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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,960,966 (herein the ‘966 patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are directed to and cover the same subject matter. For example, as seen in the claim chart below, claim 1 of the instant application recite limitations that render claim 1 of the ‘966 patent obvious. MPEP § 804(II)(B).1 The remaining dependent claims also recite similar subject matter.
Instant application
‘966 patent
A method comprising:processing an image of a barcode (IB) to obtain (i) a representation of pixel intensities of the IB and (ii) candidate locations of modules in the IB and;
A method comprising:rescaling the BI based on the estimated module size; processing the rescaled BI using a neural network (NN) to obtain candidate locations of modules in the BI and a map of binarized pixel intensities of the BI;
identifying associations of grid positions in a grid of modules (GoM) with the candidate locations of modules in the IB, wherein an association of each of at least a subset of the grid positions in the GoM is identified based on one or more associations identified for other grid positions in the GoM; and
identifying associations of grid positions in a grid of modules (GoM) with the candidate locations of modules in the BI, wherein an association of each of at least a subset of the grid positions in the GoM is identified based on one or more associations identified for other grid positions in the GoM; and
decoding the barcode using the GoM and the representation of pixel intensities.
decoding the BI, using the GoM and the map of binarized pixel intensities.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,412,056 (herein the ‘056 patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are directed to and cover the same subject matter. For example, as seen in the claim chart below, claim 1 of the instant application recite limitations that render claim 1 of the ‘056 patent obvious. MPEP § 804(II)(B).2
Instant application
‘056 patent
A method comprising:processing an image of a barcode (IB) to obtain (i) a representation of pixel intensities of the IB and (ii) candidate locations of modules in the IB and;
A method comprising:rescaling the BI based on the estimated module size;
identifying associations of grid positions in a grid of modules (GoM) with the candidate locations of modules in the IB, wherein an association of each of at least a subset of the grid positions in the GoM is identified based on one or more associations identified for other grid positions in the GoM; and
identifying associations of grid positions in a grid of modules (GoM) with the candidate locations of modules in the BI, wherein an association of each of at least a subset of the grid positions in the GoM is identified based on one or more associations identified for other grid positions in the GoM; and
decoding the barcode using the GoM and the representation of pixel intensities.
decoding the BI, using the GoM and the map of binarized pixel intensities.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW MIKELS whose telephone number is (571)270-5470. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 7:30 AM ET - 5:00 PM ET, Friday 7:30 AM ET - 11:30 AM ET, the Examiner is on central time.3
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, Michael G Lee can be reached at 571-272-2398. 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.
/MATTHEW MIKELS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
1 Note that only the limitations that correspond between the two claim sets are shown in the claim chart.
2 Note that only the limitations that correspond between the two claim sets are shown in the claim chart.
3 The Examiner can also be reached at matthew.mikels@uspto.gov.