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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 14, 17, and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 15, 14, and 18 respectively of U.S. Patent No. 11,842,531. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because representative patent claims 2 and 15 require the additional elements (See the highlighted elements shown in the table below) not required by representative application claims 1 and 14. However, the conflicting claims are not patentably distinct from each other because:
The claims recite common subject matter;
Whereby representative application claims 1 and 14 which recite the open-ended transitional phrase "comprising", do not preclude the additional elements recited by representative patent claims 2 and 15 respectively, and
Whereby the elements of representative application claims 1 and 14 are fully anticipated by representative patent claims 2 and 15, and anticipation is "the ultimate or epitome of obviousness" (In re Kalm, 154 USPQ 10 (CCPA 1967), also In re Dailey, 178 USPQ 293 (CCPA 1973) and In re Pearson, 181 USPQ 641 (CCPA 1974)).
US Application No. 19/087,255
US Patent No. 11,842,531
Claim 1. A system for compressing a captured image of an item, the system comprising:
Claim 2. A system for compressing a captured image of an item, the system comprising:
a reader configured to capture an image of an item having a label thereon; and
a reader configured to capture an image of an item having a label thereon, the captured image including at least a portion of the label; a memory configured to store the captured image of the item; and
one or more processors in data communication with the reader, the one or more
processors configured to:
receive the captured image;
transform the captured image into one or more transformed images
using a transformation protocol;
a processor in data communication with the memory and the reader, the processor configured to: receive the captured image from the reader or retrieve the captured image from the memory; perform a wavelet scattering transform on the captured image; perform deep learning on the wavelet scattering transformed image;
perform a nonlinearity operation on the one or more transformed
images;
perform one or more of wavelet transforms or a series of wavelet transforms on the captured image to produce two or more wavelet transformed images; perform a nonlinearity operation on the wavelet transformed images
perform an averaging operation on the one or more transformed images to produce a mean value of the one or more transformed images on which the nonlinearity operation has been performed;
perform an averaging operation on the wavelet transformed images to produce a mean value of the wavelet transformed images on which the nonlinearity operation has been performed;
classify the one or more transformed captured images; and
classify the wavelet scattering transformed image;
compress the one or more classified transformed captured images.
compress the classified wavelet scattering transformed image.
Claim 14. A method of image compression, the method comprising:
Claim 15. A method of compressing a captured image of an item, comprising:
transforming an image using a transformation protocol;
capturing, at an optical sensor, a plurality of items that are being transported; receiving or retrieving, at a processor, one or more of the captured images; performing, at the processor, a wavelet scattering transform on the one or more captured images;
classifying the transformed image; and
performing, at the processor, deep learning on the wavelet scattering transformed images to classify the wavelet scattering transformed images; and
compressing the classified transformed captured image, wherein compressing
the classified transformed captured image comprises:
compressing, at the processor, the classified wavelet scattering transformed images.
quantizing values representing the classified transformed captured
image;
quantizing values representing the wavelet scattering transformed images;
comparing the quantized values to a threshold, and discard values
falling outside the threshold; and
comparing the quantized values to a threshold, and discarding values falling outside the threshold; and
Encoding remaining non-discarded quantized values to remove redundant information.
encoding the remaining non-discarded quantized values to remove redundant information.
Claims 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 6, 3, 4, 7, 8, and 9 respectively of U.S. Patent No. 12,260,631. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because representative patent claim 6 requires the additional elements (See the highlighted elements shown in the table below) not required by representative application claim 8. However, the conflicting claims are not patentably distinct from each other because:
The claims recite common subject matter;
Whereby representative application claim 8 which recites the open-ended transitional phrase "comprising", does not preclude the additional elements recited by representative patent claim 6, and
Whereby the elements of representative application claim 8 is fully anticipated by representative patent claim 6, and anticipation is "the ultimate or epitome of obviousness" (In re Kalm, 154 USPQ 10 (CCPA 1967), also In re Dailey, 178 USPQ 293 (CCPA 1973) and In re Pearson, 181 USPQ 641 (CCPA 1974)).
US Application No. 19/087,255
US Patent No. 12,260,631
Claim 8. A system for compressing a captured image of an item, the system comprising:
Claim 6. A system for compressing a captured image of an item, the system comprising:
a reader configured to capture an image of an item having a label thereon;
a reader configured to capture an image of an item having a label thereon, the captured image comprising a grayscale image;
a memory configured to store the captured image of the item; and
a memory configured to store the captured image of the item;
one or more processors in data communication with the memory and the reader, the one or more processors configured to:
and one or more processors in data communication with the memory and the reader, the one or more processors configured to:
receive the captured image; transform the captured image using a transformation protocol;
receive the grayscale image; sum grayscale values of the grayscale image to produce a summed grayscale image; average grayscale values of the summed grayscale image to produce a mean grayscale image; transform the mean grayscale image using a transformation protocol;
classify the transformed captured image; and
classify the transformed mean grayscale image using a machine learning model;
compress the classified transformed captured image, wherein to compress the classified transformed image, the one or more processors are configured to:
compress the classified transformed mean grayscale image, the one or more processors are configured to:
quantize values representing the classified transformed captured image;
quantize values representing the classified transformed mean grayscale image;
compare the quantized values to a threshold, and discard values falling outside the threshold; and
compare the quantized values to a threshold, and discard values falling outside the threshold; and
Encode remaining non-discarded quantized values to remove redundant information.
encode remaining non-discarded quantized values to remove redundant information.
Notice re prior art available under both pre-AIA and AIA
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to ATA 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 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.
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chao, et al. (US 6,904,175 B2) in view of Takeo (US 7, 003,171 B1).
With regard to claim 14, Chao, et al. (hereinafter “Chao”) discloses a method of image compression (See for example, col. 3, lines 62-64; and Fig. 1), the method comprising: transforming an image using a transformation protocol, i.e., color transform for color images only, and wavelet transform for both gray level images and color images (See for example, col. 3, line 64 – col. 4, line 8); .
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chao in view of Takeo as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Blohm, et al. (US 11,383,275 B2).
With regard to claim 16, Chao (as modified by Takeo) discloses all of the claimed subject matter as already addressed above in paragraph 9, and incorporated herein by reference. Chao (as modified by Takeo) does not expressly call for wherein the image is an image of a label on an exterior surface of a distribution item, the label comprising at least one of: a return address region; a mailing address region; a barcode; a postage region; or a specialty item region. However, Blohm, et al. (See for example, col. 8, lines 5-11) teach this feature. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Blohm with Chao (as modified by Takeo). The motivation for doing so is to capture an image of a mail item containing an address label region on the exterior surface of the mail item (See for example, items 310 and 312 in Fig. 3A). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Chao (as modified by Takeo) with Blohm, et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 16.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chao in view of Takeo as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Buibas (US 10,621,472 B1).
With regard to claim 19, Chao (as modified by Takeo) discloses all of the claimed subject matter as already set forth above in paragraph 9, and incorporated herein by reference. Chao (as modified by Takeo) does not expressly call for wherein the captured image comprises binary data, and wherein the method further comprises transforming the binary data using the transformation protocol. However, Buibas (See for example, col. 8, lines 17-50) teaches this feature. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to incorporate the teaching as taught by Buibas into the system of Chao (as modified by Takeo), if for no other reason than to acquire binary data by converting the inputted image into binary image. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Chao (as modified by Takeo) with Buibas to obtain the invention as specified in claim 19.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-13, 15, 17-18, and 20 would be allowable if applicant overcomes the rejections under the obviousness double patenting by way of an amendment or filing a terminal disclaimer.
Claims 15 and 18 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL G MARIAM whose telephone number is (571)272-7394. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 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, Mathew Bella can be reached at (571)272-7778. 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 G MARIAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2675
Prosecution Insights