DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 21 recites “the indicia information” (line 3) which lacks antecedent basis and line 4 recites “the indicia” which renders the claim vague/ indefinite as the recitations of “indicia” “indicia information” are unclear to what is referred. The dependent claims are rejected based on their dependency.
Appropriate correction is requested.
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 of this title, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 21-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joseph, as discussed above, in view of Mulla et al. (US 5821520).
Re claim 21, Joseph teaches (paragraph [0043] +) the use of separate processes for barcode reading due to anomalies in the indicia information caused by signal interference/ signal strength, as Joseph teaches a second process (algorithm) that is more complex and time consuming, for noisy codes, truncated codes, damaged codes, etc., which is interpreted as due to anomalies caused by signal interference or signal strength. Different applications are therefore implicit as there are different processors executing different software. When a first algorithm to decode fails, the second one is applied to decode. Information is acquired at step 210.
Joseph teaches is silent to transmitting pre-processed indicia information determined during the “attempt to decode” to the second program.
Mulla et al. generally teaches preprocessing before decoding (abstract+ and col 10, lines 35+). This is interpreted as being part of the “attempt to decode”, as pre-processing is interpreted as part of the overall decoding attempt, which has not been specifically defined to preclude such an interpretation, such as to minimize noise, as taught by Mulla et al., and thus is interpreted as being determined during an attempt to decode (as such an attempt includes preprocessing)
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to pre-process data in order to more accurately determine barcode presence/ accuracy. The preprocessing and decoding is interpreted as first program decoding as sequentially the preprocessing takes place prior to decoding. Joseph teaches the first and second decoding as claimed, wherein it would have been obvious to use the preprocessing data of Mulla et al. with the first and the second decoding attempts of Joseph, for accuracy during both program decoding, as noise would be desirous to be removed for decoding.
Re claim 22, an indicia capturing subsystem is determined to be what captures the / reads the code.
Re claim 23, the different programs/processors are interpreted to read on the recited limitations absent more specific limitations as programmable logic and software are interpreted as part of the decoding/ reading/ processing steps.
Re claim 24, the limitations have been discussed above.
Re claim 25, the limitations have been discussed above.
Re claim 26, Joseph teaches imagers (paragraph [0005]+).
Re claim 27, Joseph teaches lasers (paragraph [0005]+).
Re claim 28, the limitations have been discussed above, re claim 23.
Re claim 29, the limitations have been discussed above, re claim 24.
Re claim 30, the Examiner has interpreted separate processors to read on a controller and a computer processor.
Re claim 31, the limitations have been discussed above.
Re claim 32, the limitations have been discussed above, re claim 23.
Re claim 33, the limitations have been discussed above, re claim 24.
Re claim 34, the limitations have been discussed above, re claim 29.
Claims 21-23, 25-28, and 31-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blanford et al. (US 7070108), in view of Mulla et al. (US 5821520), as discussed above.
Blanford et al. teaches acquiring information about indicia via the barcode scanner. The barcode is attempted to be decoded using a first program (limited number of bar code types in a first mode) and when that fails decoding the indicia is performed using a second program (second mode) (abstract+).
Blanford et al. is silent to transmitting pre-processed indicia determined during the attempt to decode using the first program to the second program.
Mulla et al. teaches such limitations, as discussed above.
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings in order to have more accurate barcode data when attempting to decode. It would have been obvious that if the preprocessed data of Mulla et al. fails the first mode that it would be used in the second mode of Blanford et al. for expected accuracy benefits.
Re claim 22, an indicia capturing subsystem is determined to be what captures the / reads the code.
Re claim 23, the different programs/processors are intpereted to read on the recited limitations absent more specific limitation as programmable logic and software are interpreted as part of the decoding/ reading/ processing steps.
Re claim 25, the limtaitons have been discussed above).
Re claim 26, the limitations have been discussed above re claim 22.
Re claim 27, laser scanning has been discussed above (FIG. 1+).
Re claim 28, the limitations have been discussed above, re claim 23.
Re claim 31, the limitations have been discussed above, re claim 21.
Re claim 32, the limitations have been discussed above re claim 23.
Claims 23-24, 28-30, and 33-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blanford et al. (US 7070108), in view of Mulla et al. (US 5821520), as discussed above, and Nadabar (US 20080011855).
Re claims 23-24, the limitations have been discussed above but are silent to separate processors for the separate programs.
Nadabar teaches the use of separate cores or processors for decoding, including 1d and 2d encoding (abstract+).
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings for more processing power, dedicated and separately programmable and replaceable processors, efficiency, etc.
Re claim 23, the different programs/processors are interpreted to read on the recited limitations absent more specific limitations as programmable logic and software are interpreted as part of the decoding/ reading/ processing steps.
Re claims 28-30, the limtaitons have been discussed re claims 23-24 above re claim 30, a processor and controller are interpreted to be read on by the separate processors.
Re claims 33-34, the limitations have been discussed above, re claims 24 and 29.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive in light of the rejection above. The Examiner notes that preprocessing is routine and known in the art for barcode reading/ decoding and is an obvious expedient as part of the reading process to clean up or align/ center the data (Epshteyn et al. US 20080073434 paragraph [0029]), Strom et al. (US 20120018518 paragraph [0051]+), Entwistle (US 20020088860 paragraph [0026]+) which teach preprocessing barcodes prior to their reading/ decoding as part of the overall reading/ decoding process.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20010080414 teaches separate modules for 1d and 2d barcodes and US 20030222144 teaches separate decoder modules for 1d and 2d decoding.
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 DANIEL I WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2409. The examiner can normally be reached on 7-9pm.
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 on 571-272-2404. 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.
/DANIEL I WALSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876