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 § 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) 1-4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Utykanski et al. (US 20160036257) in view of Latella et al. (US 20140362022).
Utykanski et al. teaches an accessory for a handheld barcode reader comprising a nose portion and a handle portion extending downward from the nose portion, wherein the nose portion is the 1120 or higher up such as 1106 (FIG. 1A+) and the handle portion is 1103 or lower which is downward from the nose 1120/1106, the accessory comprising:
a frame member adapted to couple with and at least partially extend from the nose portion of the barcode reader (FIG. 1A+ where 1104 can be interpreted as a frame coupled (indirectly) and extending from the nose 1120/1106.
Utykanski et al. teaches a passive stylus and therefore is silent to at least one arm member coupled with the frame member and including a length adapted to at least partially extend to the handle portion of the barcode reader to be contactable by a user, and wherein the accessory is constructed from a conductive material adapted to establish a communicative link between a user's hand and the frame member.
Latella et al. teaches an activated stylus with a power button (FIG. 5+). The button is interpreted as coupled with the frame member because it activates the frame member (capacitive tup). The arm member is interpreted as the button and includes a length adapted to extend to the handle portion of the reader to be contactable by a user, as the user pressing the button and sending signals to the tip is interpreted as being contactable by the user via actuation of the button. The accessory is interpreted as the stylus functionality added to the reader and therefore it is interpreted as being constructed from a conductive material to establish a communicative link between the hand and frame member via activation via the button.
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings.
One would have been motivated to do this for an active tip stylus for increased accuracy, for example, power savings, and expected benefits of an active stylus.
Re claim 2, though silent to the type of connections being friction or adhesive based, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to couple the frame or arm with friction or adhesive material, as coupling of frames with friction (snap type) or adhesives material is well within the ordinary skill in the art to secure housings and elements to housings.
Re claim 3, the outer bezel is interpreted as shown in in FIG. 3A and the tip protruding, wherein a bezel/ surrounding of the tip is an obvious expedient for security/ strength/ durability.
Re claim 4, the frame member is interpreted as protruding from the nose (indirectly).
Re claim 6, though silent to a visual identifier, the use of a visual identifier on a button such as a graphic, is an obvious expedient to convey functionality to the user, and is common on interface buttons such as on remotes or on electronic devices themselves (power buttons, inputs, etc.).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Utykanski et al./ Latella et al., as discussed above, in view of Kim (US 20130100086).
Re claim 5, the teachings of Utykanski et al./ Latella et al. have been discussed above but are silent to conductive rubber.
Kim teaches such limitations (130+).
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings for a rubber tip for touch sensation and to protect a surface from scratches.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Utykanski et al., as discussed above, in view of Cooke (US 20140267187).
Re claim 1, the teachings of Utykanski et al. have been discussed above but are silent to the arm member limitations.
Cooke teaches an arm member coupled to the frame member and including a length adapted to at least partially extend to the handle portion of the barcode reader to be contactable by a user wherein the length via the use of button 32 and the circuitry/ wiring inside going from the button to the frame member, wherein it would have been obvious to have the frame member coupled with the arm member for ease of use.
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings to have a button to control the stylus functionality.
Re claim 2, though silent to the type of connections being friction or adhesive based, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to couple the frame or arm with friction or adhesive material, as coupling of frames with friction (snap type) or adhesives material is well within the ordinary skill in the art to secure housings and elements to housings.
Re claim 3, the outer bezel is interpreted as shown in in FIG. 3A and the tip protruding, wherein a bezel/ surrounding of the tip is an obvious expedient for security/ strength/ durability.
Re claim 4, the frame member is interpreted as protruding from the nose (indirectly).
Re claim 6, though silent to a visual identifier, the use of a visual identifier on a button such as a graphic, is an obvious expedient to convey functionality to the user, and is common on interface buttons such as on remotes or on electronic devices themselves (power buttons, inputs, etc.).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Utykanski et al./ Cooke, in view of Kim, as discussed above.
Re claim 5, the teachings of Utykanski et al./ Cooke. have been discussed above but are silent to conductive rubber.
Kim teaches such limitations (130+).
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings for a rubber tip for touch sensation and to protect a surface from scratches.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Examiner notes that the claim limitations are drawn to an accessory for a barcode reader, and therefore limitations to the reader itself are not germane to the accessory assuming that the reader supports the accessory, which the prior art does. Further, the Examiner notes that broad phrases like “nose”, “handle”, “frame”, “portion”, “downward”, and “member” are open to reasonable interpretation as discussed above. If the Applicant wishes to recite a specific structure barcode reader and a specific structure accessory, the Examiner note that a system claim could be appropriate (assuming it is enabled by the specification). Further, the Examiner suggests more clarifying/ definite language to expedite prosecution. For example, a system claim clarifying that the handle comprises a trigger to activate the reading of the reader, that the frame member extends forward from the window of the barcode reader in an L-shaped manner down to the trigger area to define the arm member that when in contact during activation of the trigger the capacitance of the users hand is transmitted through the monolithic accessory and that the conductive material of the accessory to the frame member to enable touch screen activation (for example) by pushing the reader against a touch screen at the frame member.
The Examiner also suggests the Applicant review any potential amendments to not invoke a double patenting rejection against US 11138401.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 on 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