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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nadabar (US 2009/0121027, cited by applicant) in view of Negro et al. (US 2021/0074045, cited by applicant).
Regarding claim 1, Nadabar teaches a method for reading a code (barcode 310) arranged on a wall of a container (312), the code occupying a code surface area on the wall of the container, characterized by the following steps: generating an illuminated region on the wall of the container by means of a light source (322), a width of the illuminated region (region of the portion of the barcode) being smaller than a width of the code surface area (region of the portion of the barcode and the remaining portion 426) in a circumferential direction of the container, generating a relative movement between the container and the illuminated region (sweeping motion, 410), generating a series of individual frames of the illuminated region by means of camera (reader 320 which inherently includes camera or imager, [0004]), a relative movement between the container and the illuminated region taking place between individual frames of the series (420, 422 and 424), assembling an image of the code from the series of individual frames (440). See figs. 3-4 and [0028]-[0030]).
Nadabar further teaches the camera includes imager sensor, CCD, CMOS, etc. ([0004]) but silent to matrix camera.
However, Negro teaches reading device system and method comprising camera and wherein the camera includes 2D camera (which serves as matrix camera, [0009] and [0022]).
In view of Negro’s teaching, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Nadabar by incorporating the teaching as taught by Negro in order to arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2, Nadabar as modified by Negro teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above. Nadabar further teaches characterized in that the code is configured as an arrangement of embossments and/or depressions in the wall of the container, preferably in a matrix shape (two dimensional barcode 310, fig. 3).
Regarding claim 3, Nadabar as modified by Negro teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above. Both Nadabar and Negro further teach characterized in that at least one individual frame of the series, preferably all the individual frames of the series, overlap(s) with a neighboring individual frame (Nadabar: [0033]. Negro: fig. 3 and [0052]).
Regarding claim 4, Nadabar as modified by Negro teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above. Both Nadabar and Negro further teach characterized in that the illuminated region is strip-shaped (Nadabar: fig. 4, [0030]. Negro: fig. 3, [0052]).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Nadabar as modified by Negro teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above except for the illuminated region has a width of at most 7 mm or of 3 to 6 mm, preferably a width of 4 to 5 mm in the circumferential direction of the container. However, Both Nadabar and Negro teach the illuminated region is smaller than the width of the barcode surface area (Nadabar: fig. 4. Negro: fig. 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the illumination region has a width as claimed since it is just a matter of controlling and adjusting the light source to be illuminated at a desired illumination region.
Regarding claim 7, Nadabar as modified by Negro teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above. Nadabar further teaches characterized in that, during the generation of the series of individual frames, the relative movement between the container and the illuminated region takes place continuously or intermittently between two respective individual frames of the series (fig. 4, [0030]).
Regarding claim 8, Nadabar as modified by Negro teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above. Nadabar further teaches characterized in that the relative movement between the container and the illuminated region is generated by a rotation of the container about an axis (fig. 4, [0030]).
Regarding claim 9, Nadabar teaches a device (barcode reader 320) for reading a code (310) arranged on a wall of a container (312), comprising a light source (322) for generating an illuminated region on the container and a camera (barcode reader 320 inherently includes camera, [0004]) for recording individual frames (420, 422 and 424), and that the device includes an evaluation unit (430) that is configured to assemble an image of the code from a series of individual frames (figs. 3, 4 and [0028]-[0030]).
Nadabar fails to teach the camera is a matrix camera and the light source is configured to generate on the container an illumination region having a width of at most 7 mm.
However, Nadabar further teaches the camera includes imager sensor, CCD, CMOS, etc. ([0004]) and the light source is configured to generate on the container an illuminated region is smaller than the width of the barcode surface area (fig. 4, [0030]). Moreover, Negro teaches reading device system and method comprising camera and wherein the camera includes 2D camera (which serves as matrix camera, [0009] and [0022]) and the light source is configured to generate on the container an illuminated region is smaller than the width of the barcode surface area (fig. 3).
In view of Negro’s teaching, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Nadabar by incorporating the matrix camera as taught by Negro in order to arrive at the claimed invention. Moreover, by controlling and adjusting the light source to provide an illumination region with a width as claimed is just a matter of design option.
Regarding claim 10, Nadabar as modified by Negro teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above. Both Nadabar and Negro further teach characterized in that the illuminated region is strip-shaped illuminated region on the container (Nadabar: fig. 4, [0030]. Negro: fig. 3, [0052]).
Regarding claim 11, Nadabar as modified by Negro teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above except for the light source is configured to generate on the container an illuminated region having a width of 3 to 6 mm, preferably a width of 4 to 5 mm, in a circumferential direction of the container. However, Both Nadabar and Negro teach the illuminated region is smaller than the width of the barcode surface area (Nadabar: fig. 4. Negro: fig. 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the illumination region has a width as claimed since it is just a matter of controlling and adjusting the light source to be illuminated at a desired illumination region.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nadabar as modified by Negro as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Lu et al. (CN 204576533U, English machine translation).
Regarding claim 12, Nadabar as modified by Negro teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above except for a drive for generating a relative movement between the container and the illumination region, preferably for generating a rotational movement for the container.
However, Lu teaches supermarket continuously scanning system comprises a drive for generating a relative movement between the container (goods) and the illumination region, preferably for generating a rotational movement for the container (page 5, 6th paragraph).
In view of Lu’s teaching, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Nadabar and Negro by incorporating the teaching as taught by Lu so that the movement of the container can be automatically rotated.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nadabar as modified by Negro as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Kobayashi et al. (US 2019/0064504).
Regarding claim 13, Nadabar as modified by Negro teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above except for a variable diaphragm as claimed.
However, Kobayashi teaches an illumination optical system comprising a variable diaphragm for changing the width of the illumination region as claimed (figs. 1-2 and [0039]).
In view of Kobayashi’s teaching, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Nadabar and Negro by incorporating the teaching as taught by Kobayashi so as to change the desired width of the illumination region using the variable diaphragm.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nadabar as modified by Negro as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Laws (US 2006/0291691).
Regarding claim 14, Nadabar as modified by Negro teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above except for the light source includes a contrast-enhancing filter.
However, Laws teaches image lifting system comprising light source that include a contrast-enhancing filter (fig. 2 and [0034]).
In view of Laws’s teaching, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Nadabar and Negro by incorporating the teaching as taught by Laws so as to enhance the contrast of the grayscale image (see Laws: [0034]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
References: Buchwald et al. (US 2013/0120746); Gehring et al. (US 2014/0036135); Stekel (US 2006/0000911); Longacre, JR. et al. (US 2004/0262396) and Uhl et al. (US 2003/0234289) are cited because they are related to reading device system and method.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tuyen Kim Vo whose telephone number is (571)270-1657. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs: 8AM-6:30PM.
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, Steven Paik can be reached at 571-272-2404. 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.
/TUYEN K VO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876