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 Objections
Claim 35 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 35 should be depended on claim 34 instead of claim 35. Appropriate correction is required.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a first imager” in claim 11 and “a second imager” in claim 11.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
“a first imager” in claim 11 is read as item 132 in Fig. 1D, and “a second imager” in claim 11 is read as item 136 in Fig. 1D.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 1-10 and 20-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a Judicial Exception in the form of an Abstract Idea, without significantly more:
Beginning with independent claim 1, a process claim, which recites:
A method for rapid product identification, the method comprising: capturing a first image comprising first image data of a first object by a first imager having a first field of view of objects passing across a scanning area of an indicia reader; analyzing the first image data to decode a first indicia associated with a first object in the first image data, resulting in a first indicia value; transmitting the first indicia value to a host; storing the first indicia value locally on a memory associated with the indicia reader; capturing a second image comprising second image data of a second object by a second imager having a second field of view of the objects passing across the scanning area of the indicia reader; identifying the second object within the second image data; retrieving reference image data of the first object associated with the first indicia locally from the memory associated with the indicia reader; comparing the second image data to the reference image data to determine whether the second object is substantially similar to the first object; and responsive to determining the second object is substantially similar to the first object, transmitting the first indicia value to the host.
The claim recites abstract ideas:
“capturing”, “transmitting”, “storing” and “retrieving” steps are mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity.
A process that encompass a human performing the steps mentally with or without a physical aid in the form of the “comparing” step, with the “analyzing” step, “identifying” step are being pre-solution acts of processing information which could be performed visually and/or mentally; and
A method of organizing human behavior in the form of a social activity of following rules or instructions informing a person to perform the “analyzing” step, “identifying” step and the “comparing” step.
These two abstract ideas will be considered together for analysis as a single abstract idea per MPEP 2106:
PNG
media_image1.png
468
1527
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no recited additional elements that amount to a practical application, such as but no limited to the following as noted in MPEP 2106:
PNG
media_image2.png
453
1451
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reason: There are not additional elements other than the abstract idea.
Independent claim 1 is merely a generic computer implementation of the abstract ideas and likewise do not amount to significantly more. See MPEP 2106:
PNG
media_image3.png
249
1434
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Independent claim 20, a process claim, which recites:
A tangible machine-readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed, cause a machine to at least: capture a first image comprising first image data of a first object by a first imager having a first field of view of objects passing across a scanning area of an indicia reader; analyze the first image data to decode a first indicia associated with a first object in the first image data, resulting in a first indicia value; transmit the first indicia value to a host; store the first indicia value locally on a memory associated with the indicia reader; capture a second image comprising second image data of a second object by a second imager having a second field of view of the objects passing across the scanning area of the indicia reader; identify the second object within the second image data; retrieve reference image data of the first object associated with the first indicia from a local memory associated with the indicia reader; compare the second image data to the reference image data to determine whether the second object is substantially similar to the first object; and responsive to determining the second object is substantially similar to the first object, transmit the first indicia value to the host. The claim recites abstract ideas:
“capturing”, “transmitting”, “storing” and “retrieving” steps are mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity.
A process that encompass a human performing the steps mentally with or without a physical aid in the form of the “comparing” step, with the “analyzing” step, “identifying” step are being pre-solution acts of processing information which could be performed visually and/or mentally; and
A method of organizing human behavior in the form of a social activity of following rules or instructions informing a person to perform the “analyzing” step, “identifying” step and the “comparing” step.
These two abstract ideas will be considered together for analysis as a single abstract idea per MPEP 2106:
PNG
media_image1.png
468
1527
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no recited additional elements that amount to a practical application, such as but no limited to the following as noted in MPEP 2106:
PNG
media_image2.png
453
1451
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reason: There are not additional elements other than the abstract idea.
Independent claim 20 is merely a generic computer implementation of the abstract ideas and likewise do not amount to significantly more. See MPEP 2106:
PNG
media_image3.png
249
1434
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Independent claim 21, a process claim, which recites:
A method for conducting machine vision processing, the method comprising: capturing, by a vision assembly, first image data; transmitting the first image data to an indicia-decoding module; extracting, via the indicia-decoding module, an indicia payload associated with an indicia present in the first image data; determining a class of items based on the indicia payload; capturing, by the vision assembly, second image data; and selecting, from a set of reference vision data and based on the class of items, a subset of reference vision data for analysis against the second image data.
The claim recites abstract ideas:
“capturing”, “transmitting” and “extracting” steps are mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity.
A process that encompass a human performing the steps mentally with or without a physical aid in the form of the “selecting” step, with the “determining” step are being pre-solution acts of processing information which could be performed visually and/or mentally; and
A method of organizing human behavior in the form of a social activity of following rules or instructions informing a person to perform the “determining” step and “selecting” step.
These two abstract ideas will be considered together for analysis as a single abstract idea per MPEP 2106:
PNG
media_image1.png
468
1527
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no recited additional elements that amount to a practical application, such as but no limited to the following as noted in MPEP 2106:
PNG
media_image2.png
453
1451
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reason: There are not additional elements other than the abstract idea.
Independent claim 21 is merely a generic computer implementation of the abstract ideas and likewise do not amount to significantly more. See MPEP 2106:
Likewise, the following dependent claims have been analyzed and do not recite elements that recite a practical application or significantly more and remain rejected under 35 USC 101: Claims 2-10 and 22-27.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 13, 5-13 and 15-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rodriguez’567 (US 2022/0261567).
With respect to claim 11, Rodriguez’567 teaches a scanning system (Fig.7) for rapid product identification comprising:
a first imager having a first field of view of objects passing across a scanning area of an indicia reader configured to capture a first image comprising image data of a first object (paragraphs 100, 137 and 143);
a second imager having a second of view of the objects passing across the scanning area of the indicia reader configured to capture a second image comprising second image data of a second object; one or more processors (paragraphs 100, 137 and 143); and
a memory associated with the particular indicia reader storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors [the system shown in Fig.7 is inherent disclosed with a memory associated with the particular indicia reader storing instructions to enable one or more processor to enable the system to provide its desired functions] to:
analyze the first image data to decode a first indicia associated with a first object in the first image data, resulting in a first indicia value (paragraphs 110, 120, 143, 247, 303);
transmit the first indicia value to a host [the data from sensors is being collected (paragraph 339). Therefore, the data from sensors is considered being transmitted to at least one device for collection];
store the first indicia value locally on the memory associated with the indicia reader (paragraphs 100, 143, 291 and 316);
identify the second object within the second image data (paragraphs 100 and 143);
retrieve reference image data of the first object associated with the first indicia locally from the memory associated with the indicia reader (paragraphs 100, 120, 143, 247, 303);
compare the second image data to the reference image data to determine whether the second object is substantially similar to the first object (paragraphs 100 and 143 and 316); and
responsive to determining the second object is substantially similar to the first object, transmit the first indicia value to the host [comparing sensor data (e.g., showing edges, product markings, etc.) with reference information stored in a database to remove the known object and then the remaining volume is then checked for hidden objects (paragraphs 100, 143, 316). The data from sensors is being collected (paragraph 339). Therefore, the data from sensors is considered being transmitted to at least one device for collection (paragraphs 100, 143, 316 and 339)].
With respect to claim 12, which further limits claim 11, Rodriguez’567 teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: responsive to determining that the second object is not substantially similar to the first object, cause the first imager to capture a third image comprising third image data of the second object (paragraphs 100, 120, 143 and 303);
analyze the third image data to decode a second indicia associated with the second object in the third image data, resulting in a second indicia value (paragraphs 100, 120, 143 and 303);
transmit the second indicia value to a host (paragraphs 100, 120, 143, 303 and 316); and
store the second indicia value locally on the memory associated with the indicia reader (paragraphs 100, 143, 291 and 316).
With respect to claim 13, which further limits claim 12, Rodriguez’567 teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: cause the first imager and the second imager to substantially simultaneously capture the second image and the third image (paragraphs 100, 143 and 150).
With respect to claim 15, which further limits claim 11, Rodriguez’567 teaches wherein to identify the second object within the second image data, the one or more processors are further configured to execute a machine vision algorithm locally on the indicia reader, the machine vision algorithm including one or more of: (i) edge detection, (ii) pattern matching, (iii) segmentation, (iv) color analysis, (v) optical character recognition (OCR), or (vi) blob detection (paragraphs 150, 579 and 580).
With respect to claim 16, which further limits claim 11, Rodriguez’567 teaches wherein to store the first indicia value locally on the memory associated with the indicia reader, the one or more processors are further configured to: retrieve one or more classified indicia values locally from the memory associated with the indicia reader (paragraphs 100, 143, 291 and 316);
compare the first indicia value to the one or more classified indicia values (paragraph 100, 143, 291 and 316); and
responsive to identifying a match between the first indicia value and a classified indicia value (paragraphs 100, 143, 291 and 316), one or more of: preventing the comparing of the second image data to the reference image data, or preventing the transmitting of the first indicia value to the host responsive to determining the second object is substantially similar to the first object (paragraphs 100, 143, 291, 316 and 375).
With respect to claim 17, which further limits claim 11, Rodriguez’567 teaches wherein to compare the second image data to the reference image data to determine whether the second object is substantially similar to the first object, the one or more processors are further configured to: analyze the second image data and the reference image data to generate a similarity value (paragraphs 100, 143 and 247);
compare the similarity value to a threshold value (paragraphs 100, 120, 143 and 303); and
determine the second object is substantially similar to the first object based upon the similarity value at least meeting the threshold value (paragraphs 100, 120, 143 and 303).
With respect to claim 18, which further limits claim 11, Rodriguez’567 teaches wherein to compare the second image data to the reference image data to determine whether the second object is substantially similar to the first object, the one or more processors are further configured to: apply a similarity model to the second image data to generate a determination whether the second object is substantially similar to the first object, the similarity model being trained on historical object image data (100, 143, 291 and 316);
update the historical object image data to include the second image data (paragraphs 237 and 363); and
retrain the similarity model based upon the updated historical object image data (paragraphs 237, 363 and 513).
With respect to claim 19, which further limits claim 11, Rodriguez’567 teaches wherein the first imager is contained in a separate imager from the second imager (paragraph 100).
With respect to claims 1-3 and 5-9, they are method claims that claim how the scanning system of claims 11-13 and 15-19 to identify objects passing across a scanning area of an indicia reader. Claims 1-3 and 5-9 are rejected for the same manner as described in the rejected claims 11-13 and 15-19.
With respect to claim 10, which further limits claim 1, Rodriguez’567 teaches wherein transmitting the first indicia value to the host further comprises transmitting the first indicia value to the host without decoding a second indicia associated with the second object (paragraphs 100, 143, 291, 316 and 375).
With respect to claim 11, Rodriguez’567 teaches a scanning system (Fig.7) for rapid product identification comprising:
a first imager having a first field of view of objects passing across a scanning area of an indicia reader configured to capture a first image comprising image data of a first object (paragraphs 100, 137 and 143);
a second imager having a second of view of the objects passing across the scanning area of the indicia reader configured to capture a second image comprising second image data of a second object; one or more processors (paragraphs 100, 137 and 143);
With respect to claim 20, it is a claim regarding to a tangible machine-readable medium comprising instruction. Claim 20 claims that claim how the scanning system of claim 11 to identify objects passing across a scanning area of an indicia reader. Claim 20 is rejected for the same manner as described in the rejected claim 11.
With respect to claim 28, Rodriguez’567 teaches a system for machine vision processing (Fig.7), comprising:
a vision assembly (paragraph 100);
an indicia-decoding module (paragraphs 137 and 143);
one of more processors [the system shown in Fig.7 is inherent disclosed with one of more processors to perform its desired functions]; and
a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors [the system shown in Fig.7 is inherent disclosed with a memory associated with the particular indicia reader storing instructions to enable one or more processor to enable the system to provide its desired functions], cause the system to:
capture, by the vision assembly, first image data (paragraphs 100, 137, and 143);
transmit the first image data to the indicia-decoding module (paragraphs 100, 137, 143);
extract, via the indicia-decoding module, an indicia payload associated with an indicia present in the first image data (paragraphs 100, 137, 143 and 233);
determine a class of items based on the indicia payload (paragraphs 100, 137, 143 and 447);
capture, by the vision assembly, second image data (paragraph 100, 137, 143); and
select, from a set of reference vision data and based on the class of items, a subset of reference vision data for analysis against the second image data (paragraphs 100, 137, 143, 479 and 480).
With respect to claim 29, which further limits claim 28, Rodriguez’567 teaches a comparison module, wherein the memory further stores instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to: provide the subset of reference vision data and the second image data to the comparison module (paragraphs 100, 137, 143, 291, 303, 547 and 548); and
determine whether an item captured in the second image data corresponds to an item in the subset of reference vision data (paragraphs 100, 137, 143, 291, 303, 547 and 548).
With respect to claim 30, which further limits claim 29, Rodriguez’567 teaches wherein the memory further stores instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to: responsive to determining that the item captured in the second image data corresponds to the item in the subset of reference vision data, transmit data associated with the item in the subset of reference vision data to a host (paragraphs 100, 137, 143, 29, 303, 339, 547 and 548).
With respect to claim 31, which further limits claim 30, Rodriguez’567 teaches wherein the transmitting the data associated with the item in the subset of reference vision data to the host occurs responsive to the indicia-decoding module being unable to extract an indicia payload associated with an indicia present in the second image data (paragraphs 100, 137, 143, 211, 291, 303, 339, 547 and 548).
With respect to claim 32, which further limits claim 28, Rodriguez’567 teaches wherein the instructions are executed by the one or more processors during a scan session of an indicia reader (paragraphs 100, 143 and 794).
With respect to claim 33, which further limits claim 28, Rodriguez’567 teaches wherein the vision assembly includes a first imaging assembly and a second imaging assembly, wherein the first image data is captured by the first imaging assembly, and wherein the second image data is captured by the second imaging assembly (paragraphs 100 and 143).
With respect to claims 21-26, they are method claims that claim how the scanning system of claims 28-33 to identify objects passing across a scanning area of an indicia reader. Claims 21-26 are rejected for the same manner as described in the rejected claims 28-33.
With respect to claim 27, which further limits claim 21, Rodriguez’567 teaches wherein the first image data is captured by a first imaging assembly of the vision assembly (paragraphs 100, 137 and 143), and
wherein the second image data is captured by a second imaging assembly of the vision assembly (paragraphs 100, 137 and 143).
With respect to claim 34, Rodriguez’567 teaches an indicia reader (Fig.7), comprising:
a vision assembly (paragraph 100);
an indicia-decoding module (paragraph 137 and 143);
one of more processors [the system shown in Fig.7 is inherent disclosed with one of more processors to perform its desired functions]; and
a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors [the system shown in Fig.7 is inherent disclosed with a memory associated with the particular indicia reader storing instructions to enable one or more processor to enable the system to provide its desired functions], cause the indicia reader to:
capture, by the vision assembly, first image data (paragraphs 100, 137, and 143);
transmit the first image data to the indicia-decoding module (paragraphs 100, 137, 143);
extract, via the indicia-decoding module, an indicia payload associated with an indicia present in the first image data (paragraphs 100, 137, 143 and 233);
determine a class of items based on the indicia payload (paragraphs 100, 137, 143 and 447);
capture, by the vision assembly, second image data (paragraph 100, 137, 143); and
select, from a set of reference vision data and based on the class of items, a subset of reference vision data for analysis against the second image data(paragraphs 100, 137, 143, 479 and 480).
With respect to claim 35, which further limits claim 34, Rodriguez’567 teaches further comprising a comparison module, wherein the memory further stores instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the indicia reader to: provide the subset of reference vision data and the second image data to the comparison module (paragraphs 100, 137, 143, 291, 303, 547 and 548); and
determine whether an item captured in the second image data corresponds to an item in the subset of reference vision data (paragraphs 100, 137, 143, 291, 303, 547 and 548).
With respect to claim 36, which further limits claim 35, Rodriguez’567 teaches wherein the memory further stores instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the indicia reader to: responsive to determining that the item captured in the second image data corresponds to the item in the subset of reference vision data, transmit data associated with the item in the subset of reference vision data to a host (paragraphs 100, 137, 143, 29, 303, 339, 547 and 548).
With respect to claim 37, which further limits claim 36, Rodriguez’567 teaches wherein the transmitting the data associated with the item in the subset of reference vision data to the host occurs responsive to the indicia-decoding module being unable to extract an indicia payload associated with an indicia present in the second image data (paragraphs 100, 137, 143, 211, 291, 303, 339, 547 and 548).
With respect to claim 38, which further limits claim 34, Rodriguez’567 teaches, wherein the instructions are executed by the one or more processors during a scan session of the indicia reader (paragraphs 100, 143 and 794).
With respect to claim 39, which further limits claim 34, Rodriguez’567 teaches wherein the vision assembly includes a first imaging assembly and a second imaging assembly, wherein the first image data is captured by the first imaging assembly, and wherein the second image data is captured by the second imaging assembly (paragraphs 100 and 143).
With respect to claim 40, which further limits claim 34, Rodriguez’567 teaches wherein the set of reference vision data is stored in a memory local to the indicia reader (paragraph 316).
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 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodriguez’567 (US 2022/0261567), and further in view of Harding’804 (US 2004/0079804).
With respect to claim 14, which further limits claim 11, Rodriguez’567 does not teach wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: remove the one or more indicia values that are stored locally on the memory responsive to one or more of: (i) a completion of a scan session at the indicia reader, (ii) a reboot of the indicia reader, or (iii) the memory associated with the particular indicia reader exceeding a storage limit.
Harding’804 teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: remove the one or more indicia values that are stored locally on the memory responsive to one or more of: (i) a completion of a scan session at the indicia reader, (ii) a reboot of the indicia reader, or (iii) the memory associated with the particular indicia reader exceeding a storage limit [the stored number of bar code symbols in a memory is being removes/erases according to the user’s instruction (paragraph 44)].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Rodriguez’567 according to the teaching of Harding’804 to allow a user to delete the stored items’ identification information from a memory because this will allow the memory to free more space to store the needed items’ identification information
With respect to claim 4, it is a method claim that claims how the scanning system of claim 14 to identify objects passing across a scanning area of an indicia reader. Claims 4 rejected for the same manner as described in the rejected claim 14.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUO LONG CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3759. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9am - 5pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tieu, Benny can be reached on (571) 272-7490. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HUO LONG CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2682