CTNF 18/822,456 CTNF 97705 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. This communication is in response to the Application No. 18/822,456 filed 09/02/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 10/09/2025 have been entered and considered. Initialed copies of the PTO-1449 by the examiner are attached. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. 07-30-05 The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Claims 17-20 recite limitations that use words like “means” (or “step”) or similar terms with functional language and do invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f): Claim 17; recites the limitation, “ a packaging device configured to …… , ” Claim 17; recites the limitation, “ a printing device configured to …… , ” Claim 17; recites the limitation, “ a labeling device ... configured to …… , ” Claim 17; recites the limitation, “ an image capturing device configured to …… , ” Claim(s) 17-20; recites the limitation, “ a server configured to …… , ” Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. After a careful analysis, as disclosed above, and a careful review of the specification the following limitations in claims 17-20 : “Packaging device” (Fig. 1, #110, ¶ [0040] “In some embodiments, the packaging device 110 may be auto-packing system (APK) or other suitable device. The present disclosure is not intended to limit the type of the packaging device 110”. thus, have sufficient structure or material wherein packaging device may be an auto-packing system ). “Printing device” (Fig. 1, #120, ¶ [0041] “In some embodiments, the printing device 120 may be barcode printer, label printer or other suitable device. The present disclosure is not intended to limit the type of the printing device 120”. thus, have sufficient structure or material wherein printing device may be barcode printer, label printer, etc. ). “Labeling device” (Fig. 1, #130, ¶ [0042] “In some embodiments, the labelling device 130 may be automatic labelling machine or other suitable device. The present disclosure is not intended to limit the type of the labelling device 130”. thus, have sufficient structure or material wherein labeling device may be automatic labeling machine ). “Image capturing device” (Fig. 1, #140, ¶ [0043] “In some embodiments, the image capturing device 140 may be camera or other suitable device. The present disclosure is not intended to limit the type of the image capturing device 140.”. thus, have sufficient structure or material wherein image capturing device may be any kind of camera ). “Server” (Fig. 1, #150, ¶ [0044] “In some embodiments, the server 150 may be artificial intelligence (AI) module at least with the functions of deep learning, image recognition, object detection, or the like. The present disclosure is not intended to limit the type of the server 150.”. thus, have sufficient structure or material wherein server may be an AI module such as deep learning ). If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-7, 9-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cassett (“Radio frequency identification (RFID) applications in semiconductor manufacturing”, 2004) in view of Bauer et al. (US 20190392272 A1) in view of Mei et al. (CN 115108069 A) in view of Learmonth et al. (US 20110303746 A1) and in further view of Arthanari et al. (US 20190392272 A1) . Regarding claim 1, Cassett teaches a method of monitoring a packaging process, comprising: placing a material into a material box (“wafer is stored within the FOUP or FOSB before it is ready for additional processing prior to singulation” Cassett, pg. 46; wherein the material is the wafer and the material box is a FOUP or FOSB, “a plastic case called a front opening unified pod, (FOUP), or front opening shipping box (FOSB)” Cassett, pg. 45-46) ; packaging the material box by a barrier bag (“many semiconductor manufacturers use vacuum-sealed metallized Mylar bags for both anti-static and anti-humidity protection” Cassett, pg. 53) . Cassett fails to explicitly teach printing a barcode on a first tag and a second tag. However, Bauer teaches printing a barcode on a first tag and a second tag (“print press 102 can print variable data such as a unique barcode, pricing information or other details relating to the goods or products for which the tag will be associated, onto the sheet of which will be use to create the tags or labels that can link printer image” Bauer, [0027]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Cassett and Bauer before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation for this combination of references would have been to print barcodes with identification numbers, pricings, store location and other information as required by a manufacturer or retailer to track and/or sell products (Bauer, [0003], [0023]). This motivation for the combination of Cassett and Bauer is supported by KSR exemplary rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141 (III). Cassett in view of Bauer fail to explicitly teach posting the first tag on the material box and posting the second tag on the barrier bag. However, Mei teaches posting the first tag on the material box (“affixing the packaging box label on the packaging box” Mei abstract, wherein the labels are attached to each packaging part (i.e., box and bag, respectively), see Mei bottom of pg. 3 and claim 19 “sequentially package and label attachment through the first packaging part, the second packaging part”; “attaching a packaging bag label to the packaging bag”) ; posting the second tag on the barrier bag (“affixing the packaging box label on the packaging box” Mei abstract, wherein the labels are attached to each packaging part (i.e., box and bag, respectively), see Mei bottom of pg. 3 and claim 19 “sequentially package and label attachment through the first packaging part, the second packaging part”; “attaching a packaging bag label to the packaging bag”) ; Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Cassett, Bauer and Mei before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation for this combination of references would have been to provide an inner bag automation device to reduce labor and working hours by sequentially package and labeling inner bags while reducing inside label errors (Mei, bottom of pg. 3). This motivation for the combination of Cassett, Bauer and Mei is supported by KSR exemplary rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141 (III). Cassett in view of Bauer in view of Mei fail to explicitly teach capturing a first image of the first tag including the barcode; capturing a second image of the second tag including the barcode; and identifying the first image and the second image. However, Learmonth teaches capturing a first image of the first tag including the barcode (“tags are laid out in a shape (e.g., a circle, a square, etc.) or pattern (e.g., checkerboard, bar code, etc.) that is detectable using an imaging device” Learmonth, [0020]) ; capturing a second image of the second tag including the barcode (“tags are laid out in a shape (e.g., a circle, a square, etc.) or pattern (e.g., checkerboard, bar code, etc.) that is detectable using an imaging device” Learmonth, [0020]) ; identifying the first image and the second image (“The package includes one or more items each with one or more selected tag identifiers that are placed in a location on the item... the location and/or shape of the tag identifiers on the item as detected using an imager” Learmonth, [0016]) ; Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Cassett, Bauer, Mei and Learmonth before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation for this combination of references would have been to be able to confidently identify the underlying item without revealing the true identity in packages (Learmonth, [0006]). This motivation for the combination of Cassett, Bauer, Mei, and Learmonth is supported by KSR exemplary rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141 (III). Cassett in view of Bauer in view of Mei in view of Learmonth fail to explicitly teach issuing an alarm if at least one of the first image and the second image is identified as unreadable. However, Arthanari teaches issuing an alarm if at least one of the first image and the second image is identified as unreadable (“the barcode reader may indicate the status notification and/or an alert regarding a particular printer status” Arthanari, [0049]; wherein the printer status indicates an anomaly detection of barcodes, “Types of printing anomalies may include a barcode degradation associated with a light print or faded print, barcode distortion, barcode damage associated with broken bars or lines of a barcode, quiet zone violations, low contrast barcodes, print/mark inconsistency, grid non-uniformity, axial non-uniformity, and/or a poor or low barcode grade (e.g., a barcode grade that is below a certain threshold associated with a standard)” Arthanari, [0030]) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Cassett, Bauer, Mei, Learmonth and Arthanari before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation for this combination of references would have been to ensure that a printer is capable of printing a barcode and avoid printing barcodes that cannot be decoded (Arthanari, [0001]). This motivation for the combination of Cassett, Bauer, Mei, Learmonth and Arthanari is supported by KSR exemplary rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141 (III). Regarding claim 2, Cassett, Bauer, Mei, Learmonth and Arthanari teach the method of claim 1, Arthanari further teaches wherein identifying the first image and the second image further comprises: identifying whether the first image and the second image conform to a reference text (“The image data may be associated with reference images that depict barcodes relating to certain printing anomalies... Types of printing anomalies may include a barcode degradation associated with a light print or faded print, barcode distortion, barcode damage associated with broken bars or lines of a barcode, quiet zone violations, low contrast barcodes, print/mark inconsistency, grid non-uniformity, axial non-uniformity, and/or a poor or low barcode grade (e.g., a barcode grade that is below a certain threshold associated with a standard)” Arthanari, [0030]; wherein a print includes text/numerical reference degradations) ; identifying whether the first image and the second image conform to a reference format (“printer management system may train the machine learning model based on the reference data associated with historical read operations (e.g., reference images and/or corresponding reference decoding metric information). In some implementations, the anomaly detection model may be trained to identify (e.g., using a computer vision model) patterns” Arthanari, [0033]; wherein formats are associated with a pattern to indicate an anomaly in the image(s)) ; and determining whether a clarity of the first image and a clarity of the second image are greater than a clarity of a reference image (“The image data may be associated with reference images that depict barcodes relating to certain printing anomalies... Types of printing anomalies may include a barcode degradation associated with a light print or faded print, barcode distortion, barcode damage associated with broken bars or lines of a barcode, quiet zone violations, low contrast barcodes, print/mark inconsistency, grid non-uniformity, axial non-uniformity, and/or a poor or low barcode grade (e.g., a barcode grade that is below a certain threshold associated with a standard)” Arthanari, [0030]) . Therefore, combining Cassett, Bauer, Mei, Learmonth and Arthanari would meet the claim limitations for the same reasons as previously discussed in claim 1. Regarding claim 3, Cassett, Bauer, Mei, Learmonth and Arthanari teach the method of claim 2, Arthanari further teaches wherein issuing the alarm if at least one of the first image and the second image is identified as unreadable further comprises at least one of: determining the material box corresponded to the first image and the second image is an error product and issuing the alarm if at least one of the first image and the second image does not conform to the reference text; determining the material box corresponded to the first image and the second image is the error product and issuing the alarm if at least one of the first image and the second image does not conform to the reference format; and determining the material box corresponded to the first image and the second image is the error product and issuing the alarm if at least one of the clarity of the first image and the clarity of the second image is greater than the clarity of the reference image (“The image data may be associated with reference images that depict barcodes relating to certain printing anomalies... Types of printing anomalies may include a barcode degradation associated with a light print or faded print, barcode distortion, barcode damage associated with broken bars or lines of a barcode, quiet zone violations, low contrast barcodes, print/mark inconsistency, grid non-uniformity, axial non-uniformity, and/or a poor or low barcode grade (e.g., a barcode grade that is below a certain threshold associated with a standard)” Arthanari, [0030]) . Therefore, combining Cassett, Bauer, Mei, Learmonth and Arthanari would meet the claim limitations for the same reasons as previously discussed in claim 1. Regarding claim 4, Cassett, Bauer, Mei, Learmonth and Arthanari teach the method of claim 1, Arthanari further teaches wherein identifying the first image and the second image further comprises: identifying whether the barcode of the first image and the barcode of the second image is readable (“The image data may be associated with reference images that depict barcodes relating to certain printing anomalies... Types of printing anomalies may include a barcode degradation associated with a light print or faded print, barcode distortion, barcode damage associated with broken bars or lines of a barcode, quiet zone violations, low contrast barcodes, print/mark inconsistency, grid non-uniformity, axial non-uniformity, and/or a poor or low barcode grade (e.g., a barcode grade that is below a certain threshold associated with a standard)” Arthanari, [0030]) . Therefore, combining Cassett, Bauer, Mei, Learmonth and Arthanari would meet the claim limitations for the same reasons as previously discussed in claim 1. Regarding claim 5, Cassett, Bauer, Mei, Learmonth and Arthanari teach the method of claim 1, Mei further teaches wherein capturing the first image of the first tag including the barcode is performed before posting the second tag on the barrier bag (“the second package part 102 comprises a second label detection means 1028. The second label detection device 1028 detects the label of the packing box attached to the packing box and the label of the packing bag attached to the packing bag before the packing box is placed in the packing bag by the first placement device 1026” Mei, pg. 7 ¶7) . Therefore, combining Cassett, Bauer, Mei, Learmonth and Arthanari would meet the claim limitations for the same reasons as previously discussed in claim 1. Regarding claim 6, Cassett, Bauer, Mei, Learmonth and Arthanari teach the method of claim 1, Mei further teaches wherein capturing the second image of the second tag including the barcode is performed after capturing the first image of the first tag including the barcode (“the second package part 102 comprises a second label detection means 1028. The second label detection device 1028 detects the label of the packing box attached to the packing box and the label of the packing bag attached to the packing bag before the packing box is placed in the packing bag by the first placement device 1026. The second label detection device 1028 scans the label of the packaging box and the label of the packaging bag” Mei, pg. 7 ¶7) . Therefore, combining Cassett, Bauer, Mei, Learmonth and Arthanari would meet the claim limitations for the same reasons as previously discussed in claim 1. Regarding claim 7, Cassett, Bauer, Mei, Learmonth and Arthanari teach the method of claim 1, Mei further teaches wherein capturing the first image of the first tag including the barcode is performed before packaging the material box by the barrier bag (“the second package part 102 comprises a second label detection means 1028. The second label detection device 1028 detects the label of the packing box attached to the packing box and the label of the packing bag attached to the packing bag before the packing box is placed in the packing bag by the first placement device 1026. The second label detection device 1028 scans the label of the packaging box and the label of the packaging bag” Mei, pg. 7 ¶7) . Therefore, combining Cassett, Bauer, Mei, Learmonth and Arthanari would meet the claim limitations for the same reasons as previously discussed in claim 1. Regarding claim 9, Cassett, Bauer, Mei, Learmonth and Arthanari teach a method of monitoring packaging process, Cassett further teaches placing a material into a material box (“wafer is stored within the FOUP or FOSB before it is ready for additional processing prior to singulation” Cassett, pg. 46; wherein the material is the wafer and the material box is a FOUP or FOSB, “a plastic case called a front opening unified pod, (FOUP), or front opening shipping box (FOSB)” Cassett, pg. 45-46) ; packaging the material box by a barrier bag (“many semiconductor manufacturers use vacuum-sealed metallized Mylar bags for both anti-static and anti-humidity protection” Cassett, pg. 53) ; Cassett fails to explicitly teach posting a blank RFID tag on the material box. However, Bauer teaches posting a blank RFID tag on the material box (“a RFID chip, that is contained in an inlay which may or may not be incorporated into a label, tag, or any other desired product, and which can also print onto the product without damaging or otherwise undesirably affecting the RFID device. The inlay may also be affixed directly to the product without necessarily being incorporated into a label or tag, such as through use of an adhesive to affix the inlay to the product” Baeur, [0022]; wherein the product may be a box). Therefore, combining Cassett and Bauer would meet the claim limitations for the same reasons as previously discussed in claim 1. Cassett in view of Bauer fail to explicitly teach posting a first tag and a second tag on the material box and the barrier bag, respectively. However, Mei teaches posting a first tag and a second tag on the material box and the barrier bag, respectively (“the second package part 102 comprises a second label detection means 1028. The second label detection device 1028 detects the label of the packing box attached to the packing box and the label of the packing bag attached to the packing bag before the packing box is placed in the packing bag by the first placement device 1026. The second label detection device 1028 scans the label of the packaging box and the label of the packaging bag” Mei, pg. 7 ¶7; “ affixing the packaging box label on the packaging box” Mei abstract, wherein the labels are attached to each packaging part (i.e., box and bag, respectively), see Mei bottom of pg. 3 and claim 19 “sequentially package and label attachment through the first packaging part, the second packaging part”; “attaching a packaging bag label to the packaging bag”). Therefore, combining Cassett, Bauer and Mei would meet the claim limitations for the same reasons as previously discussed in claim 1. Cassett in view of Bauer in view of Mei fail to explicitly teach capturing a first image of the first tag including a barcode and a second image of the second tag including the barcode; and identifying the first image and the second image. However, Learmonth teaches capturing a first image of the first tag including a barcode and a second image of the second tag including the barcode (“tags are laid out in a shape (e.g., a circle, a square, etc.) or pattern (e.g., checkerboard, bar code, etc.) that is detectable using an imaging device” Learmonth, [0020]); identifying the first image and the second image (“The package includes one or more items each with one or more selected tag identifiers that are placed in a location on the item... the location and/or shape of the tag identifiers on the item as detected using an imager” Learmonth, [0016]) Therefore, combining Cassett, Bauer, Mei, and Learmonth would meet the claim limitations for the same reasons as previously discussed in claim 1. Cassett in view of Bauer in view of Mei in view of Learmonth fail to explicitly teach issuing an alarm if at least one of the first image and the second image is identified as unreadable. However, Arthanari teaches issuing an alarm if at least one of the first image and the second image is identified as unreadable (“the barcode reader may indicate the status notification and/or an alert regarding a particular printer status” Arthanari, [0049]; wherein the printer status indicates an anomaly detection of barcodes, “Types of printing anomalies may include a barcode degradation associated with a light print or faded print, barcode distortion, barcode damage associated with broken bars or lines of a barcode, quiet zone violations, low contrast barcodes, print/mark inconsistency, grid non-uniformity, axial non-uniformity, and/or a poor or low barcode grade (e.g., a barcode grade that is below a certain threshold associated with a standard)” Arthanari, [0030]) . Therefore, combining Cassett, Bauer, Mei, Learmonth and Arthanari would meet the claim limitations for the same reasons as previously discussed in claim 1. Claim 10 is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 2, as claim 2 is a mirror copy of claim 10. Claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 3, as claim 3 is a mirror copy of claim 11. Claim 12 is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 4, as claim 4 is a mirror copy of claim 12. Claim 13 is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 5, as claim 5 is a mirror copy of claim 13. Claim 14 is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 6, as claim 6 is a mirror copy of claim 14. Claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 7, as claim 7 is a mirror copy of claim 15. Regarding claim 17, Cassett, Bauer, Mei, Learmonth and Arthanari teach a packaging process monitoring system, Cassett further teaches a packaging device configured to package a material box (“wafer is stored within the FOUP or FOSB before it is ready for additional processing prior to singulation” Cassett, pg. 46; wherein the material is the wafer and the material box is a FOUP or FOSB, “a plastic case called a front opening unified pod, (FOUP), or front opening shipping box (FOSB)” Cassett, pg. 45-46) by a barrier bag (“many semiconductor manufacturers use vacuum-sealed metallized Mylar bags for both anti-static and anti-humidity protection” Cassett, pg. 53) Cassett fails to explicitly teach a printing device configured to print a barcode on a first tag and a second tag. However, Bauer teaches a printing device configured to print a barcode on a first tag and a second tag (“print press 102 can print variable data such as a unique barcode, pricing information or other details relating to the goods or products for which the tag will be associated, onto the sheet of which will be use to create the tags or labels that can link printer image” Bauer, [0027]; [0022]) Therefore, combining Cassett and Bauer would meet the claim limitations for the same reasons as previously discussed in claim 1. Cassett in view of Bauer fail to explicitly teach a labelling device connected to the packaging device and the printing device and configured to post the first tag and the second tag on the material box and the barrier bag, respectively. However, Mei teaches a labelling device connected to the packaging device and the printing device and configured to post the first tag and the second tag on the material box and the barrier bag, respectively (“the second package part 102 comprises a second label detection means 1028. The second label detection device 1028 detects the label of the packing box attached to the packing box and the label of the packing bag attached to the packing bag before the packing box is placed in the packing bag by the first placement device 1026. The second label detection device 1028 scans the label of the packaging box and the label of the packaging bag” Mei, pg. 7 ¶7; “ affixing the packaging box label on the packaging box” Mei abstract, wherein the labels are attached to each packaging part (i.e., box and bag, respectively), see Mei bottom of pg. 3 and claim 19 “sequentially package and label attachment through the first packaging part, the second packaging part”; “attaching a packaging bag label to the packaging bag”) Therefore, combining Cassett, Bauer and Mei would meet the claim limitations for the same reasons as previously discussed in claim 1. Cassett in view of Bauer in view of Mei fail to explicitly teach an image capturing device configured to capture a first image of the first tag including the barcode and a second image of the second tag including the barcode; and identify the first image and the second image. However, Learmonth teaches an image capturing device configured to capture a first image of the first tag including the barcode and a second image of the second tag including the barcode (“tags are laid out in a shape (e.g., a circle, a square, etc.) or pattern (e.g., checkerboard, bar code, etc.) that is detectable using an imaging device” Learmonth, [0020]) ; identify the first image and the second image (“The package includes one or more items each with one or more selected tag identifiers that are placed in a location on the item... the location and/or shape of the tag identifiers on the item as detected using an imager” Learmonth, [0016]). Therefore, combining Cassett, Bauer, Mei, and Learmonth would meet the claim limitations for the same reasons as previously discussed in claim 1. Cassett in view of Bauer in view of Mei in view of Learmonth fail to explicitly teach a server electrically and communicatively connected to the packaging device, the printing device, the labelling device, and the image capturing device; and issue an alarm if at least one of the first image and the second image is identified as unreadable. However, Arthanari teaches a server electrically and communicatively connected to the packaging device, the printing device, the labelling device, and the image capturing device, wherein the server is configured to (“The machine learning system may include or may be included in a computing device, a server, a cloud computing environment, or the like, such as a barcode reader and/or a printer management system” Arthanari, [0058]; see additionally, [0076]-[0077]); issue an alarm if at least one of the first image and the second image is identified as unreadable (“the barcode reader may indicate the status notification and/or an alert regarding a particular printer status” Arthanari, [0049]; wherein the printer status indicates an anomaly detection of barcodes, “Types of printing anomalies may include a barcode degradation associated with a light print or faded print, barcode distortion, barcode damage associated with broken bars or lines of a barcode, quiet zone violations, low contrast barcodes, print/mark inconsistency, grid non-uniformity, axial non-uniformity, and/or a poor or low barcode grade (e.g., a barcode grade that is below a certain threshold associated with a standard)” Arthanari, [0030]) . Therefore, combining Cassett, Bauer, Mei, Learmonth and Arthanari would meet the claim limitations for the same reasons as previously discussed in claim 1. Regarding claim 18, Cassett, Bauer, Mei, Learmonth and Arthanari teach the packaging process monitoring system of claim 17 , Baeur further teaches wherein the labelling device is further configured to: post a blank RFID tag on the material box (“a RFID chip, that is contained in an inlay which may or may not be incorporated into a label, tag, or any other desired product, and which can also print onto the product without damaging or otherwise undesirably affecting the RFID device. The inlay may also be affixed directly to the product without necessarily being incorporated into a label or tag, such as through use of an adhesive to affix the inlay to the product” Baeur, [0022]; wherein the product may be a box) . Therefore, combining Cassett, Bauer, Mei, Learmonth and Arthanari would meet the claim limitations for the same reasons as previously discussed in claim 1. Claim 19 is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 2, as claim 2 is the method claim for the system claimed in claim 19. Claim 20 is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 3, as claim 3 is the method claim for the system claimed in claim 20 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cassett in view of Bauer et al. in view of Mei et al. in view of Learmonth et al. in view of Arthanari et al. and in further view of De la Huerga (US 20080093448 A1, hereafter referred to as “Huerga”) . Regarding claim 8, Cassett, Bauer, Mei, Learmonth and Arthanari teach the method of claim 1, Arthanari further teaches wherein issuing the alarm if at least one of the first image and the second image is identified as unreadable (“the barcode reader may indicate the status notification and/or an alert regarding a particular printer status” Arthanari, [0049]; wherein the printer status indicates an anomaly detection of barcodes, “Types of printing anomalies may include a barcode degradation associated with a light print or faded print, barcode distortion, barcode damage associated with broken bars or lines of a barcode, quiet zone violations, low contrast barcodes, print/mark inconsistency, grid non-uniformity, axial non-uniformity, and/or a poor or low barcode grade (e.g., a barcode grade that is below a certain threshold associated with a standard)” Arthanari, [0030]). Cassett in view of Bauer in view of Mei in view of Learmonth in view of Arthanari fail to explicitly teach sending an error email; and sending an error code of an error product to a server. However, Huerga teaches sending an error email; and sending an error code of an error product to a server (“information not correspond to the label an error can be indicated by the worker or automated checking machine to the verification system” Huerga, [0032] wherein “sending a container code to a verification system, for example by using the Internet or a private network. The verification system may be configured as a single server, multiple servers, or a server(s) for each manufacturer” Huerga, [0030]; wherein an email may be sent using the internet, see [0043]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Cassett, Bauer, Mei, Learmonth, Arthanari and Huerga before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation for this combination of references would have been to verify that a product has been properly distributed and dispensed to a correct location (Huerga, [0003]). This motivation for the combination of Cassett, Bauer, Mei, Learmonth, Arthanari and Huerga is supported by KSR exemplary rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141 (III). Claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 8, as claim 8 is a mirror copy of claim 16 . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kato (US 20250362896 A1) – a label printer that prints an image on a sheet to form a label including text, characters, barcodes, etc. Kumar et al. (US 20200126025 A1) – system for processing objects and identity of an object using comparison of prerecorded data, including packages, boxes and bags. Inquiries Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMMANUEL SILVA-AVINA whose telephone number is (571)270-0729. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 11 AM - 8 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, Chineyere Wills-Burns can be reached at (571) 272-9752. 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. /EMMANUEL SILVA-AVINA/Examiner, Art Unit 2673 /CHINEYERE WILLS-BURNS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2673 Application/Control Number: 18/822,456 Page 2 Art Unit: 2673 Application/Control Number: 18/822,456 Page 3 Art Unit: 2673 Application/Control Number: 18/822,456 Page 4 Art Unit: 2673
Prosecution Insights