of the plurality of raised adhesive symbols (HALOS, HALOS tactile icons. As the tactile icons also amount to being a raised locator marking, they enable selection of themselves by tactile orientation alone.);
selecting at least one of the plurality of raised adhesive symbols (HALOS, HALOS tactile icons. As the tactile icons also amount to being a raised locator marking, they enable selection of themselves by tactile orientation alone.);
peeling the at least one of the plurality of raised adhesive symbols from the substrate (HALOS, pg. 1, “The HALOS products are stickers”. As identified above, the HALOS tactile icons are packaged on a backing sheet. One of ordinary skill in the art understands that a sticker is peeled from the backing sheet.);
applying the raised adhesive symbol to a corresponding object package (HALOS, pg. 1, “The HALOS products are stickers that adhere directly to your appliance control panel.”);
and identifying the corresponding object package by tactile recognition of the symbol (HALOS, pg. 1, “The concept was created from a crowd-funded experiment to test tactile appliance overlays for the visually impaired. We discovered there is a need to standardize tactile cues and provide helpful tactile labels for people to locate and identify buttons on their home appliances.”) and by (This is inherent because a QR code is designed to be read to retrieve information.).
While HALOS provides a QR code, HALOS does not explicitly teach using a QR code reader to retrieve aural instructions/to read the symbol QR code.
However, Dunleavy teaches using a QR code reader to retrieve aural instructions associated with the raised substrate QR code on how to use the substrate; using a QR code reader to retrieve aural instructions about the product associated with one or more of the symbol QR codes located adjacent one or more of the plurality of adhesive symbols; and using the QR code reader to read the symbol QR code associated with the raised symbol corresponding to the corresponding object package (Dunleavy, para. 34, “a QR or other such scannable code 154 that may enable the blind person to point their smartphone or other computer scanning device (including cell phones and other mobile devices with a camera) at the scannable code 154… and hear pre-recorded audio instructions… (in the conventional way such QR or other codes work, that is, by connecting the smartphone via wireless communications to an internet website which may stream the pre-recorded audio via the smartphone).”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to for a user to use their smartphone as a QR code reader to retrieve aural instructions associated with the raised substrate QR code on how to use the substrate; to retrieve aural instructions about the product associated with one or more of the symbol QR codes located adjacent one or more of the plurality of adhesive symbols; and to read the symbol QR code associated with the raised symbol corresponding to the corresponding object package because this is “the conventional way such QR or other codes work”. Dunleavy at para. 34.
HALOS does not explicitly teach a plurality of adhesive raised symbols… with a plurality of symbol QR codes corresponding to each of the plurality of symbol portions of the adhesive raised symbols located adjacent each of the symbol portions of the plurality of adhesive raised symbols.
However, in a related art, Dunleavy teaches a plurality of adhesive raised symbols… with a plurality of symbol QR codes corresponding to each of the plurality of symbol portions of the adhesive raised symbols located adjacent each of the symbol portions of the plurality of adhesive raised symbols (Dunleavy, para. 34, “tactile features including raised features 156 which may include a raised frame containing a QR or other such scannable code 154 that may enable the blind person to point their smartphone or other computer scanning device (including cell phones and other mobile devices with a camera) at the scannable code 154 (which they may locate by touch via the raised features 156) and hear pre-recorded audio instructions on how to use the dispensing box (in the conventional way such QR or other codes work, that is, by connecting the smartphone via wireless communications to an internet website which may stream the pre-recorded audio via the smartphone).”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the HALOS tactile icons to include a QR code as taught by Dunleavy because it enables a user with vision impairment to gain additional information by hearing audio instructions associated with the object on which the associated tactile icon is affixed. Thus, it is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wired (How to Scan a QR Code) further discloses the conventional nature of scanning a QR code.
Applegate et al. (US 2013/0026219) discloses combining tactile information with electronically readable information on a sticker.
McAdams et al. (US 2014/0339296) discloses combining Braille and QR codes on a label as well as explicitly defines printed matter.
Lai et al. (CN 205334866) discloses combining Braille and QR codes on a label.
Dixon (US 2018/0122273) discloses “smart labels” using raised indicia and QR codes.
Bollstrom et al. (US 2020/0361199) discloses combining Braille and QR codes on a label.
Kim et al. (KR 102249273) discloses combining Braille and QR codes on a label.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL LANE whose telephone number is (303)297-4311. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 - 4:30 MT.
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, Xuan Thai can be reached at (571) 272-7147. 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 LANE/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
1 Tangible Surface Research - HALOS. (2021, October 14). https://www.tangiblesurfaceresearch.com/halos
2 HALOS multi color tactile washing machine stickers | LS&S. (2023, June 4). https://lssproducts.com/halos-multi-color-tactile-washing-machine-stickers/
3 HALOSystem - Etsy. (2022, May 21). https://www.etsy.com/shop/HALOSystem
4 Tangible Surface Research - HALOS. (2021, October 14). https://www.tangiblesurfaceresearch.com/halos
5 HALOS multi color tactile washing machine stickers | LS&S. (2023, June 4). https://lssproducts.com/halos-multi-color-tactile-washing-machine-stickers/
6 HALOSystem - Etsy. (2022, May 21). https://www.etsy.com/shop/HALOSystem
Prosecution Insights