DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/23/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because it depends on canceled claim 7. Claim 9 appears to depend on claim 4 or 5. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 12, 14, 21, 22 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soatto (US 6,944,327 of record) in view of Mercer et al.(US 20210264684 hereafter Mercer).
Regarding claim 1, Soatto discloses a computer-implemented method, comprising: receiving a frontal frame component image of a frontal frame of a pair of eyeglasses; receiving a temple component image of a temple component of the pair of eyeglasses; and using the frontal frame component image and the temple component image to generate a three-dimensional (3D) eyeglasses model of the pair of eyeglasses (a server 12 access a database 16 or 20 (Figs. 1 and 2) that stores photograph of the eyeglass frames taken from several viewpoint (col. 6, lines 53-61) . Alternatively, photographs from several viewpoints can be combined to yield a panoramic view (3D) (col. 6, line 66-col.7, line 1) (i.e., the photographs from several viewpoints are 2D images). However, Soatto does not disclose wherein: component markers, generated based on the frontal frame component image and the temple component image, are used to generate the 3D eyeglasses model. Mercer teaches wherein component markers, generated based on the frontal frame component image and the temple component image, are used to generate the 3D eyeglasses model (par.[0045] the use of marker in generating 3D eyeglasses model). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply teachings of the marker of Mercer to device of Soatto for purpose of forming eyeglasses.
Regarding claim 3, Soatto and Mercer disclose a computer-implemented method of claim 2. Mercer further discloses wherein: physical measurements of the component markers are used to generate the 3D eyeglasses model (col.9, lines 39-44).
Regarding claim 30, Soatto and Mercer disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein: the frontal frame component image is a photograph of the pair of eyeglasses captured via a camera; and the temple component image is a photograph of the pair of eyeglasses captured via the camera (it is general knowledge that camera is commonly used for capturing images).
Regarding claim 12, Soatto discloses a system, comprising:
a processor (Fig. 2, item 12); and
a memory in communication with the processor for storing instructions, which when executed by the processor (a server 12 access a database 16 or 20 (Figs. 1 and 2) that stores photographs of the eyeglass frames taken from several viewpoints (col. 6, lines 53-61)), cause the system to:
receive a frontal frame component image of a frontal frame of a pair of eyeglasses; receive a temple component image of a temple component of the pair of eyeglasses; and use the frontal frame component image and the temple component image to generate a three-dimensional (3D) eyeglasses model (a server 12 access a database 16 or 20 (Figs. 1 and 2) that stores photographs of the eyeglass frames taken from several viewpoints (col. 6, lines 53-61). Alternatively, photographs from several viewpoints can be combined to yield a panoramic view (3D) (col. 6, line 66-col.7, line 1) (i.e., the photographs from several viewpoints are 2D images). However, Soatto does not disclose wherein: component markers, generated based on the frontal frame component image and the temple component image, are used to generate the 3D eyeglasses model. Mercer teaches wherein component markers, generated based on the frontal frame component image and the temple component image, are used to generate the 3D eyeglasses model (par.[0045] the use of marker in generating 3D eyeglasses model). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply teachings of the marker of Mercer to device of Soatto for purpose of forming eyeglasses.
Regarding claim 14, Soatto and Mercer disclose a computer-implemented method of claim 12. Mercer further discloses wherein: physical measurements of the component markers are used to generate the 3D eyeglasses model (col.9, lines 39-44).
Regarding claim 21, refer to claim 1 rejection. Soatto further discloses a computer readable medium (Figure 2, computer 14).
Regarding claim 22, Soatto and Mercer disclose a computer-implemented method of claim 21. Mercer further discloses wherein: physical measurements of the component markers are used to generate the 3D eyeglasses model (col.9, lines 39-44).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 5, 9, 10, 15, 16, 23-26, 28, 31 and 32 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: (claim 4) wherein: contours extracted from the frontal frame component image and the temple component image are used to generate the 3D eyeglasses model; (claim 15) wherein: contours extracted from the frontal frame component image and the temple component image are used to generate the 3D eyeglasses model; (claim 23) wherein: contours extracted from the frontal frame component image and the temple component image are used to generate the 3D eyeglasses model; (claim 31) receiving a plurality of physical measurements of the pair of eyeglasses, wherein the plurality of physical measurements are used to generate the 3D eyeglasses model, wherein: the plurality of physical measurements includes curvature information; and the 3D eyeglasses model further includes an approximation of the bending of the frontal frame component and the temple component; (claim 32) receiving a plurality of physical measurements of the pair of eyeglasses, wherein the plurality of physical measurements are used to generate the 3D eyeglasses model, wherein the plurality of physical measurements includes a plurality of physical markers; detecting the plurality of physical markers; and while using the frontal frame component image and the temple component image to generate the three-dimensional (3D) eyeglasses model of the pair of eyeglasses, mapping the component markers to the physical markers.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TUYEN TRA whose telephone number is (571)272-2343. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at 571-272-2713. 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.
/TUYEN TRA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights