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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to application 19/150,235 filed 7/23/25. Claims 1-7 are pending with claims 1, 6, and 7 in independent form.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fuji Xerox Co. Ltd. JP 2002-281275 A (as cited by applicant – hereinafter referred to as Fuji).
Fuji teaches:
Re: claim 1, A two-dimensional code ([0052]) for reading a first piece of information and a second piece of information as an information pair, the two-dimensional code comprising: a first code region in which the first piece of information is recorded with a plurality of types of cells arranged two-dimensionally; and a second code region in which the second piece of information is recorded with a plurality of types of cells arranged two-dimensionally, wherein the first code region is generated by using a rank that has been set according to a predefined setting rule related to predefined constituent element information, and the second code region is generated by using a rank that has been set according to the predefined setting rule related to the predefined constituent element information (fig. 1 and 8; [0067] – respective code regions have the same rank in relation to the number of cells constituting the code region therefore each code region is generated using a same rank set in accordance with a prescribed setting rule relating to information (number of cells) pertaining to a prescribed constituent element).
Re: claim 3, The two-dimensional code according to claim 1, wherein the predefined constituent element information is a number of cells that constitute a code region (fig. 1 and 8; [0067] – respective code regions have the same rank in relation to the number of cells constituting the code region therefore each code region is generated using a same rank set in accordance with a prescribed setting rule relating to information (number of cells) pertaining to a prescribed constituent element).
Re: claim 6, A two-dimensional code reading device (two-dimensional code reader201) that optically reads, as an information pair, a first piece of information and a second piece of information from a two-dimensional code including a first code region in which the first piece of information is recorded with a plurality of types of cells arranged two-dimensionally, and a second code region in which the second piece of information is recorded with a plurality of types of cells arranged two-dimensionally, wherein the first code region is generated by using a rank that has been set according to a predefined setting rule related to predefined constituent element information, the second code region is generated by using a rank that has been set according to the predefined setting rule related to the predefined constituent element information (fig. 1 and 8; [0067] – respective code regions have the same rank in relation to the number of cells constituting the code region therefore each code region is generated using a same rank set in accordance with a prescribed setting rule relating to information (number of cells) pertaining to a prescribed constituent element), and the two-dimensional code reading device is configured to treat, as the information pair, the first piece of information and the second piece of information respectively read from the first code region and the second code region generated by using ranks that have been set according to the predefined setting rule related to the predefined constituent element information ([0054]-[0059]; fig. 7).
Re: claim 7, A two-dimensional code reading method for optically reading, as an information pair, a first piece of information and a second piece of information by using a two-dimensional code reading device (two-dimensional code reader201) from a two-dimensional code ([0052]) including a first code region in which the first piece of information is recorded with a plurality of types of cells arranged two-dimensionally, and a second code region in which the second piece of information is recorded with a plurality of types of cells arranged two-dimensionally, wherein the first code region is generated by using a rank that has been set according to a predefined setting rule related to predefined constituent element information, and the second code region is generated by using a rank that has been set according to the predefined setting rule related to the predefined constituent element information (fig. 1 and 8; [0067] – respective code regions have the same rank in relation to the number of cells constituting the code region therefore each code region is generated using a same rank set in accordance with a prescribed setting rule relating to information (number of cells) pertaining to a prescribed constituent element), the two-dimensional code reading method comprising: treating, as the information pair, the first piece of information and the second piece of information respectively read from the first code region and the second code region generated by using ranks that have been set according to the predefined setting rule related to the predefined constituent element information ([0054]-[0059]; fig. 7).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2 and 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuji Xerox Co. Ltd. JP 2002-281275 A (as cited by applicant – hereinafter referred to as Fuji) in view of Ito et al. US 2019/0205588 A1.
The teachings of Fuji have been discussed above.
Fuji fails to specifically teach:
Re: claim 2, the two-dimensional code according to claim 1, wherein the predefined setting rule includes that a rank divergent from a rank that is most suitable for recorded information is set.
Re: claim 4, The two-dimensional code according to The two-dimensional code according to wherein the predefined constituent element information is a mask pattern for rearranging cells arranged depending on recorded information so as to disperse light cells and dark cells.
However, Ito teaches:
Re: claim 2, wherein the predefined setting rule includes that a rank divergent from a rank that is most suitable for recorded information is set ([0081]-[0087]; fig.11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Ito into the code of Fuji as an obvious matter of design choice to allow the predetermined information in the code region to be obtained using error correction and allow for the amount of information that is recorded in the code region to be increased ([0087]).
Re: claim 4, Fuji as modified by Ito additionally teaches the two-dimensional code according to The two-dimensional code according to wherein the predefined constituent element information is a mask pattern for rearranging cells arranged depending on recorded information so as to disperse light cells and dark cells (Ito – [0086]).
Re: claim 5, Fuji as modified by Ito additionally teaches the two-dimensional code according to The two-dimensional code according to wherein the predefined constituent element information is a compression method for recorded information (Ito- [0138]).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISTY A HAUPT whose telephone number is (571)272-8545 and email address is kristy.haupt@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Sun 5:30 AM- 10PM; Flex during day.
If all attempts to reach the examiner by telephone and email are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas Pham, can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-3689. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/KRISTY A HAUPT/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
KAH
Prosecution Insights