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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/16/2026 has been entered.
Examiner’s Comments
Non-elected Species 1 is being rejoined. Applicant’s Specification ¶50-51 appears to imply that integration of Species 1 is able to be used together with the minima and maxima processing of Species 3, therefore the claims directed of previously elected Species 3 is able to now depend on the amended independent claim 1 which includes Species 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claims 1 and 17 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. Therefore, the new reference of Tao, in combination with Hecht and Bachelder, discloses the newly amended claims 1 and 17. Therefore, this action is made NON-FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1, 7-8, 11, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurt Hecht US-20010006191-A1, hereinafter Hecht, in further view of Fan-Ching Tao US-6549239-B1, hereinafter Tao, and Ivan Bachelder US-20190087619-A1, hereinafter Bachelder.
As per claim 1, Hecht discloses a method of reading an optical code, comprising:recording a brightness profile of the optical code, wherein the brightness profile represents grayscale values as a function of position (see Hecht ¶44, wherein a barcode is read and a grayscale value for each pixel in the code is detected. See additionally FIG. 5. See more specifically, Hecht ¶86, wherein the brighter and darker gray scale values, i.e., brightness profile, is disclosed);identifying light and dark part regions in the brightness profile (see Hecht ¶50 and ¶58 and FIG. 5, wherein black and white levels are identified in the bar. See more specifically ¶86 and ¶88, wherein a region is qualified as black or white, using the brighter or darker gray scale values, i.e., brightness profile, if they fall above or below a threshold); andreading a code content of the optical code (see Hecht ¶65, wherein the barcode symbol and the number of number of bars, i.e., code content of the optical code, are determined and read), wherein first sum measurements for a light quantity in each of the light part regions and second sum measurements for a darkness quantity in each of the dark part regions are determined from the brightness profile (see Hecht ¶67, wherein first and second derivates are calculated in order to determine whether the light and dark regions of the barcode are peaks (white) or valleys (black), i.e., first and second sum measurements), the reading of the code content being based on the first and second sum measurements (see Hecht ¶64-65 and ¶67, wherein the content is decoded from the barcode using the peaks and valleys, i.e., light and dark regions. See exemplary ¶79 and FIG. 15A).
However, while Hecht discloses first and second sum measurements (see Hecht ¶67, wherein first and second derivates are calculated in order to determine whether the light and dark regions of the barcode are peaks (white) or valleys (black), i.e., first and second sum measurements), it fails to explicitly disclose where Tao teaches:first sum measurements for a light quantity and second sum measurements for a darkness quantity (see Tao col. 3 lines 3-13, wherein two brightness levels, a light level and a dark level, i.e., the first and second sum measurements are disclosed. See further col. 7 lines 21-31, wherein each pixel n has a brightness level, l (light) or d (dark)), wherein the first sum measurements and the second sum measurements are each determined by integration (see Tao col. 7-8 lines 64-67 and lines 1-3, wherein an integration of the brightness levels, which comprise the light and dark levels, in the image is disclosed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Hecht’s method by using Tao’s teaching by including integration to the first and second sum measurements in order to acquire more accurate the calculations of the bright and dark regions.
However, Hecht, in combination with Tao, fails to explicitly disclose where Bachelder discloses:wherein the method further comprises outputting the read code content through an interface (see Bachelder ¶43-44 and FIG. 2, wherein an exemplary reading of the barcode is decoded into characters. See further ¶140-142 and FIGS. 17 and 18, wherein details of how the code reader determines the characters read from the barcode is disclosed. Finally, see ¶144 and ¶146, wherein information is output and displayed for interaction, i.e., interface).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Hecht’s, in combination with Tao, method by using Bachelder’s teaching by including a display to the read code content in order to further disclose the information of the barcode.
As per claim 7, Hecht, in combination with Tao and Bachelder, discloses the method in accordance with wherein the first sum measurements and the second sum measurements are classified (see Hecht ¶67, wherein the portions of the bar code are classified to be peaks or valleys, i.e., first and second sum measurements, using a threshold).
As per claim 8, Hecht, in combination with Tao and Bachelder, discloses the method in accordance with wherein the first sum measurements and the second sum measurements are classified with reference to a reference value estimated from at least one finest sum measurement (see Hecht ¶47-49, wherein the black and white level thresholds are disclosed, wherein the grayscale values must be greater than a predetermined minimum width, i.e., finest sum).
As per claim 11, Hecht, in combination with Tao and Bachelder, discloses the method in accordance with claim 1.
While Hecht does disclose an optical code, Hecht’s optical code is in reference to a barcode. Hecht fails to explicitly disclose a 2D code, whereas Bachelder discloses the image being a 2D barcode (see Bachelder ¶49, wherein the image can be of a 2D barcode, i.e., 2D optical code).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Hecht’s method by using Bachelder’s teaching by including a 2D barcode to the optical code in order to be able to read additional types of barcodes.
As per claim 17, the rationale provided in claim 1 is incorporated herein. Additionally, Hecht discloses a code reader and a control and evaluation unit (see Hecht ¶41, wherein a barcode scanner and a scanning system, i.e., control and evaluation unit, is disclosed). The apparatus of claim 17 corresponds to the method of claim 1.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hecht, in combination with Tao and Bachelder, in further view of Jacob Strom US-20120018518-A1, hereinafter Strom.
As per claim 2, Hecht, in combination with Tao and Bachelder, fails to explicitly disclose where Strom teaches: The method in accordance with wherein the respective brightness profile is summed between two of its minima for the first sum measurements (see Strom ¶47, wherein the average of the second value set, which are white pixels, should ideally be 1.0).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Hecht’s, in combination with Tao and Bachelder, method by using Strom’s teaching by including two minimas to the brightness profile in order to obtain an average value of what the white pixels should be.
As per claim 3, Hecht, in combination with Tao and Bachelder, fails to explicitly disclose where Strom teaches: The method in accordance with wherein the respective brightness profile is summed between two of its maxima for the second sum measurements (see Strom ¶47, wherein the average of the first value set, which are black pixels, should ideally be 0.0).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Hecht’s, in combination with Tao and Bachelder, method by using Strom’s teaching by including two maximas to the brightness profile in order to obtain an average value of what the black pixels should be.
Claim 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hecht, in combination with Tao and Bachelder, in further view of Zhi-yu WU CN-107124561-A, hereinafter WU.
As per claim 4, Hecht, in combination with Tao and Bachelder, fails to explicitly disclose where WU teaches: The method in accordance with claim 1, wherein the brightness profile is inverted and is compensated by an offset corresponding to the white level to determine the second sum measurement (see WU middle of page 4/21, wherein the brightness of a bar code image is iteratively inverted and the exposure, i.e., offset corresponding to the white level, is compensated. The image quality score is acquired after the compensation, wherein the dark light condition, which is a part of the score, can be measured).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Hecht’s, in combination with Tao and Bachelder, method by using WU’s teaching of including an inversion and compensation by an offset to the white level in order to further verify the second sum measurement by comparing the inverted results with the original results.
Claims 6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hecht, in combination with Tao and Bachelder, in further view of Rudolph van der Merwe US-20120080515-A1, hereinafter Merwe.
As per claim 6, Hecht, in combination with Tao and Bachelder, fails to explicitly disclose where Merwe teaches: The method in accordance with claim 1, wherein the code content is determined from an alternating sequence of the first sum measurements and the second sum measurements (see Rudolph ¶22, wherein the code content is decoded. See also Rudolph ¶64-69 and FIG. 6, wherein the bar code is checked to be a correctly interwoven, i.e., black-to-white, pattern).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Hecht, in combination with Tao and Bachelder, by using Merwe’s teaching by including the alternating sequence to the code content in order to further distinguish the pattern of first and second sum measurements to be alternating to acquire the code content.
As per claim 12, Hecht, in combination with Tao and Bachelder, fails to explicitly disclose where Merwe teaches: the method in accordance with claim 11, wherein the first sum measurements and the second measurements are determined in an environment of minima or maxima up to a brightness boundary determined by a threshold value (see Rudolph ¶55, wherein an adaptive threshold sets a classification threshold using the maximum and minimum of the intensity profile, i.e., the brightness profile that contains the first and second measurements, within the window, i.e., environment, of L.sub.e).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Hecht, in combination with Tao and Bachelder, by using Merwe’s teaching by including a maxima and minima in a brightness boundary determined by a threshold to the first and second sum measurements in order to regionalize the code for determining the area wherein the first and second sum measurements will be determined.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bradley Obas Felix whose telephone number is (703)756-1314. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
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, Vincent Rudolph can be reached at 5712728243. 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.
/BRADLEY O FELIX/Examiner, Art Unit 2671
/VINCENT RUDOLPH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2671
