FINAL REJECTION
Examiner’s Remarks
Regarding the amendment filed 9/4/2025:
The amendments to claim 1 is acknowledged and accepted.
The cancelation of claims 2, 4-6 and 10 is acknowledged and accepted.
The applicant has failed to present claims 11-13 in the amendment to the claims. However, the applicant’s remarks indicate that claims 10-13 have been canceled. As such, for examination purposes, claims 11-13 will be considered as being canceled. Applicant is advised to present canceled claims 11-13 in the next response, or else a Notice of Non-compliance will be submitted for failure to do so.
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 .
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howard (US 2013/0327831) in view of Shearin et al. (US 2013/0306727).
With respect to claim 1, Howard discloses a barcode reader comprising:
a housing having (i) a lower housing portion (105) with an upper surface facing a product scanning region and a horizontal window (135) and (ii) an upper housing portion 110) extending above the lower housing portion with an upright window (115) ([0020], [0022], Fig. 1, claim 30);
a weigh platter (130) configured to support an object placed on the weigh platter for obtaining a weight of the object ([0020], Fig. 1), the weigh platter having:
a central region extending in a transverse plane, the central region including a platter window (135) configured to permit light to pass therethrough (Fig. 1);
a proximal edge (edge of surface 132 closest to 110) adjacent the upper housing portion (Fig. 1);
a first lateral edge (right edge of 132 in direction of motion 22) extending non-parallel to the proximal edge ([0021], Fig. 1);
a second lateral edge (left edge of 132 in direction of motion 22), opposite the first lateral edge, extending non-parallel to the proximal edge ([0021], Fig. 1);
and a distal edge (edge of surface 132 closest to checkout clerk), opposite the proximal edge, extending non-parallel to the first and second lateral edges (Fig. 1);
a first imaging assembly having a first imaging sensor (imager behind window 115, or imager behind window 135), the first imaging assembly having a first field of view (FOV) directed through at least one of the horizontal window or the upright window ([0022], [0023]); and
a second imaging assembly having a second imaging sensor (imager behind window 160), the second imaging assembly having a second FOV and being positioned near the distal edge of the weigh platter ([0023]),
wherein the weigh platter (130) comprises at least a portion of the second imaging assembly ([0020], [0022], Figs. 1 and 2).
However, Howard fails to expressly disclose the weight platter is removable relative to the housing of the barcode reader ([0056], [0072]).
Shearin et al. teaches it is well known in the art for a weigh platter to be removable relative to the housing of the barcode reader ([0056]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the weigh platter to be removable relative to the housing of the barcode reader, in order to be able to replace the weigh platter should it get damaged.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howard modified by Shearin et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Drzymala (US 2010/0127082).
With respect to claim 3, the modified Howard addresses all the limitations of claim 1, and further discloses the weigh platter comprises a lens of the second imaging assembly and the imaging sensor (Howard: [0022], [0027], [0028], Figs. 1 and 2)
However, the modified Howard fails to expressly disclose an imager circuit board supporting the second imaging sensor, and wherein the lower housing portion comprises a signal processing circuit board communicatively coupled to the imager circuit board and configured to at least partially process second imaging assembly image data.
Drzymala taches it is well known in the art for a barcode reader to have an imager circuit board supporting a second imaging sensor, and wherein a lower housing portion comprises a signal processing circuit board communicatively coupled to the imager circuit board and configured to at least partially process second imaging assembly image data ([0013], [0015]-[0017], [0036], [0065], [0069], claims 4 and 14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an imager circuit board supporting the second imaging sensor, and wherein the lower housing portion comprises a signal processing circuit board communicatively coupled to the imager circuit board and configured to at least partially process second imaging assembly image data, in order to control the imager to produce electrical signals indicative of a barcode being read and process the electrical signals, while allowing an individual image sensor to be replaced if only one of the imagers malfunctions or fails in addition to in addition to allowing the lens of the second imaging assembly to be easily adjust the focusing of the second imaging sensor.
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howard modified by Shearin et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Olmstead et al. (US 2010/0282850).
With respect to claims 8 and 9, the modified Howard addresses all the limitations of claim 1.
However, the modified Howard fails to expressly disclose a third imaging assembly having a third imaging sensor, the third imaging assembly having a third FOV and being positioned near the distal edge of the weigh platter, wherein the second imaging assembly is further positioned near the first lateral edge of the weigh platter, and wherein the third imaging assembly is further positioned near the second lateral edge of the weigh platter.
Olmstead et al. teaches it is well known in the art for a barcode reader to have imaging assemblies at corners of a distal edge of a weigh platter ([0094]-[0096], Fig. 7, claim 27).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a third imaging assembly having a third imaging sensor, the third imaging assembly having a third FOV and being positioned near the distal edge of the weigh platter, such that the second imaging assembly is further positioned near the first lateral edge of the weigh platter, and the third imaging assembly is further positioned near the second lateral edge of the weigh platter, in order to capture an image of the multiple sides of the product or different portions of a same side of the product due to the different FOV of the second and third imaging assemblies at their respective positions.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 3 and 7-9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6, 9-11, 13 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12131218. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they recite substantially similar subject matter (see chart below). The differences between the instant claims and the patented claims do not result in a substantive difference which would modify the scope of the claimed invention. Thus, the claims only contain nominal differences in language which do not render them patentably distinct from the patented claims.
INSTANT CLAIM(S)
PATENTED CLAIM(S)
1. (Currently amended) A barcode reader comprising: a housing having (i) a lower housing portion with an upper surface facing a product scanning region and a substantially horizontal window and (ii) an upper housing portion extending above the lower housing portion with a substantially upright window; a weigh platter configured to support an object placed on the weigh platter for obtaining a weight of the object, the weigh platter having: a central region extending in a transverse plane, the central region including a platter window configured to permit light to pass there through; a proximal edge adjacent the upper housing portion; a first lateral edge extending non-parallel to the proximal edge; a second lateral edge, opposite the first lateral edge, extending non-parallel to the proximal edge; and a distal edge, opposite the proximal edge, extending non-parallel to the first and second lateral edges; a first imaging assembly having a first imaging sensor, the first imaging assembly having a first field of view (FOV) directed through at least one of the substantially horizontal window or the substantially upright window; and a second imaging assembly having a second imaging sensor, the second imaging assembly having a second FOV and being positioned near the distal edge of the weigh platter, wherein the weigh platter comprises at least a portion of the second imaging assembly, and wherein the weigh platter is removable relative to the housing of the barcode reader.
7. (Original) The barcode reader of claim 1, wherein the second FOV is a rectangular FOV that includes: a first lateral boundary extending above the first lateral edge of the weigh platter; a second lateral boundary extending above the second lateral edge of the weigh platter; a proximal boundary extending closer to the proximal edge of the weigh platter than a distal boundary; and the distal boundary extending closer to the distal edge of the weigh platter than the proximal boundary, and wherein at least one of: (i) viewed along a vertical axis, the proximal boundary extends over the proximal edge of the weigh platter at second height between 0 and 2 inches above the transverse plane, as measured above the proximal edge of the weigh platter; or (ii) wherein, viewed along a vertical axis, a central axis of the first lateral boundary extends over the first lateral edge of the weigh platter in a first one-half of the first lateral edge, the first one-half of the first lateral edge extending away from the distal edge of the weigh platter.
1. A barcode reader comprising: a housing having (i) a lower housing portion with an upper surface facing a product scanning region and a substantially horizontal window and (ii) an upper housing portion extending above the lower housing portion with a substantially upright window; a weigh platter configured to support an object placed on the weigh platter for obtaining a weight of the object, the weigh platter having: a central region extending in a transverse plane, the central region including a platter window configured to permit light to pass therethrough; a proximal edge adjacent the upper housing portion; a first lateral edge extending non-parallel to the proximal edge; a second lateral edge, opposite the first lateral edge, extending non-parallel to the proximal edge; and a distal edge, opposite the proximal edge, extending non-parallel to the first and second lateral edges; a first imaging assembly having a first imaging sensor, the first imaging assembly having a first field of view (FOV) directed through at least one of the substantially horizontal window or the substantially upright window; and a second imaging assembly having a second imaging sensor, the second imaging assembly having a second FOV and being positioned near the distal edge of the weigh platter, wherein the second FOV is a rectangular FOV that includes: a first lateral boundary extending above the first lateral edge of the weigh platter; a second lateral boundary extending above the second lateral edge of the weigh platter; a proximal boundary extending closer to the proximal edge of the weigh platter than a distal boundary; and the distal boundary extending closer to the distal edge of the weigh platter than the proximal boundary.
2. The barcode reader of claim 1, wherein the weigh platter comprises at least a portion of the second imaging assembly, and wherein the weigh platter is removable relative to the housing of the barcode reader.
9. The barcode reader of claim 1, wherein, viewed along a vertical axis, the proximal boundary extends over the proximal edge of the weigh platter at height between 0 and 2 inches above the transverse plane, as measured above the proximal edge of the weigh platter.
10. The barcode reader of claim 1, wherein, viewed along a vertical axis, a central axis of the first lateral boundary extends over the first lateral edge of the weigh platter in a first one-half of the first lateral edge, the first one-half of the first lateral edge extending away from the distal edge of the weigh platter.
Regarding the dependent claims, the patented claims recite similar limitations.
Examiner’s Remarks
With respect to claim(s) 7, the examiner makes no prior art rejection. However, these claims are not allowable pursuant to the pending Double Patenting rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 3 and 7-9 have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection in view of the amendment to claim 1
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that Howard does not teach the weigh platter comprises at least a portion of the second imaging assembly, and that the statement “The one or more imagers may be positioned behind the scan windows 115, 135, and 160 and the view region or field of view (FOV) of each imager may be directed through a corresponding scan window 115, 135, and 160 to a view volume (see FIG. 2).” is not a teaching or suggestion to position a portion of the second imaging assembly into the weigh platter. The examiner notes that while that statement alone is not enough, the examiner directs the applicant to Figs. 1 and 2 which illustrate the platter 130 is a singular piece that includes the scan window 160. As such, by having the imager behind the scan window 160 implies that the imager would also be in the platter 130 since the platter is a whole piece that the scan window 160 is integral with from Fig. 1. Therefore, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive, and the rejection is maintained.
The applicant has not addressed the previously presented double patenting rejection. The double patenting rejection is maintained – 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.
Telephone/Fax Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUEZU ELLIS whose telephone number is (571)272-2868. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 11:00 am - 7:00 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, Michael 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.
/SUEZU ELLIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876