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
Receipt is acknowledged of applicant’s amendment filed on 5/4/26. Claims 1-26 are pending and an action on the merits is as follows.
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.
(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(s) 1-10, 13, 14, 16-23, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1/a2 as being anticipated by Joseph US Publication No. 2006/0091219.
Re Claim 1, Joseph discloses an imaging device, comprising:
an imaging assembly configured to capture image data of an indicia appearing in a field of view (FOV);
a decode module configured to decode the indicia using the image data; and a computer-readable media storing machine readable instructions that, when executed, cause the imaging device to:
detect an indication of a parameter change (dataform moving slowly ) for a decode parameter (P40, Challenge dataform )associated with the imaging device, wherein the decode parameter (challenge dataform ) is indicative of damage associated with the indicia (P40, P43);
transition, responsive to detecting the indication of the parameter change, from a first operation mode (first signal processing algorithm) associated with decoding the indicia to a second operation mode ( second processing algorithm ) associated with decoding the indicia, wherein the decode module is configured to decode the indicia based at least on the damage associated with the indicia while operating in the second operation mode (P30) ; receive, from the imaging assembly, image data associated with the indicia; and decode, at the decode module, the indicia in accordance with the second operation mode (P30, P43) .
Re Claim 2, Joseph discloses the imaging device of claim 1, wherein the indicia is a two-dimensional (2D) barcode including at least one of a finder pattern or a timing pattern positioned along at least one edge of the 2D barcode (P54).
Re Claim 3, Joseph discloses the imaging device of claim 1, wherein the computer-readable media further stores additional instructions that, when executed, cause the imaging system to: after decoding the indicia, transition from the second operation mode to the first operation mode (P55; Fig. 2 Following step 255, processing of method 200 proceeds to step 260 where the method returns to step 210, and the swipe scanner 100 is ready to process the next dataform).
Re Claim 4, Joseph discloses the imaging device of claim 3, wherein the decode module is configured to decode the indicia without the damage associated with the indicia while operating in the first operation mode (P44) .
Re Claim 5, Joseph discloses the imaging device of claim 1, wherein the imaging device in the first operation mode has a first timeout period for decoding the indicia, the imaging device in the second operation mode has a second timeout period for decoding the indicia, and the second timeout period is longer than the first timeout period (P13, P59).
Re Claim 6, Joseph discloses the imaging device of claim 1, wherein decoding the indicia in accordance with the second operation mode (Second algorithm ) includes: analyzing each of at least one of (i) rows or (ii) columns of the indicia (P37).
Re Claim 7, Joseph discloses the imaging device of claim 1, wherein decoding the indicia in accordance with the second operation mode (Second algorithm) includes: determining a type of indicia for the indicia; identifying corners of the indicia based on the type of indicia; and decoding the indicia within the corners (P43, P59).
Re Claim 8, Joseph discloses the imaging device of claim 1, wherein the image data is first image data, and detecting the indication of the parameter change includes: receiving, from the imaging assembly, second image data of a parameter indicia in the FOV; decoding, at the decode module and after receiving the second image data, the parameter indicia; and detecting the indication of the parameter change responsive to decoding the parameter indicia (P40-43; fig. 4).
Re Claim 9, Joseph discloses the imaging device of claim 1, wherein detecting the indication of the parameter change includes: receiving, at the imaging device, the decode parameter from a user; and detecting the indication of the parameter change responsive to receiving the decode parameter (P41, 58, 61-62, See claims 13, 31, 41).
Re Claim 10, Joseph discloses the imaging device of claim 1, wherein transitioning to the second operation mode is responsive to determining that a switch parameter indicates that the imaging device is enabled for damaged decode operations (P30, P43, P58).
Re Claim 13, Joseph discloses the imaging device of claim 1, wherein the indication of the parameter change is a decode event associated with decoding a parameter indicia (P58-59).
Re Claim 14, Joseph discloses a method implemented in an imaging device including an imaging assembly configured to capture image data of an indicia appearing in a field of view (FOV) and a decode module configured to decode the indicia using the image data, the method comprising:
detecting, by one or more processors of the imaging device, an indication of a parameter change (dataform moving slowly ) for a decode parameter (challenging dataform ) associated with the imaging device, wherein the decode parameter (Challenging dataform ) is indicative of damage associated with the indicia; transitioning (first processing algorithm transitioning to a second processing algorithm ), by the one or more processors and responsive to detecting the indication of the parameter change , from a first operation mode associated with decoding the indicia to a second operation mode associated with decoding the indicia, wherein the decode module is configured to decode the indicia based at least on the damage associated with the indicia while operating in the second operation mode; receiving, by the one or more processors, image data associated with the indicia; and decoding, by the one or more processors, the indicia in accordance with the second operation mode (P30, P43).
Re Claim 16, Joseph discloses the method of claim 14, wherein the method further comprises: after decoding the indicia, transitioning, by the one or more processors, from the second operation mode to the first operation mode(P55; Fig. 2 Following step 255, processing of method 200 proceeds to step 260 where the method returns to step 210, and the swipe scanner 100 is ready to process the next dataform).
Re Claim 17, Joseph discloses the method of claim 16, wherein the image data is first image data, and the method further comprises: receiving, by the one or more processors, second image data of an undamaged indicia; decoding, by the one or more processors the undamaged indicia in accordance with the first operation mode (P44) .
Re Claim 18, Joseph discloses the method of claim 14, wherein decoding the indicia occurs during a second timeout period longer than a first timeout period associated with a time period for decoding the indicia when in the first operation(P13, P59).
Re Claim 19, Joseph discloses the method of claim 14, wherein decoding the indicia in accordance with the second operation mode includes: analyzing each of at least one of (i) rows or (ii) columns of the indicia (P37).
Re Claim 20, Joseph discloses the method of claim 14, wherein decoding the indicia in accordance with the second operation mode includes: determining a type of indicia for the indicia; identifying corners of the indicia based on the type of indicia; and decoding the indicia within the corners (P43, P59).
Re Claim 21, Joseph discloses The method of claim 14, wherein the image data is first image data, and detecting the indication of the parameter change includes: receiving, from the imaging assembly, second image data of a parameter indicia in the FOV; decoding, at the decode module and after receiving the second image data, the parameter indicia; and detecting the indication of the parameter change responsive to decoding the parameter indicia (P40-43; fig. 4.
Re Claim 22, Joseph discloses the method of claim 14, wherein detecting the indication of the parameter change includes: receiving, at the imaging device, the decode parameter from a user; and detecting the indication of the parameter change responsive to receiving the decode parameter (P41, 58, 61-62, See claims 13, 31, 41).
Re Claim 23, Joseph discloses the method of claim 14, wherein transitioning to the second operation mode is responsive to determining that a switch parameter indicates that the imaging device is enabled for damaged decode operations (P30, P43, P58).
Re Claim 26, Joseph discloses the imaging device of claim 14, wherein the indication of the parameter change is a decode event associated with decoding a parameter indicia (P58-59).
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.
Claim(s) 11, 12, 15, 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joseph et al. US Publication No. 2006/0091219 A1 in view of Narayanaswami et al. US Publication No. US 20140061316 A1 cited in previous action .
Re Claim 11, Joseph discloses the imaging device of claim 1, wherein the decode parameters are representative of scenarios in which the damage.
Joseph fails to specifically disclose wherein the damages includes at least: (i) the indicia missing a portion of a timing pattern , (ii) the indicia missing an entirety of the timing pattern, (iii) the indicia missing a portion of a solid edge indicative of an indicia type, (iv) the indicia missing an entirety of the solid edge, (v) the indicia missing the portion of the solid edge and the portion of the timing pattern, (vi) the indicia missing the portion of the solid edge and the entirety of the timing pattern, (vii) the indicia missing the portion of the timing pattern and the entirety of the solid edge, or (viii) the indicia missing the entirety of the solid edge and the entirety of the timing pattern.
However, Narayanaswami discloses wherein the damages includes at least: (i) the indicia missing a portion of a timing pattern (p22), (ii) the indicia missing an entirety of the timing pattern, (iii) the indicia missing a portion of a solid edge indicative of an indicia type, (iv) the indicia missing an entirety of the solid edge, (v) the indicia missing the portion of the solid edge and the portion of the timing pattern, (vi) the indicia missing the portion of the solid edge and the entirety of the timing pattern, (vii) the indicia missing the portion of the timing pattern and the entirety of the solid edge, or (viii) the indicia missing the entirety of the solid edge and the entirety of the timing pattern.
Given the teachings of Narayanaswami it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Joseph with wherein the damages includes at least: (i) the indicia missing a portion of a timing pattern , (ii) the indicia missing an entirety of the timing pattern, (iii) the indicia missing a portion of a solid edge indicative of an indicia type, (iv) the indicia missing an entirety of the solid edge, (v) the indicia missing the portion of the solid edge and the portion of the timing pattern, (vi) the indicia missing the portion of the solid edge and the entirety of the timing pattern, (vii) the indicia missing the portion of the timing pattern and the entirety of the solid edge, or (viii) the indicia missing the entirety of the solid edge and the entirety of the timing pattern.
The pattern in the damaged region would expand a search space of the barcode, thus reduces unintentional scanning.
Re Claim 12, Joseph and Narayanaswami discloses the imaging device of claim 11, and Narayanaswami discloses wherein a first timeout period associated with at least some of the scenarios (i)-(vii) is different than a second timeout period associated with a remainder of the scenarios (i)-(vii) (P25).
Re Claim 15, Joseph discloses the method of claim 14.
Joseph fails to disclose wherein the indicia is a two-dimensional (2D) barcode including at least one of a finder pattern or a timing pattern positioned along at least one edge of the 2D barcode.
Narayanaswami discloses wherein the indicia is a two-dimensional (2D) barcode including at least one of a finder pattern or a timing pattern positioned along at least one edge of the 2D barcode (P24).
Given the teachings of Narayanaswami it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Joseph with wherein the indicia is a two-dimensional (2D) barcode including at least one of a finder pattern or a timing pattern positioned along at least one edge of the 2D barcode.
The pattern in the damaged region would expand a search space of the barcode, thus reduces unintentional scanning.
Re Claim 24, Joseph discloses the method of claim 14.
Joseph fails to specifically disclose wherein the decode parameters are representative of scenarios in which the damage includes at least: (i) the indicia missing a portion of a timing pattern, (ii) the indicia missing an entirety of the timing pattern, (iii) the indicia missing a portion of a solid edge indicative of an indicia type, (iv) the indicia missing an entirety of the solid edge, (v) the indicia missing the portion of the solid edge and the portion of the timing pattern, (vi) the indicia missing the portion of the solid edge and the entirety of the timing pattern, (vii) the indicia missing the portion of the timing pattern and the entirety of the solid edge, or (viii) the indicia missing the entirety of the solid edge and the entirety of the timing pattern.
Narayanaswami discloses wherein the decode parameters are representative of scenarios in which the damage includes at least: (i) the indicia missing a portion of a timing pattern, (ii) the indicia missing an entirety of the timing pattern, (iii) the indicia missing a portion of a solid edge indicative of an indicia type, (iv) the indicia missing an entirety of the solid edge, (v) the indicia missing the portion of the solid edge and the portion of the timing pattern, (vi) the indicia missing the portion of the solid edge and the entirety of the timing pattern, (vii) the indicia missing the portion of the timing pattern and the entirety of the solid edge, or (viii) the indicia missing the entirety of the solid edge and the entirety of the timing pattern (P22).
Given the teachings of Narayanaswami it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Joseph with wherein the decode parameters are representative of scenarios in which the damage includes at least: (i) the indicia missing a portion of a timing pattern, (ii) the indicia missing an entirety of the timing pattern, (iii) the indicia missing a portion of a solid edge indicative of an indicia type, (iv) the indicia missing an entirety of the solid edge, (v) the indicia missing the portion of the solid edge and the portion of the timing pattern, (vi) the indicia missing the portion of the solid edge and the entirety of the timing pattern, (vii) the indicia missing the portion of the timing pattern and the entirety of the solid edge, or (viii) the indicia missing the entirety of the solid edge and the entirety of the timing pattern.
The pattern in the damaged region would expand a search space of the barcode, thus reduces unintentional scanning.
Re Claim 25, Joseph and Narayanaswami discloses the imaging device of claim 24, and Narayanaswami discloses wherein a first timeout period associated with at least some of the scenarios (i)-(vii) is different than a second timeout period associated with a remainder of the scenarios (i)-(vii) (P25).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/4/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the following :
Independent claims 1 and 14 recite, in part, detecting an indication of a parameter change for a decode parameter associated with the imaging device, wherein the decode parameter is indicative of damage associated with the indicia. The Office Action alleges that Joseph discloses these features by equating the indication of a parameter change to a dataform moving slowly and equating the decode parameter indicative of damage to a challenge dataform, citing paragraphs 40 and 43. In contrast to the Office Action's assertion that detecting an indication of a parameter change for a decode parameter indicative of damage is disclosed by a dataform moving slowly or a challenge dataform in paragraphs 40 and 43 of Joseph, these paragraphs merely disclose executing a signal processing algorithm to decode challenging dataforms such as damaged codes. Joseph describes a system that calculates a rate of motion of a barcode and changes decoding algorithms based on whether the barcode is moving fast or slow. A physical observation of a slow moving dataform is a real time measurement of speed used to determine how much time is available for processing. A measurement of speed is not a decode parameter, nor is it an indication of a parameter change indicative of damage.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees: Joseph discloses detecting an indication of a parameter change for a decode parameter associated with the imaging device, wherein the decode parameter is indicative of damage associated with the indicia. Jospeh parameter change as explained in the action is associated with a range of several predetermined ranges of motion, associated with several signal processing algorithms that take different amounts of time to complete. Depending on the rate of motion of the dataform, one of the algorithms is used to decode the dataform (P12, P13) A dataform that exhibits a lot of motion uses a fast and simple algorithm to decode the dataform fast . Whereas If the dataform is moving slowly, the swipe scanner 100 uses a second signal processing algorithm 167. This algorithm 167 is more time consuming than the first algorithm 166, but since the dataform is moving slowly, the swipe scanner 100 has more time to capture and decode the dataform before it leaves the field of view of the scanner 100. The second algorithm 167 is capable of decoding more challenging dataforms such as noisy codes, truncated codes, damaged codes, etc. Thus in Joseph a measurement of speed is a decode parameter, and is indicative of damage associated with the indicia.
Applicant also argues the following:
Joseph completely lacks any disclosure of scanning a separate parameter indicia, such as a configuration barcode, to change a decode parameter. Instead, Joseph continuously analyzes the physical motion of the same dataform being scanned. Therefore, Joseph fails to disclose the features of claims 8 and 21.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., such as a configuration barcode, to change a decode parameter) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant also argues the following:
Similarly, claims 9 and 22 recite that detecting the indication of the parameter change includes receiving the decode parameter from a user and detecting the indication of the parameter change responsive to receiving the decode parameter. The Office Action alleges that paragraphs 41, 58, 61, and 62 of Joseph disclose these limitations. In contrast to the Office Action's assertion that these paragraphs disclose receiving the decode parameter from a user to detect the parameter change, paragraph 41 discusses processing a set of frames, while paragraphs 58 through 62 discuss reading dataforms and transmitting decoded data to a host device. None of these paragraphs describe a user providing a decode parameter that triggers a mode transition. Joseph relies entirely on the automatic, real time calculation of the swipe speed of the device rather than receiving a decode parameter from a user. As such, Joseph fails to disclose the features of claims 9 and 22.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Joseph see paragraph 41, discloses If a swipe scanner fails to read a dataform, there is a natural tendency to swipe the object again and/or to swipe at a slower speed or hold the object up to the scanner. In these cases, the image scanner has additional time to decode the dataform, and a more sophisticated and time intensive algorithm can be used to try and decode the dataform. Thus, the rate of motion of the dataform can be used to dynamically choose an optimal signal processing algorithm. For example, a more sophisticated and time consuming algorithm can be used to decode a dataform that is moving slowly. The user swiping the object again or holding up the object to the scanner enables the system to receive the decode parameter from a user to detect the parameter change.
Conclusion
Kaufman et al. discloses wherein if the barcode is damaged and said steps (a) through (g) cannot decode the entire length of one of said columns, the values obtained using steps (a) through (g) are saved in said array and the following steps are carried out to decode each column which have not been decoded by steps (a) through (g)
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SONJI N JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5266. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-9pm.
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, Steven Paik can be reached at 5712722404. 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.
SONJI N. JOHNSON
Examiner
Art Unit 2876
/SONJI N JOHNSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
Prosecution Insights