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 .
Status of Claims
This is in reply to communication filed on 02/27/2026.
Claims 1, 4-6, 11 and 14-16 have been amended.
Claims 2-3 and 12-13 have been cancelled.
Claims 1, 4-11 and 14-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
The information disclosure statement filed on 02/27/2026 comply with the provisions 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98, and MPEP 609 and is considered by the Examiner.
Response to Arguments
In response to Applicant Arguments /Remarks made in an amendment filled on 02/27/2026 :
Regarding 35 USC § 101 rejection:
Applicant argument submitted under the title “Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101” in pages 6-8.
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response, the examiner respectfully disagrees and emphasizes none of the scan, identify, determine, select, read, query, retrieve, instruct steps, whether taken individually or collectively, have not been shown to affect any form of technical change or improvement whatsoever, and are abstract idea. Applicant's claims have not been shown to modify, reconfigure, manipulate, or transform the computer, computer software, or any technical elements in any discernible manner, much less yield an improvement thereto. There is simply no showing of implementing any of the claim steps, individually or in combination, amounts to a technological improvement. Collecting, analyzing, and using information to classify and sort items is not reasonably understood as a technology, but instead involves organizing of human activity. The claims encompass both activity of a single person and activity that involves multiple people to reserve a good or a service, which is fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping, and resembles data collection; data recognition / classification; and automated decision-making, which is fall within Mental processes / data collection-analysis-display. Furthermore, the recited a device, a scanner, one or more processors, memory(ies), this recitation to the generic computer technology that is being used as a tool to execute the steps that define the abstract idea do not provide for integration at the 2nd prong and do not provide for significantly more at step 2B.
Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the claims amount to an improvement over prior art techniques for tracking items, such an improvement would be considered, at most, an improvement confined within the abstract idea itself, which is not enough to confer eligibility on the claim. For the reasons above, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Regarding Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103:
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 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.
In response, the Examiner first emphasizes that the newly amended limitations are narrower in scope than the features previously presented in claims (1 and 11). Applicant's arguments with respect to the amended limitations has been considered, however the argument is primarily raised in support of the amendments to independent claims 1 and 11, and therefore is believed to be fully addressed via the new ground of rejection under §103 set forth below, which incorporates a new reference, Bremer et al. (US 20080011856 A1) further in view of Rosenbaum et al. (US 20070102329 A1) to teach the new limitations of claims 1 and 11 Accordingly, the amendment and supporting arguments are believed to be fully addressed via the new ground of rejection set forth under §103 below.
Applicant’s remaining arguments either logically depend from the above-rejected arguments, in which case they too are unpersuasive for the reasons set forth above, or they are directed to features which have been newly added via amendment. Therefore, this is now the Examiner's first opportunity to consider these limitations in view of the prior art and as such any arguments regarding these limitations would be inappropriate since they have not yet been examined. A full rejection of these limitations in view of the prior art will be presented later in this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 4-11 and 14-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as containing new matter not supported by the originally filed disclosure. Specifically, claims 1 and 11 recite “select a first memory of the plurality of memories, the first memory comprising the plurality of computer readable code identifiers and associated item information for the determined type of computer readable code” (or substantially similar language). The originally filed specification does not reasonably convey to one of ordinary skill in the art that applicant had possession of such subject matter at the time of filing.
The specification discloses memory generally in the context of storage of information and distributed computing systems. For example, the disclosure references a “memory circuit configured to store information,”, [0006], systems in which processors “share a single memory,”, [0039], and “individual memory”, see [0039], components associated with distributed systems, “The control 200 comprises a processor 210, a memory 215, a device management module 220, a communication module 225, one or more commercial interfaces 230, a mobile computing device 240, an item processing equipment 235, and an authentication module 245”, see [0036], and “The memory 215 can store data and information relating to the items being tracked” see [0041]. However, the specification fails to disclose or describe:
selecting one memory from among multiple memories;
selection logic for choosing a first memory of a plurality of memories;
memory arbitration, memory addressing, or memory device selection operations; or
any algorithm, circuitry, or process for determining which memory among multiple memories is selected.
The disclosure merely indicates that memory components may exist or store data within the system. Such generalized references to memory do not provide written description support for the newly claimed limitation requiring “select a first memory of the plurality of memories”
Accordingly, the amendment introduces subject matter that was not described in the application as originally filed and therefore constitutes impermissible new matter under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 4-11 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1, 4-10 recite a device, which is directed to a machine.
Claims 11, 14-20 recite a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing executable instructions, which is directed to a manufacture.
Therefore, each claim falls within one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A, Prong 1 (Is a judicial exception recited?):
The independent claims 1 and 11 recite the abstract idea of providing information regarding the routing of items or containers of items within a distribution and delivery system, see specification [0002]. This idea is described by the steps of:
1) These claims recite a certain method of organizing human activity. The claims recite to a certain method of organizing human activity as the above abstract idea limitations are directed to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. The examiner finds the claims to simply recites steps of following rules or instructions to scanning a code, identifying the code; looking up information in a database; retrieving associated information; and directing sorting items based on the information.
Offending clauses include: “determine a type”, “query the selected memory”, “retrieve the item information”, which read like functional information processing steps.
2) These claims recite Mental processes / data collection-analysis-display (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III); Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016)): The claims recite at a high level scanning a code, identifying the code; looking up information in a database; retrieving associated information; and directing soring based on the information. That resembles data collection; data recognition/classification; and automated decision-making.
Offending clauses include: “determine a type”, “query the selected memory”, “retrieve the item information”, which read like functional information processing steps.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong 1, the claims are charactered as: collecting, analyzing, and using information to classify and sort items.
Step 2A, Prong 2 (Is the exception integrated into a practical application?):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims satisfy the following criteria, which indicate that the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application:
The claimed additional limitations are:
Claim 1: a device, a scanner, one or more processors, memory(ies),
Claim 11: a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing executable instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, memory(ies),
The additional limitations are directed to using a generic computer to process information and perform the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitations merely amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). See Electric Power Group v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350) and Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (optical character recognition).
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more that the judicial exception?):
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As for Step 2B analysis, knowing the consideration is overlapping with Step 2A, Prong 2. The Step 2B considerations have already been substantially addressed under Step 2A Prong 2, see Step 2A Prong 2 analysis above. As discussed above, the additional imitations amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). See Electric Power Group v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350) and Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (optical character recognition).
In addition, the dependent claims recite:
Step 2A, Prong 1 (Is a judicial exception recited?):
Dependent claims 4-10 and 14-20 recitations further narrowing the abstract idea recited in the independent claims 1 and 11 and therefore directed towards the same abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B:
The dependent claims 4-10 and 14-20 further narrow the abstract idea recited in the independent claims 1 and 11 and are therefore directed towards the same abstract idea.
The dependent claims recite the following additional limitations:
Claims 4, 8, 9, 10: device, the one or more processors,
Claims 5, 6, 7: device,
Claims 14, 18, 19, 20: the non-transitory computer-readable medium, the at least one processor,
Claims 15, 16, 17: the non-transitory computer-readable medium,
However, the examiner finds each of these additional elements to be directed to merely “apply it” or applying a generic technology to perform the recited abstract idea of providing information regarding the routing of items or containers of items within a distribution and delivery system, the recitation to the generic computer technology that is being used as a tool to execute the steps that define the abstract idea do not provide for integration at the 2nd prong and do not provide for significantly more at step 2B.
Therefore, the limitations on the invention of claims 1, 4-11 and 14-20, when viewed individually and in ordered combination are directed to in-eligible subject matter.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 4-6, 10-11, 14-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Brandt et al. (US 20020148899 A1, hereinafter “Brandt”) in view of Bremer et al. (US 20080011856 A1, hereinafter “Bremer”) further in view of Rosenbaum et al. (US 20070102329 A1, hereinafter “Rosenbaum”).
Regarding claims 1 and 11. Brandt discloses a device for tracking items, the device comprising:
a scanner to scan a computer readable code on an item; and (Brandt, [0006]; “Optical scanning systems use various apparatus and methods for the purpose of reading such labels, identifying the particular label format, and decoding the information stored in the label”)
each of the plurality of memories comprising a plurality of computer readable code identifiers and associated item information for a type of computer readable code, the one or more processors configured to: (Brandt, [0054]; “the widths of the elements of a bar code are captured in a data store on a width basis. The bar code scanner may be enabled to maintain histogram information for a number of potential labels … separate histogram information may be kept for bars and spaces of each potential label and that information may be collected and maintained for a number of label scans … histogram information may be helpful in determining symbology, i.e., for example, whether a particular label being scanned comprises a binary or a multi-width symbology”)
identify one or more readable portions of the computer readable code; (Brandt, [0137]; “FIG. 4, character elements are identified in a first step 160. To this end, the decoder uses the first few elements of a label … The character width is used to identify the element edge of the new character that is closest to the element width”)
determine a type of the computer readable code based on the identified one or more readable portions of the computer readable code; (Brandt, [0055-0059]; “the scanner may further capture edge confidence levels along with element edge times. Typically, bar code scanners collect only edge timing information that may then be utilized to determine, for example, element widths … using more sophisticated reconstructive decoding algorithms, thus being more efficient and increasing the probability of correctly decoding the bar code with fewer scans of data … the number of element widths may, for example, be utilized in determining the symbology that is being scanned so that the correct symbology specific decoder may be executed”)
select a first memory of the plurality of memories, the first memory comprising the plurality of computer readable code identifiers and associated item information for the determined type of computer readable code; (Brandt, [0061-0064]; “Separate histograms may be kept for bars and spaces of each potential label. Several scans of a potential label may be combined in the histograms to provide a larger set of elements for the histograms … histograms 5 and 10 … As may be seen from FIG. 1, separate bar information 25 and space information 30 is gathered, maintained and recorded”, [0078]; “Using the element width histogram to determine if the symbology is binary or multi-width”)
read the scanned computer readable code to determine an identifier encoded in the scanned computer readable code; (Brandt, [0138-0139]; “In a second step 165, once the character elements are identified, the system attempts to find matches between element edges and character templates … A comparison is made between each character of the symbology and the current character. The distance between the element edges of the current character and the expanded templates are used to determine which symbology characters are the closest match to the current character … that match is accepted and the corresponding character identifier is loaded into the label buffer (as provided in step nine 175 below”)
Brandt substantially discloses the claimed invention; however, Brandt fails to explicitly disclose the “one or more processors in communication with a plurality of memories”. However, Bremer teaches:
one or more processors in communication with a plurality of memories (Bremer, [0022]; “The controller 300 preferably comprises a microprocessor or micro-controller (uP/uC) 310, a sufficient amount of memory to store the necessary program code (such as program code 351 and 352, described later herein) and data, and appropriate glue logic”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Brandt to include one or more processors in communication with a plurality of memories, as taught by Bremer, where this would be performed in order to provide controller full access to the entirety of the data necessary for decoding. See Bremer [0043].
The combination of Brandt in view of Bremer substantially discloses the claimed invention; however, the combination fails to explicitly disclose the “query the selected memory to identify item information associated with the determined encoded identifier; retrieve the item information associated with the item from the selected memory; and instruct item sorting equipment to automatically sort the item based on the item information”. However, Rosenbaum teaches:
query the selected memory to identify item information associated with the determined encoded identifier; (Rosenbaum, [0015-0016]; “If the scan was successful 134, the method continues to step 132 … n attempt is then made to obtain the address from the scan of the parcel 132. A determination is made whether the address was successfully read by the scan 136. If the scan was successful (138) the method continues to step 140 wherein the ID code and address are stored in at least one database”)
retrieve the item information associated with the item from the selected memory; (Rosenbaum, [0017]; “search is conducted of a storage medium containing service agreements and other understandings effected between customer and delivery service 164. The storage medium may be the at least one database … . The search is part of a determination of whether the service agreement or understanding (if present) includes an alternate delivery address associated with the parcel or destination address 166”)
and instruct item sorting equipment to automatically sort the item based on the item information. (Rosenbaum, [0017-0018]; “matching of the parcel address to a sort code is made 174. Sort codes are unique codes that identify a unique destination … The parcels are loaded, manually or automatically, onto a mobile rack … the rack is loaded onto the delivery truck and a new rack is introduced to receive parcels 188”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Brandt to include query the selected memory to identify item information associated with the determined encoded identifier; retrieve the item information associated with the item from the selected memory; and instruct item sorting equipment to automatically sort the item based on the item information, as taught by Rosenbaum, where this would be performed in order to provide tools to assist the driver and delivery service with the aforementioned burdens. See Rosenbaum [0003].
Regarding claims 4 and 14. The combination of Brandt in view of Bremer further in view of Rosenbaum discloses the device of claim 1,wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
The combination of Brandt in view of Bremer substantially discloses the claimed invention; however, the combination fails to explicitly disclose the “determine a location of the item based on a location of the device; and determine the identifier from reading the scanned computer readable code and the location of the item”. However, Rosenbaum teaches:
determine a location of the item based on a location of the device; and determine the eading the scanned computer readable code and the location of the item. (Rosenbaum, [0015-0017]; “The method begins at 100 and proceeds to the next step of conveying a parcel to a scanner 102 … Where no alternate delivery address is found 172, a matching of the parcel address to a sort code is made 174. Sort codes are unique codes that identify a unique destination. ID Codes are then matched to the sort codes 176 by methods known in the art”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Brandt to include determine a location of the item based on a location of the device; and determine the identifier from reading the scanned computer readable code and the location of the item, as taught by Rosenbaum, where this would be performed in order to provide tools to assist the driver and delivery service with the aforementioned burdens. See Rosenbaum [0003].
Regarding claims 5 and 15. The combination of Brandt in view of Bremer further in view of Rosenbaum discloses the device of claim 1,wherein
The combination of Brandt in view of Bremer substantially discloses the claimed invention; however, the combination fails to explicitly disclose the “the one or more readable portions of the computer readable code comprise a mailer identifier”. However, Rosenbaum teaches:
the one or more readable portions of the computer readable code comprise a mailer identifier (Rosenbaum, [0016]; “obtain the address from the scan of the parcel 132. A determination is made whether the address was successfully read by the scan 136. If the scan was successful (138) the method continues to step 140 wherein the ID code and address are stored in at least one database”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Brandt to include the one or more readable portions of the computer readable code comprise a mailer identifier, as taught by Rosenbaum, where this would be performed in order to provide tools to assist the driver and delivery service with the aforementioned burdens. See Rosenbaum [0003].
Regarding claims 6 and 16. The combination of Brandt in view of Bremer further in view of Rosenbaum discloses the device of claim [[3]] 1, wherein the one or more readable portions of the computer readable code comprise a barcodeype of the computer readable code is a barcode type. (Brandt, [0011]; “In addition to the UPC formats, a variety of other label formats exist which vary, among other ways, in structure, content, parity requirements, and type of feature characters. Code 39 and Code 128, for example, are both non-segmented label formats, i.e., they have no center feature characters separating two or more segments of bars. Other label encoding schemes have been developed which have differing pattern structures for the dark and light areas. Exemplary of these latter code types are the stacked bar code formats referred to as Code 49 and PDF 417”)
Regarding claims 10 and 20. The combination of Brandt in view of Bremer further in view of Rosenbaum discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
Brandt substantially discloses the claimed invention; however, Brandt fails to explicitly disclose the “identify one or more unreadable portions of the computer readable code; identify an error associated with the one or more unreadable portions of the computer readable code; and display the error associated with the one or more unreadable portions of the computer readable code”. However, Bremer teaches:
identify one or more unreadable portions of the computer readable code; identify an error associated with the one or more unreadable portions of the computer readable code; (Bremer, [0061]; “Next, in step 528, a test is performed to determine whether the attempted read (in step 527) was successful. If the attempted read was successful, processing continues in step 529, where the data corresponding to the target barcode or other symbol or indicia is reported. If, on the other hand, the attempted read in step 527 was not successful, processing returns to step 522, which is the start of the imaging reading routine”)
and display the error associated with the one or more unreadable portions of the computer readable code. (Bremer, [0057]; “the controller 300 starts execution at step 521. In step 522, the controller 300 adjusts the parameters for the upcoming imaging read, preferably based on previously performed imaging reads. These parameters may include, for example, exposure control for the imaging process. Then, in step 523, the controller 300 attempts to read the target barcode (or other symbol or indicia) using the imaging front-end 200”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Brandt to include identify one or more unreadable portions of the computer readable code; identify an error associated with the one or more unreadable portions of the computer readable code; and display the error associated with the one or more unreadable portions of the computer readable code, as taught by Bremer, where this would be performed in order to provide controller full access to the entirety of the data necessary for decoding. See Bremer [0043].
Claims 7-8 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Brandt in view of Bremer further in view of Rosenbaum furthermore in view of Scipioni (US 20150066799 A1, hereinafter “Scipioni”).
Regarding claims 7 and 17. The combination of Brandt in view of Bremer further in view of Rosenbaum discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the item information comprises
The combination of Brandt in view of Bremer further in view of Rosenbaum substantially discloses the claimed invention; however, the combination fails to explicitly disclose the “an intended location of the item and an intended delivery date of the item”. However, Scipioni teaches:
an intended location of the item and an intended delivery date of the item. (Scipioni; [0035]; “The order may contain certain information such as the user's contact information, the seller's contact information, the shipping carrier's contact information, an identification of the item, the transaction amount for the item, expected time of delivery, and a requirement for a signature at the time of delivery”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Brandt to include an intended location of the item and an intended delivery date of the item, as taught by Scipioni, where this would be performed in order to provide systems and methods that are more efficient and convenient for both the customer and the shipper. See Scipioni [0006].
Regarding claims 8 and 18. The combination of Brandt in view of Bremer further in view of Rosenbaum furthermore in view of Scipioni discloses the device of claim 7, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
The combination of Brandt in view of Bremer substantially discloses the claimed invention; however, the combination of Brandt in view of Bremer fails to explicitly disclose the “determine a current location of the item based on a location of the device; and determine a routing action for the item based on one or more of: the current location of the item, the intended location of the item; and the intended delivery date of the item”. However, Rosenbaum teaches:
determine a current location of the item based on a location of the device; and determine a routing action for the item based on one or more of: the current location of the item, the intended location of the item; and the intended delivery date of the item. (Rosenbaum, [0018]; “a determination is made whether there are other parcels to be delivered along the route of the delivery vehicle. If other parcels are present 194, the method returns to step 102 and the next parcel is scanned. If there are no more parcels to be scanned 196, the at least one database will now contain a list of all of the scanned parcels sorted by sort code. The at least one database is now queried for a list of all parcels matching select sort codes (or delivery addresses0, the select sort codes being along a particular delivery route 198”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Brandt to include determine a current location of the item based on a location of the device; and determine a routing action for the item based on one or more of: the current location of the item, the intended location of the item; and the intended delivery date of the item, as taught by Rosenbaum, where this would be performed in order to provide tools to assist the driver and delivery service with the aforementioned burdens. See Rosenbaum [0003].
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Brandt in view of Bremer further in view of Rosenbaum furthermore in view of Wu et al. (US 20150363625 A1, hereinafter “Wu”).
Regarding claims 9 and 19. The combination of Brandt in view of Bremer further in view of Rosenbaum discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to
The combination of Brandt in view of Bremer further in view of Rosenbaum substantially discloses the claimed invention; however, the combination fails to explicitly disclose the “display an image of the computer readable code, wherein the image of the computer readable code comprises an overlay identifying the one or more readable portions of the computer readable code and one or more unreadable portions of the computer readable code”. However, Wu teaches:
display an image of the computer readable code, wherein the image of the computer readable code comprises an overlay identifying the one or more readable portions of the computer readable code and one or more unreadable portions of the computer readable code. (Wu, [0054]; “an image capturing device capturing an image of the product label and storing the captured image in a memory operatively associated with the image capturing device; a processor operatively associated with the memory detecting and localizing one or more barcode candidate regions within the captured image of the product label, the barcode candidate regions including a substantially fewer number of pixels relative to a total number of pixels included in the captured pixel image of the product label”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Brandt to include display an image of the computer readable code, wherein the image of the computer readable code comprises an overlay identifying the one or more readable portions of the computer readable code and one or more unreadable portions of the computer readable code, as taught by Wu, where this would be performed in order to determine the spatial layout of product content of a product facility, such as a store. See Wu [0003].
Conclusion
1. 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.
2. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AVIA SALMAN whose telephone number is (313)446-4901. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 9:00 AM to 5:00 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, FAHD OBEID can be reached at (571) 270-3324. 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.
/AVIA SALMAN/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights