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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 23 objected to because of the following informalities: claim 23 is labeled as claim 24. Appropriate correction is required.
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 23, 25-27 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 23 recites the limitation "the visual indicator" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 25 recites the limitation "the bioptic scanner" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 26-27 depend on claim 25; therefore, they suffer the same deficiencies.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Collins (US 7546953 B1).
Regarding claims 1, 25, 26, 27, Collins discloses a barcode reader comprising:
a bioptic scanner (7, col. 3, lines 19-28) including:
(a) a housing having (i) a first housing portion with a first surface and a first window (20) facing a product scanning region, (ii) a second housing portion with a second surface and a second window (18) facing the product scanning region (Fig. 2);
(b) a first imaging assembly having a first imaging sensor, the first imaging assembly having a first field of view (FOV) directed through the first window (scanning window 18 of scanner 7, col. 4, lines 18-29; Fig. 2); and
(c) a second imaging assembly having a second imaging sensor, the second imaging assembly having a second FOV directed through the second window (scanning window 20 of scanner 7, col. 4, lines 40-46; Fig. 2);
a removable scanner module selectively couplable with a scanner cradle coupled with the first housing portion, the removable scanner module including at least one supplemental imaging assembly having a supplemental imaging sensor with a supplemental FOV directed toward the product scanning region (scanner 2 in cradle 3, col. 3, lines 29-45; col. 4, lines 1-14 Fig. 2); and
a controller operatively coupled to the bioptic scanner and couplable to the removable scanner module, the controller configured to synchronize the removable scanner module with the bioptic scanner (via handling protocol of processing unit 25, col. 5, lines 4-20).
Regarding claim 2, Collins discloses wherein, when coupled with the scanner cradle, the controller synchronizes the removable scanner module with the bioptic scanner by synchronizing image capturing (Unit 25 receives data packets 26 and 27 indicative of barcode read information from each of scanners 2 and 7, col. 5, lines 4-6).
Regarding claim 3, Collins discloses wherein, when coupled with the scanner cradle, the controller synchronizes the removable scanner module with at least one of the first imaging assembly and the second imaging assembly to obtain images of the product scanning region (col. 5, lines 4-6).
Regarding claim 4, Collins discloses wherein the removable scanner module has a same symbol timeout time, and wherein the controller coordinates the same symbol timeout time of the removable scanner module with a same symbol timeout time of the bioptic scanner (via where unit 25 receives a first data packet 26 from scanner 2 and a like second data packet 27 from scanner 7 (like in the sense that they identify the same barcode) within a predetermined time period, some action is taken. This action typically involves disregarding one of the two data packets, col. 5, lines 14-20).
Regarding claim 5, Collins discloses wherein, when coupled with the scanner cradle, the supplemental FOV is directed generally downward intersecting with at least one of the first FOV or second FOV over the product scanning region (beam 9 passes through vertical window 20 in the approximate direction of window 18. Typically, an angle of or about 45 degrees is used. In such an embodiment pattern 19 is visible on both of windows 18 and 20, col. 6, lines 29-40; col. 4, lines 1-14).
Regarding claim 6, Collins discloses wherein, when the removable scanner module is coupled with the scanner cradle, the scanner cradle module is configured to provide power to the removable scanner (The cradle preferably includes a terminal engageable with a complimentary socket on the handheld scanner for providing electrical power to the handheld scanner, col. 2, lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 7, Collins discloses wherein the removable scanner is powered by a wired power source (via scanner 2 includes a tether for communicative connection with a processing unit and power source, col. 3, lines 63-65).
Regarding claim 9, Collins discloses a weight platter configured to support an object for obtaining a weight of the object in the product scanning region and wherein the supplemental FOV is directed toward the weight platter (via weighing plate, col. 6, lines 29-42).
Regarding claim 10, Collins discloses wherein, when coupled with the scanner cradle, the removable scanner module enters a synchronization mode (col. 5, lines 4-20) and when decoupled from the scanner cradle, the removable scanner module enters an independent operation mode (col. 1, lines 28-35).
Regarding claim 11, Collins discloses wherein in the synchronization mode, the controller synchronizes one or more operations of the removable scanner module with the bioptic scanner to obtain images of an object disposed in the product scanning region (via handling protocol of processing unit 25 to obtain data based on images scanned, col. 5, lines 4-20), and in the independent operation mode, the controller does not synchronize the removable scanner module with the bioptic scanner to obtain images (independent operation of handheld scanner, col. 1, lines 28-35).
Regarding claim 12, Collins discloses the removable scanner module further comprises an illumination assembly adapted to illuminate a portion of the product scanning region when coupled with the scanner cradle (via scanner 2 provides beam 4, col. 4, line 1-14; col. 6, lines 29-40).
Regarding claim 13, Collins discloses the removable scanner module further comprises a visual indicator adapted to indicate a direction of the supplemental FOV (pattern 19, col. 6, lines 29-40).
Regarding claim 14, Collins discloses wherein the visual indicator comprises an aiming system (A line pattern becomes visible on the barcode-carrying surface of item 42, and this is brought into appropriate alignment with barcode 43 to affect reading, col. 6, lines 37-40).
Regarding claim 15, Collins discloses wherein the aiming system is synchronized with the bioptic scanner to prevent imaging of the visual indicator by the first imaging assembly or the second imaging assembly (an angle of or about 45 degrees is used, col. 6, lines 29-40; col. 4, lines 1-14).
Regarding claim 16, Collins discloses wherein the first imaging sensor and the second imaging sensor are a same imaging sensor (optical scanner 7, col. 4, lines 18-46; Fig. 2), and the first FOV is captured on a first portion of the imaging sensor, and the second FOV is captured on a second portion of the imaging sensor (via scanning windows 18 and 20, Fig. 2).
Regarding claims 17, 18, claims 17, 18 are equivalent to the combination of claims 1 and 11 above; therefore, claims 17 and 18 are rejected for the same reasons as claims 1 and 11.
Regarding claim 19, Collins discloses wherein the removable scanner module has a same symbol timeout time, and wherein the computer readable media causes the one or more processors to synchronize the same symbol timeout time of the removable scanner module with a same symbol timeout time of the bioptic scanner (via where unit 25 receives a first data packet 26 from scanner 2 and a like second data packet 27 from scanner 7 (like in the sense that they identify the same barcode) within a predetermined time period, some action is taken. This action typically involves disregarding one of the two data packets, col. 5, lines 14-20).
Regarding claim 20, Collins discloses wherein, when coupled with the scanner cradle, the supplemental FOV is directed generally downward intersecting with at least one of the first FOV or second FOV over the product scanning region (beam 9 passes through vertical window 20 in the approximate direction of window 18. Typically, an angle of or about 45 degrees is used. In such an embodiment pattern 19 is visible on both of windows 18 and 20, col. 6, lines 29-40; col. 4, lines 1-14).
Regarding claim 21, Collins discloses a weight platter configured to support an object for obtaining a weight of the object in the product scanning region and wherein the supplemental FOV is directed toward the weight platter (via weighing plate, col. 6, lines 29-42).
Regarding claim 22, Collins discloses wherein the removable scanner module further comprises an illumination assembly adapted to illuminate a portion of the product scanning region when coupled with the scanner cradle (via scanner 2 provides beam 4, col. 4, line 1-14; col. 6, lines 29-40).
Regarding claim 23, Collins discloses wherein the removable scanner module further comprises an aiming system and wherein the aiming system is synchronized with the bioptic scanner to prevent imaging of the visual indicator by the first imaging assembly or the second imaging assembly (col. 6, lines 37-40; an angle of or about 45 degrees is used, col. 6, lines 29-40; col. 4, lines 1-14).
Regarding claim 24, Collins discloses wherein the removable scanner comprises a handheld scanner (col. 3, lines 19-28).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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.
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.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collins, and further in view of Genuise (US 20220075973 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Collins fails to disclose wherein the cradle is repositionable to support use by various users.
Genuise teaches a cradle for a handheld scanner can be configured to be adjustable to provide the flexibility to use the scanner in different modes (Para. 32).
From the teachings of Genuise, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Collins to include wherein the cradle is repositionable in order to use the removable scanner in different configurations within the cradle, thereby improve functionality.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YONG HANG JIANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3024. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30-6 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, Davetta Goins Feild can be reached at (571)272-2957. 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.
/YONG HANG JIANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689