how to add a visual identity to a barcode
S Woodside
I don't like software patents so I'm publishing an idea I just had
here. The point is to prevent anyone from patenting this system, to
put it into the public domain. I'm posting to sci.image.processing
because that's the field of the invention, and to misc.int-property
because of my concerns about patents, and of course I'm happy to
entertain other ways to get ideas into circulation and prevent anyone
from patenting.
I'm the inventor of the semacode system ( http://semacode.org ) which
uses 2 dimensional barcodes to embed URL tags. My company has created
camera-phone based software which performs image recognition to find
the matrix codes in the camera image, and read the encoded URL out of
them.
A method to combine a logo or other visual information into a 2D
barcode
PREAMBLE
The purpose of this system is to apply a visual identity into a
standard two dimensional/matrix barcode. This system would work
without modifying the software or hardware that reads the code.
FIELD
Two dimensional/ matrix barcodes such as Data Matrix, Aztec code, etc.
Existing, unmodified hardware and software to read the barcodes.
PROBLEM
Matrix barcodes (e.g. Data Matrix) have a dull visual appearance. Also
they are generic in appearance, and have been difficult to apply with
any kind of branding scheme.
SOLUTION
Consider:
- the mechanism for finding the barcode symbol in an image usually
considers only portions of the symbol, called the "finder pattern"
- the remainder of the symbol, the "data section" is subject to error
correction schemes which can fill in the values for lost or damaged
areas
- The data section is made up of "modules", the individual light and
dark areas that encode the bits of the message
- the bits are distributed in a pattern or pseudo-random fashion, so
if contiguous MODULES are damaged, the damage is spread through
non-contiguous BITS of the message
Thus:
- a contiguous area of the DATA SECTION of the symbol, can be erased
and replaced with arbitrary visual information
- the visual information can be any visual information, including but
not limited to text and images
- the result will still be compatible with existing scanning systems
GENERAL TECHNIQUE
- create the barcode
- select an area of the data section to erase
- this area is called the "picture area"
- the picture area must be small enough that the data can be recovered
from the symbol using error correction to fill in the erased data
- in the picture area, place whatever arbitrary visual information you
want, e.g. logo, picture, text
EXAMPLE
Create a data matrix (ISO/IEC 16022) with a size of 24x24 modules.
Erase the central 4x4 area (erase 16 modules). Place an image of a
heart in the middle. The visual identity of the barcode is now "love"
and would identify the data contents which would be romantic in
nature.
Comments welcome and appreciated.
simon
sbwoo...@yahoo.com
http://simonwoodside.com
http://semacode.org
Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet
S Woodside <sbwoo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I don't like software patents so I'm publishing an idea I just had
>here. The point is to prevent anyone from patenting this system, to
>put it into the public domain.
While I understand your point, there are two things you should be
aware of:
1) It's extremely unlikely the Patent Office will encounter this posting
when evaluating any later patent application on this invention. So
they will probably grant the patent anyway. Then your only recourse is
to start a court case or apply for re-examination to have the patent
invalidated. This is extremely expensive.
2) Someone else may already have applied for a patent on this invention.
There's not much you can do about 2), but issue 1) can be mitigated
if you publish at a place the Patent Office is likely to read. One
such place is https://priorart.ip.com
Arnoud
--
Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch patent attorney - Speaking only for myself
Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/
wurzel
écrit :
> There's not much you can do about 2), but issue 1) can be mitigated
> if you publish at a place the Patent Office is likely to read. One
> such place is https://priorart.ip.com
>
Yes, in addition to Arnoud's comments, there also used to be journal
called Research Disclosures, that allowed anonymous revelation of
techniques, methods, products etc, and that published on a regular basis.
I don't know whether such a publication is still in existence, but it is
probably worth checking out.
wurzel
Joseph Pietro Riolo
On Tue, 24 Aug 2004, Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet <gala...@stack.nl> wrote:
>
> 1) It's extremely unlikely the Patent Office will encounter this posting
> when evaluating any later patent application on this invention. So
> they will probably grant the patent anyway. Then your only recourse is
> to start a court case or apply for re-examination to have the patent
> invalidated. This is extremely expensive.
Will providing citation of prior art as described in 2202 to 2206 in
MPEP be any help?
Joseph Pietro Riolo
<ri...@voicenet.com>
Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions in this
post in the public domain.
Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet
Joseph Pietro Riolo <ri...@voicenet.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 24 Aug 2004, Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet <gala...@stack.nl> wrote:
>> 1) It's extremely unlikely the Patent Office will encounter this posting
>> when evaluating any later patent application on this invention. So
>> they will probably grant the patent anyway. Then your only recourse is
>> to start a court case or apply for re-examination to have the patent
>> invalidated. This is extremely expensive.
>
>Will providing citation of prior art as described in 2202 to 2206 in
>MPEP be any help?
I'm not familiar with this procedure. From the MPEP it seems that
all the USPTO does is put the citations in the file. The examiner
doesn't have to use the citations as far as I can tell.
Also, I'm not sure if an Internet publication qualifies as a
"printed publication" as meant in this part of the US patent law.
Perhaps a US patent practitioner can comment in more detail?
Arnoud
Bob in CT
<gala...@stack.nl> wrote:
> In article <Pine.GSO.4.55L0.0...@unix01.voicenet.com>,
> Joseph Pietro Riolo <ri...@voicenet.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Aug 2004, Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet <gala...@stack.nl>
>> wrote:
>>> 1) It's extremely unlikely the Patent Office will encounter this
>>> posting
>>> when evaluating any later patent application on this invention. So
>>> they will probably grant the patent anyway. Then your only recourse is
>>> to start a court case or apply for re-examination to have the patent
>>> invalidated. This is extremely expensive.
>>
>> Will providing citation of prior art as described in 2202 to 2206 in
>> MPEP be any help?
>
> I'm not familiar with this procedure. From the MPEP it seems that
> all the USPTO does is put the citations in the file. The examiner
> doesn't have to use the citations as far as I can tell.
>
> Also, I'm not sure if an Internet publication qualifies as a
> "printed publication" as meant in this part of the US patent law.
>
> Perhaps a US patent practitioner can comment in more detail?
>
> Arnoud
>
>
>
I've had patents rejected based on materials published on webpages.
Unfortunately, unless the physical paper on which the Examiner printed the
webpage has a date stamped on it by the printing program and that date
meets prior art requirements, I have no idea when the webpage itself was
actually published. In other words, if I put "Copyright 1999" on my
webpage, but constantly update the webpage, then it's unclear (even to me,
unless I have stored copies) what was actually published in 1999.
--
Bob in CT
Remove ".x" to reply
Rusty Mase
wrote:
>I've had patents rejected based on materials published on webpages.
>Unfortunately, unless the physical paper on which the Examiner printed the
>webpage has a date stamped on it by the printing program and that date
>meets prior art requirements, I have no idea when the webpage itself was
>actually published. In other words, if I put "Copyright 1999" on my
>webpage, but constantly update the webpage, then it's unclear (even to me,
>unless I have stored copies) what was actually published in 1999.
I wonder if archives such as:
http://web.archive.org/collections/web.html
would be considered accurate renditions of prior WWW publications.
Rusty Mase
Bob in CT
I do believe they are. So, I did search back though an archive (I forget
which one) in order to determine what was published. Another thing with
which I've been rejected is undated materials embedded in a website. In
other words, "See our Article" is a link to an undated article. The
website having the link is archived, but the Article is not.
Chris Torrero
<wur...@mangelwurzel.net> writes
www.researchdisclosure.com
--
Chris Torrero
S Woodside
> I've had patents rejected based on materials published on webpages.
> Unfortunately, unless the physical paper on which the Examiner printed the
> webpage has a date stamped on it by the printing program and that date
> meets prior art requirements, I have no idea when the webpage itself was
> actually published. In other words, if I put "Copyright 1999" on my
> webpage, but constantly update the webpage, then it's unclear (even to me,
> unless I have stored copies) what was actually published in 1999.
You're talking about webpages, and I agree with your statements.
However, Usenet is time-stamped, massively distributed, and articles
are non-changeable once they are published.
Le Tue, 24 Aug 2004 08:18:22 +0000, Arnoud "Galactus" Engelfriet a
écrit :
> There's not much you can do about 2), but issue 1) can be mitigated
> if you publish at a place the Patent Office is likely to read. One
> such place is https://priorart.ip.com
This seems interesting ... but what about the argument that people
troll those databases looking for slight variations on published ideas
that they can patent to create what I saw described as a "patent
thicket"? It would avoid the direct prior art but patent slightly
different variations and still cause trouble.
Also I have to pay them...
simon
Rip
>
>I've had patents rejected based on materials published on webpages.
>Unfortunately, unless the physical paper on which the Examiner printed the
>webpage has a date stamped on it by the printing program and that date
>meets prior art requirements, I have no idea when the webpage itself was
>actually published. In other words, if I put "Copyright 1999" on my
>webpage, but constantly update the webpage, then it's unclear (even to me,
>unless I have stored copies) what was actually published in 1999.
On an application that I filed I included w/ the IDS a copy of a webpage from a
forum, and fortunately, that page had its own datestamp. As a layperson re
patent law, I find it peculiar that PTO cited to you "prior art" but did not
provide you the date -- at least, e.g., "... not later than Jan 10, 1997", i.e.,
the dat the examiner printed the page.
Martin Leese
>
> I've had patents rejected based on materials published on webpages.
> Unfortunately, unless the physical paper on which the Examiner printed
> the webpage has a date stamped on it by the printing program and that
> date meets prior art requirements, I have no idea when the webpage
> itself was actually published. In other words, if I put "Copyright
> 1999" on my webpage, but constantly update the webpage, then it's
> unclear (even to me, unless I have stored copies) what was actually
> published in 1999.
Prior art must include developing and offering for sale
an invention. Copyrighting the computer code for the
invention at:
http://www.copyright.gov/register/literary.html
will provide a "date stamp". This will, however, cost
Simon US$30.
--
Regards,
Martin Leese
E-mail: ple...@see.Web.for.e-mail.INVALID
Web: http://members.tripod.com/martin_leese/
Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet
Martin Leese <ple...@see.Web.for.e-mail.INVALID> wrote:
>Prior art must include developing and offering for sale
>an invention.
What do you mean by that? Describing an invention in detail in a
journal or newspaper certainly is enough to make it prior art.
An offer to sell the invention *also* makes the invention prior
art, but it's certainly not the only way to do it.
> Copyrighting the computer code for the
>invention at:
>http://www.copyright.gov/register/literary.html
>will provide a "date stamp". This will, however, cost
>Simon US$30.
Also note that a date stamp isn't enough, the work must also be
published. I'm not sure if registration at the Copyright Office
automatically results in publication.
AG
<sp...@torrero.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Research Disclosure still exists and can be found at
> www.researchdisclosure.com
Looking at their prices you have to wonder if it is not more cost
effective to go through the standard patent application route.
AG
Martin Leese
> In article <412C0FA4...@see.Web.for.e-mail.INVALID>,
> Martin Leese <ple...@see.Web.for.e-mail.INVALID> wrote:
>
>> Prior art must include developing and offering for sale
>> an invention.
>
> What do you mean by that?
...
> An offer to sell the invention *also* makes the invention prior
> art, but it's certainly not the only way to do it.
That is *exactly* what I meant. My use of the word
"must" was ambiguous.
>> Copyrighting the computer code for the
>> invention at:
>> http://www.copyright.gov/register/literary.html
>> will provide a "date stamp". This will, however, cost
>> Simon US$30.
>
> Also note that a date stamp isn't enough, the work must also be
> published. I'm not sure if registration at the Copyright Office
> automatically results in publication.
This isn't what you wrote above. Prior art does not
only mean publication. The copyright of the source
code, here, adds a date stamp to a product which is
being offered for sale. It is being offered for sale
which is constituting prior art.
(Please note that I am not a lawyer, so don't know
what I am talking about.)
Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet
Martin Leese <ple...@see.Web.for.e-mail.INVALID> wrote:
>Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet wrote:
>>> Copyrighting the computer code for the
>>> invention at:
>>> http://www.copyright.gov/register/literary.html
>>> will provide a "date stamp". This will, however, cost
>>> Simon US$30.
>>
>> Also note that a date stamp isn't enough, the work must also be
>> published. I'm not sure if registration at the Copyright Office
>> automatically results in publication.
>
>This isn't what you wrote above. Prior art does not
>only mean publication. The copyright of the source
>code, here, adds a date stamp to a product which is
>being offered for sale. It is being offered for sale
>which is constituting prior art.
Ok, if you do it like that, then yes it will work. In general you need
1) availability to the public
2) a date on which 1) occurred
to have something qualify as prior art.
So merely registering the copyright does not make it prior art,
which is what I was trying to say above. On the other hand,
if something is being sold today, you still need to show that
it was already on sale before the patent was applied for.
http://www.iusmentis.com/patents/priorart/