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 .
Status of Claims
2. This Office Action is issued in response to the claims filed on 01/22/2025.
Claims 1-22 are pending in this Office Action.
Priority
3. Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s priority claim of 35 USC 119 to U.S. provisional patent application 63/623,939, filed January 23, 2024
Drawings
4. Fig. 2C is objected to because step 253 has typo “processin g of steps” which should be “processing of steps.” Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Objections
5. Claims 11 and 14 are objected to because they contain acronyms QR and GIF. The acronyms should be spelled out at least on first instance each term is used in a claim or claims. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-7, 9-10, and 12-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract ideas without significantly more.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The claim recites “obtain one or more images…; detect…; and output…” These limitations, as drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations cover performance of the limitations in the mind or on paper. For example, the limitation “obtain one or more images” under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites abstract ideas.
Step 2A, Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not recite any application of the limitations besides abstract ideas. Therefore, the claim is directed to abstract ideas.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because besides the abstract ideas, additional elements ‘a cyber security appliance’ and ‘a barcode reader module’ are recited at a high level of generality with no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-7, 9-10, and 12- 20 depend on claim 1 and they do not limit independent claim 1 or themselves to a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception; therefore, claims 2-7, 9-10, and 12- 20 are also not patent eligible.
Similar to claim 1, claims 21-22 are not patent eligible.
35 U.S.C. § 112(f)
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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 limitations are: “…a barcode reader module configured to: receive …; obtain…; output…” in claim 1.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they 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 these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid 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 limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid 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
11. 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.
12. Claims 1-20 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. Claim 1 contains subject matters which were not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The specification is devoid of any structure that performs the functions in the claim that are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Therefore, claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph.
13. 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.
14. Claim limitations “…a barcode reader module configured to: receive …; obtain…; output…” in claim 1 invoke 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. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the functions in the claims. Therefore, claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-20 are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
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.
15. Claim 20 is 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 20 recites “…the barcode is a linear barcode, a two-dimensional barcode, a matrix barcode, wherein optionally the barcode is a quick-response (QR) code.” The scope of the claim is unclear. For purpose of examination, the Examiner assumes the claim as “the barcode is a linear barcode, a two-dimensional barcode, a matrix barcode, or a quick-response (QR) code.”
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 102
16. 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.
17. Claims 1-2, 10, 16, 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Goutal et al. (US 20250202943 A1), hereinafter “Goutal.”
Regarding claim 1, Goutal discloses a cyber security appliance for detecting a presence of a barcode, the cyber security appliance comprising a barcode reader module configured to (Fig.13 with associated text: computing device of Fig.13- cyber security appliance; paragraph [0055]: one of microprocessors- barcode reader module): receive input data; obtain one or more images from the received input data; detect that a candidate barcode is present in the one or more images (paragraph [0056]: receive an email-input data; detecting barcode storing a Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) or Hypertext Transfer Protocol Secure (HTTPS) URL); and output an alert, wherein when the candidate barcode can be decoded, the alert indicates that a valid barcode is present in the received input data (paragraph [0063]: visual warning indicating that a barcode storing a suspicious HTTP or HTTPS URL has been detected), and wherein when the candidate barcode cannot be decoded, the alert indicates the candidate barcode present in the received input data cannot be decoded (Note: the word “when” makes the limitation following it conditional and does not have patentable weight; only one of the cited conditional clauses needed to be applied art).
Regarding claim 2, Goutal discloses the cyber security appliance of claim 1, wherein detecting that a candidate barcode is present in an image comprises: one or more image processing steps to increase a detectability of any candidate barcode that may be present in the one or more images; and one or more scanning steps to detect and attempt to decode the candidate barcode in the one or more images (paragraph [0056]: extracting an image and sending it to a barcode scanner which performs decoding to obtain a Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) or Hypertext Transfer Protocol Secure (HTTPS) URL).
Regarding claim 10, Goutal discloses the cyber security appliance of claim 2, wherein the one or more image processing steps comprise two or more image processing steps and wherein at least one of the one or more scanning steps are interspersed between two of the two or more image processing steps (paragraph [0056]: extracting image and analyzing the HTTP are two image processing steps. Extracting image happens before and analyzing the HTTP happens after the step of scanning the barcode).
Regarding claim 16, Goutal discloses the cyber security appliance of claim 1, wherein, when the candidate barcode can be decoded, the barcode reader module is further configured to determine whether the candidate barcode is malicious (paragraph [0056]: determining whether the HTTP or HTTPS URL is suspicious. Note: for compact prosecution, art is applied, but the when clause make the limitation not positively recited and does not have patentable weight).
Regarding claim 18, Goutal discloses the cyber security appliance of claim 1, wherein the alert indicating that a valid barcode is present in the received input data further comprises decoded data from the candidate barcode for further investigation by a cyber security system (paragraph [0056]).
Regarding claim 19, Goutal discloses the cyber security appliance of claim 1, wherein the received input data comprises an email or instant message received over a network (paragraph [0056]: input is an email), or wherein the received input data comprises an image received from a camera associated with a device running the cyber security appliance.
Regarding claim 20, Goutal discloses the cyber security appliance of claim 1, wherein the barcode is a linear barcode, a two-dimensional barcode, a matrix barcode, wherein optionally the barcode is a quick-response (QR) code (paragraphs [0034] and [0056]).
Regarding claims 21-22, they claim similar subject matters to claim 1; therefore, claims 21-22 are rejected at least for the same reasons as claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
18. 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.
19. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goutal et al. (US 20250202943 A1), hereinafter “Goutal.”
Regarding claim 17, Goutal discloses the cyber security appliance of claim 16, wherein when it is determined that the candidate barcode is malicious the barcode reader module is further configured to remove the malicious candidate barcode from the input data, replace the malicious candidate barcode with replacement data, or both (Fig.12 with associated text and paragraphs [0043]-[0045], [0059]-[0061]).
Goutal discloses the teachings of claim 16 and claim 17 in different embodiments. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Goutal’s teachings in different embodiments and the motivation of doing so would be for protecting computers and computer-containing devices from the potentially malicious code pointed at by links embedded in barcodes that are directly or indirectly delivered via electronic messages such as email and for improving the functioning and performance of computers, computing and communication devices in detecting barcode URL in individuals' or an organization's inbound electronic messages, to include inbound email traffic as taught by Goutal (paragraph [0003]).
20. Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goutal et al. (US 20250202943 A1), hereinafter “Goutal” in view of Musiani et al. (US 20190102590 A1), hereinafter “Musiani.”
Regarding claim 3, Goutal discloses the cyber security appliance of claim 2. Goutal does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more image processing steps comprise detecting contours in the one or more images. However, detecting contours in image is known in the art and Musiani’s teaching is an example (paragraphs [0041]-[0043]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Goutal’s teaching of one or more image processing steps with Musiani’s teaching of detecting contours in image because the result would be predictable and resulted in the one or more image processing steps comprise detecting contours in the one or more images.
Regarding claim 4, Goutal and Musiani disclose the cyber security appliance of claim 3, wherein a first image of the one or more images is determined not to comprise the candidate barcode when a number of contours is below a first threshold; and wherein when the first image is determined not to comprise the candidate barcode it is then discarded (Musiani, paragraphs [0041]-[0043]. Note: for compact prosecution, art is applied, but the when clauses make the limitations not positively recited and does not have patentable weight).
Regarding claim 5, Goutal and Musiani disclose the cyber security appliance of claim 3, wherein one or more regions of the one or more images likely to have the candidate barcode are determined based on the detected contours; and wherein areas not within the one or more regions of the one or more images likely to have the candidate barcode are then discarded (Musiani, paragraphs [0041]-[0043]).
21. Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goutal et al. (US 20250202943 A1), hereinafter “Goutal” in view of Shi (US 20120091204 A1), hereinafter “Shi.”
Regarding claim 6, Goutal discloses the cyber security appliance of claim 2. Goutal does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more image processing steps comprise detecting edges. However, detecting edges in image is known in the art and Shi’s teaching is an example (paragraph [0026]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Goutal’s teaching of one or more image processing steps with Shi’s teaching of detecting edges in image because the result would be predictable and resulted in the one or more image processing steps comprise detecting edges.
Regarding claim 7, Goutal and Shi disclose the cyber security appliance of claim 6, wherein a first image of the one or more images is determined not to comprise the candidate barcode in the first image when a number of edges is below a second threshold; and wherein when the first image is determined not to comprise the candidate barcode it is then discarded (Shi, paragraph [0026]. Note: for compact prosecution, art is applied, but the when clauses make the limitations not positively recited and does not have patentable weight).
22. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goutal et al. (US 20250202943 A1), hereinafter “Goutal” in view of Shi (US 20120091204 A1), hereinafter “Shi,” and in view of Tao (US 20110317004 A1), hereinafter “Tao.”
Regarding claim 8, Goutal and Shi disclose the cyber security appliance of claim 6. Goutal and Shi do not explicitly disclose wherein the edges are detected using Sobel gradients. However, detecting edge of barcode using Sobel gradient is known in the art and Tao’s teaching is an example (paragraph [0176]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Goutal’s teaching of one or more image processing steps with Shi’s teaching of detecting edges in image and with Tao’s teaching of detecting edge of barcode using Sobel gradient because the result would be predictable and resulted in the edges are detected using Sobel gradients.
23. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goutal et al. (US 20250202943 A1), hereinafter “Goutal” in view of Li et al. (US 20220375243 A1), hereinafter “Li,” and in view of Attia et al. (US 20050011957 A1), hereinafter “Attia.”
Regarding claim 9, Goutal discloses the cyber security appliance of claim 2. Goutal does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more image processing steps comprise one or more of: inverting a first image; resizing the first image one or more times; adjusting or replacing one or more colors of the first image; sharpening the first image; brightening the first image; and increasing a contrast of the first image.
However, image processing steps comprise one or more of: inverting a first image; resizing the first image one or more times; adjusting or replacing one or more colors of the first image; sharpening the first image; brightening the first image; and increasing a contrast of the first image are known in the art and Li and Attia’s teachings are example (Li, paragraphs[0023]-[0024] and [0090]: resizing, adjusting a contrast and brightness of an image. Attia, paragraphs [0096]-[0098]: rotating and sharpening image).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Goutal’s teaching of one or more image processing steps with Li and Attia’s teachings presented above to have obvious and predictable results of the one or more image processing steps comprise one or more of: inverting a first image; resizing the first image one or more times; adjusting or replacing one or more colors of the first image; sharpening the first image; brightening the first image; and increasing a contrast of the first image.
24. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goutal et al. (US 20250202943 A1), hereinafter “Goutal” in view of Wagner et al. (US 20170121113 A1), hereinafter “Wagner.”
Regarding claim 11, Goutal discloses the cyber security appliance of claim 2. Goutal does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more scanning steps comprise two or more scanning steps, the two or more scanning steps performed using at least two different QR scanners. However, using multiple scanners to scan barcode is known in the art and Wagner’s teaching is an example (Fig.7 with associated text and paragraph [0027]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Goutal’s teaching of scanning barcode with Wagner’s teaching of using multiple scanners to scan barcode and the motivation of doing so would be to ensure successfully scanning barcode.
25. Claims 12 and 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goutal et al. (US 20250202943 A1), hereinafter “Goutal” in view of Momose (US 20200193113 A1), hereinafter “Momose.”
Regarding claim 12, Goutal discloses the cyber security appliance of claim 1. Goutal does not explicitly disclose wherein obtaining the one or more images from the received input data comprises: determining that the received input data comprises multiple image frames; and extracting each image frame from the multiple image frames. However, dividing image into blocks and analyzing the blocks for barcode information are known in the art and Momose’s teaching is an example (paragraphs [0034]-[9936], [0041]-[0042], and [0050]-[0051]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Goutal’s teaching of analyzing an image associated with barcode with Momose’s teaching of dividing image into blocks and analyzing the blocks for barcode information to have obvious and predictable results of obtaining the one or more images from the received input data comprises: determining that the received input data comprises multiple image frames; and extracting each image frame from the multiple image frames.
Regarding claim 15, Goutal discloses the cyber security appliance of claim 1, wherein obtaining one or more images from the received input data comprises: determining that the received input data comprises one or more images (paragraph [0034]). Goutal does not explicitly disclose determining that at least one of the one or more images is larger than a threshold size; and chunking the at least one image that is larger than the threshold size into a plurality of image chunks, each image chunk being smaller than the threshold size; wherein the obtained one or more images comprise the plurality of image chunks.
However, dividing an image into blocks of predetermined size and analyzing the blocks for barcode information are in the art and Momose’s teaching is an example (paragraphs [0034]-[0036], [0041]-[0042], and [0050]-[0051]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Goutal’s teaching of analyzing an image associated with barcode with Momose’s teaching of dividing an image into blocks of predetermined size and analyzing the blocks for barcode information to have obvious and predictable results of determining that at least one of the one or more images is larger than a threshold size; and chunking the at least one image that is larger than the threshold size into a plurality of image chunks, each image chunk being smaller than the threshold size; wherein the obtained one or more images comprise the plurality of image chunks.
26. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goutal et al. (US 20250202943 A1), hereinafter “Goutal” in view of Momose (US 20200193113 A1), hereinafter “Momose,” and in view of Yan et al. (US 20150319138 A1), hereinafter “Yan.”
Regarding claim 14, Goutal and Momose disclose the cyber security appliance of claim 12. Goutal and Momose do not explicitly disclose wherein determining that the received input data comprises multiple image frames comprises determining that the received input data is a GIF or a video. However, a barcode decoder supporting multiple image format including Graphic Interchange Format (GIF) is known in the art and Yan’s teaching is an example (paragraph [0048]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Goutal’s teaching of analyzing an image associated with barcode with Momose’s teaching of dividing image into blocks and analyzing the blocks for barcode information and with Yan’s teaching of a barcode decoder supporting multiple image format including Graphic Interchange Format to have obvious and predictable result of determining that the received input data comprises multiple image frames comprises determining that the received input data is a GIF or a video.
Allowable Subject Matter
27. Claim 13 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but it would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112 (b).
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 13 written in independent form:
The prior arts of record applied in this office action fail to either disclose or sufficiently suggest the combination features as claimed and arranged by applicant. Although the above references teach similar aspects of claim 13, none of these references individually or in reasonable combination discloses all the limitations as claimed in claim 13, including at least “obtaining the one or more images from the received input data further comprises: determining a similarity between each image frame; and selecting the one or more images from the multiple image frames based on the similarity between each image frame.” Therefore, claim 13 allowable over the prior arts of record.
Prior Art of Record
28. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: see attached PTO-892 Notice of References Cited.
Conclusion
29. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THANH T. LE whose telephone number is (571)270-0279. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00 am - 4:30 pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Farid Homayounmehr can be reached on 571-272-3739. The fax phone number for the organization where this 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/THANH T LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2495
Prosecution Insights