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
Amendment received on 02/09/2026. Claims 1-31 are currently pending.
Claims 1-9, 11-12, 16-24, 26, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103s being unpatentable over Trajkovic et al. 2018/0300519 in view of Barkan et al. 2024/0028846.
Regarding claim 1, Trajkovic discloses an imaging device, comprising: an imaging assembly (imaging assembly 20/30) [ par. 020] configured to capture image data of a payload-encoding indicia (UPC code 28) [019-20], the image data including a first field of view (FOV) (view from window 12) and a second FOV (view from window 16) [19]; and a computer-readable media storing machine readable instructions (controller 44) that, when executed, cause the imaging device to: capture, using the imaging assembly, the image data of the payload-encoding indicia, [022-27]; determine, based on whether a respective partition of one or more partitions of the image data is indicative of a representative view of the payload-encoding indicia in the representative perspective [22-27]constraints for at least some of the one or more partitions; and perform one or more image analysis operations on the image data based at least on the one or more constraints for the at least some of the one or more partitions [025-27].
However, Trajkovic fails to explicitly disclose wherein an at least partially mirrored perspective of the second FOV is mirrored compared to a representative perspective of the first FOV. Barkan discloses wherein an at least partially mirrored perspective of the second FOV is mirrored compared to a representative perspective of the first FOV [002] [008] [claims 1, 11 and 17]. (Note: Barkan discloses “. A first mirror is positioned within the housing and configured to reflect the first imaging FOV towards the horizontal window” and a reflected image is from a smooth mirror (i.e. the glass of the system) then the reflected image is a mirror image).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Trajkovic in view of Barkan as Barkan discloses, “…no more than 10 percent of the first mirror is visible within a boundary of the second imaging FOV, an upper edge of the aperture in the upper housing portion is outside a boundary of the first illumination FOV, and all or substantially all light rays from the second illumination assembly that pass through the horizontal window, and are not reflected within the horizontal window or off of an object, form respective angles relative to horizontal that are equal to or less than a second angle formed between a normal line of the first mirror and horizontal.” [002].
Regarding claim 2, Trajkovic in view of Barkan discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Trajkovic further discloses performing the one or more image analysis operations includes: decoding a first portion of the payload-encoding indicia in a first partition of the one or more partitions to generate a first partial payload; decoding a second portion of the payload-encoding indicia in a second partition of the one or more partitions to generate a second partial payload; and generating a decoded payload of the payload-encoding indicia by combining the first partial payload and the second partial payload [024-27] [FIG 3-4].
Regarding claim 3, Trajkovic in view of Barkan discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Trajkovic further discloses determining the one or more constraints includes: determining whether at least one of the first partition or the second partition is mirrored based on one or more flags indicative of an orientation status of the respective partition; wherein decoding the first portion and decoding the second portion are responsive to determining whether at least one of the first partition or the second partition is mirrored based on the one or more flags (fragments or sequences the algorithm is looking for) [FIG 3-5].
Regarding claim 4, Trajkovic in view of Barkan discloses all of the limitations of claim 2. Trajkovic further discloses decoding the first portion is performed in a first direction (from POV of window 12); and decoding the second portion is performed in a second direction (from POV of window 16) [FIG 3-4].
Regarding claim 5, Trajkovic in view of Barkan discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Trajkovic further discloses generating the one or more partitions is further based on one or more calibrated split lines indicative of the representative view and the at least partially mirrored view [FIG 2].
Regarding claim 6, Trajkovic in view of Barkan discloses all of the limitations of claim 5. Trajkovic further discloses the one or more calibrated split lines (the location of the imagers in the system) are based on one or more physical characteristics of the imaging device [FIG 2].
Regarding claim 7, Trajkovic in view of Barkan discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Trajkovic further discloses the payload-encoding indicia is a 2- Dimensional (2D) payload-encoding indicia (UPC 28) [FIG 3-4].
Regarding claim 8, Trajkovic in view of Barkan discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Barkan discloses generate, based on a positioning of the payload-encoding indicia in the image data, a bounding box (boundary 110) encompassing at least a portion of the image data [28-33].
Regarding claim 9, Trajkovic in view of Barkan discloses all of the limitations of claim 8. Barkan further discloses generate, based on the one or more constraints and the bounding box, a corrected view by mirroring the at least the portion of the image data; and wherein performing the one or more image analysis operations includes decoding the corrected view to generate a corrected decode [28-33].
Regarding claim 11, Trajkovic in view of Barkan discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Trajkovic further discloses the computer-readable media stores further machine readable instructions that, when executed, cause the one or more processors to: generate, based on the one or more constraints, a corrected view by mirroring at least a partition of the one or more partitions; and wherein performing the one or more image analysis operations includes decoding the corrected view [FIG 3-4] [22-27].
Regarding claim 12, Trajkovic in view of Barkan discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Trajkovic further discloses the computer-readable media stores further machine readable instructions that, when executed, cause the one or more processors to: generate, based on the one or more constraints, a corrected view by mirroring the image data; and wherein performing the one or more image analysis operations includes decoding the corrected view [FIG 3-4] [22-27].
Regarding claim 16, Trajkovic discloses A method implemented in an imaging device including an imaging assembly, comprising: capturing, by one or more processors and using the imaging assembly, image data of a payload-encoding indicia, the image data including a first field of view (FOV) and a second FOV; determining, by the one or more processors and based on whether a respective partition of one or more partitions of the image data is indicative of a representative view of the payload- encoding indicia in the representative perspective or an at least partially mirrored view of the payload-encoding indicia in the at least partially mirrored perspective, one or more constraints for at least some of the one or more partitions; and performing, by the one or more processors, one or more image analysis operations on the image data based at least on the one or more constraints for the at least some of the one or more partitions [FIG 3-4] [22-29].
However, Trajkovic fails to explicitly disclose wherein an at least partially mirrored perspective of the second FOV is mirrored compared to a representative perspective of the first FOV. Barkan discloses wherein an at least partially mirrored perspective of the second FOV is mirrored compared to a representative perspective of the first FOV [002] [008] [claims 1, 11 and 17]. (Note: Barkan discloses “. A first mirror is positioned within the housing and configured to reflect the first imaging FOV towards the horizontal window” and a reflected image is from a smooth mirror (i.e. the glass of the system) then the reflected image is a mirror image).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Trajkovic in view of Barkan as Barkan discloses, “…no more than 10 percent of the first mirror is visible within a boundary of the second imaging FOV, an upper edge of the aperture in the upper housing portion is outside a boundary of the first illumination FOV, and all or substantially all light rays from the second illumination assembly that pass through the horizontal window, and are not reflected within the horizontal window or off of an object, form respective angles relative to horizontal that are equal to or less than a second angle formed between a normal line of the first mirror and horizontal.” [002].
Regarding claim 17, Trajkovic in view of Barkan discloses all of the limitations of claim 16. Trajkovic further discloses performing the one or more image analysis operations includes: decoding a first portion of the payload-encoding indicia in a first partition of the one or more partitions to generate a first partial payload; decoding a second portion of the payload-encoding indicia in a second partition of the one or more partitions to generate a second partial payload; and generating a decoded payload of the payload-encoding indicia by combining the first partial payload and the second partial payload [024-27] [FIG 3-4].
Regarding claim 18, Trajkovic in view of Barkan discloses all of the limitations of claim 16. Trajkovic further discloses determining the one or more constraints includes: determining whether at least one of the first partition or the second partition is mirrored based on one or more flags indicative of an orientation status of the respective partition; wherein decoding the first portion and decoding the second portion are responsive to determining whether at least one of the first partition or the second partition is mirrored based on the one or more flags (fragments or sequences the algorithm is looking for) [FIG 3-5].
Regarding claim 19, Trajkovic in view of Barkan discloses all of the limitations of claim 17. Trajkovic further discloses decoding the first portion is performed in a first direction (from POV of window 12); and decoding the second portion is performed in a second direction (from POV of window 16) [FIG 3-4].
Regarding claim 20, Trajkovic in view of Barkan discloses all of the limitations of claim 16. Trajkovic further discloses generating the one or more partitions is further based on one or more calibrated split lines indicative of the representative view and the at least partially mirrored view [FIG 2].
Regarding claim 21, Trajkovic discloses all of the limitations of claim 20. Trajkovic further discloses the one or more calibrated split lines (the location of the imagers in the system) are based on one or more physical characteristics of the imaging device [FIG 2].
Regarding claim 22, Trajkovic in view of Barkan discloses all of the limitations of claim 16. Trajkovic further discloses the payload-encoding indicia is a 2- Dimensional (2D) payload-encoding indicia (UPC 28) [FIG 3-4].
Regarding claim 23, Trajkovic in view of Barkan discloses all of the limitations of claim 22. Barkan discloses generate, based on a positioning of the payload-encoding indicia in the image data, a bounding box (boundary 110) encompassing at least a portion of the image data [28-33].
Regarding claim 24, Trajkovic in view of Barkan discloses all of the limitations of claim 23. Barkan further discloses generate, based on the one or more constraints and the bounding box, a corrected view by mirroring the at least the portion of the image data; and wherein performing the one or more image analysis operations includes decoding the corrected view to generate a corrected decode [28-33].
Regarding claim 26, Trajkovic in view of Barkan discloses all of the limitations of claim 16. Trajkovic further discloses generating, by the one or more processors and based on the one or more constraints, a corrected view by mirroring at least a partition of the one or more partitions; and wherein performing the one or more image analysis operations includes decoding the corrected view [FIG 3-4].
Regarding claim 31, An imaging device, comprising: an imaging assembly configured to capture image data of an object appearing in a field of view (FOV); one or more processors; and a computer-readable media storing machine readable instructions that, when executed, cause the one or more processors to: capture, using the imaging assembly, the image data of the object appearing in the FOV; generate one or more partitions for the image data based on a representative view of an indicia appearing in the image data; generate one or more flags for the one or more partitions based on whether a respective partition of the one or more partitions; and perform one or more image analysis operations on the image data based at least on the one or more flags for the one or more partitions [FIG 3-4] [022-29].
However, Trajkovic fails to explicitly disclose w is representative of the representative view or an at least partially mirrored view of the indicia Barkan discloses is representative of the representative view or an at least partially mirrored view of the indicia [002] [008] [claims 1, 11 and 17]. (Note: Barkan discloses “. A first mirror is positioned within the housing and configured to reflect the first imaging FOV towards the horizontal window” and a reflected image is from a smooth mirror (i.e. the glass of the system) then the reflected image is a mirror image).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Trajkovic in view of Barkan as Barkan discloses, “…no more than 10 percent of the first mirror is visible within a boundary of the second imaging FOV, an upper edge of the aperture in the upper housing portion is outside a boundary of the first illumination FOV, and all or substantially all light rays from the second illumination assembly that pass through the horizontal window, and are not reflected within the horizontal window or off of an object, form respective angles relative to horizontal that are equal to or less than a second angle formed between a normal line of the first mirror and horizontal.” [002].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10, 13-15, 25, 27-30 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 10/25, none of the cited prior art of record discloses decoding a remainder of the image data to generate a mirrored decode; and combining the mirrored decode and the corrected decode.
Regarding claim 13/27, 28, none of the cited prior art of record discloses the respective partition of one or more partitions of the image data is indicative of the at least partially mirrored view of the payload-encoding indicia in the at least partially mirrored perspective, and wherein performing the one or more image analysis operations includes: decoding the payload-encoding indicia based on the at least partially mirrored view of the payload-encoding indicia using a decode algorithm configured to decode mirrored barcodes.
Regarding claim 14,15/29-30, none of the cited prior art of record discloses and a second optical assembly comprising an odd number of optical components; wherein one of the first FOV or the second FOV is a first optical assembly FOV of the first optical assembly and a different one of the first FOV or the second FOV is a second optical assembly FOV of the second optical assembly.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-31 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The Examiner agrees that Trakjovic fails to disclose wherein an at least partially mirrored perspective of the second FOV is mirrored compared to a representative perspective of the first FOV; determine. However, upon further search and consideration, Barkan discloses the limitation, thus claims 1-9, 11-12, 16-24, 26, and 31 are rejected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASIFA HABIB whose telephone number is (571)270-7032. The examiner can normally be reached 10-4:30pm.
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, Steve Paik can be reached at 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 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.
/ASIFA HABIB/Examiner, Art Unit 2876
/THIEN M LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
Prosecution Insights