Patent Application 18915579 - LOGISTICS CONTROL SYSTEM AND METHOD BY USING

Title: LOGISTICS CONTROL SYSTEM AND METHOD BY USING CAMERA

Application Information

Invention Title: LOGISTICS CONTROL SYSTEM AND METHOD BY USING CAMERA
Application Number: 18915579
Submission Date: 2025-05-19T00:00:00.000Z
Effective Filing Date: 2024-10-15T00:00:00.000Z
Filing Date: 2024-10-15T00:00:00.000Z
Examiner Employee Number: 78615
Art Unit: 2876
Tech Center: 2800

Rejection Summary

102 Rejections: 1
103 Rejections: 0

Cited Patents

The following patents were cited in the rejection:

US 0291400🔗

Office Action Text

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 .
Continuation Data
2. This application is a Continuation of application 18/915,579, now U.S. Patent No. 12,147,859, filed March 22, 2023.
Priority
3. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Double Patenting
4. 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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 9-11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 8 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,147,859, hereafter ‘859. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Claims 9-11 recite the same logistics control system comprising at least one processor configured to implement a barcode information obtaining module, an image information obtaining module, and a server, as is set forth in ‘859. Specifically, the limitations of claims 9 and 10 of the present application are similarly recited in claim 8 of ‘859. Claim 11 corresponds to claim 11. The only difference between the present claimed invention and ‘859 is the utilization of different terminologies and/or rephrasing of the terminologies. Due to the similarities of the pending claims and the claims set forth in ‘859, the Examiner believes that the scope of each claim set is almost identical.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. 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.

6. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Olmstead et al (2014/0291400), hereinafter Olmstead.
With respect to claim 4, Olmstead teaches a camera (figure 4 – paragraph 0079) comprising: a processor configured to control an operation of the camera; a barcode information obtaining module provided in the camera and configured to obtain the barcode information (paragraph 0071) attached to the article (item 20 – paragraph 0071); an image information obtaining module configured to obtain the image information about the article and image information is corresponding the barcode information, wherein simultaneously the barcode information obtaining module obtains the barcode information of the article and the corresponding image information obtaining module obtains the image information about the article and wherein simultaneously the corresponding image information obtaining module does not obtain the barcode information about the article (figure 44, paragraphs 0136-0146).
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claims 5 is 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. Claims 6-8 are allowable over prior art.
The following is an examiner’s reason for allowance: Although Olmstead teaches a camera comprising a processor, a barcode obtaining module, and an image obtaining module, the above identified prior art of record, taken alone, or in combination with any other prior art, fails to teach or fairly suggest the specific features of claims 5-8 of the present claimed invention. Specifically, prior art fails to teach the camera, wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to monitor the article based on the barcode information and the image information, wherein the barcode information and the image information obtained separately from each of the barcode information obtaining module and the image information obtaining module are mapped to each other for the article. Prior art further fails to teach the claimed camera comprising at least one processor configured to implement: a barcode information obtaining module configured to obtain barcode information about an article at a first point; an image information obtaining module configured to obtain image information about the article at the first point; wherein simultaneously the barcode information obtaining module obtains the barcode information of the article at the first point and the corresponding image information obtaining module obtains the image information about the article at the first point and wherein simultaneously the corresponding image information obtaining module does not obtain the barcode information about the article at the first point; wherein the barcode information obtaining module and the image information obtaining module are in one device, wherein the barcode information and the image information obtained separately from each of the barcode information obtaining module and the image information obtaining module are mapped to each other for the article. Lastly, prior art fails to teach the claimed camera comprising a processor configured to control an operation of the camera; a barcode information obtaining module configured to obtain barcode information attached to the article; and an image information obtaining module configured to obtain the image information about the article, wherein simultaneously the barcode information obtaining module obtains the barcode information of the article and the corresponding image information obtaining module obtains the image information about the article and wherein simultaneously the corresponding image information obtaining module does not obtain the barcode information about the article, wherein the barcode information and the image information obtained separately from each of the barcode information obtaining module and the image information obtaining module are mapped to each other for the article. The above limitations are not disclosed in prior art and moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to come to the claimed invention.
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: See attached PTO form 892, Refence Cited.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Allyson N. Trail whose telephone number is (571) 272-2406. The examiner can normally be reached between the hours of 7:30AM to 4:00PM Monday thru Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael G. Lee, can be reached on (571) 272-2398. The fax phone number for this Group is (571) 273-8300.
Communications via Internet e-mail regarding this application, other than those under 35 U.S.C. 132 or which otherwise require a signature, may be used by the applicant and should be addressed to [allyson.trail@uspto.gov].
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/ALLYSON N TRAIL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
May 14, 2025