CTNF 18/029,052 CTNF 87444 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 07-42-04 AIA A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 17 May 2026 has been entered. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed in the Amendment Accompanying Request for Continued Examination (“Response”) on 17 May 2026 with respect to the rejection under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection under 35 USC 103 has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0377356 A1 to Fischer et al . (“Fischer”). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1 - 2 and 4 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0276558 A1 to Kim (“Kim”) in view of United States Patent No. 6,556,722 B1 to Russell et al . (“Russell”), United States Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0377356 A1 to Fischer et al . (“Fischer”) and United States Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0256007 A1 to Cok (“Cok”) . As per claims 1 , 15 and 19 , the claimed subject matter that is met by Kim includes: an apparatus for determining location, comprising (Kim: ¶ 0018 and Fig. 4) : a device comprising a camera configured to capture an image of an object of a plurality of objects located at a predetermined location, wherein the plurality of objects is collectively arranged within a defined spatial region associated with the predetermined location, the plurality of objects being arranged in an array and each object of the plurality of objects comprising coded information (Kim: ¶ 0018 and Figs. 4 and 7A) ; and a processor configured to decode coded information associated with the object captured in the image and determine a location of the device as being the predetermined location based on the decoded information (Kim: ¶¶ 0018-0022 and 0054) . Kim fails to specifically teach 1.) an image containing at least some of a plurality of microscopic objects located at a single predetermined location, 2.) decode coded information associated with the at least some of the plurality of microscopic objects and 3.) a microscopic object . The Examiner provides Russell to teach and disclose claimed features 1 and 2. The claimed subject matter that is met by Russell includes: a camera configured to capture an image containing at least some of a plurality of objects located at a predetermined location, wherein the plurality of objects is collectively arranged within a defined spatial region associated with the predetermined location, the object being arranged in an array and each object of the plurality of objects comprising coded information (Russell: column 2, lines 45-62 and Fig. 1); and decode coded information associated with the at least some of the plurality of objects captured in the image and determine a location as being the predetermined location based on the decoded information (Russell: column 2, lines 45-62 and Fig. 1) Kim teaches a device for retrieving location information from coded objects. Russell teaches a comparable device for retrieving location information from coded objects that was improved in the same way as the claimed invention. Russell offers the embodiment of an image containing at least some of a plurality of objects and decode coded information associated with the at least some of the plurality of objects. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the adaptation of determining location based on image with multiple codes as disclosed by Russell to the determining location based on image with a single code as taught by Kim for the predicted result of improved devices for retrieving location information from coded objects. No additional findings are seen to be necessary. Kim and Russell fail to specifically teach 1.) a single location and 3.) a microscopic object . The Examiner provides Fischer to teach and disclose claimed feature 1. The claimed subject matter that is met by Fischer includes: at least some of a plurality of objects located at a single predetermined location, wherein the plurality of objects is collectively arranged within a defined spatial region associated with the single predetermined location, the plurality of objects being arranged in an array and each object of the plurality of objects comprising coded information (Fischer: ¶¶ 0024, 0032-0033 and 0036 and Figs. 1-4) ; and decode coded information associated with the at least some of the plurality of objects captured in the image and determine a location as being the single predetermined location based on the decoded information (Fischer: ¶¶ 0024, 0032-0033 and 0036 and Figs. 1-4) Kim and Russell teach devices for retrieving location information from coded objects. Cok teaches a comparable device for retrieving location information from coded objects that was improved in the same way as the claimed invention. Fischer offers the embodiment of at least some of a plurality of objects located at a single predetermined location . One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the adaptation of utilizing multiple coded objects in a single predefined location as disclosed by Fischer to the objects/codes as taught by Kim and Russell for the predicted result of improved devices for retrieving location information from coded objects. No additional findings are seen to be necessary. Kim, Russell and Fischer fail to specifically teach 3.) a microscopic object . The Examiner provides Cok to teach and disclose claimed feature 3. The claimed subject matter that is met by Cok includes: a device comprising a camera configured to capture an image of a microscopic object, the object comprising coded information ( Cok: ¶¶ 0035 “second code 320 is microscopic”, 0037 and 0068 and Fig. 1 ); and a processor configured to decode coded information ( Cok: ¶¶ 0035 “second code 320 is microscopic”, 0037 and 0068 and Fig. 1 ) Kim, Russell and Fischer teach devices for retrieving coded information. Cok teaches a comparable device for retrieving coded information that was improved in the same way as the claimed invention. Cok offers the embodiment of microscopic object . One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the adaptation of the microscopic objects/codes as disclosed by Cok to the objects/codes as taught by Kim, Russell and Fischer for the predicted result of improved devices for retrieving coded information. No additional findings are seen to be necessary. As per claim 2 , the claimed subject matter that is met by Kim, Russell, Fischer and Cok includes: wherein the largest dimension of the microscopic object is within the range of 30 to 500 micrometers ( Kim: ¶ 0062 and Cok: ¶ 0035 and Fig. 1) . Merely using different measurements of microscopic objects from that in the prior art would have been an obvious matter of design choice. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle , 526 F.2d 553, 555, 188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). Further motivation for combining the teachings of Kim, Russell, Fischer and Cok are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and are incorporated herein. As per claim 4 , the claimed subject matter that is met by Kim, Russell, Fischer and Cok includes: wherein the plurality of microscopic objects comprises a repeating pattern of a group of microscopic objects (Kim: Figs. 5 and 7B and Cok: ¶ 0035 ). The motivation for combining the teachings of Kim, Russell, Fischer and Cok are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and are incorporated herein. As per claim 5 , the claimed subject matter that is met by Kim, Russell, Fischer and Cok includes: wherein a distance between adjacent microscopic objects of the plurality of microscopic objects is at least 5 times the largest dimension of each of the plurality of microscopic objects (Kim: Figs. 5 and 7B and 0062 and Cok: ¶ 0035) . Merely using different distances between adjacent microscopic objects from that in the prior art would have been an obvious matter of design choice. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle , 526 F.2d 553, 555, 188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). Further motivation for combining the teachings of Kim, Russell, Fischer and Cok are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and are incorporated herein. As per claim 6 , the claimed subject matter that is met by Kim, Russell, Fischer and Cok includes: wherein the camera comprises an adjustable focal length (Cok: ¶ 0037) . The motivation for combining the teachings of Kim, Russell, Fischer and Cok are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and are incorporated herein. As per claim 7 , the claimed subject matter that is met by Kim, Russell, Fischer and Cok includes: wherein the camera is configured with a focal length that provides a field of view of less than 5 cm (Kim: Fig. 4). Merely using different sized fields of view from that in the prior art would have been an obvious matter of design choice. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle , 526 F.2d 553, 555, 188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). Further motivation for combining the teachings of Kim, Russell and Cok are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and are incorporated herein. As per claim 8 , the claimed subject matter that is met by Kim, Russell, Fischer and Cok includes: wherein the camera is configured with a scene resolution of 25 micrometers or less (Cok: ¶¶ 0033 and 0044) . Merely using different resolution strengths from that in the prior art would have been an obvious matter of design choice. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle , 526 F.2d 553, 555, 188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). Further motivation for combining the teachings of Kim, Russell, Fischer and Cok are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and are incorporated herein. As per claims 9 and 17 , the claimed subject matter that is met by Kim, Russell, Fischer and Cok includes: the device comprises an inertial system configured to obtain information indicative of: a distance travelled by the device from a last known position, and a direction of travel of the device; the apparatus comprises a memory device configured to store a location of at least one of the plurality of microscopic objects relative to the last known position; and the processor is configured to determine when the at least one of the plurality of microscopic objects appears within a field of view of the camera based on the information obtained by the inertial system and the location of the at least one of the plurality of microscopic objects relative to the last known position (Kim: ¶¶ 0004, 0006-0007 and 0057 ). The motivation for combining the teachings of Kim, Russell, Fischer and Cok are discussed in the rejection of claims 1 and 15, and are incorporated herein. As per claims 10 and 18 , the claimed subject matter that is met by Kim, Russell, Fischer and Cok includes: Wherein each of the plurality of microscopic objects comprises a QR code or other binary code (Cok: ¶ 0029) . The motivation for combining the teachings of Kim, Russell, Fischer and Cok are discussed in the rejection of claims 1 and 15, and are incorporated herein. As per claim 11 , the claimed subject matter that is met by Kim, Russell, Fischer and Cok includes: wherein the memory device is configured to store a plurality of library images each having an associated location, and the processor is configured to decode the coded information by comparing the image to the plurality of library images (Kim: ¶¶ 0018 and 0052 and Cok: ¶¶ 0042 and 0058) . The motivation for combining the teachings of Kim, Russell, Fischer and Cok are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and are incorporated herein. As per claim 12 , the claimed subject matter that is met by Kim, Russell, Fischer and Cok includes: wherein the coded information comprises location information, and the processor is configured to decode the coded information by processing the image to obtain the location information (Kim: ¶¶ 0018-0022) . The motivation for combining the teachings of Kim, Russell, Fischer and Cok are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and are incorporated herein. As per claim 13 , the claimed subject matter that is met by Kim, Russell, Fischer and Cok includes: wherein each of the plurality of microscopic objects is arranged on a floor of the predetermined location ( Kim: ¶¶ 0017-0018 and Fig. 6 ). The motivation for combining the teachings of Kim, Russell, Fischer and Cok are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and are incorporated herein. As per claim 14 , the claimed subject matter that is met by Kim, Russell, Fischer and Cok includes: comprising a self-powered or manually operated inventory carrier, wherein the device is fixed to the inventory carrier ( Kim: ¶¶ 0003 and 0045) . The motivation for combining the teachings of Kim, Russell, Fischer and Cok are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and are incorporated herein. As per claim 16 , the claimed subject matter that is met by Kim, Russell, Fischer and Cok includes: wherein the method comprises: providing a microscopic object wherein the largest dimension of the microscopic object is within the range of 30 to 500 micrometers ( Kim: ¶ 0062 and Cok: ¶ 0035 and Fig. 1) ; providing a microscopic object that is one of a plurality of identical microscopic objects arranged in an array (Kim: Figs. 5 and 7B and Cok: ¶ 0035 ); and arranging the plurality of identical microscopic objects such that the distance between adjacent microscopic objects is at least 5 times the largest dimension of the plurality of identical microscopic objects (Kim: Figs. 5 and 7B and 0062 and Cok: ¶ 0035) . Merely using different measurements of microscopic objects from that in the prior art would have been an obvious matter of design choice and merely using different distances between adjacent microscopic objects from that in the prior art would have also been an obvious matter of design choice. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle , 526 F.2d 553, 555, 188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). Further motivation for combining the teachings of Kim, Russell, Fischer and Cok are discussed in the rejection of claim 15, and are incorporated herein. As per claim 20 , the claimed subject matter that is met by Kim, Russell, Fischer and Cok includes: provide a microscopic object wherein the largest dimension of the microscopic object is within the range of 30 to 500 micrometers; ( Kim: ¶ 0062 and Cok: ¶ 0035 and Fig. 1) ; provide a microscopic object that is one of a plurality of identical microscopic objects arranged in an array (Kim: Figs. 5 and 7B and Cok: ¶ 0035 ); and arrange the plurality of identical microscopic objects such that the distance between adjacent microscopic objects is at least 5 times the largest dimension of the plurality of identical microscopic objects (Kim: Figs. 5 and 7B and 0062 and Cok: ¶ 0035). Merely using different measurements of microscopic objects or different distances between adjacent microscopic objects from that in the prior art would have been an obvious matter of design choice. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle , 526 F.2d 553, 555, 188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). Further motivation for combining the teachings of Kim, Russell, Fischer and Cok are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and are incorporated herein. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hunter Wilder whose telephone number is (571)270-7948. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5:30PM. 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, Florian Zeender can be reached at (571)272-6790. 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. /A. Hunter Wilder/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627 Application/Control Number: 18/029,052 Page 2 Art Unit: 3627 Application/Control Number: 18/029,052 Page 3 Art Unit: 3627 Application/Control Number: 18/029,052 Page 4 Art Unit: 3627 Application/Control Number: 18/029,052 Page 5 Art Unit: 3627 Application/Control Number: 18/029,052 Page 6 Art Unit: 3627 Application/Control Number: 18/029,052 Page 7 Art Unit: 3627 Application/Control Number: 18/029,052 Page 8 Art Unit: 3627 Application/Control Number: 18/029,052 Page 9 Art Unit: 3627 Application/Control Number: 18/029,052 Page 10 Art Unit: 3627 Application/Control Number: 18/029,052 Page 11 Art Unit: 3627 Application/Control Number: 18/029,052 Page 12 Art Unit: 3627 Application/Control Number: 18/029,052 Page 13 Art Unit: 3627
Prosecution Insights