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 § 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.
Claim(s) 56, 59, 61, 63, 66-67, 69, 71-72, and 75 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Powell et al. (US 20140158769).
Re claim 56, Powell et al. teaches:
A system comprising:
an image enhancer device (targeting structure 106a);
a communication module for communicating between the image enhancer device and a mobile device having a digital camera (attachment 100 is connected to camera device 102);
wherein the system is configured to:
operate in a lower power state prior to detecting an object of interest (paragraph [0034]+ where detection circuitry 860 detects white light source 852 of the camera and sends control signals to activate light sources 856, thus a lower power state is present before an object is detected via the white light detection);
operate in a higher power state in response to detecting the object of interest, wherein the higher power state is optimized for increasing performance of scanning and/or imaging (as discussed above, the light sources 856 activate and deactivate in the presence and not presence of an object); and
return the system to the lower power state after scanning and/or imaging is complete (deactivation of the light occurs when the white light of the camera is sensed as deactivated).
Re claim 59, the Examiner notes that as the system is capable of reading barcodes and also capturing images, it reads on the first and second type of object of interest (barcodes and taking pictures/images).
Re claim 61, targeting beam 108a reads on the claimed aimer.
Re claim 63, FIG. 9 shows a light pipe 964 that acts as an antiglare element.
Re claim 66, the limitations have been discussed above.
Re claim 67, the limitations have been discussed above, re claim 61.
Re claim 69, the limitations have been discussed above re claim 59.
Re claim 71, the limitations have been discussed above, re claim 61.
Re claim 72, FIG. 5A+ teaches a proximity sensor.
Re claim 75, the limitations have been discussed above.
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) 57-58 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Powell et al., as discussed above, in view of Neglur et al. (US 9229526).
Re claim 57, the teachings of Powell et al. have been discussed above but are silent to multiple cameras.
Neglur et al. teaches multiple cameras in conventional mobile devices (col 1, lines 14+).
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings for user convenience. The Examiner note that plural cameras are interpreted to provide improved resolution due to more image capture areas.
Re claim 58, as discussed above, a broader focal range is provided with cameras covering different field of views.
Claim(s) 60, 65, and 70 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Powell et al., as discussed above.
Re claim 60, though silent, the Examiner nots that prior to the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art the mobile device control exposure in order to take images as is routine and conventional in the art to be able to take pictures in various settings and lighting conditions, for example with improved performance/ speed such as when compared to manual adjusting. Directing illumination has been taught above. As both the mobile device and attachment are part of the system, they read on such claimed limitations.
Re claim 65, though silent to a software development kit to allow native applications to interface, the Examiner notes it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date to do so, in order for the system to be compatible with the phone operations for use.
Re claim 70, the limitations have been discussed above re claim 60.
Claim(s) 62 and 68 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Powell et al., as discussed above, in view of Kowalczyk et al. (US 20160012269).
Re claim 62, the teachings of Powell et al. have been discussed above but is silent to the aimer providing a visual cue to change mode of a successful scan completion.
Kowalczyk et al. at paragraph [0050]+ teaches an aimer generating a visual cue indicative of successful decoding.
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings to provide user feedback to guide use.
Re claim 68, the limitations have been discussed above re claim 62.
Claim(s) 62 and 68 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Powell et al., as discussed above, in view of Vinogradov et al. (US 20060266840).
Re claim 62, the teachings of Powell et al. have been discussed above but is silent to the aimer providing a visual cue to change mode of a successful scan completion.
Vinogradov et al. at paragraph [0004]+ teaches generating a visual cue indicative of successful decoding.
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings to provide user feedback to guide use.
Re claim 68, the limitations have been discussed above re claim 62.
Claim(s) 62 and 68 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Powell et al., as discussed above, in view of He (US 20120048938).
Re claim 62, the teachings of Powell et al. have been discussed above but is silent to the aimer providing a visual cue to change mode of a successful scan completion.
He. at paragraph [0033]+ teaches generating a visual cue indicative of successful decoding to aid the user.
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings to provide user feedback to guide use.
Re claim 68, the limitations have been discussed above re claim 62.
Claim(s) 64 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Powell et al., as discussed above, in view of Nakamura et al. (US 20150277011).
Re claim 64, the teachings of Powell et al. have been discussed above.
Powell et al. teaches a phone/ mobile device but is silent to a polarizing element.
Nakamura et al. teaches a mobile device/ PDA/ telephone with a polarizing element/ plate (paragraph [0124]+).
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings for strength and brightness for expected results in a mobile display device.
Claim(s) 72-74 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Powell et al., as discussed above, in view of Jon et al. (US 201102908710).
Re claims 72-74, the teachings have of Powell et al. have been discussed above but are silent to using the digital camera as a proximity/ motion sensor .
Jon et al. (US 20110290871) teaches such limitations (paragraph [0004]+ which teaches software on the mobile device is installed that uses the camera to detect the presence of a barcode which is then detected). This is broadly interpreted to teach using the digital camera of the device (algorithm) to detect an object of interest/ presence/ proximity thereof.
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings to intelligently detect barcode presence.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument due to the newly provided claimset.
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 7-9pm.
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
Prosecution Insights