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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I (corresponding to claims 1-11) in the reply filed on March 5, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-11 are pending. Claims 12-20 are canceled.
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 1-3, 6, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vorabbi et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 10,078,774) in view of Gifford et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0300093).
As to claim 1, Vorabbi et al. teaches a barcode-reading device (i.e., “decoding device”, Abstract), comprising:
a camera that is configured to capture images (i.e., “the image sensor 110 of the camera 100 of the decoding system 1000 may capture an image 880 in its FOV 117 of the label or portion 770-1 of the object 700 (see FIG. 2A) that carries the 1D indicia 775-1 such that the 1D indicia 775-1 may be included in the captured image 880 … the decoding system 1000 may be configured to cause the camera 100 to recurringly capture images on timed basis, such as at selected frame rate”, Col. 12 lines 33-67);
one or more processors (i.e., “The decoding device 300 may include a processor 350”, Col. 5 lines 42-56);
memory that is communicatively coupled to the one or more processors (i.e., “storage 360”, Col. 5 lines 42-56);
a decoder that is stored in the memory and executable by the one or more processors to process captured images to decode barcodes (i.e., “the processor 350 may be used to identify and decode one or more of an one-dimensional (1D) indicia (e.g., a barcode), a two-dimensional (2D) indicia, and a digital watermark that may be carried on a surface of an object, a portion of which may be included in the image captured by the image sensor 110 of the camera 100, and stored as the image data 130”, Col. 6 lines 25-51); and
a pre-processing module that is executable by the one or more processors to dynamically determine a region of interest (ROI) for at least some of the captured images (i.e., “one or more core components 351 of the processor 350 may be caused to execute instructions of the ROI identification component 342-1 to perform an analysis of one or more metadata values within the metadata 131-1 for each tile 885 to identify a cluster of adjacent tiles 885 within the captured image 880 that may include an image of the 1D indicia 775-1 … the identification of a ROI in which the 1D indicia 775-1 may be present may entail the identification of a cluster of adjacent tiles 885 that are found to have characteristics suggestive of including the 1D indicia, such that the cluster of adjacent tiles 885 serve to define at least a portion of such an identified ROI”, Col. 15 lines 1-14; and “Upon identifying a cluster of adjacent tiles 885 that is of sufficient quantity among the tiles 885 of the captured image 880, the one or more core components 351 may be caused by execution of the ROI identification component 342-1 to retrieve the grayscale values within the image data 130 for the pixels 881 of the portion of the captured image 880 that is included within a ROI 889-1 that may include the 1D indicia 775-1 based on the identified cluster. The one or more core components 351 may then be caused to store those grayscale values of the pixels 881 within the ROI 889-1 as the ROI data 132-1”, Col. 16 lines 7-17), and
wherein the ROI indicates what portion of a captured image is passed to the decoder for processing (i.e., “one or more core components 351 of the processor 350 may be caused to execute instructions of the 1D indicia decoding component 344-1 to perform an perform an interpretation of the 1D indicia 775-1 to decode the data that is encoded therein”, Col. 16 lines 33-51).
However, Vorabbi et al. does not explicitly disclose wherein the pre-processing module determines the ROI for a captured image based at least in part on a decoding marker in the captured image and an ROI definition that is associated with the decoding marker.
Gifford et al. teaches a pre-processing module (i.e., “software 22”, Paragraph [0042]) that determines the ROI for a captured image based at least in part on a decoding marker (i.e., “light pattern 55”, Paragraph [0066]) in the captured image (i.e., “field of view (FOV) 51 represents the entire area that is naturally visible to the camera 7”, Paragraph [0066]) and an ROI definition (i.e., “scan area 56”, Paragraph [0066]) that is associated with the decoding marker (See for example, “The shifted field of view (SFOV) 52 represents an area within the field of view (FOV) 51 that aligns with a light pattern 55 that is cast by the aimer accessory 30. This light pattern is what the user uses to do a blind scan or targeted scan according to this disclosure. A scan area 56 is maintained within the shifted field of view (SFOV) 52. Generally, the scan area 56 is a region of the shifted field of view (SFOV) 52 that is used by the software 22 to look for a barcode”, Paragraph [0066]).
Vorabbi et al. and Gifford et al. are analogous art because they are from the field of digital image processing for barcode decoding.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Vorabbi et al. by incorporating the pre-processing module determines the ROI for a captured image based at least in part on a decoding marker in the captured image and an ROI definition that is associated with the decoding marker, as taught by Gifford et al.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to enhance the ability of specialized software to read the barcode.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Gifford et al. with Vorabbi et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
As to claim 2, Vorabbi et al. teaches wherein the pre-processing module: passes the ROI for the captured image to the decoder for processing; and does not pass to the decoder one or more regions of the captured image outside of the ROI (See for example, “identify at least one region of interest (ROI) for each of a 1D indicia, a 2D indicia and/or a digital watermark, respectively, to be decoded. Where a 1D indicia is to be decoded, if a ROI within which a 1D indicia may be present is identified, then the core component 351 may retrieve the corresponding portion of the captured image, and may store that portion as the ROI data 132-1”, Col. 7 lines 1-21; “The one or more core components 351 may then be caused to store those grayscale values of the pixels 881 within the ROI 889-1 as the ROI data 132-1”, Col. 16 lines 7-17; and “one or more core components 351 of the processor 350 may be caused to execute instructions of the 1D indicia decoding component 344-1 to perform an perform an interpretation of the 1D indicia 775-1 to decode the data that is encoded therein. If such decoding is successful, then the one or more core components 351 may store that data as the decoded data 134-1. In interpreting the 1D indicia 775-1 within the ROI 889-1, the one or more core components 351 may employ various decoding parameters that may also be stored as part of the parameter data 335”, Col. 16 lines 33-51).
As to claim 3, Vorabbi et al. does not explicitly disclose wherein: the barcode-reading device comprises one or more aiming light sources; and the decoding marker is a light beam that is projected onto the barcode by the one or more aiming light sources.
Gifford et al. teaches one or more aiming light sources (i.e., “lamp 9 may include any appropriate source of illumination”, Paragraph [0049]); and the decoding marker is a light beam that is projected onto the barcode by the one or more aiming light sources (See for example, “Some resulting light patterns (also referred to as a “pattern of light”) produced by the grating 36 are shown in FIG. 4. Generally, the grating 36 provides for casting a pattern of light 55 onto a sample for imaging. In the examples discussed herein, the sample includes various forms of barcodes”, Paragraph [0063]).
Therefore, in view of Gifford et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Vorabbi et al. by incorporating the one or more aiming light sources, and the decoding marker is a light beam that is projected onto the barcode by the one or more aiming light sources, as taught by Gifford et al., in order to allow for convenient, rapid, or high volume barcode detection and decoding.
As to claim 6, Gifford et al. teaches wherein the ROI definition specifies a geometric shape of predefined size centered on the decoding marker (See for example, FIG. 5A, “scan area 56”, Paragraph [0066]).
As to claim 8, Gifford et al. teaches wherein the ROI definition specifies a geometric shape that encompasses the decoding marker (See for example, FIG. 5A, “scan area 56”, Paragraph [0066]).
As to claim 10, Vorabbi et al. does not explicitly disclose wherein the pre-processing module is additionally configured to cause the focus of the camera to be adjusted based on the location of the decoding marker within the captured image.
Gifford et al. teaches pre-processing module that is additionally configured to cause the focus of the camera to be adjusted based on the location of the decoding marker within the captured image (See for example, “When the light pattern 55 is appropriately manifested within the scan area 56, the software 22 identifies a focal point 57 (shown in FIG. 5C). In this example, the focal point 57 is centered within the scan area 56. The software 22 recognizes the apparition of the barcode 50, and adjusts the focal point 57 to a start of the barcode 50. Once an adjusted focal point 58 has been determined, the software 22 will read the captured barcode 50”, Paragraph [0068]).
Therefore, in view of Gifford et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Vorabbi et al. by incorporating the pre-processing module is additionally configured to cause the focus of the camera to be adjusted based on the location of the decoding marker within the captured image, as taught by Gifford et al., in order to improve the contrast and hence provide for capture of better quality images.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vorabbi et al. in view of as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kiliccote (U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0152060). The teachings of Vorabbi et al. and have been discussed above.
As to claim 4, Vorabbi et al. and do not explicitly disclose wherein the decoding marker is intrinsic to a medium on which a barcode is printed.
Kiliccote teaches a decoding marker that is intrinsic to a medium on which a barcode is printed (i.e., “a finder pattern located in relation to, or centered on a specific point in the pattern such as the center or corners of the symbol. Each of the schematic diagrams in FIGS. 3-5 is a color coded image generated of a barcode or symbol 30 according to certain embodiments of the present invention. The specific examples in FIGS. 3-5 show the finder pattern 31 at the center of the barcode or symbol 30”, Paragraph [0041]).
Vorabbi et al., and Kiliccote are analogous art because they are from the field of digital image processing for barcode decoding.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to further modify Vorabbi et al. and by incorporating the decoding marker is intrinsic to a medium on which a barcode is printed, as taught by Kiliccote.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to facilitate determination of the position, size, and inclination of the barcode.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Kiliccote with Vorabbi et al. and to obtain the invention as specified in claim 4.
Claims 5, 7, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vorabbi et al. in view of Gifford et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rueblinger et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 9,773,142). The teachings of Vorabbi et al. and Gifford et al. have been discussed above.
As to claim 5, Vorabbi et al. and Gifford et al. do not explicitly disclose wherein the ROI definition varies based on the type of decoding marker.
Rueblinger et al. teaches a ROI definition (i.e., “the region of interest 120”, Col. 5 line 61 through Col. 6 line 26) that varies (i.e., “change the region of interest”) based on the type of decoding marker (See for example, “sticker”, finger”, “code symbol”, Col. 5 line 61 through Col. 6 line 54).
Vorabbi et al., Gifford et al. and Rueblinger et al. are analogous art because they are from the field of digital image processing for barcode decoding.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to further modify Vorabbi et al. and Gifford et al. by incorporating the ROI definition varies based on the type of decoding marker, as taught by Rueblinger et al.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to allow for quick identification of the region of interest.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Rueblinger et al. with Vorabbi et al. and Gifford et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 5.
As to claim 7, Vorabbi et al. and Gifford et al. do not explicitly disclose wherein the ROI definition specifies a geometric shape and one or more offset values relative to the decoding marker.
Rueblinger teaches a ROI definition that specifies a geometric shape (See for example, FIG. 4, “the region of interest 120”) and one or more offset values relative to the decoding marker (See for example, FIG. 4, and “In this example, the system 100 would be pre-configured to recognize that the area in the field of view 116 that contains the code symbol to the immediate right of the marker 135 represents that portion of the field of view 116 that is the region of interest 120”, Col. 5 lines 45-60).
Therefore, in view of Rueblinger et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Vorabbi et al. and Gifford et al. by incorporating the ROI definition specifies a geometric shape and one or more offset values relative to the decoding marker, as taught by Rueblinger et al., in order to allow for quick identification of the region of interest.
As to claim 11, Vorabbi et al. and Gifford et al. do not explicitly disclose wherein the pre-processing module uses at least one of machine learning or optical character recognition to recognize decoding markers in captured images.
Rueblinger et al. teaches a pre-processing module that uses at least one of machine learning or optical character recognition to recognize decoding markers in captured images (See for example, “Where an imaging subsystem 110A is used, the marker 135 could be any symbol that the code-symbol-decoding processor 115 could recognize (e.g., through OCR techniques) as a marker 135 distinct from the code symbol(s) within the field of view 116”, Col. 5 line 61 through Col. 6 line 26).
Therefore, in view of Rueblinger et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Vorabbi et al. and Gifford et al. by incorporating the pre-processing module uses at least one of machine learning or optical character recognition to recognize decoding markers in captured images, as taught by Rueblinger et al., in order to utilize a recognizing technique different from the barcode recognizing technique.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vorabbi et al. in view of as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0180105). The teachings of Vorabbi et al. and have been discussed above.
As to claim 9, Vorabbi et al. and do not explicitly disclose a user interface module that is executable by the one or more processors to receive user input defining the decoding marker and the ROI definition.
Chen et al. teaches a user interface module (i.e., “graphical user interface”, Paragraph [0057]) that is executable by the one or more processors to receive user input defining the decoding marker and the ROI definition (i.e., “operator input which identifies a desired ROI in the image is obtained. The operator, which can be a human operator possibly supported or replaced by a machine-learning engine, may identify the ROI 398 by annotating the image with markers using a graphical user interface, or may alternatively input commands or coordinates indicative of the ROI boundary”, Paragraph [0057]; “the ROI information is coded in accordance with the predefined tag format, such as a linear or matrix barcode format, and the tag 399 is printed”, Paragraph [0065]).
Vorabbi et al., and Chen et al. are analogous art because they are from the field of digital image processing for barcode recognition.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to further modify Vorabbi et al. and by incorporating the user interface module that is executable by the one or more processors to receive user input defining the decoding marker and the ROI definition, as taught by Chen et al.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to allow precise control of the size, position, and/or orientation of the ROI.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Chen et al. with Vorabbi et al. and to obtain the invention as specified in claim 9.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSE M TORRES whose telephone number is (571)270-1356. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM 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, Jennifer Mehmood can be reached at 571-272-2976. 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.
/JOSE M TORRES/Examiner, Art Unit 2664 03/17/2026