DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to communications including the claims and applicant remarks filed on 11/04/2025. Claims 21, 23-27, 31, 33-26, and 40 have been amended. Claim 22 has been cancelled. No new claims have been added. Claims 21 and 23-40 are currently pending.
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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant has amended claims 21, 23-27, 31, 33-26, and 40 and notes that support for the amendments can be found in the specification. Specific citations to the specification were not noted. The originally filed disclosure has been evaluated for support for the matter included within the amendments.
The added limitation the one or more characteristics including a numeric color characteristic appears to have sufficient support in at least Specification ¶89 “Alternatively or in addition, image metadata 725 may include one or more numeric color characteristic values, such as a slab color rating, representative of an overall color characteristic of stone slab 750 and/or a combination of local color characteristic values.”
The added limitation query the production database to appears to have sufficient support in at least Specification ¶117 “For example, an image file may be identified by searching the database of slab image files using image file metadata based on criteria of a particular slab style, dimensions, color characteristics, movement, edge profile, gloss, and/or other characteristics.”
The added limitation the first slab image file associated with a single first stone slab from the physical inventory of stone slabs and the second slab image file associated with a single second stone slab from the physical inventory of stone slabs appears to have adequate support in at least Specification ¶98 “For example, a first stone slab may be grouped as the closest match to a second stone slab based on dimensional, color, and/or other characteristics (e.g. stored as image metadata).”, ¶6 “The system includes a production database stored at a server system and including slab image files corresponding to a physical inventory of stone slabs.”
The added limitation transferring identification of the single first stone slab and the single second stone slab to a client application for display appears to have sufficient support in at least Specification ¶62 “In various exemplary embodiments, metadata 525 may include information related to image 521 such as a unique identifier associating slab image file 520 with a particular stone slab 50a, manufacturing information such as a date, time and location of manufacture, characteristics of stone slab 50a such as dimensional information, weight, thickness, gloss measurement, roughness measurement, materials, presence and/or location of imperfections, one or more color characteristics, including a color characteristic that may uniquely identify a particular stone slab 50a, and/or a dimensional relationship between stone slab 50a and the associated image, as described in greater detail herein.”; ¶101-102 “In some embodiments, the slab image file may be used to identify a stone slab having a similar dimensional, color and/or other characteristic in response to a request for a particular style. Stone slabs having one or more similar characteristics may thus be identified and assigned with little or no human review of the stone slab or image based at least in part on an image and/or metadata generated at the location of manufacturing operation 802. At operations 818 and 820, slab image files and/or associated stone slabs may be provided to a remote party. Slab image files and stone slabs may be provided to the remote party in any sequence. In an exemplary embodiment, one or more slab image files are provided to a remote party in advance of delivery of associated stone slabs. Accordingly, the remote party may review and/or use the slab image files while the physical stone slab remains in a remote location. Further, the slab image file may allow the remote party to confirm or cancel delivery, begin preparing layouts in a nesting operation, and/or make other decisions regarding associated stone slabs before stone slabs have left a manufacturing or storage facility. Alternatively, or in addition, slab image files and stone slabs may be provided to the remote party substantially simultaneously. When received by the remote party, a fabrication operation, for example, may be initiated immediately by using the associated slab image files, while additional processing steps of inspecting, cataloging, and/or imaging the received stone slabs at the remote party location are reduced.”; ¶39 “Client device 60 includes a user interface display 61, network communication device 62, one or more inputs 63 for user commands, and a client application. Client device 60 is a device configured to receive information related to one or more stone slabs in the physical inventory of stone slabs 50 from server system 11.”
Accordingly, the specification describes the claimed invention, as amended, in sufficient detail such that one having skill in the art would reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing.
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections
Claim 36 has been amended in response to the rejection to the incorrect wording of the preamble. The amendment is sufficient and accordingly the objection to the claim has been withdrawn.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112
Claim 40 has been amended to clarify claim language that was previously rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) for relative terminology. The amendments to the claim resolve indefiniteness noted previously and accordingly the rejection has been withdrawn.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101
The claims have been amended in response to the previously-set-forth rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The applicant argues that the independent claims reflect real-world computational improvements that indicate a practical application which would make the claims eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The applicant makes note to “Office guidance” and Enfish v. Microsoft in support of this argument. The applicant further argues that the instant application is particularly relevant to Enfish in that the present application allegedly involves a specific type of data structure that improves the way a computer stores, retrieves, and processes data in memory, as well as enhancing operation between a server system and a client application.
Emphasis is made to the specification to sections asserting improvements to include reduced processing burden on a client device and communication speed between a server and client application may be increased, and latency time reduced, such that communication reliability and/or a user experience is improved. The applicant asserts that computational efficiency improvements noted in the specification are demonstrated by the claimed invention and accordingly the claims provide a practical application.
Applicants arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The references to “Office guidance” and Enfish v. Microsoft do not appear to have any relevancy to the instant application. Nonetheless, for completeness of response, the applicant’s argument that the claims in the present application involve a specific type of data structure that improves the way a computer stores, retrieves, and processes data in memory as well as enhances operation between a server system and client application is not persuasive following reasons: The claims do not recite any limitations that impart a unique or inventive mechanism by which a computer functions. The server and client devices of the claims appear to store, retrieve, and process data in memory in any ordinary computational capacity. The particular arrangement of the data within the database appears to be unique only in the way of generally linking the data to a particular technological environment or field of use, but the utilization of the data via storage, retrieval, and processing are not unique. Furthermore, the operation between the server system and a client application is not specified in any way to convey that any link between them is inventive. The facts of the present case are distinct and are being treated as such by evaluating the claimed matter according to the patent-eligibility analysis under the 2019 PEG as described herein this action.
Reducing the processing burden on a client device is not an improvement to the client device itself. Rather, the client device remains operating in its normal computing capacity and the burden is shifted to another (server) device also functioning in its normal computing capacity. There is no particular claimed matter that demonstrates improvements to computer capabilities for either the client device or the server device. The claims merely invoke the use of computers as a tool to perform a process which can be construed as an abstract idea. The server system appears to be used as a generic computer with generic database functionality to carry out the identification of matching files, which could be done by a human being using pen and paper as assistive physical aids. The client device appears to be a generic computer functioning in its normal capacity to execute functions that are well understood, routine and conventional computer functions (of receiving data over a network and displaying data).
Further, though the applicant asserts the improvement of communication speed between a server and a client application, this bare conclusory assertion is not supported in in the claims in such detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the improvement actually exists. That is to say that the mechanism by which communication speed is increased (or likewise latency reduced) is not apparent based on the claims. The claims merely recite “transferring identification of…” in a generic way that does not even necessitate a direct link between the server system and client application. There do not appear to be any limitations that would demonstrate increased communication speed between two such devices.
The inventive concept of the claims appears to be rooted in the steps which can be construed as an abstract idea (particularly a mental process). By using unique data for each individual stone slab to streamline the identification process, similar slabs can be identified more efficiently. Data can be stored alternately from a computer implementation, for example, using a paper filing system in which a human being can sift through such unique data in the files to identify similar samples. Any purported improvements appear to be a direct consequence of the improvement to the mental process and are not furnished by any specific additional elements. The server device and client device appear to merely be operating as tools to automate such process.
For the reasons stated in this response, in conjunction with the updated rejection of this office action, the claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant has amended the independent claims in responses to the previously-set-forth rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as the matter being unpatentable over Morgan (US 2007/0282718 A1) in view of Martinez-Alajarin. Applicant argues that the rejection is not proper but does not provide evidentiary support as to why. Applicant argues that the proposed combination of Morgan and Martinez Alajarin do not disclose or reasonably suggest all elements of the amended claims.
The amendments to the independent claims changed the scope of the claimed invention necessitated further search and consideration. In considering the amended claims against the prior art of record and in considering the arguments made by the application, Morgan in view of Martinez-Alajarin as a combination fail to disclose the entirety of the newly amended claimed matter. However, the teachings of Shakes in combination with the prior art of record, as stated herein the rejection of this office action, cure any cited deficiencies of the prior art of record made by the applicant. Accordingly, applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Shakes discloses an inventory management system that leverages a server with a database and a client device with display functionality. The control system of Shakes provides functionality to retrieve identification information regarding visual pattern information of items in an inventory from a database. Each item in the database corresponds to a unique item within the inventory. Similar items in the database maybe characterized by primary and secondary identifiers. Identified items within the database are transmitted from the server device to the client device for display. By applying the teachings of Shakes into the proposed combination of Morgan in view of Martinez-Alajarin, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed invention, per the rejection of this action. Accordingly, the claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claim Interpretation
Examiner note: This claim interpretation was documented in the previous office action, mailed 06/04/2025 but is placed again in this action for clarity of the record as to how the instant claims are being interpreted.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim 40 is being interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) because the claim recites the term “means” and includes functional language without corresponding structure recited in the claim.
Claim 40 recites “means for generating slab image files…”. When read in light of the specification, particularly paragraph [0059], a “means for generating slab image files” is understood to mean a camera. (Instant Specification, [0059], “Stone slab 50a may proceed to an image generator station 515 resulting in a high resolution slab image file 520 of stone slab 50a. In an exemplary embodiment, the image generator station 515 includes a camera (e.g., optionally, a "medium format" camera) mounted within an enclosure. Stone slab 50a may sequentially pass into the enclosure and within the field of view of the camera to be imaged.”)
Claim 40 also recites “means for storing the slab image files…”. When read in light of the specification, particularly paragraph [0095], a “means for storing the slab image files” is understood to mean a database. (Instant Specification, [0095], “Exemplary process 800 further includes operation 808 of storing a slab image file in a database. For example, one or more slab image files generated in operation 806 may be transferred to or otherwise stored in a database for subsequent access, use, modification and/or distribution. Operation 808 may include steps of storing the slab image file to a cloud-based database system and/or grouping the slab image files according to one or more features and characteristics stored as image metadata.”)
Claim Objections
Claim 40 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The word “inventor” contains a typographical error and should be corrected to instead read “inventory”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 40 recites the limitation "the production database" in two instances between lines 10 and 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 21 and 23-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The following section follows the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG) for analyzing subject matter eligibility:
Step 1 - Statutory Category:
Step 1 of the PEG analysis entails considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101 (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Step 2A Prong 1 - Judicial exception:
In Step 2A Prong 1, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea, law of nature, or a natural phenomenon).
Step 2a Prong 2 - Integration into a practical application:
If claims recite a judicial exception, the claim requires further analysis in Step 2A Prong 2. In Step 2A Prong 2, examiners evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.
Step 2B - Significantly More:
If the additional elements identified in Step 2A Prong 2 do not integrate the exception into a practical application, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception and requires further analysis under Step 2B- Significantly More.
As noted in the MPEP 2106.05(II): The identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong 2, as well as the conclusions from Step 2A Prong 2 on the considerations discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a) -(c), (e), (f), and (h) are to be carried over. Claim limitations identified as Insignificant Extra-Solution Activities are further evaluated to determine if the elements are beyond what is well -understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) activity, as dictated by MPEP 2106.05(II).
Independent Claims:
Claim 21:
Step 1: Claim 21 and its dependent claims 23-34 are directed to a system which falls within one of the four statutory categories of a machine.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 21 recites a judicial exception, noted in bold:
identify a first slab image file from the production database that is similar to a second slab image file from the production database based on the one or more characteristics The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating characteristics that describe a stone depicted in stone slab images to determine two slab image files that are quantified by a measure of similarity. This task can be practically performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. The claim limitation includes the usage of a server system including software programmed to query a database, which are all computing components recited at a high level of generality. Using a generic computer components as a tool to perform a mental process still amounts to the recitation of a mental process.
Therefore, the claim recites a judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2: Additional elements were identified and are noted in italics.
a production database stored at a server system and including slab image files associated with a physical inventory of stone slabs, each slab image file associated with only a single stone slab in the physical inventory of stone slabs and including: - This limitation has been identified as the Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) of mere data gathering that is necessary to perform the mental process. The limitation has further been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) for using generic computing components such as a database and a server system as tools to execute the abstract idea. The limitation is also identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) for linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use
an image of a major surface of the single stone slab, and - This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) because it further describes the field of use of imaging stone slabs
image metadata including an identifier that uniquely identifies the single stone slab, and one or more characteristics of the single stone slab, the one or more characteristics including a numeric color characteristic; - This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) because it further describes the field of use of imaging stone slabs and using data that is pertinent to the field of use and technological environment
the server system including software programmed to query the production database to This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) for invoking the use of computers or other machinery as tools to execute the abstract idea.
the first slab image file associated with a single first stone slab from the physical inventory of stone slabs and the second slab image file associated with a single second stone slab from the physical inventory of stone slabs; - This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) for generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use
transferring identification of the single first stone slab and the single second stone slab to a client application for display – This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) of mere data outputting
The courts have ruled that appending insignificant extra solution activity to a judicial exception, invoking the use of computers or other machinery as tools to execute the abstract idea, and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use or technological environment does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
When viewed independently and within the claim as a whole, the additional element does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application
Step 2B: As discussed in Step 2A Prong 2, additional elements were identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) which must be further evaluated to determine if they are beyond WURC activities. Additional elements identified otherwise and conclusions from Step 2A Prong 2 are carried over for evaluating if the claim, as a whole, amounts to an inventive concept that is significantly more than the judicial exception:
production database stored at a server system and including slab image files associated with a physical inventory of stone slabs, each slab image file associated with only a single stone slab in the physical inventory of stone slabs and including: - This limitation has been identified as the Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) of mere data gathering that is necessary to perform the mental process. The courts have recognized the computer function of storing information in memory as a well-understood, routine, and conventional computer function
transferring identification of the single first stone slab and the single second stone slab to a client application for display – This limitation has been identified as the Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) of mere data outputting. The courts have recognized the computer function of transmitting data over a network as a computer function that is well understood, routine, and conventional activity when claimed in a merely generic manner.
The courts have found that simply appending well-understood, routine,
conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality to the judicial exception is not enough to qualify the limitation as significantly more. The other additional elements were identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) and Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) which do not require further evaluation to determine if they are well understood, routine, and conventional activities. However, the courts have found that generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and invoking the use of computers to execute the mental process both do not qualify the limitations as significantly more than the judicial exception.
With the additional elements viewed independently and as part of the ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not appear to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Conclusion: Based on this rationale, the claim has been deemed to be ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 35:
Step 1: Claim 35 and its dependent claims 36-39 are directed to a method which falls within one of the four statutory categories of a process.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 35 recites a judicial exception, noted in bold:
identify a first slab image file from the production database and a second slab image file from the production database based on a similarity of color characteristics of the first and second slab image files The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating characteristics that describe a stone depicted in stone slab images to determine two slab image files that are quantified by a measure of similarity. This task can be practically performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. The claim includes the use of a production database, which is a generic computing component used as a tool to perform the mental process and therefore the claim still amounts to the recitation of a mental process
Therefore, the claim recites a judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2: Additional elements were identified and are noted in italics.
storing slab image files at a production database of a server system, the slab image files associated with a physical inventory of stone slabs, each slab image file associated with only a single stone slab in the physical inventory of stone slabs, each slab image file including: - This limitation has been identified as the Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) of mere data gathering that is necessary to perform the mental process. The limitation has further been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) for using generic computing components such as a database and a server system as tools to execute the abstract idea. The limitation is also identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) for linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use
an image of a major surface of the single stone slab, and- This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) because it further describes the field of use of imaging stone slabs.
image metadata including an identifier that uniquely identifies the single stone slab and one or more characteristics of the single stone slab, the one or more characteristics including a color characteristic; and; - This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) because it further describes the field of use of imaging stone slabs.
querying the production database - This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) for invoking the use of computers or other machinery as tools to execute the abstract idea.
the first slab image file associated with a single first stone slab from the physical inventory of stone slabs and the second slab image file associated with a single second stone slab from the physical inventory of stone slabs; - This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) for generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use
transferring identification of the first stone slab and the single second stone slab to a client application for display.- This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) of mere data outputting
The courts have ruled that appending insignificant extra solution activity to a judicial exception, invoking the use of computers or other machinery as tools to execute the abstract idea, and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use or technological environment does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
When viewed independently and within the claim as a whole, the additional element does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application
Step 2B: As discussed in Step 2A Prong 2, additional elements were identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) which must be further evaluated to determine if they are beyond WURC activities. Additional elements identified otherwise and conclusions from Step 2A Prong 2 are carried over for evaluating if the claim, as a whole, amounts to an inventive concept that is significantly more than the judicial exception:
storing slab image files at a production database of a server system, the slab image files associated with a physical inventory of stone slabs, each slab image file associated with only a single stone slab in the physical inventory of stone slabs, each slab image file including: - This limitation has been identified as the Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) of mere data gathering that is necessary to perform the mental process. The courts have recognized the computer function of storing and retrieving information in memory as a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity.
transferring identification of the first stone slab and the single second stone slab to a client application for display. – This limitation has been identified as the Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) of mere data outputting. The courts have recognized the computer function of transmitting data over a network as a computer function that is well understood, routine, and conventional activity when claimed in a merely generic manner.
The courts have found that simply appending well-understood, routine,
conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality to the judicial exception is not enough to qualify the limitation as significantly more. The other additional elements were identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) and Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) which do not require further evaluation to determine if they are well understood, routine, and conventional activities. However, the courts have found that generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and invoking the use of computers to execute the mental process both do not qualify the limitations as significantly more than the judicial exception.
With the additional elements viewed independently and as part of the ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not appear to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Conclusion: Based on this rationale, the claim has been deemed to be ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 40:
Step 1: Claim 40 is directed to a system which falls within one of the four statutory categories of a machine.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 40 recites a judicial exception, noted in bold:
a first slab image file from the production database configured to be identified as similar to a second slab image file from the production database based on comparison of the color characteristic of the first slab image file with the color characteristic of the second slab image file, The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating characteristics that describe a stone depicted in stone slab images to determine two slab image files that are quantified by a measure of similarity as a match. This task can be practically performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
Therefore, the claim recites a judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2: Additional elements were identified and are noted in italics.
means for generating slab image files associated with a physical inventory of stone slabs, each slab image file associated with only a single stone slab in the physical inventory of stone slabs, each slab image file including - This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) because the limitation links the judicial exception to a technological environment to employ image processing. This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) for invoking the use of computers or other machinery as tools to execute the abstract idea.
an image of a major surface of the single stone slab, and - This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) because it further describes the field of use of imaging stone slabs
image metadata including an identifier that uniquely identifies the single stone slab and one or more characteristics of the single stone slab, the one or more characteristics including a color characteristic; and; - This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) because it further describes the technological environment of the stone images
means for storing the slab image files- This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) for invoking the use of computers or other machinery as tools to execute the abstract idea.
the first slab image file associated with a single first stone slab from the physical inventory of stone slabs and the second slab image file associated with a single second stone slab from the physical inventor of stone slabs.- This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) for generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use
The courts have ruled that appending insignificant extra solution activity to a judicial exception and generally linking the judicial exception to a field of use does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
When viewed independently and within the claim as a whole, the additional element does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application
Step 2B: No additional elements were identified which require further consideration to determine if the elements are beyond well understood, routine, and conventional activity. Additional elements identified otherwise and conclusions from Step 2A Prong 2 are carried over for evaluating if the claim, as a whole, amounts to an inventive concept that is significantly more than the judicial exception:
The courts have found that generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and invoking the use of computers or other machinery to execute the mental process both do not qualify the limitations as significantly more than the judicial exception.
With the additional elements viewed independently and as part of the ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not appear to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Conclusion: Based on this rationale, the claim has been deemed to be ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent Claims:
Examiner notes limitations identified as judicial exceptions are indicated in italicized bold and limitations identified as additional elements are indicated using italics.
Claim 23
Regarding dependent claim 23, the judicial exception(s) of independent claim 21 is further incorporated.
Claim 23 additionally recites the limitation wherein the color characteristic represents an overall color characteristic of the associated stone slab. This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The courts have ruled generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular field of use or technological environment does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A Prong 2).
The courts have found that limitations that amount to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use and technological environment are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception (Step 2B).
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 24
Regarding dependent claim 24, the judicial exception(s) of independent claim 21 is further incorporated.
Claim 24 additionally recites the limitation wherein the color characteristic includes a color intensity value, color uniformity value, or color tonality value. This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The courts have ruled generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular field of use or technological environment does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A Prong 2).
The courts have found that limitations that amount to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use and technological environment are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception (Step 2B).
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 25
Regarding dependent claim 25, the judicial exception(s) of independent claim 21 is further incorporated.
Claim 25 additionally recites the limitation wherein the color characteristic includes a veining characteristic. This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The courts have ruled generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular field of use or technological environment does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A Prong 2).
The courts have found that limitations that amount to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use and technological environment are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception (Step 2B).
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 26
Regarding dependent claim 26, the judicial exception(s) of independent claim 21 is further incorporated.
Claim 26 additionally recites the limitation wherein the color characteristic includes a flow characteristic. This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The courts have ruled generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular field of use or technological environment does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A Prong 2).
The courts have found that limitations that amount to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use and technological environment are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception (Step 2B).
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 27
Regarding dependent claim 27, the judicial exception(s) of independent claim 21 is are further incorporated.
Claim 27 additionally recites the limitation wherein the color characteristic includes a location specific color characteristic. This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The courts have ruled generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular field of use or technological environment does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A Prong 2).
The courts have found that limitations that amount to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use and technological environment are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception (Step 2B).
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 28
Regarding dependent claim 28, the judicial exception of independent claim 21 is further incorporated.
Claim 28 additionally recites the limitation wherein the characteristic includes a gloss value. This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The courts have ruled generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular field of use or technological environment does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A Prong 2).
The courts have found that limitations that amount to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use and technological environment are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception (Step 2B).
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 29
Regarding dependent claim 29, the judicial exception of independent claim 21 is further incorporated.
Claim 29 additionally recites the limitation wherein the image of the major surface of the single stone slab has an image length and an image width, the single stone slab has a stone slab length and a stone slab width, and the characteristic includes a numeric ratio of the stone slab length to the image length (Lslab/Limage), which can reasonably be read to entail deriving a numeric ratio based on the measurements of a stone slab and measurements of an image of a stone slab. The recitation of a numeric ratio is the explicit recitation of a mathematical relationship. Therefore, this claim includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept (Step 2A Prong 1).
This claim does not recite any additional limitations. Therefore, there are no limitations that integrate the judicial exception(s) into a practical application, nor amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions (Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B).
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 30
Regarding dependent claim 30, the judicial exception of independent claim 21 is further incorporated.
Claim 30 additionally recites the limitations a first numeric value corresponding to a first visual quality of the single stone slab, and and a second numeric value corresponding to a second visual quality of the single stone slab. These limitations have been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The courts have ruled generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular field of use or technological environment does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A Prong 2).
The courts have found that limitations that amount to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use and technological environment are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception (Step 2B).
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 31
Regarding dependent claim 31, the judicial exception(s) of independent claim 21 is further incorporated.
Claim 31 additionally recites the limitation wherein the server system includes software programmed to receive the first and second slab image files from the production database and an environment image of a slab installation environment. This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) of mere data gathering. Claim 31 also recites the limitation and generate a 3D scene depicting at least a portion of major surfaces of first and second stone slabs associated with the first and second slab image files in the slab installation environment. This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) of insignificant application of data outputting to a display. The courts have ruled appending insignificant extra solution activity to a judicial exception does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A Prong 2).
Because limitations were identified as insignificant extra solution activity in Step 2A Prong 2, the limitations must be further evaluated to determine if they are beyond well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. For the limitation wherein the server system includes software programmed to receive the first and second slab image files from the production database and an environment image of a slab installation environment, when read in light of the specification, the database can be stored on a server system or remotely ((Instant Specification, [0040]) "The slab image file and/or environment image may be received from production database 30 stored at server system 11, a remote production database 30, client device 60, or another repository of slab image files or environment images. In some embodiments, a user may transmit one or more environment images of the installation environment from client device 60 (e.g. by capturing an environment device via image capturing device 65 and transmitting the image from client device 60 to server system 11). “). The courts have found that the computer function of receiving or transmitting data over a network and the function of storing and retrieving information in memory are well-understood, routine and conventional activities. For the limitation generate a 3D scene depicting at least a portion of major surfaces of first and second stone slabs associated with the first and second slab image files in the slab installation environment, when read in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses generic computing devices such as a smartphone, a tablet, a laptop or a desktop which all have displays. The specification further provides examples of other display mechanisms such as a touch screen, projector, virtual reality simulator, 3d display or the like ((Instant Specification, [0039]) "Client device 60 includes a user interface display 61, network communication device 62, one or more inputs 63 for user commands, and a client application. Client device 60 is a device configured to receive information related to one or more stone slabs in the physical inventory of stone slabs 50 from server system 11. In various exemplary embodiments, client device 60 may be a consumer device, such as a consumer computing device, and/or may include a smartphone, personal digital assistance, tablet computing device, laptop computing device, desktop computing device, or the like. User interface display 61 may deliver visual output to a user related to the physical inventory of stone slabs 50, such as a scene depicting a stone slab in an installation environment. In various exemplary embodiments, user interface display 61 may include a touch screen, projector, virtual reality simulator, 3D display, or the like."). Under broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim limitation recites the generic use of a display in which to generate a 3D scene. Rendering 3D scenes to a generic display is a well-understood, routine and conventional activity, as supported by the evidence of commercially-available off-the-shelf software that is capable of performing this task. An example of such software is Autodesk 3ds Max (Autodesk, “Autodesk 3ds Max: Create immersive worlds and high-quality designs“, Accessed May 30, 2025, https://www.autodesk.com/products/3ds-max/overview), hereinafter referred to as Autodesk, which is a 3d modeling and animation software that enables modeling and rendering of 3d scenes to a generic computer display. ((Autodesk, Overview, ¶1) "What is Autodesk 3ds Max? Autodesk 3ds Max professional 3D modeling, rendering, and animation software enables you to create expansive worlds and premium designs.") The courts have found that limitations that amount to simply appending well-understood, routine and conventional activities to a judicial exception are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception (Step 2B).
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 32
Regarding dependent claim 32, the judicial exception(s) of independent claim 21 and dependent claim 31 are further incorporated.
Claim 32 additionally recites the limitation wherein the server system is further programmed to determine a geometry of a target area of the slab installation environment where the first and second stone slabs are to be installed, and wherein the target area has a different geometry than the major surfaces of the first and second stone slabs., which can reasonably be read to entail utilizing a generic computing component (software) as a tool to evaluate an installation environment where slabs are to be installed and determining a geometry of the stones to cut from the full major surface of the stone to fit into the installation environment. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. Usage of a generic computing tool (software) to perform the mental process does still amounts to the recitation of a mental process.
This claim does not recite any additional limitations. Therefore, there are no limitations that integrate the judicial exception(s) into a practical application, nor amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions (Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B).
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 33
Regarding dependent claim 33, the judicial exception(s) of independent claim 21 is further incorporated.
Claim 33 additionally recites the limitation wherein the inventory of stone slabs comprises processed stone slabs. This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The courts have ruled generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular field of use or technological environment does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A Prong 2).
The courts have found that limitations that amount to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use and technological environment are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception (Step 2B).
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 34
Regarding dependent claim 34, the judicial exception(s) of independent claim 21 is further incorporated.
Claim 34 additionally recites the limitation wherein the inventory of stone slabs comprises quarried stone slabs. This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The courts have ruled generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular field of use or technological environment does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A Prong 2).
The courts have found that limitations that amount to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use and technological environment are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception (Step 2B).
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 36
Regarding dependent claim 36, the judicial exception of independent claim 35 is further incorporated.
Claim 36 additionally recites the limitations wherein the one or more characteristics include: a first numeric value corresponding to a first visual quality of the single stone slab, and a second numeric value corresponding to a second visual quality of the single stone slab. These limitations have been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The courts have ruled generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular field of use or technological environment does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A Prong 2).
The courts have found that limitations that amount to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use and technological environment are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception (Step 2B).
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 37
Regarding dependent claim 37, the judicial exception(s) of independent claim 35 and dependent claim 36 is further incorporated.
Claim 37 additionally recites the limitation wherein the color characteristics includes a numeric value that represents an overall color characteristic of the associated stone slab. This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The courts have ruled generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular field of use or technological environment does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A Prong 2).
The courts have found that limitations that amount to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use and technological environment are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception (Step 2B).
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 38
Regarding dependent claim 38, the judicial exception(s) of independent claim 35 and dependent claims 36 and 37 are further incorporated.
Claim 38 additionally recites the limitation wherein the color characteristics includes a gloss value and a location associated with the gloss value. This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The courts have ruled generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular field of use or technological environment does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A Prong 2).
The courts have found that limitations that amount to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use and technological environment are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception (Step 2B).
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 39
Regarding dependent claim 39, the judicial exception(s) of independent claim 35 and dependent claims 36, 37, and 38 are further incorporated.
Claim 39 additionally recites the limitation further comprising: determining a location for a seam based on the color characteristics., which can reasonably be read to entail evaluating color characteristics of stone slab image information to determine a seam location. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
This claim does not recite any additional limitations. Therefore, there are no limitations that integrate the judicial exception(s) into a practical application, nor amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions (Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B).
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 21, 23-27, 30, 33-37, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morgan et Al (US Patent Publication No. US 2007/0282718 A1), hereinafter referred to as Morgan, in view of Martinez-Alajarin et Al. (Martinez-Alajarin, J., Luis-Delgado, J., Tomas-Balibrea, L., “Automatic System for Quality-Based Classification of Marble Textures”, Nov. 2005, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics- Part C: Applications and Reviews, Vol. 35, No. 4, pp 488-497), hereinafter referred to as Martinez-Alajarin, further in view of Shakes et al. (US Patent No. 9,524,485 B1), hereinafter referred to as Shakes.
Regarding claim 21, Morgan teaches (except the limitations surrounded by brackets ([[…]]) A system for producing stone slabs, comprising: A system for producing stone slabs is disclosed, wherein the system contains elements for cutting and finishing stone slabs ((Morgan, [0024]) " FIG. 1 illustrates a stone cutting and shaping management system 1 for managing an inventory of stone slabs 110 for use in cutting and finishing a selected stone slab 110 into desired parts such as countertops. The stone slabs 110 managed by system 1 may include natural stone slabs such as granite and marble or engineered stone slabs."). See also Morgan, Figure 1.
a production database stored at a server system and including slab image files associated with a physical inventory of stone slabs, each slab image file associated with only a single stone slab in the physical inventory of stone slabs and including: System 1 includes a data management system where images and associated data for each slab in an inventory are stored ((Morgan, [0025]) " System 1 includes a data management system 10 that is used to access inventory 12 and also to communicate with a customer interface 16 for selecting a slab 110 and cutting the desired parts from the selected slab 110."); ((Morgan, [0026]) " The photo station 14 of system 1 is where images and/or data associated with each slab 110 in inventory 12 are visually recorded and entered. The images and data are sent to the data management system 10 for access at the customer interface 16 and for managing the slabs 110 throughout the process."). The data management system includes a database and slab image files produced at the photo station are associated with a specific stone slab through an identifying tag. ((Morgan, [0031]) " The image station 14 is used for the transfer of electronic data of the slab 110 to the database that is part of the data management system 10. By creating a slab visual image representative of each of the slabs 110 from the entire inventory 12 and providing a slab identifying tag 200 having slab identifying information on the slab 110, a complete inventory of slabs 110 may be entered in the central database.")
an image of a major surface of the single stone slab, and The image station that generates a visual image of a stone slab is connected to a tagging station ((Morgan, ¶25) "System 1 links the data management system 10 with the slab inventory 12, with an image (i.e., photo) station 14, with customer interface 16 (i.e., customer selection station), with a parts tagging station 18, with a customer parts cutting station 20 ( e.g., including cutting apparatuses/machines) and with a customer parts finishing station 22 (e.g., including finishing apparatuses/machines)."). The tagging station assigns tags to parts of the slab before cutting and processing ((Morgan, ¶27) "The parts tagging station 18 of system 1 can be used to individually tag each part to be cut on the slab 110 before cutting and processing the slab 110, as will be discussed in further detail below."). Tags include identifiers associated with zones on the slab, wherein a zone can be the top or bottom of a slab, which are understood to be major surfaces of the slab ((Morgan, ¶39) "In tagging the slabs 110, identifiers such as barcodes may have zones. One zone may be for positioning on a top of the slab 110, one for positioning on the bottom, and one on the edge. In this manner, the slab 110 may be scannable from three different sides.").
image metadata including an identifier that uniquely identifies the single stone slab, and one or more characteristics of the single stone slab, [[the one or more characteristics including a numeric color characteristic;]] Each slab image file in the database includes a visual image and a slab identifier associated with the image ((Morgan, ¶28) "As will be discussed in further detail below, the data management system 10 may include a central database wherein a slab visual image and a slab identifier associated with that image may be recorded."). Slab images are marked to identify imperfections, as characteristics of the slab ((Morgan, ¶34) "During the image recording stage of the process, an operator may mark flaws on the slab 110 using a flaw marking input system such as a grease pen prior to taking the photo, if needed. The grease pen may preferably used for "hard to see" flaws. In this manner, when the photo is taken at the image station 14, the photo image will have flaws clearly marked. Preferably, the lighting and the picture quality used is such that the slab features are clearly visible with good color and accurate 1 to 1 scaling. Once a photograph is taken, it is digitally stored in the central database. Imperfections in the stone that are marked may include color variations, veins, flaws in the stone, cracks, etc."). Additional information about the slab can be stored in the database and associated with each image file ((Morgan, ¶35) "In addition to the visual representation, other information about the slab 110 can be stored in the database. Slab data may include a complete description of the slab 110, allowing the user to define all the required elements for processing and tracking. The exact type of data to be stored for each slab 110 could vary with each customer.")
[[the server system including software programmed to query the production database to identify a first slab image file from the production database that is similar to a second slab image file from the production database based on the one or more characteristics, the first slab image file associated with a single first stone slab from the physical inventory of stone slabs and the second slab image file associated with a single second stone slab from the physical inventory of stone slabs]]
[[transferring identification of the single first stone slab and the single second stone slab to a client application for display]]
Morgan does not teach, however Martinez-Alajarin teaches (except the limitations surrounded by brackets ([[..]])) the one or more characteristics including a numeric color characteristic; The plurality of features (characteristics) derived from the pixels of the images contains color and textural information ((Martinez-Alajarin, Page 493, Col 1, ¶1) "Although each channel has been treated as a gray level image (256 pixel intensities), the set of 21 parameters contains color and textural information. Other methods that combine color and texture to classify images are described in [23] and [24]"). The features are defined by 7 statistical parameters, including a numeric mean value. One having ordinary skill in the art would understand the mean value in image processing is the sum of all pixel values divided by the total number of pixel values and, as such, a numeric value describing the overall color characteristic of the image of the slab can be derived ((Martinez-Alajarin, Page 492, Col 2, ¶7 through Page 493, Col 1, ¶1) "In order to reduce the dimension of this set of characteristics used to describe the texture, seven statistical features are computed for each pair of vectors, as defined in [16]: mean, variance, energy, correlation, entropy, contrast, and homogeneity (Table I). Finally, this results in 3 channels 7 features/channel 21 features, which express the information of the six histogram vectors in a more compact form. Although each channel has been treated as a gray level image (256 pixel intensities), the set of 21 parameters contains color and textural information."); (See also Martinez-Alajarin Table 1 on page 493 for numerical expression of the mean parameter).
[[the server system including software programmed to query the production database]] to identify a first slab image file from the production database that is similar to a second slab image file from the production database based on the one or more characteristics [[the first slab image file associated with a single first stone slab from the physical inventory of stone slabs and the second slab image file associated with a single second stone slab from the inventory of stone slabs]]. A system for imaging and classifying stone slabs through computational algorithms using images of the stone slabs is disclosed ((Martinez-Alajarin, Page 489, Col 1, ¶1) "The system consists of a mechatronic prototype that houses all the required physical components for the acquisition of visual images of marble slabs, and computational algorithms (running on a PC computer) that perform texture analysis, feature extraction, and classification of the marble surfaces."); ((Martinez-Alajarin, Page 489, Col 2, ¶3) "Once the image has been captured, it is preprocessed with an image acquisition board and saved in an industrial PC computer, which runs the computational algorithms."). A plurality of features (characteristics of the stone slabs) is derived from the pixels of the images of the stone slabs ((Martinez-Alajarin, Page 492 Col 2, ¶6-7 through Page 493, Col 1, ¶1) "The neighborhood between pixels, defined by (d_1, d_2), can be chosen arbitrarily. In our case, for simplicity, the nearest 8 neighbors of a pixel have been considered (Fig. 4). …After computing the resultant six histogram vectors (P_sc and P_dc, with c= 1, 2, 3) we obtain 3 channels 2 vectors/channel 511 elements/vector = 3066 elements. In order to reduce the dimension of this set of characteristics used to describe the texture, seven statistical features are computed for each pair of vectors, as defined in [16]: mean, variance, energy, correlation, entropy, contrast, and homogeneity (Table I). Finally, this results in 3 channels x 7 features/channel = 21 features, which express the information of the six histogram vectors in a more compact form. Although each channel has been treated as a gray level image (256 pixel intensities), the set of 21 parameters contains color and textural information."). The derived features are fed into a heteroassociative artificial neural network and classifications of stone slab images are categorized as one of three outputs ((Martinez-Alajarin, Page 496, Col 1, ¶6) "Texture analysis was made with the sum and difference histograms, based on the gray level difference between adjacent pixels, which provides a reliable method to characterize the image texture. One of the greatest improvements with respect to our previous works was the feature selection process with PCA, which reduced the number of features, retaining high levels of the original information. This provided a good set of features, without redundant information, as inputs to the neural network, thus resulting in fast convergence and good learning capabilities."); ((Martinez-Alajarin, Page 493, Col 2, Section D. Classification, ¶2-3) "To build this input/output mapping, a heteroassociative artificial neural network has been chosen, as these structures present very good capabilities for learning and generalizing information… The structure of the neural network consists of three feedforward layers: 1) the input layer, with neurons (one neuron for each one of the principal components), 2) the hidden layer, with six neurons, and 3) the output layer, with three neurons (one per quality category: extra, commercial, and low).") One having ordinary skill in the art would understand that image files classified under the same classification category could be identified as similar based on the proximity of the computed quantified value responsible for the classification designation.
[[transferring identification of the single first stone slab and the single second stone slab to a client application for display]]
Martinez-Alajarin is analogous art because it is related to the same field of endeavor as Morgan of stone slab imaging in production systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to which said subject matter pertains at the time the invention was filed to have implemented the classification methodology taught by Martinez-Alajarin into the stone slab production system taught by Morgan because Morgan indicates that the appearance of the grain may be visualized and optimized for pattern matching but does not disclose the specifics of how the pattern matching is achieved ((Morgan, ¶42) " Appearance of the grain may be visualized and optimized. Pattern matching may be performed.") One having ordinary skill in the art would be compelled to explore classification approaches that enable pattern matching, such as that disclosed by Martinez-Alajarin, per Morgan’s suggestion. The automatic classification system of marble textures disclosed by Martinez-Alajarin yields the predictable results of high performance over traditional (manual) stone classification approaches that require human intervention ((Martinez-Alajarin, Page 488, Col 2, ¶2) "These drawbacks can be solved by using an automated system capable of performing the same processing tasks that are currently done by the human experts, so the classification homogeneity could be improved and, at the same time, the manufacturing cost could be reduced."); ((Martinez-Alajarin, Page 496, Col 1, Conclusion, ¶2) "The mechatronic design and the software are especially robust for working in industrial environments, where the results obtained have proven very high performance compared with the traditional (manual) classification system."). Furthermore, the approach disclosed by Martinez-Alajarin increases homogeneity of product supplied by factories, which is desirable for pattern matching and optimizing the visual appearance of stone grain ((Martinez-Alajarin, Page 496, Col 2, ¶3) "This automatic classification system increases the homogeneity of the product supplied by factories, and reduce time, cost and discrepancies in the marble industry, since this system may be used as a standard for marble quality control and classification. This also allows for an objective comparison between marble slabs of the same variety coming from different places."). Additionally, Martinez-Alajarin suggests applicability for the approach for other textured products with little or no modifications necessary to the employed algorithms, thereby indicating use for a multitude of material types ((Martinez-Alajarin, Page 490 Col 1, ¶2) "With the automatic classification system described in this paper, we intend to achieve four main advantages …4) development of a custom, flexible system, which could be applied to the classification of different marble varieties (even to other natural-texture products, like granites) with little or no modifications in the texture analysis and classification algorithms.").
The proposed combination alone does not disclose; however the proposed combination in further view of Shakes discloses the server system including software programmed to query the production database Pattern and color information is used for item identification in an inventory ((Shakes, Col 27, Lines 27-33) "As described herein, one of the items may be identified based on its associated pattern information, as illustrated by block 1180. A picking agent may be provided instructions to locate and obtain a particular item from an inventory area. As described above, the pattern information associated with an item may be presented to aid an agent in identifying that item from among other items."). Pattern information is stored in a product database ((Shakes, Col 27, Lines 6-18) "The pattern information, once assigned, may then be associated with a product identifier for each item, as illustrated by block 1140. For example, the pattern information may be stored in a product database, such as product database 410, and associated with the corresponding item's identifier, such as an SKU, SBIN, or other product identifier, according to one embodiment. The pattern information may be entered into the database by an agent, for example by using a keyboard or other input/output device of control system 400 or another host computer, or may be entered into the database automatically by program instructions executing on control system 400 as part of determining and assigning the pattern information, in some embodiments."). Software is used to determine pattern information by retrieving pattern information from a database (as a query to the database) ((Shakes, Col 27, Lines 66-67 and Col 28, Lines1-2) "In some embodiments, software executing on control system 400 may be used to determine pattern information for an item by retrieving pattern information from a database, such as product database"). A control system is used to identify similar items in a database with a given pattern or color ((Shakes, Col 28, Lines 62-67 and Col 29, Line 1) "In some embodiments, pattern information may be determined by software executing on control system 400 based on a capacity of an item, such as for similar disk drives 65 capable of storing different amounts of data, or a size of an item, such as for different sizes of the same item of clothing, or based on another characteristic of the item, such as the color of the item. For example, otherwise identical items of clothing may be assigned different pattern information based upon the color of each item."). The control system is described as having a client/server relationship, wherein the control system may be configured as a server computer ((Shakes, Col 35, Lines 42-47) " In one embodiment, the relationship between control system 400 and communication devices 350 may be a server/client type of relationship. For example, control system 400 may be configured as a server computer system 45 1200 that may convey instructions to and receive acknowledgements from communication devices 350. ".) The control system may identify pattern information for multiple items at once ((Shakes, Col 18, Lines 11-20) "For example, control system 400 may supply pattern information for multiple items at one time, such as for, multiple items located in a single inventory area, or located in multiple inventory areas in proximity to one another.".) … the first slab image file associated with a single first stone slab from the physical inventory of stone slabs and the second slab image file associated with a single second stone slab from the inventory of stone slabs. Individual items in the database may contain information that distinguish like items such that each individual item in an inventory is uniquely identifiable based on the associated identification information ((Shakes, Col 21, Lines 31-38) "As described above, the pattern information associated with an item may be presented to aid an agent in identifying that item from among other items. Different levels and/or amounts of pattern information may be assigned to a single item so that, in some embodiments, different amounts of pattern information may be used to identify that item depending upon the other items with which that item might be stored, as described above.")
transferring identification of the single first stone slab and the single second stone slab to a client application for display A plurality of items from an inventory area can be identified from a database, thereby indicating that a first and second item can be identified ((Shakes, Col 40, Lines 31-40) "36. The storage medium of claim 34, wherein the program instructions are further executable by the one or more computers to cause the one or more computers to perform for each of the plurality of items, storing in a database an indication of an association between the respective product identifier, the respective determined pattern information, and one of a plurality of inventory areas in which the respective item is stored, wherein the indication of the association stored in the database is usable in locating one or more of the 40 items from among the plurality of inventory areas."). Pattern information (which identifies the product) can be transmitted to a communication device ((Shakes, col 16, Lines 42-57) "In some embodiments, the number of bytes required to transmit pattern information 510 may be small enough, such as a single byte in certain embodiments, that attaching pattern information 510 to a message that is already being sent may be more efficient than the overhead required to send another message just for pattern information 510. For example, pattern information 510 may be small enough to insert into an unused field of an existing message, such as one used to send picking instructions 500, and may therefore be sent with no or almost no increase in required bandwidth, according to certain embodiments. In yet other embodiments, communication device 350 may store or cache received pattern information and may also be configured to locate and retrieve pattern information directly from product database 410, rather than relying upon control system 400 to provide it."). The communication device is used to display the pattern information (Shakes, Col 17, Lines 33-35) "In some embodiments, control system 400 may send an actual graphic image of the pattern information to communication device 350."); ((Shakes Col 20, Lines 62-67 And Col 21, Lines 1-15) "FIG. 6 illustrates an exemplary communication device 350 presenting pattern information for an item to aid the identification of that item, according to one embodiment. For example, in one embodiment, communication device 350 may present pattern information 600, which may include secondary pattern information 610, on display 620Presented pattern information 600 may provide a visual identifier to distinguish the item to be picked from the other items in inventory area 135. In some embodiments, pattern information 600 may only represent a single dominant color corresponding to a visible view of the item to be picked or of an applied pattern information indicator. In other embodiments though, pattern information 600 may also include other or secondary pattern information corresponding to other visual elements of the visual view of the item to be picked. For example, secondary pattern information 610 may represent the color and approximate size and location of the title text on the spine of a book, CD, DVD or other item, or may represent a shape or pattern printed on an attached sticker or tag, according to different embodiments."). The communication device is described as being a client ((Shakes, Col 35, Lines42-46) "In one embodiment, the relationship between control system 400 and communication devices 350 may be a server/client type of relationship. For example, control system 400 may be configured as a server computer system 45 1200 that may convey instructions to and receive acknowledgements from communication devices 350. In such an embodiment, communication devices 350 may be relatively simple or "thin" client devices. For example, communication devices 350 may be configured as dumb terminals with 50 display, data entry and communications capabilities, but otherwise little computational functionality.")
Shakes is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to the same field of endeavor of automated inventory management systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to which said subject matter pertains at the time the invention was filed to have incorporated the product database with the pattern identification and display functionality for items in an inventory as disclosed by Shakes into the claimed invention because some teaching, suggestion, or motivation would have led one having ordinary skill in the art to do so in order to arrive at the claimed invention. Morgan discloses a stone management system with a database for managing an inventory of stone slabs and suggests that pattern matching may occur but does not particularly disclose a process for achieving such. To achieve pattern matching, it is understood that multiple components may be selected so as to match the materials. Martinez-Alajarin discloses an automated system for the classification and grouping of marble slabs in a production line, wherein characteristics of the individual stones can be categorized into like items within a database. Martinez-Alajarin explicitly states that slabs must be matched to maintain aesthetic homogeneity ((Martinez-Alajarin, Page 488, Col 1, Introduction, ¶1) "In these cases, the new slabs used must match with the older ones (they can be even from different suppliers), in order to maintain an aesthetic homogeneity.") Shakes notes that pattern identification may be utilized in a variety of facilities, including warehouse storage facilities, and particularly notes that it may be used in any situation where one item must be identified from among other different items (See Shake Col 7, Lines 8-16). Shakes particularly notes that multiple levels of pattern information may be associated with a specific item such that primary pattern information may represent a similarity between items and a secondary pattern information may be used to distinguish between items amongst those similar items ((Shakes, Col 3, Lines 61-67) "In some embodiments, the pattern information may also include secondary pattern information to further distinguish between otherwise similar items. Secondary pattern information may include other information such as secondary color patterning, perhaps representing artwork on the item's 65 packaging, or perhaps the color of text on the item or the item's packaging, in some embodiments."). Shakes explicitly states in Col 13, Lines 30-33 “In general, pattern information may aid in the identification of virtually any item stored with other different items and may be especially beneficial when used to identify an item from among other similar items.”. Shakes further discloses a database management and access approach to be able to identify, using pattern identification, unique items in an inventory within items having similar visual characteristics. Identifying items that are similar to one another but distinct is a necessary process to achieve the pattern matching as suggested by Martinez-Alajarin. Because Morgan suggests pattern matching for slabs may occur, Martinez-Alajarin provides mechanism by which to group similar stone slabs, and Shakes provides an inventory management system by which to identify unique items from groups of similar items in a warehouse-inventory application, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of Shakes so as to arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 23, the proposed combination teaches The system of claim 21, as stated previously. The proposed combination further teaches in view of Martinez-Alajarin wherein the color characteristic represents an overall color characteristic of the associated stone slab. The plurality of features (characteristics) derived from the pixels of the images contains color and textural information. The features are defined by 7 statistical parameters, including a numeric mean value. One having ordinary skill in the art would understand the mean value in image processing is the sum of all pixel values divided by the total number of pixel values and, as such, a numeric value describing the overall color characteristic of the image of the slab can be derived ((Martinez-Alajarin, Page 492, Col 2, ¶7 through Page 493, Col 1, ¶1) "In order to reduce the dimension of this set of characteristics used to describe the texture, seven statistical features are computed for each pair of vectors, as defined in [16]: mean, variance, energy, correlation, entropy, contrast, and homogeneity (Table I). Finally, this results in 3 channels 7 features/channel 21 features, which express the information of the six histogram vectors in a more compact form. Although each channel has been treated as a gray level image (256 pixel intensities), the set of 21 parameters contains color and textural information."); (See also Martinez-Alajarin Table 1 on page 493 for numerical expression of the mean parameter).
Regarding claim 24, the proposed combination teaches The system of claim 21, as stated previously. The proposed combination further teaches in view of Martinez-Alajarin wherein the color characteristic includes a color intensity value, color uniformity value, or color tonality value. The plurality of features (characteristics) derived from the pixels of the images contains color and textural information. The features are defined by 7 statistical parameters, including a numeric homogeneity value. One having ordinary skill in the art would understand the homogeneity value in image processing is the measure of how similar pixels of an image are (High homogeneity indicates uniformity). As such, a numeric value describing the uniformity of the image of the slab can be derived ((Martinez-Alajarin, Page 492, Col 2, ¶7 through Page 493, Col 1, ¶1) "In order to reduce the dimension of this set of characteristics used to describe the texture, seven statistical features are computed for each pair of vectors, as defined in [16]: mean, variance, energy, correlation, entropy, contrast, and homogeneity (Table I). Finally, this results in 3 channels 7 features/channel 21 features, which express the information of the six histogram vectors in a more compact form. Although each channel has been treated as a gray level image (256 pixel intensities), the set of 21 parameters contains color and textural information."); (See also Martinez-Alajarin Table 1 on page 493 for numerical expression of the homogeneity parameter).
Regarding claim 25, the proposed combination teaches The system of claim 21, as stated previously. The proposed combination further teaches in view of Martinez-Alajarin wherein the color characteristic includes a veining characteristic. Textural analysis is done on the image files of the stone slab to consider veins of the marble surface ((Martinez-Alajarin, Page 492, Col 1, ¶5) "In this work, apart from the color, the texture of the image has been taken into account. Tests made showed that, although in some cases the veins in the marble surface are hardly distinguishable, their analysis is very important to determine the subclass to which the pattern belongs, as well as its quality, thus achieving better results than in the case of considering only color information. The method used for texture analysis is the sum and difference histograms (SDH) algorithm [16]."). The plurality of features (characteristics) in histogram vectors derived from the textural analysis of the pixels of the images contains color and textural information ((Martinez-Alajarin, Page 493, Col 1, ¶1) "Finally, this results in 3 channels 7 features/channel 21 features, which express the information of the six histogram vectors in a more compact form. Although each channel has been treated as a gray level image (256 pixel intensities), the set of 21 parameters contains color and textural information. Other methods that combine color and texture to classify images are described in [23] and [24].").
Regarding claim 26, the proposed combination teaches The system of claim 21, as stated previously. The proposed combination further in view of Martinez-Alajarin teaches wherein the color characteristic includes a flow characteristic. When read in light of the specification, flow is not explicitly defined. The flow is understood by the examiner to mean the way veining, color variations, and textures create visual movement or pattern across a surface. The plurality of features (characteristics) derived from the pixels of the images contains color and textural information. The features are defined by 7 statistical parameters, including a numeric energy value. One having ordinary skill in the art would understand the energy value in image processing is the measure of how pixels change over local areas of an image. The ability to distinguish between different areas of an image of a stone slab and quantify how the pixels change over the local areas may indicate an understanding of visual flow. As such, a numeric value describing the flow/energy of the image of the slab can be derived ((Martinez-Alajarin, Page 492, Col 2, ¶7 through Page 493, Col 1, ¶1) "In order to reduce the dimension of this set of characteristics used to describe the texture, seven statistical features are computed for each pair of vectors, as defined in [16]: mean, variance, energy, correlation, entropy, contrast, and homogeneity (Table I). Finally, this results in 3 channels 7 features/channel 21 features, which express the information of the six histogram vectors in a more compact form. Although each channel has been treated as a gray level image (256 pixel intensities), the set of 21 parameters contains color and textural information."); (See also Martinez-Alajarin Table 1 on page 493 for numerical expression of the energy parameter).
Regarding claim 27, the proposed combination teaches The system of claim 21, as stated previously. The proposed combination further in view of Morgan teaches wherein the color characteristic includes a location-specific color characteristic. Color variations and other defects on the stone slabs are marked using a flaw marking input system and the information is recorded into the database, indicating a characteristic that pertains to a particular location of the stone slab ((Morgan, [0034]) "During the image recording stage of the process, an operator may mark flaws on the slab 110 using a flaw marking input system such as a grease pen prior to taking the photo, if needed. The grease pen may preferably used for "hard to see" flaws. In this manner, when the photo is taken at the image station 14, the photo image will have flaws clearly marked. Preferably, the lighting and the picture quality used is such that the slab features are clearly visible with good color and accurate 1 to 1 scaling. Once a photograph is taken, it is digitally stored in the central database. Imperfections in the stone that are marked may include color variations, veins, flaws in the stone, cracks, etc. Some imperfections may be easy to see on an image and others that are more difficult to see may be marked with a grease pen, as noted above. The images may also be marked electronically on a visual image of the slab 110 once the image is recorded in the database").
Regarding claim 30, the proposed combination teaches The system of claim 21, wherein the one or more characteristics include: as stated previously.
The proposed combination further in view of Martinez-Alajarin teaches a first numeric value corresponding to a first visual quality of the single stone slab, and a second numeric value corresponding to a second visual quality of the single stone slab. A system for imaging and classifying stone slabs through computational algorithms using images for assessing visual qualities of the stone slabs is disclosed ((Martinez-Alajarin, Page 489, Col 1, ¶1) "The system consists of a mechatronic prototype that houses all the required physical components for the acquisition of visual images of marble slabs, and computational algorithms (running on a PC computer) that perform texture analysis, feature extraction, and classification of the marble surfaces."); ((Martinez-Alajarin, Page 489, Col 2, ¶3) "Once the image has been captured, it is preprocessed with an image acquisition board and saved in an industrial PC computer, which runs the computational algorithms."). A plurality (7) of features that characterize visual qualities of an image of a stone slab is derived from the pixels of the images of the stone slabs ((Martinez-Alajarin, Page 492 Col 2, ¶6-7 through Page 493, Col 1, ¶1) "The neighborhood between pixels, defined by (d_1, d_2), can be chosen arbitrarily. In our case, for simplicity, the nearest 8 neighbors of a pixel have been considered (Fig. 4). …After computing the resultant six histogram vectors (P_sc and P_dc, with c= 1, 2, 3) we obtain 3 channels 2 vectors/channel 511 elements/vector = 3066 elements. In order to reduce the dimension of this set of characteristics used to describe the texture, seven statistical features are computed for each pair of vectors, as defined in [16]: mean, variance, energy, correlation, entropy, contrast, and homogeneity (Table I). Finally, this results in 3 channels x 7 features/channel = 21 features, which express the information of the six histogram vectors in a more compact form."). The statistical features for seven separate qualities can be computed numerically (See Martinez-Alajarin Table 1 on page 493 for equations to quantify 7 parameters that represent visual characteristics).
Regarding claim 33, the proposed combination teaches The system of claim 21, as stated previously. The proposed combination further in view of Morgan teaches wherein the inventory of stone slabs comprises processed stone slabs. An inventory of stone slabs includes engineered stone slabs ((Morgan, [0024]) "FIG. 1 illustrates a stone cutting and shaping management system 1 for managing an inventory of stone slabs 110 for use in cutting and finishing a selected stone slab 110 into desired parts such as countertops. The stone slabs 110 managed by system 1 may include natural stone slabs such as granite and marble or engineered stone slabs.").
Regarding claim 34, the proposed combination teaches The system of claim 21, as stated previously. The proposed combination further in view of Morgan teaches wherein the inventory of stone slabs comprises quarried stone slabs An inventory of stone slabs includes natural stone slabs such as granite and marble ((Morgan, [0024]) "FIG. 1 illustrates a stone cutting and shaping management system 1 for managing an inventory of stone slabs 110 for use in cutting and finishing a selected stone slab 110 into desired parts such as countertops. The stone slabs 110 managed by system 1 may include natural stone slabs such as granite and marble or engineered stone slabs.")
Regarding claim 35, Morgan teaches (except the limitations surrounded by brackets ([[…]])) A method for producing stone slabs, comprising: Processes for cutting, finishing, and transporting stone slabs are described with consideration for a computer-based management and visualization method ((Martinez-Alajarin, [0071]) " Even though the cutting, finishing and transporting processes are described herein as being automated by downloading the associated files, in other embodiments of the system 1, all or a part of the processes can be performed manually. Even if a number of the processes are performed manually, stations such as the image station 14 or the parts tagging station 18 may still be used to capture a visual image of the slab electronically and track the slab inventory and the parts through the floor. Even if all of the cutting, finishing, and transporting processes are performed manually, the system described herein may still include features that allow for computer based customer interaction, customer selection, and digital visualization of the parts, among other features.").
storing slab image files at a production database of a server system, the slab image files associated with a physical inventory of stone slabs, each slab image file associated with only a single stone slab in the physical inventory of stone slabs, each slab image file including: System 1 includes a data management system where images and associated data for each slab in an inventory are stored ((Morgan, [0025]) "System 1 includes a data management system 10 that is used to access inventory 12 and also to communicate with a customer interface 16 for selecting a slab 110 and cutting the desired parts from the selected slab 110."); ((Morgan, [0026]) " The photo station 14 of system 1 is where images and/or data associated with each slab 110 in inventory 12 are visually recorded and entered. The images and data are sent to the data management system 10 for access at the customer interface 16 and for managing the slabs 110 throughout the process."). The data management system includes a database and slab image files produced at the photo station are associated with a specific stone slab through an identifying tag. ((Morgan, [0031]) " The image station 14 is used for the transfer of electronic data of the slab 110 to the database that is part of the data management system 10. By creating a slab visual image representative of each of the slabs 110 from the entire inventory 12 and providing a slab identifying tag 200 having slab identifying information on the slab 110, a complete inventory of slabs 110 may be entered in the central database.")
an image of a major surface of the single stone slab, and The image station that generates a visual image of a stone slab is connected to a tagging station ((Morgan, ¶25) "System 1 links the data management system 10 with the slab inventory 12, with an image (i.e., photo) station 14, with customer interface 16 (i.e., customer selection station), with a parts tagging station 18, with a customer parts cutting station 20 ( e.g., including cutting apparatuses/machines) and with a customer parts finishing station 22 (e.g., including finishing apparatuses/machines)."). The tagging station assigns tags to parts of the slab before cutting and processing ((Morgan, ¶27) "The parts tagging station 18 of system 1 can be used to individually tag each part to be cut on the slab 110 before cutting and processing the slab 110, as will be discussed in further detail below."). Tags include identifiers associated with zones on the slab, wherein a zone can be the top or bottom of a slab, which are understood to be major surfaces of the slab ((Morgan, ¶39) "In tagging the slabs 110, identifiers such as barcodes may have zones. One zone may be for positioning on a top of the slab 110, one for positioning on the bottom, and one on the edge. In this manner, the slab 110 may be scannable from three different sides.").
image metadata including an identifier that uniquely identifies the single stone slab and one or more characteristics of the single stone slab, [[the one or more characteristics including a color characteristic; and]] Each slab image file in the database includes a visual image and a slab identifier associated with the image ((Morgan, ¶28) "As will be discussed in further detail below, the data management system 10 may include a central database wherein a slab visual image and a slab identifier associated with that image may be recorded."). Slab images are marked to identify imperfections, as characteristics of the slab ((Morgan, ¶34) "During the image recording stage of the process, an operator may mark flaws on the slab 110 using a flaw marking input system such as a grease pen prior to taking the photo, if needed. The grease pen may preferably used for "hard to see" flaws. In this manner, when the photo is taken at the image station 14, the photo image will have flaws clearly marked. Preferably, the lighting and the picture quality used is such that the slab features are clearly visible with good color and accurate 1 to 1 scaling. Once a photograph is taken, it is digitally stored in the central database. Imperfections in the stone that are marked may include color variations, veins, flaws in the stone, cracks, etc."). Additional information about the slab can be stored in the database and associated with each image file ((Morgan, ¶35) "In addition to the visual representation, other information about the slab 110 can be stored in the database. Slab data may include a complete description of the slab 110, allowing the user to define all the required elements for processing and tracking. The exact type of data to be stored for each slab 110 could vary with each customer.")
[[querying the production database to identify a first slab image file from the production database and a second slab image file from the production database based on a similarity of color characteristics of the first and second slab image files, the first slab image file associated with a single first stone slab from the physical inventory of stone slabs and the second slab image file associated with a single second stone slab from the physical inventory of slabs;]]
[[transferring identification of the first stone slab and the single second stone slab to a client application for display.]]
Morgan does not teach; however, Martinez-Alajarin teaches (except the limitations surrounded by brackets ([[..]])) the one or more characteristics including a color characteristic; and The plurality of features (characteristics) derived from the pixels of the images contains color and textural information ((Martinez-Alajarin, Page 493, Col 1, ¶1) "Although each channel has been treated as a gray level image (256 pixel intensities), the set of 21 parameters contains color and textural information. Other methods that combine color and texture to classify images are described in [23] and [24]").
[[querying the production database to]] identify a first slab image file from the production database and a second slab image file from the production database based on a similarity of color characteristics of the first and second slab image files, [[the first slab image file associated with a single first stone slab from the physical inventory of stone slabs and the second slab image file associated with a single second stone slab from the physical inventory of slabs;]] A system for imaging and classifying stone slabs through computational algorithms using images of the stone slabs is disclosed ((Martinez-Alajarin, Page 489, Col 1, ¶1) "The system consists of a mechatronic prototype that houses all the required physical components for the acquisition of visual images of marble slabs, and computational algorithms (running on a PC computer) that perform texture analysis, feature extraction, and classification of the marble surfaces."); ((Martinez-Alajarin, Page 489, Col 2, ¶3) "Once the image has been captured, it is preprocessed with an image acquisition board and saved in an industrial PC computer, which runs the computational algorithms."). A plurality of features (characteristics of the stone slabs) is derived from the pixels of the images of the stone slabs ((Martinez-Alajarin, Page 492 Col 2, ¶6-7 through Page 493, Col 1, ¶1) "The neighborhood between pixels, defined by (d_1, d_2), can be chosen arbitrarily. In our case, for simplicity, the nearest 8 neighbors of a pixel have been considered (Fig. 4). …After computing the resultant six histogram vectors (P_sc and P_dc, with c= 1, 2, 3) we obtain 3 channels 2 vectors/channel 511 elements/vector = 3066 elements. In order to reduce the dimension of this set of characteristics used to describe the texture, seven statistical features are computed for each pair of vectors, as defined in [16]: mean, variance, energy, correlation, entropy, contrast, and homogeneity (Table I). Finally, this results in 3 channels x 7 features/channel = 21 features, which express the information of the six histogram vectors in a more compact form. Although each channel has been treated as a gray level image (256 pixel intensities), the set of 21 parameters contains color and textural information."). The derived features are fed into a heteroassociative artificial neural network and classifications of stone slab images are categorized as one of three outputs ((Martinez-Alajarin, ¶) "Texture analysis was made with the sum and difference histograms, based on the gray level difference between adjacent pixels, which provides a reliable method to characterize the image texture. One of the greatest improvements with respect to our previous works was the feature selection process with PCA, which reduced the number of features, retaining high levels of the original information. This provided a good set of features, without redundant information, as inputs to the neural network, thus resulting in fast convergence and good learning capabilities."); ((Martinez-Alajarin, Page 493, Col 2, Section D. Classification, ¶2-3) "To build this input/output mapping, a heteroassociative artificial neural network has been chosen, as these structures present very good capabilities for learning and generalizing information… The structure of the neural network consists of three feedforward layers: 1) the input layer, with neurons (one neuron for each one of the principal components), 2) the hidden layer, with six neurons, and 3) the output layer, with three neurons (one per quality category: extra, commercial, and low).") One having ordinary skill in the art would understand that image files classified under the same classification category could be identified as similar based on the proximity of the computed quantified value responsible for the classification designation.
The claim limitations largely mirror the limitations recited for independent claim 21. As such, the motivation to combine the teachings of Morgan with the teachings of Martinez-Alajarin for claim 35 remains consistent with that stated previously for the rejection of claim 21.
The proposed combination does not disclose; however the proposed combination in further view of Shakes discloses querying the production database to Pattern and color information is used for item identification in an inventory ((Shakes, Col 27, Lines 27-33) "As described herein, one of the items may be identified based on its associated pattern information, as illustrated by block 1180. A picking agent may be provided instructions to locate and obtain a particular item from an inventory area. As described above, the pattern information associated with an item may be presented to aid an agent in identifying that item from among other items."). Pattern information is stored in a product database ((Shakes, Col 27, Lines 6-18) "The pattern information, once assigned, may then be associated with a product identifier for each item, as illustrated by block 1140. For example, the pattern information may be stored in a product database, such as product database 410, and associated with the corresponding item's identifier, such as an SKU, SBIN, or other product identifier, according to one embodiment. The pattern information may be entered into the database by an agent, for example by using a keyboard or other input/output device of control system 400 or another host computer, or may be entered into the database automatically by program instructions executing on control system 400 as part of determining and assigning the pattern information, in some embodiments."). Software is used to determine pattern information by retrieving pattern information from a database (as a query to the database) ((Shakes, Col 27, Lines 66-67 and Col 28, Lines1-2) "In some embodiments, software executing on control system 400 may be used to determine pattern information for an item by retrieving pattern information from a database, such as product database"). A control system is used to identify similar items in a database with a given pattern or color ((Shakes, Col 28, Lines 62-67 and Col 29, Line 1) "In some embodiments, pattern information may be determined by software executing on control system 400 based on a capacity of an item, such as for similar disk drives 65 capable of storing different amounts of data, or a size of an item, such as for different sizes of the same item of clothing, or based on another characteristic of the item, such as the color of the item. For example, otherwise identical items of clothing may be assigned different pattern information based upon the color of each item."). The control system may identify pattern information for multiple items at once ((Shakes, Col 18, Lines 11-20) "For example, control system 400 may supply pattern information for multiple items at one time, such as for, multiple items located in a single inventory area, or located in multiple inventory areas in proximity to one another.".) … the first slab image file associated with a single first stone slab from the physical inventory of stone slabs and the second slab image file associated with a single second stone slab from the physical inventory of slabs; Individual items in the database may contain information that distinguish like items such that each individual item in an inventory is uniquely identifiable based on the associated identification information ((Shakes, Col 21, Lines 31-38) "As described above, the pattern information associated with an item may be presented to aid an agent in identifying that item from among other items. Different levels and/or amounts of pattern information may be assigned to a single item so that, in some embodiments, different amounts of pattern information may be used to identify that item depending upon the other items with which that item might be stored, as described above.")
transferring identification of the first stone slab and the single second stone slab to a client application for display. A plurality of items from an inventory area can be identified from a database, thereby indicating that a first and second item can be identified ((Shakes, Col 40, Lines 31-40) "36. The storage medium of claim 34, wherein the program instructions are further executable by the one or more computers to cause the one or more computers to perform for each of the plurality of items, storing in a database an indication of an association between the respective product identifier, the respective determined pattern information, and one of a plurality of inventory areas in which the respective item is stored, wherein the indication of the association stored in the database is usable in locating one or more of the 40 items from among the plurality of inventory areas."). Pattern information (which identifies the product) can be transmitted to a communication device ((Shakes, col 16, Lines 42-57) "In some embodiments, the number of bytes required to transmit pattern information 510 may be small enough, such as a single byte in certain embodiments, that attaching pattern information 510 to a message that is already being sent may be more efficient than the overhead required to send another message just for pattern information 510. For example, pattern information 510 may be small enough to insert into an unused field of an existing message, such as one used to send picking instructions 500, and may therefore be sent with no or almost no increase in required bandwidth, according to certain embodiments. In yet other embodiments, communication device 350 may store or cache received pattern information and may also be configured to locate and retrieve pattern information directly from product database 410, rather than relying upon control system 400 to provide it."). The communication device is used to display the pattern information (Shakes, Col 17, Lines 33-35) "In some embodiments, control system 400 may send an actual graphic image of the pattern information to communication device 350."); ((Shakes Col 20, Lines 62-67 And Col 21, Lines 1-15) "FIG. 6 illustrates an exemplary communication device 350 presenting pattern information for an item to aid the identification of that item, according to one embodiment. For example, in one embodiment, communication device 350 may present pattern information 600, which may include secondary pattern information 610, on display 620Presented pattern information 600 may provide a visual identifier to distinguish the item to be picked from the other items in inventory area 135. In some embodiments, pattern information 600 may only represent a single dominant color corresponding to a visible view of the item to be picked or of an applied pattern information indicator. In other embodiments though, pattern information 600 may also include other or secondary pattern information corresponding to other visual elements of the visual view of the item to be picked. For example, secondary pattern information 610 may represent the color and approximate size and location of the title text on the spine of a book, CD, DVD or other item, or may represent a shape or pattern printed on an attached sticker or tag, according to different embodiments."). The communication device is described as being a client ((Shakes, Col 35, Lines42-46) "In one embodiment, the relationship between control system 400 and communication devices 350 may be a server/client type of relationship. For example, control system 400 may be configured as a server computer system 45 1200 that may convey instructions to and receive acknowledgements from communication devices 350. In such an embodiment, communication devices 350 may be relatively simple or "thin" client devices. For example, communication devices 350 may be configured as dumb terminals with 50 display, data entry and communications capabilities, but otherwise little computational functionality.")
The claim limitations largely mirror the limitations recited for independent claim 21. As such, the motivation to combine the teachings of Morgan and Martinez-Alajarin with the teachings of Shakes for claim 35 remains consistent with that stated previously for the rejection of claim 21.
Regarding claim 36, the proposed combination teaches The method of claim 35, wherein the one or more characteristics include: as stated previously.
The proposed combination further in view of Martinez-Alajarin teaches a first numeric value corresponding to a first visual quality of the single stone slab, and a second numeric value corresponding to a second visual quality of the single stone slab. A system for imaging and classifying stone slabs through computational algorithms using images for assessing visual qualities of the stone slabs is disclosed ((Martinez-Alajarin, Page 489, Col 1, ¶1) "The system consists of a mechatronic prototype that houses all the required physical components for the acquisition of visual images of marble slabs, and computational algorithms (running on a PC computer) that perform texture analysis, feature extraction, and classification of the marble surfaces."); ((Martinez-Alajarin, Page 489, Col 2, ¶3) "Once the image has been captured, it is preprocessed with an image acquisition board and saved in an industrial PC computer, which runs the computational algorithms."). A plurality (7) of features that characterize visual qualities of an image of a stone slab is derived from the pixels of the images of the stone slabs ((Martinez-Alajarin, Page 492 Col 2, ¶6-7 through Page 493, Col 1, ¶1) "The neighborhood between pixels, defined by (d_1, d_2), can be chosen arbitrarily. In our case, for simplicity, the nearest 8 neighbors of a pixel have been considered (Fig. 4). …After computing the resultant six histogram vectors (P_sc and P_dc, with c= 1, 2, 3) we obtain 3 channels 2 vectors/channel 511 elements/vector = 3066 elements. In order to reduce the dimension of this set of characteristics used to describe the texture, seven statistical features are computed for each pair of vectors, as defined in [16]: mean, variance, energy, correlation, entropy, contrast, and homogeneity (Table I). Finally, this results in 3 channels x 7 features/channel = 21 features, which express the information of the six histogram vectors in a more compact form."). The statistical features for seven separate qualities can be computed numerically (See Martinez-Alajarin Table 1 on page 493 for equations to quantify 7 parameters that represent visual characteristics).
Regarding claim 37, the proposed combination teaches The method of claim 36, as stated previously. The proposed combination further in view of Martinez-Alajarin teaches wherein the color characteristics includes a numeric value that represents an overall color characteristic of the associated stone slab. The plurality of features (characteristics) derived from the pixels of the images contains color and textural information. The features are defined by 7 statistical parameters, including a numeric mean value. One having ordinary skill in the art would understand the mean value in image processing is the sum of all pixel values divided by the total number of pixel values and, as such, a numeric value describing the overall color characteristic of the image of the slab can be derived ((Martinez-Alajarin, Page 492, Col 2, ¶7 through Page 493, Col 1, ¶1) "In order to reduce the dimension of this set of characteristics used to describe the texture, seven statistical features are computed for each pair of vectors, as defined in [16]: mean, variance, energy, correlation, entropy, contrast, and homogeneity (Table I). Finally, this results in 3 channels 7 features/channel 21 features, which express the information of the six histogram vectors in a more compact form. Although each channel has been treated as a gray level image (256 pixel intensities), the set of 21 parameters contains color and textural information."); (See also Martinez-Alajarin Table 1 on page 493 for numerical expression of the mean parameter).
Regarding claim 40, Morgan teaches (except the limitations surrounded by brackets ([[…]])) A system for producing stone slabs, comprising: A system for producing stone slabs is disclosed, wherein the system contains elements for cutting and finishing stone slabs ((Morgan, [0024]) " FIG. 1 illustrates a stone cutting and shaping management system 1 for managing an inventory of stone slabs 110 for use in cutting and finishing a selected stone slab 110 into desired parts such as countertops. The stone slabs 110 managed by system 1 may include natural stone slabs such as granite and marble or engineered stone slabs."). See also Morgan, Figure 1.
means for generating slab image files associated with a physical inventory of stone slabs, each slab image file associated with only a single stone slab in the physical inventory of stone slabs, each slab image file including: The system includes a photo station as a mechanism to generate slab image files ((Morgan, [0026]) " The photo station 14 of system 1 is where images and/or data associated with each slab 110 in inventory 12 are visually recorded and entered. The images and data are sent to the data management system 10 for access at the customer interface 16 and for managing the slabs 110 throughout the process."). System 1 includes a data management system where images and associated data for each slab in an inventory are stored ((Morgan, [0025]) " System 1 includes a data management system 10 that is used to access inventory 12 and also to communicate with a customer interface 16 for selecting a slab 110 and cutting the desired parts from the selected slab 110.");. The data management system includes a database and slab image files produced at the photo station are associated with a specific stone slab through an identifying tag. ((Morgan, [0031]) " The image station 14 is used for the transfer of electronic data of the slab 110 to the database that is part of the data management system 10. By creating a slab visual image representative of each of the slabs 110 from the entire inventory 12 and providing a slab identifying tag 200 having slab identifying information on the slab 110, a complete inventory of slabs 110 may be entered in the central database.").
an image of a major surface of the single stone slab, and The image station that generates a visual image of a stone slab is connected to a tagging station ((Morgan, ¶25) "System 1 links the data management system 10 with the slab inventory 12, with an image (i.e., photo) station 14, with customer interface 16 (i.e., customer selection station), with a parts tagging station 18, with a customer parts cutting station 20 ( e.g., including cutting apparatuses/machines) and with a customer parts finishing station 22 (e.g., including finishing apparatuses/machines)."). The tagging station assigns tags to parts of the slab before cutting and processing ((Morgan, ¶27) "The parts tagging station 18 of system 1 can be used to individually tag each part to be cut on the slab 110 before cutting and processing the slab 110, as will be discussed in further detail below."). Tags include identifiers associated with zones on the slab, wherein a zone can be the top or bottom of a slab, which are understood to be major surfaces of the slab ((Morgan, ¶39) "In tagging the slabs 110, identifiers such as barcodes may have zones. One zone may be for positioning on a top of the slab 110, one for positioning on the bottom, and one on the edge. In this manner, the slab 110 may be scannable from three different sides.").
image metadata including an identifier that uniquely identifies the single stone slab and one or more characteristics of the single stone slab, [[the one or more characteristics including a color characteristic; and]] Each slab image file in the database includes a visual image and a slab identifier associated with the image ((Morgan, ¶28) "As will be discussed in further detail below, the data management system 10 may include a central database wherein a slab visual image and a slab identifier associated with that image may be recorded."). Slab images are marked to identify imperfections, as characteristics of the slab ((Morgan, ¶34) "During the image recording stage of the process, an operator may mark flaws on the slab 110 using a flaw marking input system such as a grease pen prior to taking the photo, if needed. The grease pen may preferably used for "hard to see" flaws. In this manner, when the photo is taken at the image station 14, the photo image will have flaws clearly marked. Preferably, the lighting and the picture quality used is such that the slab features are clearly visible with good color and accurate 1 to 1 scaling. Once a photograph is taken, it is digitally stored in the central database. Imperfections in the stone that are marked may include color variations, veins, flaws in the stone, cracks, etc."). Additional information about the slab can be stored in the database and associated with each image file ((Morgan, ¶35) "In addition to the visual representation, other information about the slab 110 can be stored in the database. Slab data may include a complete description of the slab 110, allowing the user to define all the required elements for processing and tracking. The exact type of data to be stored for each slab 110 could vary with each customer.") means for storing the slab image files, [[a first slab image file from the production database configured to be identified as similar to a second slab image file from the production database based on comparison of the color characteristic of the first slab image file with the color characteristic of the second slab image file, the first slab image file associated with a single first stone slab from the physical inventory of stone slabs and the second slab image file associated with a single second stone slab from the physical inventor of stone slabs.]] System 1 includes a data management system where images and associated data for each slab in an inventory are stored ((Morgan, [0025]) "System 1 includes a data management system 10 that is used to access inventory 12 and also to communicate with a customer interface 16 for selecting a slab 110 and cutting the desired parts from the selected slab 110."); ((Morgan, [0026]) "The photo station 14 of system 1 is where images and/or data associated with each slab 110 in inventory 12 are visually recorded and entered. The images and data are sent to the data management system 10 for access at the customer interface 16 and for managing the slabs 110 throughout the process."). The data management system includes a database and slab image files produced at the photo station are associated with a specific stone slab through an identifying tag. ((Morgan, [0031]) " The image station 14 is used for the transfer of electronic data of the slab 110 to the database that is part of the data management system 10. By creating a slab visual image representative of each of the slabs 110 from the entire inventory 12 and providing a slab identifying tag 200 having slab identifying information on the slab 110, a complete inventory of slabs 110 may be entered in the central database.")
Morgan does not teach; however Martinez-Alajarin teaches (except the limitations surrounded by brackets ([[..]])) the one or more characteristics including a color characteristic; and The plurality of features (characteristics) derived from the pixels of the images contains color and textural information ((Martinez-Alajarin, Page 493, Col 1, ¶1) "Although each channel has been treated as a gray level image (256 pixel intensities), the set of 21 parameters contains color and textural information. Other methods that combine color and texture to classify images are described in [23] and [24]").
[[a first slab image file from the production database configured to be identified as similar to a second slab image file from the production database]] based on comparison of the color characteristic of the first slab image file with the color characteristic of the second slab image file, [[ the first slab image file associated with a single first stone slab from the physical inventory of stone slabs and the second slab image file associated with a single second stone slab from the physical inventor of stone slabs.]] A system for imaging and classifying stone slabs through computational algorithms using images of the stone slabs is disclosed ((Martinez-Alajarin, Page 489, Col 1, ¶1) "The system consists of a mechatronic prototype that houses all the required physical components for the acquisition of visual images of marble slabs, and computational algorithms (running on a PC computer) that perform texture analysis, feature extraction, and classification of the marble surfaces."); ((Martinez-Alajarin, Page 489, Col 2, ¶3) "Once the image has been captured, it is preprocessed with an image acquisition board and saved in an industrial PC computer, which runs the computational algorithms."). A plurality of features (characteristics of the stone slabs) is derived from the pixels of the images of the stone slabs ((Martinez-Alajarin, Page 492 Col 2, ¶6-7 through Page 493, Col 1, ¶1) "The neighborhood between pixels, defined by (d_1, d_2), can be chosen arbitrarily. In our case, for simplicity, the nearest 8 neighbors of a pixel have been considered (Fig. 4). …After computing the resultant six histogram vectors (P_sc and P_dc, with c= 1, 2, 3) we obtain 3 channels 2 vectors/channel 511 elements/vector = 3066 elements. In order to reduce the dimension of this set of characteristics used to describe the texture, seven statistical features are computed for each pair of vectors, as defined in [16]: mean, variance, energy, correlation, entropy, contrast, and homogeneity (Table I). Finally, this results in 3 channels x 7 features/channel = 21 features, which express the information of the six histogram vectors in a more compact form. Although each channel has been treated as a gray level image (256 pixel intensities), the set of 21 parameters contains color and textural information."). The derived features are fed into a heteroassociative artificial neural network and classifications of stone slab images are categorized as one of three outputs ((Martinez-Alajarin, Page 496, col 1, ¶6) "Texture analysis was made with the sum and difference histograms, based on the gray level difference between adjacent pixels, which provides a reliable method to characterize the image texture. One of the greatest improvements with respect to our previous works was the feature selection process with PCA, which reduced the number of features, retaining high levels of the original information. This provided a good set of features, without redundant information, as inputs to the neural network, thus resulting in fast convergence and good learning capabilities."); ((Martinez-Alajarin, Page 493, Col 2, Section D. Classification, ¶2-3) "To build this input/output mapping, a heteroassociative artificial neural network has been chosen, as these structures present very good capabilities for learning and generalizing information… The structure of the neural network consists of three feedforward layers: 1) the input layer, with neurons (one neuron for each one of the principal components), 2) the hidden layer, with six neurons, and 3) the output layer, with three neurons (one per quality category: extra, commercial, and low).") One having ordinary skill in the art would understand that image files classified under the same classification category could be identified as similar based on the proximity of the computed quantified value responsible for the classification designation.
The claim limitations largely mirror the limitations recited for independent claim 21. As such, the motivation to combine the teachings of Morgan with the teachings of Martinez-Alajarin for claim 40 remains consistent with that stated previously for the rejection of claim 21.
The proposed combination does not disclose; however the proposed combination in further view of Shakes discloses a first slab image file from the production database configured to be identified as similar to a second slab image file from the production database… Items in a database can be identified as having similar patterns according to primary visual information that may be further distinguished using secondary pattern information ((Shakes, Col 3, Lines 61-67 and Col 4, Lines 1-4) " In some embodiments, the pattern information may also include secondary pattern information to further distinguish between otherwise similar items. Secondary pattern information may include other information such as secondary color patterning, perhaps representing artwork on the item's packaging, or perhaps the color of text on the item or the item's packaging, in some embodiments. In other emobdiments, secondary pattern information may correspond to a second indicator applied to the item or its packaging, or may be additional information regarding a single indicator applied to the item or its packaging"); ((Shakes, Col 14, Lines 31-40) " In some embodiments, a control system, such as control system 400, may be configured to programmatically adapt the amount or type of information provided based upon the results of prior pick- ings of the same item, similar items, or other items previously picked by the same picking agent. For instance, a particular item may be more difficult than others to distinguish and thus additional pattern information, such as secondary pattern information, may be supplied to help identify that item, in some embodiments. 40"). Each item in the product database is uniquely identifiable ((Shakes, Col 3, Lines 7-12) " An agent or the control system may record the selected inventory area for each stored item in a product database, which may include a description, inventory location number, or other data representing the location of each item, indexed by a product identification code, for example."); ((Shakes, Col 11, Lines 2-14) " During receiving, pattern information may be assigned and associated with each received item, according to one embodiment. As described above, pattern information may be assigned manually by an agent, in some embodiments, or may be assigned automatically using hardware or software configured determine the pattern information. The assigned pattern information may be stored in a product database with a product identification code or other item or product information, in some embodiments. According to certain embodiments, the pattern information may be available to control system devices, communication devices, or other computer devices, as described below.") the first slab image file associated with a single first stone slab from the physical inventory of stone slabs and the second slab image file associated with a single second stone slab from the physical inventor of stone slabs Individual items in the database may contain information that distinguish like items such that each individual item in an inventory is uniquely identifiable based on the associated identification information ((Shakes, Col 21, Lines 31-38) "As described above, the pattern information associated with an item may be presented to aid an agent in identifying that item from among other items. Different levels and/or amounts of pattern information may be assigned to a single item so that, in some embodiments, different amounts of pattern information may be used to identify that item depending upon the other items with which that item might be stored, as described above.")
The claim limitations largely mirror the limitations recited for independent claim 21. As such, the motivation to combine the teachings of Morgan and Martinez-Alajarin with the teachings of Shakes for claim 40 remains consistent with that stated previously for the rejection of claim 21.
Claims 28 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morgan in view of Martinez-Alajarin as applied to claims 21 and 37 above, and further in view of GranitePolishing (GranitePolishing, “Measuring gloss with a handy gloss meter”, Available online Dec. 11 2016, www.granitepolishing.in, https://web.archive.org/web/20161211053409/https://www.granitepolishing.in/gloss-meter/gloss-meter.html.), hereinafter referred to as GranitePolishing.
Regarding claim 28, the proposed combination teaches The system of claim 21, as stated previously. The proposed combination does not teach; however, GranitePolishing teaches wherein the characteristic includes a gloss value. A gloss meter can be used to obtain measurements of gloss for a polished surface. ((GranitePolishing, ¶3) "For measuring surface gloss, the handy gloss meter IG-320 is just the right tool. This measurement apparatus originally developed to measure the gloss on a variety of surfaces. Currently, this product is being utilized to evaluate masonry finishes, floors, stone surfaces at the factory, molding, coated surfaces, printed matter, paint and ink, leather, rubber, ceramics, film, etc.").
GranitePolishing is analogous art because it pertains to stone surface evaluation for quality purposes. Morgan and Martinez-Alajarin are also related to the field of endeavor of visual quality assessments for stone surfaces. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to which said subject matter pertains at the time the invention was filed to have incorporated the usage of a gloss meter measurements into the metadata in the database of the proposed combination to further characterize the surfaces of the imaged stone because gloss evaluation is important in guaranteeing uniform production quality ((GranitePolishing, ¶4) "The IG-320 gloss meter measures gloss and displays the results as numerical data, in one second. It eliminates subjectivity and helps guarantee uniform production quality. The IG-320 enhances product reliability in all kind of situations and can be used for quality control purpose as well"). Utilizing a gloss meter to characterize a surface, such as a stone surface, yields the predictable results of accurately evaluating how shiny the surface is so as to ensure multiple sections have even gloss measurements, thereby ensuring quality ((GranitePolishing, ¶1-2) “After you have polished a floor or other surface, you need to objectively evaluate the gloss in order to determine if the job is done. You will probably want to compare various sections and remove any unevenness in the gloss. From your own experience, you may already know that it is actually quite difficult to accurately evaluate how shiny a surface is. Well, this gloss meter resolves that problem. In just one second it reads and assigns a value for the surface gloss and displays it for you, with no questions asked. The gloss meter is a powerful tool that objectively ensures the quality of your work. Also you can prove your quality work by showing this number to your customers or supervisers.").
Regarding claim 38, the proposed combination teaches The method of claim 37, as stated previously. The proposed combination does not teach; however, GranitePolishing teaches wherein the color characteristics includes a gloss value and a location associated with the gloss value. A gloss meter can be used to obtain measurements of gloss for a polished surface ((GranitePolishing, ¶3) "For measuring surface gloss, the handy gloss meter IG-320 is just the right tool. This measurement apparatus originally developed to measure the gloss on a variety of surfaces. Currently, this product is being utilized to evaluate masonry finishes, floors, stone surfaces at the factory, molding, coated surfaces, printed matter, paint and ink, leather, rubber, ceramics, film, etc."). Measured gloss values may be associated with multiple point locations of a surface ((GranitePolishing, ¶8) "Because the degree of gloss varies depending on the measuring point, multi-point measurement is necessary for achieving the highest accuracy. The gloss meter is ready to store up to 99 readings and these values can be averaged and automatically stored in the memory by pressing the "Average" key. It's as simple as that.").
The motivation to combine the teachings of GranitePolishing into the proposed combination is largely similar for that provided in the rejection of claim 28. Additionally claim 38 discusses the inclusion of a location value associate with a gloss value. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to which said subject matter pertains at the time the invention was filed to have also included a location value associated with the gloss value as taught by GranitePolishing because gloss can vary over multiple sections of a surface and taking multi-point measurements over a surface ensure highest accuracy ((GranitePolishing, ¶1) "After you have polished a floor or other surface, you need to objectively evaluate the gloss in order to determine if the job is done. You will probably want to compare various sections and remove any unevenness in the gloss."); ((GranitePolishing, ¶8) " Because the degree of gloss varies depending on the measuring point, multi-point measurement is necessary for achieving the highest accuracy. The gloss meter is ready to store up to 99 readings and these values can be averaged and automatically stored in the memory by pressing the "Average" key. It's as simple as that.").
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morgan in view of Martinez-Alajarin as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Marom (Marom, E., “Macro Photography: Understanding Magnification”, Nov 28, 2011, Digital Photography Review, https://www.dpreview.com/articles/6519974919/macro-photography-understanding-magnification), hereinafter referred to as Marom.
Regarding claim 29, the proposed combination teaches The system of claim 21, as stated previously. The proposed combination further in view of Morgan teaches (except the limitations surrounded by brackets ([[…]])) wherein the image of the major surface of the single stone slab has an image length and an image width, the single stone slab has a stone slab length and a stone slab width, and the characteristic includes [[a numeric ratio of the stone slab length to the image length (Lslab/Limage).]] Dimensions of slabs are known, wherein the dimensions that define the slabs are pertinent to the major surface of the slab to be imaged ((Morgan, [0037]) "According to one example image station 14, the station frame 150 may be sized such that the slab sizes that are visually recorded at the image station 14 may have a minimum size of about 18 inches by 26 inches and a maximum size of about 84 inches by 144 inches"). Images are taken of stone slabs by a camera, wherein camera images inherently comprise height and width dimensions ((Morgan, [0037]) "The, image station 14 includes a fixture for holding a camera 152 in a fixed position and at a fixed angle to ensure perpendicularity with the slab 110 being photographed."); ((Morgan, [0040]) "In one embodiment, the camera may have a fixed focal length.").
Morgan does not teach; however, Marom teaches a numeric ratio of the stone slab length to the image length (Lslab/Limage). Magnification is taught as the ratio describing the relationship of size between the size of the subject on the imaging sensor to the size of the object in reality ((Marom, ¶5) "Magnification - or more precisely, the magnification ratio - is simply the relationship between of the size of the (in-focus) subject's projection on the imaging sensor and the subject's size in reality.").
Marom is analogous art because it pertains to imaging. Morgan and Martinez-Alajarin both rely on images for data processing. While the magnification ratio taught by Marom explicitly teaches on the ratio of Limage/Lslab, one having ordinary skill in the art would understand that the value can be mathematically manipulated to describe the inverse ratio of Lslab/Limage. Magnification of objects allows for greater detail to be derived in images, as can be seen in the images provided by Marom. Hard-to-see flaws, such as that described by Morgan can thus be better visualized in an image by employing magnification ((Morgan, [0034]) "The grease pen may preferably used for "hard to see" flaws."). As such, image processing techniques such as that described in Martinez-Alajarin could leverage increased magnification of objects to enable more detailed analyses for visual (textural and color) characteristics. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to which said subject matter pertains at the time the invention was filed to have included the magnification ratio, or conversely the reduction/demagnification ratio suggested by Marom into the database of the stone slab management system taught by the proposed combination of Morgan and Martinez-Alajarin because storing this ratio in the stone slab management system enables accurate measurements of the physical stone slab to be derived from magnified images of the stone slabs which enable more detailed analyses. Keeping track of the physical slab measurement with regard to the slab image yields predictable results of ensuring accurate decision making for placement and cutting of stone slabs that rely on the images for such decisions ((Morgan, [0028]) " As will be discussed in further detail below, the data management system 10 may include a central database wherein a slab visual image and a slab identifier associated with that image may be recorded. The database may also include information associated with each part that is to be cut from a selected stone slab 110. Such information may be used to perform the cutting or finishing operations of the individual parts and also to keep track of the parts as the parts are routed through the system 1.").
Claims 31 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the proposed combination applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Reis (Reis, M., “Digital Layout and Artistic Nesting for Stone”, March 30, 2010, Stone World, https://www.stoneworld.com/articles/86567-digital-layout-and-artistic-nesting-for-stone), hereinafter referred to as Reis and further in view of MacInnes et Al. (US Patent Publication No. US 2005/0081161 A1), hereinafter referred to as MacInnes.
Regarding claim 31, the proposed combination teaches The system of claim 21, as stated previously. The proposed combination further in view of Reis teaches (except the limitations surrounded by brackets ([[…]])) wherein the server system includes software programmed to receive the first and second slab image files from the production database [[and an environment image of a slab installation environment]], and generate a 3D scene depicting at least a portion of major surfaces of first and second stone slabs associated with the first and second slab image files [[in the slab installation environment.]] An artistic nesting software for stone is described, wherein images of multiple slabs are captured and imposed on a countertop layout to generate a 3-Dimensional depiction of the major surfaces of multiple (3) stone slabs. ((Reis, ¶2) "There are a range of providers for this technology in North America, and the basic process is to take a digital photo of the specific slabs that have been selected for an application -- such as kitchen countertops and center islands. Once the image of the slab is captured, it can be imposed onto the layout of the countertops.") (See also image provided by Reis below depicting the images of the stone slabs being used to generate a 3D scene showing the major surfaces of multiple slabs)
PNG
media_image1.png
408
564
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Reis is analogous art to Morgan and Martinez-Alajarin because it pertains to stone slab imaging and visualization for stone slab manufacturing and design applications. Morgan suggests the usage of stone slab images for nesting parts ((Morgan, [0033]) " By having a photograph of the stone slab 110, a number of processes may be performed through the computer network. An available image of the slab 110 is used for nesting parts on the image of the slab 110 and visualize how the parts will look once finished. Customers can access the
available inventory 12 and select a desired slab 110 that will suit their needs. If the slab 110 is customer supplied, the image can be used for nesting parts and keeping track of the slab 110 throughout the entire process."). Reis further describes a parts nesting software for stone applications in greater detail ((Reis, ¶1) "Over the past couple of years, producers of technology for stone processors have introduced a new technology specifically for stone slab projects, and it appears to be making some serious traction in the marketplace. Referred to as "artistic nesting" software, this technology allows stone processors, designers and end users to view exactly how a completed stone slab installation will appear before a single cut is made in the stone."). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to which said subject matter pertains at the time the invention was filed to have utilized the nesting software described by Reis as a tool to achieve the nesting tasks described by Morgan because Morgan explicitly suggests the usage of electronic parts nesting within the disclosure and Reis discloses such software in greater detail to be advantageous for stone processors to optimize material usage and increase customer satisfaction ((Morgan, [0042]) "By nesting, the ability to visualize how the finished product will appear in the customer's installation is greatly enhanced. Automated nesting may
provide certain advantages over manual nesting and alter certain aspects of a conventional manual nesting procedure such as who is performing the nesting operation, the ease by
which the nesting operation is performed, and how the nested image may facilitate downstream operations."); ((Reis, ¶3) “Moreover, the use of nesting technology allows for the highest level of slab optimization. In some cases, this could mean using less slabs to complete the same job -- an important consideration in this still-struggling economy. Stone working professionals who are utilizing digital nesting technology courtesy of Northwood Designs courtesy of Park Industries courtesy of Breton report a greater level of customer satisfaction and enhanced communication. Meanwhile, designers and their customers are able to "sample" how a given stone will look in their designs. It all goes back to increasing the stature of stone as a premier building material and coming with that, a premium buying experience.")
Reis does not teach; however MacInnes teaches and an environment image of a slab installation environment, and files in the slab installation environment. An image of a scene can be uploaded for a 3D visualization software ((MacInnis, [0053]) "In an exemplary embodiment, this file transfer is effected by one or more communicator modules 45, which may include a conventional file transfer utility, e.g., an .ftp client, running on the client computer."); ((MacInnis, [0054]) "A user may then use client application 12 to open a scene/design, e.g., create a room using module 45"); ((MacInnis, [0021]) " One aspect of the present invention includes a method in a client-server computing environment for generating and rendering a photorealistic three-dimensional (3D) perspective view of a 3D object selectively positioned within a 3D scene. The method includes communicably accessing a server with a client; operating with the client, a client application configured for scene editing and rendering, including a graphical user interface (GUI); and displaying a 3D scene with the GUI. The method also includes configuring the 3D scene for being selectively displayed in a plurality of views; retrieving at least one 3D object from the server; importing the 3D object into the 3D scene to generate a composite; and manipulating the 3D object within the composite for placement and orientation").
MacInnis is analogous to Morgan and Reis because they all pertain to visualization software for element arrangement planning for customer satisfaction purposes. Morgan suggests the usage of nesting software for stone slab arrangement ((Morgan, [0042]) "Automated nesting provides certain advantages such as customer interaction and remote management. During nesting, marked or unmarked flaws may be avoided. By nesting, material utilization is optimized. Appearance of the grain may be visualized and optimized. Pattern matching may be performed. Once a visual representation of the nested slab 110 is obtained, the image can be sent to the customers for approval."). Reis provides examples of nesting software for stone slabs but does not implement the inclusion of a particular scene by which to visualize the stone slab elements. (See below image from Reis depicting 3d visualization of a stone slab layout without a background scene)
PNG
media_image1.png
408
564
media_image1.png
Greyscale
MacInnis includes the usage of a background scene for visualization software to create a photorealistic 3D scene for customers ((MacInnis, [0022]) "Another aspect of the present invention includes a method in a client-server computing environment for generating and rendering a photorealistic three-dimensional (3D) perspective view of a 3D object selectively positioned within a 3D scene…"). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to which said subject matter pertains at the time the invention was filed to have incorporated the usage of an environment scene into the visualization system of the proposed combination because employing a photorealistic background image of where the stone slabs are to be placed enables designers and clients to achieve the advantageous result of being able to visualize proposed designs as they would actually appear once installation is complete ((MacInnis, [0041]) "Embodiments of the present invention may be used by interior design professionals. The system and tool of these embodiments permit designers and their clients to select, customize and rearrange groupings of furnishings to see how they may look within the client's actual room in a WYSIWYG (What You See Is What You Get) environment.”); ((MacInnis, [0108]) "Advantageously, this ability enables the aesthetics of the conceptualized design to be accurately communicated prior to build-out of the actual room(s).")
Regarding claim 32, the proposed combination teaches The system of claim 31, as stated previously for the rejection of claim 31. The proposed combination further in view of Morgan teaches (except the limitations surrounded by brackets ([[…]]) wherein the server system is further programmed to determine a geometry of a target area of the slab installation environment [[where the first and second stone slabs are to be installed, and wherein the target area has a different geometry than the major surfaces of the first and second stone slabs.]] A customer’s installation environment is known ((Morgan, [0042]) "By nesting, the ability to visualize how the finished product will appear in the customer's installation is greatly enhanced"). Outlines to be cut for a customer (geometry of target area) are imposed as part of nesting software ((Morgan, 36) "As noted previously, slab data stored in the central database may be used (including the marked flaws) for the purpose of nesting parts outlines 250 onto the slab 110 using nesting software 400. The nesting software 400 may be used for arranging and displaying customer part outlines 250 electronically on the visual image of a slab 110 produced by the image station 14."). Nesting software can be automated so as to enable the server system to automatically determine the nesting of parts ((Morgan, [0042]) "Automated nesting may provide certain advantages over manual nesting and alter certain aspects of a conventional manual nesting procedure such as who is performing the nesting operation, the ease by which the nesting operation is performed, and how the nested image may facilitate downstream operations.")
The proposed combination in further view of Morgan does not teach; however Reis teaches where the first and second stone slabs are to be installed, and wherein the target area has a different geometry than the major surfaces of the first and second stone slabs. A digital nesting technology software is described, wherein stone slabs can be optimized for a job for a particular application (kitchen countertops and center islands are mentioned as examples of target installation environments). In Reis’s figure captioned “courtesy of Northwood Designs”, it can be seen that geometries for cutting are imposed on three different stone slab major surfaces. The major surfaces are rectangular and the geometry of the cut pieces of stone slab are irregularly shaped and smaller than the major surface of the stone slabs.
PNG
media_image1.png
408
564
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morgan in view of Martinez-Alajarin in view of GranitePolishing as applied to claim 38 above, and further in view of Reis.
Regarding claim 39, the proposed combination teaches The method of claim 38, as described previously. The proposed combination in view of Reis teaches further comprising: determining a location for a seam based on the color characteristics. How multiple slabs work together can be determined through the visualization of stone slabs in artistic nesting software ((Reis, ¶2) "Once the image of the slab is captured, it can be imposed onto the layout of the countertops. This gives the processor and customer the ability to preview visuals such as the vein flow of the material, how the slabs will work together, sink cut-outs within the slab, cooktops and other factors ")
Reis is analogous art because it pertains to stone slab imaging and visualization for stone slab manufacturing and design applications. Morgan suggests the usage of stone slab images for nesting parts ((Morgan, [0033]) “By having a photograph of the stone slab 110, a number of processes may be performed through the computer network. An available image of the slab 110 is used for nesting parts on the image of the slab 110 and visualize how the parts will look once finished. Customers can access the available inventory 12 and select a desired slab 110 that will suit their needs. If the slab 110 is customer supplied, the image can be used for nesting parts and keeping track of the slab 110 throughout the entire process."). Reis further describes a parts nesting software for stone applications in greater detail ((Reis, ¶1) "Over the past couple of years, producers of technology for stone processors have introduced a new technology specifically for stone slab projects, and it appears to be making some serious traction in the marketplace. Referred to as "artistic nesting" software, this technology allows stone processors, designers and end users to view exactly how a completed stone slab installation will appear before a single cut is made in the stone."). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to which said subject matter pertains at the time the invention was filed to have utilized the nesting software described by Reis as a tool to achieve the nesting tasks described by Morgan because Morgan explicitly suggests the usage of electronic parts nesting within the disclosure and Reis discloses such software in greater detail to be advantageous for stone processors to optimize material usage and increase customer satisfaction ((Morgan, [0042]) "By nesting, the ability to visualize how the finished product will appear in the customer's installation is greatly enhanced. Automated nesting may provide certain advantages over manual nesting and alter certain aspects of a conventional manual nesting procedure such as who is performing the nesting operation, the ease by which the nesting operation is performed, and how the nested image may facilitate downstream operations."); ((Reis, ¶2-3) “Given the popularity of exotic materials in today's marketplace -- with pronounced, dramatic patterning, this technology can help ensure that everyone's expectations are established (and ultimately met) prior to the start of processing. Moreover, the use of nesting technology allows for the highest level of slab optimization. In some cases, this could mean using less slabs to complete the same job -- an important consideration in this still-struggling economy. Stone working professionals who are utilizing digital nesting technology courtesy of Northwood Designs courtesy of Park Industries courtesy of Breton report a greater level of customer satisfaction and enhanced communication. Meanwhile, designers and their customers are able to "sample" how a given stone will look in their designs. It all goes back to increasing the stature of stone as a premier building material and coming with that, a premium buying experience.")
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Down-Logan (US Patent Publication No. 2004/0078299 A1) discloses a system for generating measurements of colors and patterns with functionality to compare the characteristics of other objects to similar information in a database.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMILY GORMAN LEATHERS whose telephone number is (571)272-1880. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am-5:00 pm ET.
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, EMERSON PUENTE can be reached at (571) 272-3652. 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.
/E.G.L./Examiner, Art Unit 2187
/EMERSON C PUENTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2187