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 .
Claim(s) Status
Claims 1-20 have been canceled. Claims 21-40 are currently pending.
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.
Claim(s) 21-22, 24-28 & 35-39 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) of U.S. Patent No. 12124900. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patent inventive scope is narrow than the inventive scope of the instant application. Thus, the broader inventive scope of the instant application is encompassed within the inventive scope of the patent.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 21, 25-26 & 35-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sweeney et al. (“Sweeney”, US 20150076225 A1) in view of Powell et al. (“Powell”, US 20160188932 A1). 1) Regarding claims 21 and 36, Sweeney discloses a barcode-reading system (Fig. 2), comprising: a barcode-reading device that does not include a decoder (¶¶21-24; Figs. 1-2: computing device 210. Take note that sweeney discloses that the mobile device takes an image of encoded data from for example a license card (Fig. 3A-B illustrates barcode images) and then sends the encoded data to a server that performs decoding and then subsequently transmits the decoded data back to the mobile device, hence the mobile device does not have a decoder local that performs the decoding of the encoded data), the barcode-reading device comprising: a communication module (Fig. 2: network interface 214) that is configured to communicatively couple the barcode-reading device to a remote server (¶¶21-24; Fig. 2: server 220); As per the limitation communicatively couple the barcode-reading device to a host computing device and communicatively couple the barcode-reading device to the remote server. Powell discloses, in ¶¶87-93 with reference to Fig. 1, the concept of configuring a mobile device to be in communication with a host computer and a server device to enable communication between all three devices. At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of configuring a mobile device to be in communication with a host computer and a server device to enable communication between all three devices, with the motivation to enhance the communication features of the system. As per the limitation a camera that is configured to capture images (Sweeney: ¶¶3, 5, 21, 31; Fig. 1: with regard to scanner 118 including a digital camera); a barcode-reading device processor (Sweeney: 21, 31; Fig. 1: processor 102); barcode-reading device memory (Sweeney: Fig. 1: memory 104) communicatively coupled to the barcode-reading device processor (Sweeney: Fig. 1); and barcode-reading device instructions stored in the barcode-reading device memory (¶¶27-37) and executable by the barcode-reading device processor to cause the images to be sent to the remote server for decoding (Sweeney: ¶¶21-24, 37-45; Figs.2 & 4); a decoder on the remote server (Sweeney: ¶¶28-43; Fig. 2: processor 221 in communication with database 22), wherein the decoder is executable by a remote server processor to process the images and attempt to decode any barcodes in the images (Sweeney: ¶36-43); and remote server instructions that are executable by the remote server processor to cause decoded data to be sent back to at least one of the host computing device (Powell illustrates in Fig. 1, the concept of configuring a remote serve device to communicate directly with a mobile device and a host computer. At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate providing the decoded data to the host device, with the motivation to enhance the communication features of the system) or the barcode-reading device (Sweeney: ¶¶21-24; 55-57; Figs, 2 & 4). 2) Regarding claim 25, wherein the barcode-reading device instructions are additionally executable by the barcode-reading device processor to: identify a region of an image where a barcode is located (Sweeney discloses, in claim 16 with reference to Figs, 3A-3D, the concept of identifying a cropping region of an image comprising a barcode and performing cropping prior to sending a barcode to a server); generate a cropped image that comprises the region of the image where the barcode is located (Sweeney discloses, in claim 16 with reference to Figs, 3A-3D, the concept of identifying a cropping region of an image comprising a barcode and performing cropping prior to sending a barcode to a server); and send the cropped image to the remote server (Sweeney discloses, in claim 16 with reference to Figs, 3A-3D, the concept of identifying a cropping region of an image comprising a barcode and performing cropping prior to sending a barcode to a server). 3) Regarding claim 26, wherein: the communication module comprises a wireless communication module that is configured to establish a wireless connection to the host computing device (Powell: Fig. 1); and the barcode-reading device instructions are additionally executable by the barcode-reading device processor to receive the decoded data from the remote server (Sweeney: ¶¶17-24; Figs. 1-2) and send the decoded data to the host computing device via the wireless connection (Sweeney discloses, in ¶24, the server providing the decoded to the mobile device. Powell discloses, in ¶¶141-142, the concept of configuring barcode application of a mobile device that has obtained decoded barcode image information to be able to send it to another application on the mobile device or to a remote device (e.g., host computer). At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of configuring barcode application of a mobile device that has obtained decoded barcode image information to be able to send it to another application on the mobile device or to a remote device, with the motivation to enhance the communication and data sharing features of the system). 4) Regarding claim 35, wherein the barcode-reading device does not attempt to decode barcodes in the images before sending the images to the remote server for decoding (Sweeney: ¶¶21-24). 5) Regarding claim 37, wherein the instructions are additionally executable by the processor to: receive decoded data from the remote server (Sweeney: ¶¶21-24); and send the decoded data to the host computing device (Powell: ¶142).
Claim(s) 22, 24, 28 & 38-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sweeney in view of Powell, and in further view of Gu (US 2014/0027517 A1). 1) Regarding claims 22 and 39, wherein the barcode-reading device instructions are additionally executable by the barcode-reading device processor to: perform at least one preliminary processing operation on an image that is captured by the camera. In the same art, Gu discloses, in ¶¶68-73 with reference to Fig. 5, the concept of checking luminance information of a captured image prior to sending the image to a server for decoding. Notice that if the luminance information is clear the image is sent to a server for decoding, and if the luminance information is unclear the mobile device is prompted to recapture an image (corresponding to discarding an image and not sending the image with unclear luminance information). At the filing of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of checking luminance information of a captured image prior to sending the image to a server for decoding, with the motivation to enhance the captured image quality information of the system. As per the limitation determine, based at least in part on results of the at least one processing operation, whether at least one requirement has been satisfied for sending the image to the remote server (Gu: ¶73 with reference to Fig. 5); send the image to the remote server when the at least one requirement is satisfied (Gu: ¶73 with reference to Fig. 5); and discard the image without sending the image to the remote server when the at least one requirement is not satisfied (see Gu: ¶73 with reference to Fig. 5). 2) Regarding claim 24, wherein: the at least one processing operation comprises determining whether the image comprises any contrast (Gu: ¶73 with regard to the luminance information); and the barcode-reading device discards the image without sending the image to the remote server when the barcode-reading device determines that the image does not comprise any contrast (Gu: ¶73 with regard to the luminance information being unclear). 3) Regarding claim 28, wherein: the wireless communication module comprises a wireless local area network (WLAN) communication module. Gu discloses, in ¶42, the concept of configuring a communication device to communicate in wireless local area network (WLAN), or a combination of WWAN and WLAN and include a Bluetooth (BT) antenna to facilitate wireless communication. At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of configuring a communication device to communicate in wireless local area network (WLAN), or a combination of WWAN and WLAN and include a Bluetooth (BT) antenna to facilitate wireless communication, with the motivation to enhance the wireless communication features of the system. As per the limitation the WLAN communication module is configured to establish a WLAN connection to the host computing device (with consideration to the motivation to combine Gu in the rejection of claim 28, see Powell: Fig. 1 illustrating a mobile device wirelessly communicating with the host computer); and the barcode-reading device instructions are additionally executable by the barcode-reading device processor to send the decoded data to the host computing device via the WLAN connection (with consideration to the motivation to combine Gu in the rejection of claim 28, see Powell: Fig. 1 illustrating a mobile device wirelessly communicating with the host computer, wherein Powell further discloses communication decoded data to the host computer, in ¶96). 4) Regarding claim 38, wherein the instructions are additionally executable by the processor to: receive a decoding indication from the remote server (Sweeney: ¶¶21-24). As per the limitation generate at least one of a visual output, an audible output, or tactile feedback in response to receiving the decoding indication. Gu discloses, in ¶76, the concept of the receiving decoded target barcode and displaying via a receiving mobile device. At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of the receiving decoded target barcode and displaying via a receiving mobile device, with the motivation to enhance the indication features of the system.
Claim(s) 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sweeney in view of Powell, and in further view of Pierce et al. (“Pierce”, US 2015/0379315 A1). 1) Regarding claim 27, wherein: the wireless communication module comprises a short-range wireless communication module (Sweeney: ¶28; Powell: ¶96); the short-range wireless communication module is configured to establish a short-range wireless connection to the host computing device (Powell: ¶96; Fig. 1). As per the limitation the barcode-reading device appears as a keyboard device to the host computing device via the short-range wireless connection. In the same art, Pierce discloses, in ¶0003, the concept of using point-to-point in which a reading device coupled to another device can be used as a data entry device for the coupled device comprising barcode application software (corresponding a keyboard device for a host computing device). At the filing of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of using point-to-point in which a reading device coupled to another device can be used as a data entry device for the coupled device comprising barcode application software, with the motivation to enhance the data entry features of the system. As per the limitation the barcode-reading device instructions are additionally executable by the barcode-reading device processor to send the decoded data as keyboard data to an application on the host computing device via the short-range wireless connection (Pierce: ¶0003; Powell: Fig. 1).
Claim(s) 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sweeney in view of Powell, and in further view of Nakagawa et al. (“Nakagawa”, US 20120132701 A1). 1) Regarding claim 31, wherein: the remote server instructions are additionally executable by the remote server processor to evaluate quality of the barcode images, generate image quality feedback, and send the image quality feedback to the barcode-reading device; and the barcode-reading device instructions are executable by the barcode-reading device processor to change at least one image capture setting based at least in part on the image quality feedback.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 23, 29-34 & 40 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20160321485 A1, system with decoding server. US 20210279436 A1, system with barcode reading device in communication with a server.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHICO A FOXX whose telephone number is (571)272-5530. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 6:00 M-F.
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, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at 571-272-3114. 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.
CHICO A. FOXX
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2684
/CHICO A FOXX/Examiner, Art Unit 2685