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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/18/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s “Response to Amendment and Reconsideration” filed on 2/18/2026 has been considered.
Claims 1-6 and 9 are cancelled.
Claims 7-8, 10 are pending in this application and an action on the merits follows.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kerchner (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0054390).
Regarding claim 10, Kerchner teaches a product information processing apparatus being used in a store where a product is purchased, and performing purchase processing of a product, the product information processing apparatus comprising an input/output unit that is oriented upward, and performs at least one of input and output of information relating to a product, wherein the input/output unit includes an input/output face on which the at least one of input and output of information is performed that is oriented upward, (a vertically disposed housing portion 1018 which can project from one end of the horizontally-disposed housing portion in a substantially orthogonal manner, [23]. See Fig. 7 horizontal scanner window 1018 facing upward).
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 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kerchner (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0054390), in view of Levie et.al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,065,679).
Regarding claim 7, Kerchner teaches a plurality of input/output areas being provided in order to perform at least one of input and output of information relating to a product, an opening through which the information relating to the product is output, (See Fig. 7..the horizontal scanning window 1018 positioned on the upper surface of the checkout workstation… EIR terminal 100 can be incorporated into a point-of-sale workstation used by retailers to process purchase transactions involving products bearing decodable indicia, e.g., a UPC symbol, as shown in FIG. 7. The point-of-sale workstation 1010 can include a horizontal countertop 1012 for placement of products to be scanned. EIR terminal 100 provided by a bi-optic scanner 1014 can be mounted within the countertop 1012. The bi-optic scanner 1014 can include a horizontally-disposed housing portion 1016 and a vertically disposed housing portion 1018 which can project from one end of the horizontally-disposed housing portion in a substantially orthogonal manner, [23].
Kerchner does not explicitly teach, however, Levie teaches an arrangement area being provided associated with each of the plurality of input/output areas; and for arranging on which an input/output unit that performs at least one of input and output of information relating to the product via the input/output area is configured to be arranged, wherein the input/output unit is included in at least one of the arrangement areas; covering unit that covers each input/output area associated with each arrangement area in which the input/output is not provided, (the housing of the communications module 100 preferably defines an open-ended slot 106 (I/O area) sized to receive a printer module 108 (arrangement area and I/O unit). The slot 106 is formed between a top portion of the housing and the bottom of the core unit 30. A printer connector 110 is located at an interior end of the slot 106 for providing an electrical connection between the communications module 100 and the printer module. When the printer module is not in use, the slot 106 is preferably enclosed by a plug member 112 (covering unit) that snaps within the slot 106 as shown in FIG. 4.), Col.6 ln 29-39.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to modify the multiple product information I/O areas though by Kerchner, to include the modular terminal and cover structure of Levie, in order for I/O interfaces to be selectively installed, removed, upgraded depending on merchant requirements, while maintaining usable terminal configuration when a particular interface is not present, (Col.1 ln 10-25).
Regarding claim 8, Kerchner teaches the product information processing apparatus includes a plurality of faces, and at least two of the plurality of input/output areas are provided on mutually different faces, (see 1018, 1024, Fig. 7).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MILENA RACIC whose telephone number is (571)270-5933. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-4pm 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, Florian (Ryan) 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.
/MILENA RACIC/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627
/FLORIAN M ZEENDER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights