DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-12 and 16 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 1 recites that an animal tag has surface with a hole wherein a matrix barcode covers overlaps with the hole “giving rise to an unreadable matrix barcode portion” and that reading of the matrix barcode “does not necessitate the reading of said unreadable matrix barcode portion”. This renders the claim vague/ indefinite because it is unclear how covering a hole with a matrix barcode would render any of the matrix barcode unreadable. The matrix barcode being applied to overlap the hole would cover the whole but it is vague/ indefinite why this would make the code itself unreadable as it does not recite that the barcode marker has a hole that is aligned with the hole of the surface, for example. The dependent claims are rejected at least based on their dependency.
Claim 16 recites that the matrix code comprise an IR blocking material enabling reading in both IR and non-IR spectrum. It is vague/ indefinite how an IR blocking material enables such reading. For examination purposes, the Examiner will interpret that the claim is a matrix doe that enables reading in IR and non-IR spectrum.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones (US 20130119138) in view of Doumar et al. (US 20220414698).
Re claim 1, Jones teaches:
An animal tag comprising a surface with a hole, and having a matrix barcode marker assembled of a plurality of cells (FIG. 9A), wherein:
(a) said matrix barcode marker covers at least a portion of said surface (claim 1 teaches a QR code and FIG. 9A shows the matrix barcode marker covers a surface with a hole, such as top surface 300 in a folded position)
(b) at least a portion of said matrix barcode marker overlaps with said hole of said surface (FIG. 9A wherein in a folded position, the matrix barcode marker overlaps a hole, such as the hole in the top portion 300, wherein the barcode marker is interpreted as the whole component 330 which is disclosed as similar to whole component 130 and thus includes tab and hole). Though silent to giving rise to an unreadable matrix barcode portion, and (c) the reading of said matrix barcode marker does not necessitate the reading of said unreadable matrix barcode portion, the Examiner notes that the claimed structure is taught by the prior art.
Nonetheless, Doumar et al. teaches that QR codes use Reed-Solomon error correction for reading wherein damaged or obscured portions do not render the code unreadable (it can be read even if parts are unreadable).
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings for ease of reading/ error processing.
The Examiner notes that “animal” tag does not impart a structure over a “tag” as it can be interpreted as a tag related to an animal, used by animals, etc. , wherein a human is an animal, etc.
Re claim 2, though silent to an ArUco marker, the Examiner notes that ArUco is a different format matrix/ 2d code, and therefore the selection of a different format for encoded data (that is well known) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, based on system constraints, compatibility, intended use, etc.
Re claims 3-4, the Examiner notes that the intended use of the animal tag is not germane to the patentability of the structure. The Examiner notes that machine reading of a QR code using a camera/ visible light, is routine and conventional and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art based on accepted/ conventional use. Re claim, 4 the reading using Iris also routine/ conventional, and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date based on security/ privacy concerns, for example.
Re claim 5, a QR code is interpreted as square shaped.
Re claim 6, though silent to a 8x8 marker/ code, the Examiner note that when the general conditions of a claim are taught, optimizing a value/ range for an intended purposes is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date. One would have been motivated to have such a size for size constraints, data constraints, aesthetics, etc. wherein merely changing/ programming the size is within the ordinary skill in the art as QR/ matrix codes are taught above.
Re claim 7, it is implicit that a portion of a QR code is 2x2.
Re claim 8, the hole is generally at the center of the surface in an unfolded state (FIG. 9A).
Re claims 9-10, fasteners (40) are taught generally thought a center of the surface (when unfolded it’s the center of the surface, and its centrally located across the width), and though sient to a pin, a pin is an obvious expedient of one of a plurality of fasteners available to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provided expected results of fastening.
Re claims 11-12, the intended use of the tag it not patentable and is not germane to its recited structure. Structurally, the prior art teachings are capable of being attached to the recited animals.
Claim(s) 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soules et al. (US 5522623) .
Re claim 13, Soules et al. (US 5522623) teaches a code marker of a animal tag (for a person) comprising a IR absorbing powder layer readable in the IR spectrum (26) and non-IR readable layer (23). Though silent to laser printer, the Examiner notes that powders for laser printers are interpreted to work with powdered towner and thus are an obvious expedient for IR spectrum reading. Though silent to the human readable being “ink jet printed”, the Examiner note that such printing is an obvious expedient to provide human readable indicia on a surface for low cost and ease. Additionally, the method of manufacture does not appear to provide any unexpected results or be germane to the structure itself, outside of performing what is known and conventional in the art. “Animal” tag is not structurally unique and is read on by a tag that can be used or about or somehow connected/ related to animals (humans). Though silent to a matrix code, the use of a matrix code is an obvious expedient for data security/ capacity.
Re claim 14, though silent to an ArUco marker, the Examiner notes that ArUco is a different format matrix/ 2d code, and therefore the selection of a different format for encoded data (that is well known) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, based on system constraints, compatibility, intended use, etc.
Re claim 15, Soules et al. teaches an animal tag (for a person) with a code marker places thereon comprising a code placed on the tag (26), an IR transparent color layer covering the code (21), and an alphanumeric number printed above the IR transparent color layer overlapping the code, wherein the code is read by a camera (IR as per barcode 26 which is an IR absorbing powder) and the alphanumeric number is read by human (FIG. 2). Though silent to a matrix code as a linear code is taught, the Examiner notes it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a 2d/ matrix code such as for information density and security. “Animal” tag is not structurally unique and is read on by a tag that can be used or about or somehow connected/ related to animals (humans).
Re claim 16, the limitations have been discussed above wherein both IR and visible light are used to read the total matrix code which comprises the IR readable and human readable regions. “Animal” tag is not structurally unique and is read on by a tag that can be used or about or somehow connected/ related to animals (humans).
Claim(s) 13-14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 20220292276).
Re claim 13, Lee et al. teaches such limitations (FIG. 1A and paragraph [0053]+) wherein an emblem or logo is printed on top of the 3d matrix barcode using conventional inks (human readable) and the matrix barcode is printed with an infrared ink (paragraph [0063]+). The use of laser and ink jet are obvious expedients to apply the ink, known in the art, without producing expected results, and would be chosen based on their acceptance and cost and reliability. “Animal” tag is not structurally unique and is read on by a tag that can be used or about or somehow connected/ related to animals (humans).
Re claim 14, though silent to an ArUco marker, the Examiner notes that ArUco is a different format matrix/ 2d code, and therefore the selection of a different format for encoded data (that is well known) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, based on system constraints, compatibility, intended use, etc.
Re claim 16, the limitations have been discussed above with an IR and non IR reading structure.
Additional Remarks
The Examiner notes that depending on amendments, an election of species may be enforced (specification embodiments of page 3 lines 15+) and the specification embodiment of p.2 line 33+, as both species don’t include the animal tag having a hole and a corresponding hole on a matrix barcode that is attached on top of the tag so that the holes line up, for example. The Examiner attempted to contact Mr. Keith O’Doherty (10/24/25 Transmittal Letter contact information) but no reply has been received at the time of this action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL I WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2409. The examiner can normally be reached 8am - 5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Steven Paik can be reached at 571-272-2404. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANIEL I. WALSH/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2876
