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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/12/26 has been entered.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 1-5 and 8-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wood (US 2013/0128223, previously cited)1 in view of Kohayakawa (US 5,467,151).2 Regarding claims 1, 8 and 13, Wood teaches a method and system, comprising: activating an amber filter on a lens of a scanner when light emitting diodes (LEDs) are illuminated in a first spectrum and an object is placed in a field-of- view of the lens during a transaction at a transaction terminal (paragraph 0092: white light source); capturing an object image of the object in a second spectrum based on the activating (paragraph 0092: amber filter); and providing the object image for item recognition during the transaction (paragraph 0112). Wood does not explicitly teach positioning the amber filter between a lens of the scanner and an imaging sensor; wherein the LEDs are positioned behind a first portion of the lens and the imaging sensor is positioned behind a second portion of the lens; and passing reflected filtered light through an aperture in the amber filter to capture the object image, wherein the aperture corresponds to an area of the lens directly in front of an imaging sensor. Kohayakawa teaches teach positioning the filter between a lens of the scanner and an imaging sensor (see position of filter 119 in Fig. 2); wherein the light source is positioned behind a first portion of the lens and the imaging sensor is positioned behind a second portion of the lens (see position of lamp 122 in Fig. 2); and passing reflected filtered light through an aperture in the filter to capture the object image, wherein the aperture corresponds to an area of the lens directly in front of an imaging sensor (see position of aperture stop 117 in Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to combine the teachings of Wood and Kohayakawa so that the amber filter of Wood is positioned as the filter in Kohayakawa is, so that the LEDs are positioned as the lamp in Kohayakawa, and so that the filtered light is passed through the aperture, because such a modification allows for proper measurement of the refraction of the light (column 3, lines 49-50 of Kohayakawa). Regarding claims 2 and 14, Wood further teaches the amber filter causes the LEDs from the first spectrum to reflect off the object in the second spectrum (paragraph 0092). Regarding claim 3, Wood further teaches the activating further includes illuminating the LEDs as white LEDs (paragraph 0092). Regarding claims 4, 9 and 17-18, Wood further teaches the amber filter filters light of the first spectrum comprising approximately 340-500 nanometers (nm) out and providing the filtered light in the second spectrum comprising approximately greater than 500 nm (paragraph 0006). Regarding claim 5, Wood further teaches performing, by the scanner, item recognition on the object image in the second spectrum (paragraph 0086). Regarding claims 10 and 15, Wood further teaches the LEDs are white LEDs (paragraph 0092), and wherein the scanner is further configured to remove a blue light component associated with illumination of the white LEDs (paragraph 0092). Regarding claim 11, Wood further teaches the amber filter comprises an aperture that corresponds to an area of the lens directly in front of the image sensor (paragraph 0093). Regarding claims 12 and 19, Wood further teaches the transaction terminal is a self-service terminal (paragraph 0092) or a point-of-sale terminal. Regarding claim 16, Wood further teaches causing light having wavelengths below 100 nanometers (nm) to be eliminated in the second spectrum (paragraph 0006).
Claims 6-7 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wood in view of Kohayakawa and in further view of Aoyama (US 2016/0191158, previously cited).3 4 Regarding claim 6, Wood in view of Kohayakawa teaches the method of claim 1, as discussed above. Wood in view of Kohayakawa does not explicitly teach identifying, by the scanner, the object image in the second spectrum as an item barcode image for an item of the transaction. Aoyama teaches identifying, by the scanner, the object image in the second spectrum as an item barcode image for an item of the transaction (paragraph 0850). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to combine the teachings of Wood in view of Kohayakawa and Aoyama, because such a combination enables effective scanning (paragraph 0010 of Aoyama). Regarding claim 7, Aoyama further teaches providing the item barcode image in the second spectrum to a barcode reader of the scanner for providing an item code to the transaction terminal during the transaction (paragraph 0850). Regarding claim 20, Aoyama further teaches providing an item identifier associated with the item to a transaction terminal during the transaction (paragraph 0850).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 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 Kohayakawa has been used to teach the newly added limitations. See above.
Conclusion
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.5
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 Also cited in Applicant’s IDS dated 2/17/25.
2 In addition to the cited portions of each reference, please see also the associated figures.
3 In addition to the cited paragraphs, please see also the associated figures.
4 Cited in Applicant’s IDS dated 2/17/25.
5 The Examiner can also be reached at matthew.mikels@uspto.gov.