SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/04/26 has been entered.
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) 1, 4-5, 7-10, 12, 15-18, and 20-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Markman et al, US Patent No. 12,099,892.
Regarding claim 1, Markman et al disclose an RFID multi-head portal comprising: an arch projecting from a surface, the arch comprising a first sidewall, a second sidewall, and a panel linking the first sidewall and the second sidewall (see Fig. 4/5), wherein the first sidewall comprises a first elongated portion projecting from the panel towards the surface (14);
Markman et al fail to disclose a plurality of antenna positioned within certain locations of the structure. However, Markman et al disclose that the walls may carry optical data input devices such as still or video cameras, or laser UPC barcode scanners to supplement data input by comparison of barcode values to detected RFID tag codes (see col. 13, lines 1-14).
It would have been obvious for an ordinary artisan to modify the teachings Markman et al to include cameras and/or barcode scanners for scanning or imaging barcoded items in order to process the items during transactions. Such modification would be more convenient by allowing items to be processed using both RFID and barcode labels. Therefore, it would have been an obvious extension as taught by Markman et al.
Regarding claims 4-5, 7-10, and 16-18 with respect to the specific position of each camera, such limitation is a matter of choice for meeting specific customer requirements in order to cover specific operational angles. Therefore, it would have been an obvious extension as taught Markman et al.
Regarding claims 12 and 15, wherein the second sidewall comprises a third elongated portion projecting substantially perpendicularly from the panel and wherein a length of the third elongated portion is comparable to a length of the panel (see Fig. 4/5/6).
Regarding claims 20-25, the limitations have been discussed above. With respect to the additional elements in the dependent claims, they do not contain any features which, in combination with the features of any claim to which they refer, meet the requirements of inventive step, because their additional features are either known from one or more of in the prior art and other cited prior arts. Therefore, it would have been obvious extensions as taught by the prior art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11, 13, 14, and 19 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The applicant teaches a system for reading tags and a method thereof which includes an arch projecting from a surface, a plurality of cameras each having a field of view directed towards the surface from differing angles, wherein a first of the plurality of cameras is located on a first sidewall and coupled to a first elongated portion and a second of the plurality of cameras is located on a second sidewall, and a processing circuit for reading barcodes using the plurality of cameras, wherein a length of the first elongated portion and a length of the second elongated portion is less than a distance defined from the face of the panel to the surface or wherein the second sidewall comprises a fourth elongated portion projecting from a distal end of the third elongated portion towards the surface, the fourth of the plurality of cameras being coupled adjacent to said distal end of the third elongated portion, etc. These limitations in conjunction with other limitations in the claims were not shown by the prior art of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 02/04/26 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL ST CYR whose telephone number is (571)272-2407. The examiner can normally be reached M to F 8:00-8:00.
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.
DANIEL ST CYR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2876
/DANIEL ST CYR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
Prosecution Insights