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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/18/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 19-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12282824. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the following claims of instant application recites most of limitations in the following claims of above-identified patent, as shown below:
Claim 19 of 19/303136
Claim 1 of US Patent 12,282,824
19. A system for processing an image , the system comprising: one or more processors, the one or more processors configured to: receive an image; binarize the image into digital data; determine that data values of a first row in the digital data and the data values of a second row in the digital data are similar; identify a selected region in the digital data, wherein the selected region comprises the first row and the second row; and process the digital data associated with the selected region to extract data associated with the selected region.
20. The system of Claim 19 wherein the one or more processors are further configured to store the digital data associated with the selected region in memory.
1. A system for extracting a region of interest from a captured image of an item, the system comprising: an imaging device configured to capture an image of an item; and one or more processors in communication with the imaging device, the one or more processors configured to: convert the captured image of the item into digital data, wherein the digital data comprises data values; determine that the data values of a first row and the data values of a second row are the same; identify a computer readable code region in the digital data, wherein the computer readable code region comprises the first row and the second row; and process the digital data associated with the computer readable code region.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 10, 12 and 14-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Aller et al. (US 20110244919 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Aller discloses methods and systems for determining image processing operations relevant to particular imagery comprising:
passing the captured image of the item through a filter to generate a modified captured image, wherein the filter generates an outer boundary of black pixels around a computer readable code region (¶357);
performing edge detection on the modified captured image between the outer boundary of the computer readable code region and a background area excluding the computer readable code region (¶402);
identifying the computer readable code region in the modified captured image based on at least the edge detection of the outer boundary of the computer readable code region (¶276);
processing the computer readable code region to extract data associated with the computer readable code region (¶387).
Regarding claim 12, Aller disclose the method of claim 10 above and further discloses wherein the filter downsamples the captured image of the item (¶388).
Regarding claim 14, Aller disclose the method of claim 10 above and further discloses wherein binarizing the captured image to create digital data (¶387).
Regarding claim 15, Aller disclose the method of claim 10 above and further discloses wherein the computer readable code region comprises a two-dimensional barcode comprising white spaces and black spaces (¶557).
Regarding claim 16, Aller disclose the method of claim 15 above and further discloses wherein the two-dimensional barcode is a QR code (¶557).
Regarding claim 17, Aller disclose the method of claim 14 above and further discloses wherein the digital data associated with the computer readable code region is stored in memory (¶387, ¶666).
Regarding claim 18, Aller disclose the method of claim 17 above and further discloses wherein the memory is further configured to store pixel numbers of horizontal and vertical sides of the computer readable code region. (¶355-¶360: Each source pixel is mapped independently). Since, each source pixel is mapped independently, pixel numbers are necessarily stored at least temporarily.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The cited prior art of record does not teach, fairly suggests or make obvious a system for extracting a region of interest from a captured image of an item, the system comprising: one or more processors configured to: receive an image of an item; pass the captured image of the item through a first filter to generate a modified captured image, wherein the first filter generates an outer boundary of black pixels around a computer readable code region within the captured image with black pixels; perform edge detection between the outer boundary of the computer readable code region and a background area excluding the computer readable code region; identify the computer readable code region in the modified captured image based on at least on the edge detection of the outer boundary of the computer readable code region; pass the modified captured image of the item through a second filter; process the computer readable code region to extract data associated with the computer readable code region (claim 1).
Claims 11 and 13 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The cited prior art of record does not teach, fairly suggests or make obvious a method of extracting a region of interest from a captured image of an item, the method comprising: passing the captured image of the item through a filter to generate a modified captured image, wherein the filter generates an outer boundary of black pixels around a computer readable code region; performing edge detection on the modified captured image between the outer boundary of the computer readable code region and a background area excluding the computer readable code region; identifying the computer readable code region in the modified captured image based on at least the edge detection of the outer boundary of the computer readable code region; processing the computer readable code region to extract data associated with the computer readable code region; passing the modified captured image through a second filter (claims 10 & 11); nor a method of extracting a region of interest from a captured image of an item, the method comprising: passing the captured image of the item through a filter to generate a modified captured image, wherein the filter generates an outer boundary of black pixels around a computer readable code region; performing edge detection on the modified captured image between the outer boundary of the computer readable code region and a background area excluding the computer readable code region; identifying the computer readable code region in the modified captured image based on at least the edge detection of the outer boundary of the computer readable code region; processing the computer readable code region to extract data associated with the computer readable code region, wherein the filter converts the computer readable code region into a solid black shape, wherein the solid black shape has identical dimensions to the computer readable code region (claims 10 & 13).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TOAN C LY whose telephone number is (571)270-7898. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8AM-4PM.
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.
/TOAN C LY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876