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 Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 21 be found allowable, claim 33 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 29 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 29 and 39 recite the limitation "the controller" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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) 21-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones et al. (U.S. P.G. Pub. 2005/0163362 A1), hereinafter Jones, in view of Wu (U.S. P.G. Pub. 2019/0052697 A1), hereinafter Wu.
Claim 21.
Jones discloses a scanner multiplier system for performing multiple actions based on performing a single scanning operation on a received package, the scanner multiplier system comprising:
a slave scanning unit configured to generate a first signal based on performing the single scanning operation on the received package (Jones [0027] remote image capture unit; [0050] remote image capture unit provides “raw” image data to the image processing system);
a multi-master scanning system comprising a display device configured to display a visual representation of a unique package identifier of the received package in response to receiving the first signal from the slave scanning unit (Jones [0048], [0069] image processing system; [0081] operator would view the image and key in the amount);
Regarding the following limitation:
a first master scanning unit mounted on a mechanical mount and configured to capture a digital image of the visual representation of the unique package identifier displayed on the display device, the first master scanning unit further configured to transmit the digital image into a first network as a part of performing a first operation associated with the package; and
Jones discloses a first master scanning unit mounted on a mechanical mount and configured to create a digital image of the visual representation of the unique package identifier displayed on the display device, the first master scanning unit further configured to transmit the digital image into a first network as a part of performing a first operation associated with the package (Jones [0050], [0054], [0069] image processing system comprises an image file creation system which accepts raw image data; [0100] central office computer includes a video terminal to review document images; [0058], [0059], [0076] transmit information over the internet). However, Jones does not disclose capturing a digital image of a displayed identifier, but Wu does (Wu [0007], [0008], [0046], [0048], [0049], [0050], [0051] a stream of QR code images from the media device may be played on a display and a mobile device may scan the QR code image which is interpreted and acknowledged by a file downloader).
The known technique using a stream of QR codes to transfer a file of Wu, as shown above, is applicable to the system of Jones as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are transmitting files between devices. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of using a stream of QR codes to transfer a file of Wu to file sharing of Jones would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Wu to the teaching of Jones would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such using a stream of QR codes to transfer a file features into file sharing systems. Further, applying using a stream of QR codes to transfer a file to Jones, would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow more efficient convey information between system on different networks.
Jones discloses:
a second master scanning unit configured to generate a second signal based on the visual representation of the unique package identifier and to transmit the second signal into a second network as a part of performing a second operation associated with the package (Jones [0054] transit items and transit image files; [0068] transit bin; [0058], [0059], [0076] transmit information over the internet; [0084] image file associated with a transit item).
Claim 22.
Jones in view of Wu teaches all the elements of claim 21, as shown above. Additionally, Jones discloses:
wherein the digital image of the visual representation of the unique package identifier comprises an optically readable code (Jones [0080], [0084] unique identification code; [0087] image scanner recognizes fields in the document).
Claim 23.
Jones in view of Wu teaches all the elements of claim 22, as shown above. However, Jones does not disclose the following limitation, but Wu does:
wherein the optically readable code is one of a barcode or a QR code (Wu [0007], [0008], [0046], [0048], [0049], [0050], [0051] a stream of QR code images from the media device may be played on a display and a mobile device may scan the QR code image which is interpreted and acknowledged by a file downloader), and
wherein the second signal is generated by the second master scanning unit based on an attribute of the one of the barcode or the QR code (Wu [0070], [0073], [0074], [0075], [0076], [0077], [0078] acknowledgement signal).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include the teachings of Wu in the system of Jones for the same reasons discussed above in claim 1.
Claim 24.
Jones in view of Wu teaches all the elements of claim 21, as shown above. Additionally, Jones discloses:
wherein the slave scanning unit is approved by a package originator for enabling a package distributor perform the multiple actions that are based on the single scanning operation (Jones [0027] remote image capture unit; [0050] remote image capture unit provides “raw” image data to the image processing system; [0028] remote image capture unit may be part of a remote image capture network; [0034] remote image capture network could be a component in a teller system).
Claim 25.
Jones in view of Wu teaches all the elements of claim 24, as shown above. Additionally, Jones discloses:
wherein the first operation associated with the package comprises a verification operation performed by the package originator to verify that the package has been scanned by the approved slave scanning device (Jones [0044], [0056], [0082] customer may be prompted to enter missing data).
Claim 26.
Jones in view of Wu teaches all the elements of claim 21, as shown above. Additionally, Jones discloses:
wherein the first operation associated with the package is a transport operation and the second operation associated with the package is a tracking operation (Jones [0054] transit and on-us image files; [0069] image processing system comprises an image file creation system which accepts raw image data; [0070] stored image files include the transit image files associated with physical transit items).
Claim 27.
Jones in view of Wu teaches all the elements of claim 21, as shown above. However, Jones does not disclose the following limitation, but Wu does:
wherein the first master scanning unit is configured to capture the digital image based on a predetermined time interval (Wu [0008], [0050] controlled mode; [0066], [0078] QR code is presented on the display for a predetermined time limit).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include the teachings of Wu in the system of Jones for the same reasons discussed above in claim 1.
Claim 28.
Jones in view of Wu teaches all the elements of claim 21, as shown above. Additionally, Jones discloses:
wherein the multi-master scanning system further includes a controller (Jones [0090] controller; [0100] central office computer), and
Jones does not disclose the following limitation, but Wu does:
further wherein first master scanning unit is arranged to capture the digital image in response to a trigger signal received from one of the controller or the display device (Wu [0050] start signal).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include the teachings of Wu in the system of Jones for the same reasons discussed above in claim 1.
Claim 29.
Jones in view of Wu teaches all the elements of claim 21, as shown above. Additionally, Jones discloses wherein the controller comprises:
a non-transitory data store comprising a program of instructions (Jones [0090] controller; [0100] central office computer); and,
a processor operably coupled to the data store such that (Jones [0090] controller; [0100] central office computer), when the processor executes the program of instructions, the processor causes operations comprising:
retrieving stored manifest data based on the first signal generated by the slave scanning unit (Jones [0055] image storage; [0070] stored image files include the transit image files associated with physical transit items); and
Jones does not disclose the following limitation, but Wu does:
executing a risk analysis method that includes at least one of a natural language processing (NLP) of the retrieved manifest data or application of a machine learning model to extract one or more attributes of the package (Wu [0066], [0071], [0079] image recognition algorithms; [0067] apply error correction to recover alphanumeric characters; [0081], [0083], [0088] mark sequence incomplete).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include the teachings of Wu in the system of Jones for the same reasons discussed above in claim 1.
Claim 30.
Jones in view of Wu teaches all the elements of claim 30 as shown above in claim 21.
Claim 31.
Jones in view of Wu teaches all the elements of claim 31 as shown above in claim 22.
Claim 32.
Jones in view of Wu teaches all the elements of claim 32 as shown above in claim 23.
Claim 33.
Jones in view of Wu teaches all the elements of claim 33 as shown above in claim 21.
Claim 34.
Jones in view of Wu teaches all the elements of claim 34 as shown above in claim 24.
Claim 35.
Jones in view of Wu teaches all the elements of claim 35 as shown above in claim 25.
Claim 36.
Jones in view of Wu teaches all the elements of claim 36 as shown above in claim 26.
Claim 37.
Jones in view of Wu teaches all the elements of claim 37 as shown above in claim 27.
Claim 38.
Jones in view of Wu teaches all the elements of claim 38 as shown above in claim 28.
Claim 39.
Jones in view of Wu teaches all the elements of claim 39 as shown above in claim 29.
Claim 40.
Jones discloses a method for performing multiple actions based on performing a single scanning operation on a received package, the method comprising:
operating a slave scanning device of a package distributor to scan a unique package identifier of a package received from a package originator (Jones [0027] remote image capture unit; [0050] remote image capture unit provides “raw” image data to the image processing system);
retrieving stored manifest data corresponding to the scanned unique package identifier (Jones [0055] image storage; [0070] stored image files include the transit image files associated with physical transit items);
using the retrieved manifest data to obtain outgoing shipment information for the package ((Jones [0055] image storage; [0070] stored image files include the transit image files associated with physical transit items));
generating a visual representation of the unique package identifier based on the manifest data corresponding to the unique package identifier (Jones [0048], [0069] image processing system; [0081] operator would view the image and key in the amount);
displaying the visual representation upon a display screen (Jones [0048], [0069] image processing system; [0081] operator would view the image and key in the amount);
Regarding the following limitation:
capturing a digital image of the visual representation displayed upon the display screen; and
Jones discloses a first master scanning unit mounted on a mechanical mount and configured to create a digital image of the visual representation of the unique package identifier displayed on the display device, the first master scanning unit further configured to transmit the digital image into a first network as a part of performing a first operation associated with the package (Jones [0050], [0054], [0069] image processing system comprises an image file creation system which accepts raw image data; [0100] central office computer includes a video terminal to review document images; [0058], [0059], [0076] transmit information over the internet). However, Jones does not disclose capturing a digital image of a displayed identifier, but Wu does (Wu [0007], [0008], [0046], [0048], [0049], [0050], [0051] a stream of QR code images from the media device may be played on a display and a mobile device may scan the QR code image which is interpreted and acknowledged by a file downloader).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include the teachings of Wu in the system of Jones for the same reasons discussed above in claim 1.
Jones discloses:
transmitting the digital image to the package originator via a first network, to enable the package originator to verify that the package has been scanned by the slave scanning device of the distributor (Jones [0044], [0056], [0082] customer may be prompted to enter missing data; [0058], [0059], [0076] transmit information over the internet).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT M TUNGATE whose telephone number is (571)431-0763. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 - 4:30 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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at (571) 272-5587. 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.
/SCOTT M TUNGATE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
