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 .
Status of Amendments
The Amendment filed 8/31/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 17 recites “the acquired identification code that is acquired before when the multiple image data are acquired”. There is no support in the disclosure as filed for this limitation.
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 17-19 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. Independent claim 17 recites “the acquired identification code that is acquired before when the multiple image data are acquired”. How can the identification code be acquired both before the multiple image data acquired and when the multiple image data are acquired?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanai et al. (JP H11349114 A) in view of Chavez et al. (US 10,549,928). Yanai discloses a data collection method implemented by one or more processors (10 and see para. 007, “the read barcode is decoded into identification information”) connected to a sorting machine sorting articles to different sorting destinations (see “Field of the Invention”), the method comprising: acquiring, by the one or more processors, an identification code (“bar code”) of an article from a reader (6) provided on the sorting machine for identifying the article being loaded into the sorting machine; acquiring, by the one or more processors, after the article has been read by the reader, image data of the article identified by the identification code from a camera (16), at the time when the article identified by the identification code enters angles of view of the camera, the time being determined on the basis of predetermined waiting time or a pulse count (“In that case, after reading the barcode with the barcode reader 6, for example, after waiting for the article 4 to move to a position suitable for imaging with the programmable controller 10, the trigger signal is output”); and storing, by the one or more processors, the acquired image data so as to be associated with the acquired identification code that is acquired before when the image data is acquired (see at least “the image may be stored only when a trigger signal is input from a barcode reader”). The camera is disposed on a downstream side of the reader in the sorting machine (see Fig. 1). The time is determined on the basis of the pulse count (“In that case, after reading the barcode with the barcode reader 6, for example, after waiting for the article 4 to move to a position suitable for imaging with the programmable controller 10, the trigger signal is output”). Yanai discloses all the limitations of the claims, but it does not disclose acquiring image data from a plurality of cameras that are attached so as to image the same article at different angles. Rather, Yanai discloses utilizing only one camera. However, Chavez discloses a similar method which includes acquiring image data from a plurality of cameras (114, 1126) that are attached so as to image the same article at different angles (see Fig. 1) for the purpose of ensuring that an article is properly identified. It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify Yanai by acquiring image data from a plurality of cameras that are attached so as to image the same article at different angles, as disclosed by Chavez, for the purpose of ensuring that an article is properly identified.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-11 and 13-16 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/31/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant states that Yanai does not disclose the use of two cameras. The examiner notes that Chavez discloses utilizes two cameras.
The applicant states that Yanai does not disclose that images are collected for the purpose of automatic identification of an article based on its appearance image of the article. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The applicant appears to repeat remarks that Yanai discloses capturing an image at the same time as the identification code is acquired from a reader. Again, the examiner disagrees with applicant. This is physically impossible to occur according to the Yanai disclosure, and it appears that other remarks by the applicant contradict this position.
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 PATRICK HEWEY MACKEY whose telephone number is (571)272-6916. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 9-5.
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, Michael McCullough can be reached at 571-272-7805. 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.
/PATRICK H MACKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3653
Prosecution Insights