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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s response and amendment dated 8/27/26 are acknowledged and entered. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1-10 are under examination.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Astvatsaturov (US 2021/0374373, previously cited) in view of Edmonds (US 2014/0027518, previously cited) and in further view of Steffy, et al. (US 2012/0236320, herein Steffy).1 Regarding claim 1, Astvatsaturov teaches a device for improving imaging system wakeup and indicia decoding, the device comprising: an imaging device disposed proximate to a first edge of a weighing platter of an imaging system, the imaging device having a field of view (FOV) (see annotated Fig. 1 below)2 including a first object disposed proximate to a second edge of the weighing platter (paragraph 0099: weight platter 111); an illumination source disposed proximate to the first edge of the weighing platter, the illumination source being configured to emit illumination oriented towards the first object (paragraph 0100: light source); and one or more processors (paragraph 0126: processor 328) configured to: cause the illumination source to emit illumination (paragraph 0111), cause the imaging device to capture image data representative of an environment appearing within the FOV (paragraph 0105), determine, based on the image data, that a second object satisfies a position threshold relative to at least one of the imaging device or the first object (paragraph 0105), and generate a wakeup signal to activate the imaging system (paragraph 0180). Astvatsaturov does not explicitly teach determine, based on the image data, that a second object has entered a monitoring volume defined between the imaging device and the first object; and responsive to determining that the second object has entered the monitoring volume, generate a wakeup signal to activate the imaging system. Edmonds teaches determine, based on the image data, that a second object has entered a monitoring volume defined between the imaging device and the first object (paragraph 0052); and responsive to determining that the second object has entered the monitoring volume, generate a wakeup signal to activate the imaging system (paragraph 0052). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to combine the teachings of Astvatsaturov and Edmonds, because such a combination increases the reliability of the system (paragraph 0011 of Edmonds).
PNG
media_image1.png
664
832
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Astvatsaturov in view of Edmonds does not explicitly teach the first object having a plurality of retroreflector strips; and determining that the second object has entered the monitoring volume comprises determining, from the image data, that illumination reflected from at least one of the plurality of retroreflector strips is blocked by the second object. Steffy teaches teach the first object having a plurality of retroreflector strips (paragraph 0034); and determining that the second object has entered the monitoring volume comprises determining, from the image data, that illumination reflected from at least one of the plurality of retroreflector strips is blocked by the second object (paragraph 0034). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to combine the teachings of Astvatsaturov, Edmonds, and Steffy because such a combination aids in properly determining the position of the object (paragraph 0006 of Steffy). Regarding claim 2, Astvatsaturov further teaches the first object is a portion of a bioptic reader (paragraph 0097), the bioptic reader comprising: a second imaging device having a second field of view (FOV) oriented towards the first edge of the weighing platter (paragraph 0123); and a second illumination source associated with the bioptic reader, the second illumination source being configured to emit illumination oriented towards the first edge of the weighing platter (paragraph 0155). Regarding claim 3, Astvatsaturov further teaches the imaging system comprises at least the bioptic reader, and the wakeup signal causes the bioptic reader to: emit illumination via the second illumination source (paragraph 0155); capture second image data representative of at least a portion of the second object via the second imaging device (paragraph 0185); and analyze the second image data to (i) identify an indicia associated with the second object and (ii) decode the indicia (paragraph 0121). Regarding claim 4, Astvatsaturov further teaches the illumination source and the imaging device are disposed at a first position proximate to the first edge of the weighing platter, and the wakeup device further comprises: the illumination source and the imaging device are disposed at a first position proximate to the first edge of the weighing platter (paragraph 0111), and the wakeup device further comprises: a second imaging device disposed at a second position proximate to the first edge of the weighing platter that is different from the first position, the second imaging device having a second FOV including the first object, and the second imaging device being configured to capture second image data representative of a second environment appearing within the second FOV (paragraph 0185); and a second illumination source positioned at the second position, the second illumination source being configured to emit illumination oriented towards the first object (paragraph 0155). Regarding claim 6, Astvatsaturov further teaches the one or more processors are further configured to: cause the imaging device to capture a first set of image data while the illumination source is inactive; after the imaging device captures the first set of image data, cause (i) the illumination source to emit illumination and (ii) the imaging device to capture a second set of image data (paragraph 0155); and determine an object differential brightness between a first set of pixel data representing the second object in the first set of image data and a second set of pixel data representing the second object in the second set of image data (paragraph 0155). Regarding claim 7, Astvatsaturov further the image data includes at least a third object, and the one or more processors are further configured to: determine, based on the image data, that the second object satisfies the position threshold relative to at least one of the imaging device, the first object, or the third object (paragraph 0105); and generate the wakeup signal to activate the imaging system (paragraph 0180). Regarding claim 8, Astvatsaturov further teaches the one or more processors are further configured to: responsive to generating the wakeup signal, causing the imaging device to capture subsequent image data representative of the environment (paragraph 0180); and determine whether an indicia is visible in the subsequent image data (paragraph 0180). Regarding claim 10, Astvatsaturov further teaches adjust an emission profile of the illumination source, such that the illumination source is further configured to emit the illumination over a first portion of the first object (paragraph 0185).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Astvatsaturov in view of Edmonds and Steffy and in further view of Nahill (US 2015/0242658, previously cited).3 Regarding claim 5, Astvatsaturov in view of Edmonds teaches the device of claim 1, as discussed above. Astvatsaturov in view of Edmonds and Steffy does not explicitly teach the one or more processors are further configured to: cause the first imaging device and the second imaging device to capture a plurality of pairs of image data sets, wherein each pair of image data sets includes a respective second object in at least one image data set; determining that multiple pairs of image data sets from the plurality of pairs of image data sets includes respective second objects in only one image data set; and generating a cleaning alert corresponding to a respective imaging device that captured an image data set that did not include a respective second object. Nahill teaches the one or more processors are further configured to: cause the first imaging device and the second imaging device to capture a plurality of pairs of image data sets, wherein each pair of image data sets includes a respective second object in at least one image data set (paragraph 0184); determining that multiple pairs of image data sets from the plurality of pairs of image data sets includes respective second objects in only one image data set (paragraph 0184); and generating a cleaning alert corresponding to a respective imaging device that captured an image data set that did not include a respective second object (paragraph 0184). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to combine the teachings of Astvatsaturov in view of Edmonds and Steffy and Nahill, because such a combination helps to reduce device downtime (paragraph 0035 of Nahill).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Astvatsaturov in view of Edmonds and Steffy and in further view of Liu (US 2010/0051696, previously cited).4 Regarding claim 9, Astvatsaturov in view of Edmonds and Steffy teaches the device of claim 1, as discussed above. Astvatsaturov in view of Edmonds and Steffy does not explicitly teach the illumination source is further configured to output an aiming pattern corresponding to the imaging system attempting to scan an indicia associated with the second object. Liu teaches the illumination source is further configured to output an aiming pattern corresponding to the imaging system attempting to scan an indicia associated with the second object (paragraph 0022: aiming pattern 40, see also paragraph 0032). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to combine the teachings of Astvatsaturov in view of Edmonds and Steffy and Liu, because such a combination increases the simplicity of the device (paragraph 0006 of Liu).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-10 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. New reference Steffy has been used to teach the newly added limitations. See above.
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 MATTHEW MIKELS whose telephone number is (571)270-5470. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 7:30 AM ET - 5:00 PM ET, Friday 7:30 AM ET - 9:30 AM ET, the Examiner is on central time.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, Thomas K Pham can be reached at 571-272-3689. 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.
/MATTHEW MIKELS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
1 In addition to the cited portions of each reference, please see also the associated figures.
2 See also additional discussion below.
3 In addition to the cited paragraphs, please see also the associated figures.
4 In addition to the cited paragraphs, please see also the associated figures.
5 The Examiner can also be reached at matthew.mikels@uspto.gov.
Prosecution Insights