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
The amendment filed on 7/26/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-10 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendment to the Specification and Claims overcome the objections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 5/13/2026 (Hereinafter, “the NFOA”).
Response to Arguments/Remarks re. 35 U.S.C. § 103 Rejections
Applicant's arguments filed 7/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant first argues that it would be impossible to modify Gao by Ichikawa to include the limitations of “by one signal”, as it would render Gao inoperative. In arguing such, Applicant states that Gao requires the color imager 204 to be turned off when the monochrome imager 202 performs reading. Applicant concedes that this is true within a certain operation of Gao.
However, the claims as written do not prevent an additional operation of Gao from reading on the claim. There is no explicit requirement within the language of claim 1 that the image information obtainer (color imager with respect to Gao) and barcode information obtainer (monochrome imager with respect to Gao) perform a barcode-reading and image capture operation at the same time. Rather, the image information obtainer need only have “a synchronized photographing time point” with the barcode information obtainer.
This language is met by the stereo 3D image generation mode of Gao, relevant portions of which were cited in the NFOA. [0080] and Fig. 12A sufficiently teach the simultaneous capture operations summarized in [0007] and claim 15. See, Gao, [0080] “The color imager exposure signaling 1202 a is coordinated to capture images of a scene when illuminated by red, blue, and green illuminations 1204 a, 1204 b, and 1204 c (collectively 1204), as shown. The monochrome imager exposure signaling 1202 b is coordinated to capture images of the scene when illuminated by red and blue illuminations 1204 a and 1204 b. The exposure of the color imager is longer than the monochrome imager as the red and blue illuminations 1204 a and 1204 b are aligned with one another and ON for 150 μs and the green illumination 1204 c is turned ON for 150 μs after the red and blue illuminations 1204 a and 1204 b are turned OFF.”; See Gao, Fig. 12A. Gao, Fig. 12A aligns with the disclosure of [0080], by showing the color imager and monochrome imager being exposed with the illumination of 1204 a and 1204 b, and the color imager lingering onwards for 150 more μs during the green illumination window. As such, the requirements of “a synchronized photographing time point with the barcode information obtainer” are met, even if the “barcode information obtainer” is not being employed to analyze a barcode in this specific operation.
PNG
media_image1.png
235
711
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As such, it naturally follows that Ichikawa would not render Gao inoperative. The operation of Fig. 12A could predictably benefit from a single signal for the reasons outlined in the NFOA.
It is further understood that the operation of Fig. 12A is not confined to a separate embodiment of Gao, but rather a usage of the same “barcode information obtainer” for a different task. This is explicitly made clear in the structure of claim 15, which recites the same monochrome imager being used for both barcode reading and stereo 3D image generation.
Applicant next argues that Gao’s barcode-reading illumination and its image-recognition illumination are mutually exclusive. The examiner once again concedes that this is true in certain operations, but reaffirms that simultaneous barcode-reading and color image capture is not explicitly within the language of the claims. As such, it is sufficient that the barcode information obtainer has a synchronized photographing time point with the image information obtainer in another operation.
Applicant further argues that Ichikawa works “precisely because its two imaging devices capture the same commodity under a single, common illumination scheme”. The examiner cites Fig. 12A to show a similar common illumination scheme outlined. Once again, a synchronized moment of barcode reading and image capture is not within the explicit language of the claims.
Applicant’s final argument follows the same lines. It is not a requirement that the exposures of Fig. 12A be standards-compliant for barcode reading. In response to applicant's arguments against Gao individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). To the extent Gao’s teaching is insufficient on the limitation cited, the examiner cites the relevant portions of Ichikawa provided in the NFOA as well as the motivation to combine. A person of ordinary skill in the art possesses reasonable creativity, and could use a certain signal with respect to one mode of operation (which benefits from alignment), and separate signals for other modes of operations. “A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton”, KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007).
Accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 is maintained. Claim 10 cites a parallel method, for which the analysis presented above remains applicable. As such, the rejection of claim 10 is maintained. Applicant further argues that claims depending from claim 1 are allowable by virtue of their dependence on claim 1. For the reasons presented above, the rejection of claim 1 is maintained, and the argument is therefore unpersuasive. The rejection of claims 2-9 is maintained.
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 1-2, 6, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao (US 20210216729 A1) (Hereinafter, “Gao”) in view of Ichikawa (US 20230316011 A1) (Hereinafter, “Ichikawa”)
With respect to claim 1, Gao teaches:
A camera comprised in a logistics control system (Fig. 1, 102; [0050] “With regard to Fig. 5, an illustration of an illustrative hybrid 3D camera 500 including a monochrome imager 502 and color imager 504 is shown”), the camera comprising:
a barcode information obtainer configured to capture an image of a barcode of an article, Fig. 3, 302)
an image information obtainer configured in one housing with the barcode information obtainer (Fig. 3, 304; Fig. 1, 102; [0031] “In an embodiment, a reader head 102 may include a pair of imagers, including a monochrome imager and a color imager (see FIG. 2A)”) and configured to obtain image information of the article by capturing an image of the article and be simultaneously triggered (Fig. 12A, showing synchronized exposure intervals; [0080])
each of the barcode information obtainer respectively corresponding to each of the image information obtainer in the one housing (Fig. 1, 102; [0031])
the barcode information obtainer having better capability to recognize barcode information of the barcode in comparison to the barcode information obtainer’s corresponding image information obtainer (Fig. 3, 302; [0063] “During the barcode reading mode 802 a, a red illumination signal used to illuminate a machine-readable indicia (e.g., barcode) may illuminate a scene for a monochrome imager, such as shown in FIG. 7, to capture an image the red illuminated machine-readable indicia.”; [0082] “FIG. 12C provides a control signal process 1200 c for color image output on-demand with only red for barcode and digital watermark reading. In this process 1200 c, rather than the monochrome imager being periodically exposed to the scene with red and blue illumination signals, the monochrome imager captures the scene with only red illumination signals. The color imager is exposed in an on-demand manner as was performed in FIG. 12B.”; [0063] “During the barcode reading mode 802 a, a red illumination signal used to illuminate a machine-readable indicia (e.g., barcode) may illuminate a scene for a monochrome imager, such as shown in FIG. 7, to capture an image the red illuminated machine-readable indicia.”; [0036]; noting in general that monochrome cameras are considered superior for barcode decoding tasks, as admitted by [0005] of the claimed invention’s specification, “there is a problem in that image-based barcode readers are unable to distinguish between colors of articles or cargoes because monochrome image sensors are used to improve recognition accuracy”)
a processor configured to monitor the article based on the barcode information and the image information ([0048] “The computing device 418 may further be in communication with a point-of-sale host computer 422 so as to provide produce and/or item recognition information, such as name(s), identifier(s), and/or other information for the POS host computer 422 to add to a purchase and/or present to an operator or user for selection.”)
Gao does not explicitly teach:
which is attached to an article
by one signal
However, Ichikawa, in the same field of endeavor of bar code scanning, teaches:
which is attached to an article ([0003]; [0017])
by one signal ([0035] “The synchronizing signal output circuit 164 is a circuit for repeatedly outputting a synchronizing signal in fixed cycles. The synchronizing signal is commonly output to the first imaging device 161, second imaging device 162 and illumination device 163. The first imaging device 161 and second imaging device 162 execute imaging operations for a predetermined time in synchronism with the synchronizing signal”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Gao to include the limitations of barcodes which are attached to articles. Doing so would have the advantage of imaging barcodes not only in isolation, but in conjunction with articles. The systems readily integrate, as under Fig. 1 of Gao, a person of ordinary skill in the art could reasonably expect the scanner 102 to also be capable of scanning a barcode attached on the lettuce 106, even if not explicitly stated.
It would have further been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Gao to include the limitations of single signal synchronization, as taught by Ichikawa. Doing so would have the advantage of reducing phase misalignment and increasing reliability. The systems readily integrate, as Gao also seeks to synchronize its modalities, and Ichikawa offers an alternate means for achieving the same.
With respect to claim 2, Gao and Ichikawa teach the camera of claim 1.
Gao and Ichikawa further teach:
wherein the barcode information obtainer and the image information obtainer capture the article in a common field of view (FOV) area, (Gao, Fig. 3)
the common FOV area is formed as a common area of a first capturing area captured by the barcode information obtainer and a second capture area captured by the image information obtainer (Gao, Fig. 3)
PNG
media_image2.png
869
619
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 6, Gao and Ichikawa teach the camera of claim 2
Gao and Ichikawa further teach:
wherein the barcode information obtainer comprises a mono sensor (Gao, Fig. 3, “Monochrome imager” 302; [0039]), the image information obtainer comprises a color sensor (Gao, Fig. 3, “Color imager” 304; [0039]), and the image information obtainer obtains color information of the article (Gao, [0039])
With respect to claim 10, the claim recites the language of claim 1 as a method of controlling a camera in a logistics system. Gao and Ichikawa teach the same (Gao, [0105] “Additionally, the operations of a method or algorithm may reside as one or any combination or set of codes and/or instructions on a non-transitory processor-readable medium and/or computer-readable medium, which may be incorporated into a computer program product.”; Ichikawa, [0002]). Accordingly, the claim is rejected in line with the analysis above.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao and Ichikawa in view of Starson et. al (US 20210365687 A1) (Hereinafter, “Starson”)
With respect to claim 3, Gao and Ichikawa teach the camera of claim 2.
Gao and Ichikawa further teach:
wherein the barcode information obtainer and the image information obtainer are Gao, Fig. 12A; Gao, [0080]; Ichikawa, [0035])
Gao and Ichikawa do not explicitly teach:
are included in one system-on-chip (SoC)
However, Starson, in the same field of endeavor of barcode scanning, teaches:
are included in one system-on-chip (SoC) (Fig. 11; Fig. 20; [0150] “For example, the processor may 2002 may include one or more of…a system-on-chip (SoC)”; [0151] “The memory 2008 stores machine-readable instructions 2012 that, when executed by the processor 2002 (and the co-processor 2003, when present), control the food-recognition system 2000 to implement the functionality and methods described above.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Gao and Ichikawa to include the limitations of SoC processing, as taught by Starson. Doing so would have the advantage of consolidating computation to a single component, for synchronization efficiency and lower production cost. The systems readily integrate. While Starson doesn’t explicitly include two synchronized imagers with two capturing areas, it includes two separate image and barcode processing modalities nonetheless that are executed in parallel (Fig. 11). Starson also operates in the context of smartphones as well ([0003]), which normally use an array of synchronized cameras with different capturing areas (some of which being better suited to scanning barcodes due to optical characteristics, such as focal length, etc). See Molgaard et. al (US 20160007008 A1), [0052]; [0129]; [0139]. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a system which uses separate imagers could also benefit from the usage of a SoC, for the same advantages of computational efficiency and ease of synchronization.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao and Ichikawa in view of Bachelder et. al (US 20200034591 A1) (Hereinafter, “Bachelder”)
With respect to claim 4, Gao and Ichikawa teach the camera of claim 2
Gao and Ichikawa do not explicitly teach:
a liquid lens
However, Bachelder, in the same field of endeavor of barcode scanning, teaches:
a liquid lens ([0008] “The variable lens can comprise a high-speed liquid lens”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Gao and Ichikawa, to include the limitations of liquid lens imaging, as taught by Bachelder. Doing so would have the advantage of adaptability for varying working distances. The systems readily integrate, as Bachelder represents a more specific qualification of the cameras Gao and Ichikawa already possess.
Claims 5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao and Ichikawa in view of Olmstead et. al (US 20140291400 A1) (Hereinafter, “Olmstead”)
With respect to claim 5, Gao and Ichikawa teach the camera of claim 2.
Gao and Ichikawa do not explicitly teach:
wherein a horizontal or vertical width of the common FOV area is equal to or greater than a width of a conveyor belt
However, Olmstead, in the same field of endeavor of barcode scanning, teaches:
wherein a horizontal or vertical width of the common FOV area is equal to or greater than a width of a conveyor belt (Fig. 1; Fig. 32. The examiner interprets the art as reading on the “equal to” option of the claim)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Gao and Ichikawa to include the limitations of conveyor belt field of view capturing, as taught by Olmstead. Doing so has the advantage of ensuring the complete area in which objects may appear, is scanned. The systems readily integrate, as like Gao and Ichikawa, Olmstead features multiple imagers which are capable of possessing different modalities ([0073] “The scanner 100 includes a front arch section 110 and a rear arch section 120. Though there may be some differences in the internal optical components housed within the arch sections, the external arch sections are preferably identical configurations”)
With respect to claim 9, Gao and Ichikawa teach the camera of claim 1.
Gao and Ichikawa do not explicitly teach:
a light-emitting diode (LED) arranged on one side of the housing
However, Olmstead teaches:
a light-emitting diode (LED) arranged on one side of the housing ([0106] “FIG. 36 is a diagrammatic cross-section (on an enlarged scale) of the rear arch top section 126 with the illumination set 540 comprised of the LEDs 542, 544, 546. LED 542 generates an illumination region or cone 543; LED 544 produces an illumination region or cone 545; and LED 546 produces an illumination region or cone 547”; Fig. 3; Fig. 36)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Gao and Ichikawa to include the limitations of LEDs, as taught by Olmstead. Doing so has the advantage of illuminating the scene for imaging. The systems readily integrate, as Gao also discloses an LED device used in a similar manner ([0050] “Color illumination devices (e.g., LEDs) 506 a-506 j (collectively 506) may be disposed in proximate location to the monochrome imager 502”).
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao, Ichikawa, and Olmstead in view of Bean et. al (US 20230214758 A1) (Hereinafter, “Bean”)
With respect to claim 7, Gao, Ichikawa, and Olmstead teach the camera of claim 6.
Gao, Ichikawa, and Olmstead further teach:
wherein the processor is further configured to generate article status information by inserting the barcode information of the article Gao, [0048] “The computing device 418 may further be in communication with a point-of-sale host computer 422 so as to provide produce and/or item recognition information, such as name(s), identifier(s), and/or other information for the POS host computer 422 to add to a purchase and/or present to an operator or user for selection.”; Olmstead, [0136] discussing generation of correlated barcode information) and map the barcode information of the article with the color information of the article based on the article status information (Olmstead, [0136] “Successfully correlated barcode information as well as exception data is then transmitted to the POS host. Exception data corresponds to any number of events when the object models and decode packets indicate that an error may have occurred. Examples of exceptions include, but are not limited to: (a) more than one barcode is correlated with an object; and (2) no barcode is correlated with an object model; (3) a barcode is read but is not correlated with an object model.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Gao and Ichikawa to include the limitations of barcode and object mapping, as taught by Olmstead. Doing so has the advantage of improved object monitoring through an organized system of data processing that considers both color-object information as well as barcode information. The systems readily integrate, as Gao also envisions a system where, more broadly, items are associated and monitored based on a combination of barcode and color object information sent to a POS host.
Gao, Ichikawa, and Olmstead do not explicitly teach:
into a metadata area
However, Bean, in the same field of endeavor of barcode scanning, teaches:
into a metadata area ([0166] “As such, it is to be understood that the metadata in which read barcodes have been included together with stored images, can be stored so as to form a relational database wherein read barcodes are linked to the specific image from which they were read, and other meta-data, such as, for example, the time the image was captured”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing data of the claimed invention, to modify Gao, Ichikawa and Olmstead to include the limitations of metadata storage, as taught by Bean. Doing so provides a specific means of consolidating information for rapid retrieval. The systems readily integrate, as Olmstead [0136] describes operations which are capable of taking place in the same space.
With respect to claim 8, Gao, Ichikawa, Olmstead, and Bean teach the camera of claim 7.
Gao, Ichikawa, Olmstead, and Bean further teach:
wherein the processor is further configured to check a status of the article or a position of the article based on the barcode information of the article and the color information of the article (Olmstead, [0136] “(a) more than one barcode is correlated with an article”)
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 NOAH WILLIAM BOYAR whose telephone number is 571-272- 8392. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 AM – 6:00 PM EST, Monday – Friday. 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, Chan Park can be reached at 571-272-7409. 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.
/NOAH W BOYAR/
Examiner, Art Unit 2669
/CHAN S PARK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2669
Prosecution Insights