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
Applicant’s response and amendment dated 12/3/25 are acknowledged and entered. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1-6 and 11-20 are withdrawn from consideration.1 Claims 7-10 are under examination.
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 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McAllister (US 2017/0185954, previously cited)2 in view of Cramer, et al. (US 2013/0201470, herein Cramer).3 Regarding claim 7, McAllister teaches a radio frequency identification (RFID) scanning system, comprising: a RFID reader (paragraph 0040); a camera (paragraph 0085); and a gimbal connecting the RFID reader to the camera to stabilize the camera irrespective of movement of the RFID reader about one or more axes (paragraph 0087). McAllister does not explicitly teach maintaining a relative orientation of an optical axis of the camera to a scanning plane of the RFID reader. Cramer teaches maintaining a relative orientation of an optical axis of the camera to a scanning plane of the RFID reader (paragraph 0084). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to combine the teachings of McAllister and Cramer, because such a combination prevents errors in the reading (paragraph 0009 of Cramer). Regarding claim 8, McAllister further teaches the RFID reader includes a linear polarized RFID antenna to emit a scanning beam in a scanning plane (paragraph 0040). Regarding claim 9, McAllister further teaches the gimbal extends from the RFID reader along a gimbal axis to offset the camera from the scanning plane (see Fig. 8). Regarding claim 10, McAllister further teaches an optical axis of the camera is parallel to the scanning plane (see Fig. 8). McAllister does not explicitly teach maintaining an optical axis when the RFID reader moves from a first rotational orientation to a second rotational orientation. Cramer teaches maintaining an optical axis when the RFID reader moves from a first rotational orientation to a second rotational orientation (paragraph 0084). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to combine the teachings of McAllister and Cramer, because such a combination prevents errors in the reading (paragraph 0009 of Cramer).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 7-10 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. New reference Cramer has been used to teach the newly added limitations. See above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW MIKELS whose telephone number is (571)270-5470. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 7:00 AM ET - 4:30 PM ET, Friday 7:00 AM ET - 11:00 AM ET, the Examiner is on central time.4
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, Michael G Lee can be reached at 571-272-2398. 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.
/MATTHEW MIKELS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
1 Applicant is reminded of rejoinder procedure as outlined in MPEP § 821.04. Rejoinder will be considered when appropriate.
2 This reference was erroneously referred to as “Clarke” in the previous Office Action.
3 In addition to the cited portions of each reference, please see also the associated figures.
4 The Examiner can also be reached at matthew.mikels@uspto.gov.
Prosecution Insights