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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 07/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 2 of his remark filled on 07/09/2026 on a substance that, Biasini (applied prior art) doesn’t disclose or reasonably suggest "determining a metric corresponding to variation in distances between a plurality of imaging targets and an image sensor, and based on the metric selecting a set of focus regions, each focus region having (i) a portion of a field of view and (ii) a focus position within the portion".
Examiner respectfully disagrees: Biasini , the applied prior art, discloses: fig. 19 depicts an embodiment of a process 1900 for cropping an image before decoding an optical pattern. Process 1900 begins in step 1905 with estimating a distance from an optical pattern to a device (e.g., a camera). In some embodiments, the optical pattern is detected in a real scene from one or more image frames (e.g., a video feed) acquired by the camera before estimating the distance from the optical pattern to the device. For example, focus of the camera is used to estimate the distance and/or LIDAR is used to measure the distance. In step 1910 the distance from the optical pattern to the device is compared to a threshold value , In col. 31 lines 4-15.
Given the above teaching, in summary the prior art discloses estimating a distance between the optical pattern and the camera based on the focal length of the lens. Biasini further disclose detecting the optical pattern from one or more image frame or video feed. Which also implies estimating a distance between the optical character included in more than one frame or image from the camera (see also col. 30 lines 35-62).
Therefore based on the above teachings of Biasini, the position taken by the examiner is, Biasini estimates a distance between the optical character and the camera based on the focal length of the lens, which is equated to the claimed “determining a metric corresponding to variation in distances between a plurality of imaging targets and an image sensor”. The applied prior art is measuring a distance between the optical character, can be multiple optical characters, and the camera or image sensor. Then the prior art numerically identifies how far the optical character is from the camera, thus a distance difference or variation value is identified.
The claim language requires the distance variation between a plurality imaging targets and an image sensor. Similarly the prior art reasonably discloses measuring a distance between plurality optical character and the camera, see also fig. 17 of the prior art.
The prior art further also compares the measured distance to a threshold in order to estimate in-focus region, which is in the field of the camera, by virtue of focusing the optical character, (col. 31 lines 4-15). Thus the prior art based on the estimated distance focuses a desired portion of the optical character (see fig. 19 step 1910). Therefore, founded on the estimated distance it is possible to focus the desired optical character region, and hence choosing a region of interest.
Thus as a discussed above it is the examiner’s position that the prior art reasonably encompasses the limitation in question.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., subdivide a field of view into a set of focus regions, (see page 2 of applicant’s remark)) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim [11] has substantially same limitation as claim [1], and thus the above response applies to it.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) [1-3, 5, 7-8, 11-13, 15 and 17-18] is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a2) as being anticipated by Biasini (US. PAT. No. 12, 380,571).
Reclaim [1], Biasini discloses a method (see fig.19, all steps ), comprising: determining a metric corresponding to variation in distances between a plurality of imaging targets and an image sensor (see step 1905 fig. 20); based on the metric (distance information as stated in step 1905), selecting a set of focus regions, each focus region having (i) a portion of a field of view of the image sensor (see step 1910, by the virtue of comparing a distance in formation to a threshold in in order to identify in-focus region and out of focus region from the camera as focus of the camera is used to estimate the distance as disclosed in the text of col. 31 lines 10-11), and (ii) a focus position within the portion (see step 1910, col. 31 lines 11-15, focus of the camera is used to estimate the distance and/or LIDAR is used to measure the distance. In step 1910, the distance from the optical pattern to the device is compared to a threshold value); for each focus region, controlling the image sensor to capture an image using the corresponding focus position (see step 1915 fig. 19 and col. 31 lines 15-17, In step 1915, an image of the optical pattern is acquired, using the camera with the focus distance used to estimate the distance from the optical pattern); and providing the captured images to a decoder (see step 1915, and col. 31, lines 15-17).
Reclaim [2], Biasini further discloses , wherein the imaging targets include at least one of barcodes or text strings (see step 1910 . fig. 19, the optical pattern).
Reclaim [3], Biasini further discloses, wherein determining the metric comprises: determining a distance from the image sensor to a first point in a field of view of the image sensor (see step 1905 fig. 19, by the virtue of distance from the optical patten to the camera).
Reclaim [5], Biasini further discloses, wherein determining the metric comprises: determining an angle between a sensor plane of the image sensor and a plane containing at least a portion of the imaging targets (see col. 31 lines 15-17, the focus distance used to estimate the distance from the optical pattern , [ the focus angle which incorporates a focus region of the optical patentor or barcode]).
Reclaim [7] Biasini further discloses further comprising: prior to selecting the set of focus regions, determining that the metric exceeds a threshold (see step 1910 fig. 19, by the virtue comparing to a threshold).
Reclaim [8] Biasini further discloses, wherein capturing an image for each focus region comprises: capturing an image of the field of view (see step 1915 fig. 19); and cropping the image to the corresponding portion of the field of view (see step 1920 fig. 19).
Reclaim [11], except a few changes in wording has substantially same limitation as claim 1 above, and thus analyzed and rejected by the same reasoning.
Reclaim [12], except a few changes in wording has substantially same limitation as claim [2] above, and thus analyzed and rejected by the same reasoning.
Reclaim [13], except a few changes in wording has substantially same limitation as claim [3]. above, and thus analyzed and rejected by the same reasoning.
Reclaim [15], except a few changes in wording has substantially same limitation as claim [5]. above, and thus analyzed and rejected by the same reasoning.
Reclaim [17], except a few changes in wording has substantially same limitation as claim [7]. above, and thus analyzed and rejected by the same reasoning.
Reclaim [18], except a few changes in wording has substantially same limitation as claim [8] above, and thus analyzed and rejected by the same reasoning.
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.
Claim(s) [4 and 14] is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Biasini (US. PAT. No. 12, 380,571) in view of Jarugubilli (US. 2019/0286864).
Reclaim[4], Biasini discloses everything except wherein determining the distance comprises: obtaining the distance via a depth sensor.
Nonetheless in the same field of endeavor Jarugubilli discloses an image processing system as Biasni (see Jarugubilli fig. 1). Jarugubilli further discloses obtaining the distance via a depth sensor (see ¶¶ 0041 and 0095, the depth sensor may be configured to determine the distance of the point).
Hence it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have been motivated to modify Biasni before the effective filling date of the claimed invention by the teachings of Jarugubilli, for example by incorporating the depth sensor of Jarugubilli in the device of Biasini since this would allow to enhance distance measurement accuracy.
Reclaim [14], except a few changes in wording has substantially same limitation as claim [4]. above, and thus analyzed and rejected by the same reasoning.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims [6, 9-10, 16 and 19-20] 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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AHMED A BERHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5094. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00Am-5:00pm (MAX- Flex).
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, Twyler Haskins can be reached at 571-272-7406. 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.
/AHMED A BERHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2639
Prosecution Insights