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 .
Applicant’s amendment filed on April 28, 2025 has been entered and made of record.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I, claims 14-21, in the reply filed on April 28, 2025 is acknowledged.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
An obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but an examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Anticipation is “the ultimate or epitome of obviousness” (In re Kalm, 154 USPQ 10 (CCPA 1967), also In re Dailey, 178 USPQ 293 (CCPA 1973) and In re Pearson, 181 USPQ 641 (CCPA 1974)).
Claims 1-5, 25-27, 36, 29-34, 38, and 39 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-32 of U.S. Patent No. 9,767,163 (referred as ‘163 patent hereinafter).
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each limitation of the instant claims is fully defined by claims of the ‘163 patent. For example, as to instant claim 1, claim 1 of the ‘163 patent discloses an apparatus for grading a collectible comprising (see lines 1-2):
a memory (see lines 10-14: computer system inherently includes a memory for storing computer instructions); and
at least one processor coupled to the memory and configured to (see lines 10-14: processor is inherently coupled to the memory in order to execute computer instructions):
receive at least one image of the collectible (see lines 21-25: output signal from imaging acquisition device is transmitted to the computer system for processing by processor; such output signal is an image of said collectible as defined by patented claim 10);
apply at least one processing routine to said at least one image (see lines 21-25); and
generate a grade report of the collectible based at least on results of the at least one processing routine (see last 3 lines).
While claim 1 of the ‘163 patent includes additional limitations (i.e., image acquisition device and its components such housing, imaging device, light source, and stage; input signal; output device) that are not set forth in the instant claim 1, the use of transitional term “comprising/comprises” in the instant claim 1 fails to preclude the possibility of additional elements. Therefore, instant claim 1 fails to define an invention that is patentably distinct from claim 1 of the ‘163 patent. Furthermore, each of the limitations recited in instant claim 1 is anticipated by patented claim 1 and anticipation is “the ultimate or epitome of obviousness.”
Regarding instant claim 2, the ‘163 patent discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: generate a topological image of the collectible (see claims 4, 6 and 10: image captured of collectible).
Regarding instant claim 3, the ‘163 patent discloses wherein the topological image comprises a plurality of images of the collectible, wherein the plurality of images comprises a series of images of the collectible lighted under different lighting conditions (see claims 6 and 10).
Regarding claim 4, the ‘163 patent discloses wherein one or more surface imperfections on the collectible are identifiable using the topological image (see claim 17).
Regarding instant claim 5, the ‘163 patent discloses wherein the at least one processing routine is utilized to generate the topological image, wherein the topological image is used to identify one or more defects, wherein the topological image is used to score the identified one or more defects (see claim 17).
Regarding instant claim 25, the ‘163 patent discloses wherein the apparatus for grading the collectible is comprised within a remote grading unit (see claim 1 line 10: a computer system refers to claim remote grading unit because it is configured to received image for grading transmitted from image acquisition device).
Regarding instant claim 26, the ‘163 patent discloses wherein location data captured from the collectible submitted for grading identifies a physical location of the remote grading unit and the collectible submitted for grading (see claim 1: location is inherently included in order to receive the collectible and capture its image at the image acquisition device which transmits image captured to computer system for grading).
Regarding instant claim 27, the ‘163 patent discloses wherein one or more steps of grading the collectible are performed by the remote grading unit (see claim 1 last 6 lines).
Regarding instant claim 29, the ‘163 patent discloses wherein the remote grading unit is configured to perform at least one of an image acquisition of the collectible, a verification of the collectible, generation of the grade report, printing of an encasement, or an encasing of a graded collectible (see claim 1).
Regarding instant claim 30, the ‘163 patent discloses wherein the remote grading unit in conjunction with a centralized grading unit are configured to grade the collectible, wherein the remote grading unit or the centralized grading unit perform one or more of image acquisitions of the collectible, the verification of the collectible, the generation of the grade report, or the encasing of the graded collectible (see claim 1: computer system; database refers to the so-called centralized grade unit).
Regarding instant claim 31, the ‘163 patent discloses wherein to generate the grade report, the at least one processor is further configured to: identify at least one defect of the collectible by including at least one indicator on an image that comprises the at least one defect, wherein the at least one indicator comprises an indicator that indicates a defect location based on horizontal and vertical coordinates (see claim 13: data points).
Regarding instant claim 32, the ‘163 patent discloses wherein the grade report comprises a detailed defect report of the at least one defect of the collectible, wherein the detailed defect report allows for the at least one defect of the collectible to be viewable, wherein the at least one defect is identified by the at least one indicator (see claim 13: data points).
Regarding instant claim 33, the ‘163 patent discloses apply one or more lighting conditions to the collectible, wherein the one or more lighting conditions assist to identify one or more defects on the collectible (see claims 6-8).
Regarding instant claim 34, the ‘163 patent discloses wherein one or more lighting conditions comprise at least one of a refractive light from one or more different angles (see claims 6-8).
Regarding instant claim 36, the ‘163 patent discloses wherein one or more lighting conditions comprises infrared (IR) lighting, wherein the IR lighting is configured to measure a thickness of the collectible (see claim 19 (imaging device measures the thickness of said collectible); claim 1 recites light source). While claim 19 of the ‘163 patent does not specifically define whether said light source is an IR lighting. However, using IR lighting is well known in the art (Official Notice). The motivation for doing so is to reduce heat. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claim invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate such IR lighting for that reasons.
Regarding instant claim 38, the ‘163 patent discloses examine one or more edges of the collectible to determine whether at least one of the one or more edges is inconsistent with other edges (see claim 15).
Regarding instant claim 39, the ‘163 patent discloses wherein determination of an inconsistent edge is based at least on the at least one processing detects variations or inconsistencies on one or more edges (see claim 15).
Claims 1- 2, and 25-30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 10,146,841 (referred as ‘841 patent hereinafter).
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each limitation of the instant claims is fully defined by claims of the ‘841 patent. For example, as to instant claim 1, claim of the ‘841 patent discloses an apparatus for grading a collectible comprising (see lines 1-2):
a memory (see lines 7-9: computer inherently includes memory);
at least one processor coupled to the memory and configured to (see lines 7-9; processor is inherently coupled to the memory in order to execute computer instructions);
obtain at least one image of the collectible (see lines 3-6 and 14-17);
apply at least one processing routine to said at least one image (see lines 18-22); and
generate a grade report of the collectible based at least on results of the at least one processing routine (see lines 18-22: the grade report).
While claim 1 of the ‘841 patent includes additional limitations (i.e., image acquisition device; transmit at least one signal...) that are not set forth in the instant claim 1, the use of transitional term "comprising/comprises" in the instant claim 1 fails to preclude the possibility of additional elements. Therefore, instant claim 1 fails to define an invention that is patentably distinct from claim 1 of the ‘841 patent. Furthermore, each of the limitations recited in instant claim 1 is anticipated by claim 1 of the ‘841 patent and anticipation is “the ultimate or epitome of obviousness.”
Regarding instant claim 2, claim 1 of the ‘841 disclose generating a topological image of the collectible (see lines 3-4: image of said collectible).
Regarding instant claim 25, the ‘841 patent discloses wherein the apparatus for grading the collectible is comprised within a remote grading unit (see claim 1 lines 7-22: a computer system refers to claim remote grading unit because it is configured to received image for grading transmitted from image acquisition device).
Regarding instant claim 26, the ‘841 patent discloses wherein location data captured from the collectible submitted for grading identifies a physical location of the remote grading unit and the collectible submitted for grading (see claim 1: location is inherently included in order to receive the collectible and capture its image at the image acquisition device which transmits image captured to computer system for grading).
Regarding instant claim 27, the ‘841 patent discloses wherein one or more steps of grading the collectible are performed by the remote grading unit (see claim 1 last 6 lines).
Regarding instant claim 28, the ‘841 patent discloses wherein location data is stored within a database to generate statistical data indicating usage and an identity of collectibles submitted for grading (see claim 3).
Regarding instant claim 29, the ‘841 patent discloses wherein the remote grading unit is configured to perform at least one of an image acquisition of the collectible, a verification of the collectible, generation of the grade report, printing of an encasement, or an encasing of a graded collectible (see claim 1).
Regarding instant claim 30, the ‘841 patent discloses wherein the remote grading unit in conjunction with a centralized grading unit are configured to grade the collectible, wherein the remote grading unit or the centralized grading unit perform one or more of image acquisitions of the collectible, the verification of the collectible, the generation of the grade report, or the encasing of the graded collectible (see claim 2: computer system; database refers to the so-called centralized grade unit).
Claims 1-2, 25-27 and 29-30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-23 of U.S. Patent No. 10,445,330 (referred as the ‘330 patent application hereinafter).
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each limitation of the instant claim 1 as a representative claim is fully defined by claims of the ‘330 patent. For example, claim 1 of the ‘330 patent discloses:
a memory (see lines 8-12: computer inherently includes memory);
at least one processor coupled to the memory and configured to (see lines 8-12: processor is inherently coupled to the memory in order to execute computer instructions);
obtain at least one image of said collectible (see lines 2-7, 8-12 and 16-18: computer receives output signal from image acquisition device and such output signal is an image of the collectible that is captured by the image acquisition device);
apply at least one processing routine to said at least one image (see 16-18); and
generate a grade report of the collectible based at least on results of the at least one processing routine (see last 7 lines: report).
While claim 1 of the ‘330 patent includes additional limitations (i.e., image acquisition device; database) that are not set forth in the instant claim 1, the use of transitional term "comprising/comprises" in the instant claim 21 fails to preclude the possibility of additional elements. Therefore, instant claim 1 fails to define an invention that is patentably distinct from claim 1 of the ‘330 patent. Furthermore, each of the limitations recited in instant claim 1 is anticipated by patented claim 1 and anticipation is “the ultimate or epitome of obviousness.”
Regarding instant claim 2, claim 1 of the ‘330 disclose generating a topological image of the collectible (see lines 3-7: image of said collectible).
Regarding instant claim 25, the ‘330 patent discloses wherein the apparatus for grading the collectible is comprised within a remote grading unit (see claim 1 lines 7-22: a computer system refers to claim remote grading unit because it is configured to received image for grading transmitted from image acquisition device).
Regarding instant claim 26, the ‘330 patent discloses wherein location data captured from the collectible submitted for grading identifies a physical location of the remote grading unit and the collectible submitted for grading (see claim 1: location is inherently included in order to receive the collectible and capture its image at the image acquisition device which transmits image captured to computer system for grading).
Regarding instant claim 27, the ‘330 patent discloses wherein one or more steps of grading the collectible are performed by the remote grading unit (see claim 1 last 6 lines).
Regarding instant claim 29, the ‘330 patent discloses wherein the remote grading unit is configured to perform at least one of an image acquisition of the collectible, a verification of the collectible, generation of the grade report, printing of an encasement, or an encasing of a graded collectible (see claim 1).
Regarding instant claim 30, the ‘330 patent discloses wherein the remote grading unit in conjunction with a centralized grading unit are configured to grade the collectible, wherein the remote grading unit or the centralized grading unit perform one or more of image acquisitions of the collectible, the verification of the collectible, the generation of the grade report, or the encasing of the graded collectible (see claim 2: computer system; database refers to the so-called centralized grade unit).
Claims 1-2, 25-27 and 29-30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-24 of U.S. Patent No. 10,459,931 (referred as the ‘931 patent hereinafter).
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each limitation of the instant claim 1 as a representative claim is fully defined by claims of the ‘931 patent. For example, claim 1 of the ‘931 patent discloses:
a memory (see claim 1 of the ‘931 patent lines 3-5: computer inherently includes memory);
at least one processor coupled to the memory and configured to (see claim 1 of the ‘931 patent lines 3-7: processor is inherently coupled to the memory in order to execute computer instructions);
receive at least one image of said collectible (see claim 1 of the ‘931 patent lines 6-7);
apply at least one processing routine to said at least one image (see claim 1 of the ‘931 patent lines 8-11); and
generate a grade report of the collectible based at least on results of the at least one processing routine (see claim 1 of the ‘931 patent last 4 lines).
While claim 1 of the ‘931 patent includes additional limitations (i.e., instructions) that are not set forth in the instant claim 1, the use of transitional term "comprising/comprises" in the instant claim 1 fails to preclude the possibility of additional elements. Therefore, instant claim 1 fails to define an invention that is patentably distinct from claim 1 of the ‘931 patent. Furthermore, each of the limitations recited in instant claim 1 is anticipated by patented claim 1 and anticipation is “the ultimate or epitome of obviousness.”
Regarding instant claim 2, claim 1 of the ‘931 disclose generating a topological image of the collectible (see lines 6-7: image of said collectible).
Regarding instant claim 25, the ‘931 patent discloses wherein the apparatus for grading the collectible is comprised within a remote grading unit (see claim 1 lines 7-22: a computer system refers to claim remote grading unit because it is configured to received image for grading transmitted from image acquisition device).
Regarding instant claim 26, the ‘931 patent discloses wherein location data captured from the collectible submitted for grading identifies a physical location of the remote grading unit and the collectible submitted for grading (see claim 1: location is inherently included in order to receive the collectible and capture its image at the image acquisition device which transmits image captured to computer system for grading).
Regarding instant claim 27, the ‘931 patent discloses wherein one or more steps of grading the collectible are performed by the remote grading unit (see claim 15).
Regarding instant claim 29, the ‘330 patent discloses wherein the remote grading unit is configured to perform at least one of an image acquisition of the collectible, a verification of the collectible, generation of the grade report, printing of an encasement, or an encasing of a graded collectible (see claim 1).
Regarding instant claim 30, the ‘330 patent discloses wherein the remote grading unit in conjunction with a centralized grading unit are configured to grade the collectible, wherein the remote grading unit or the centralized grading unit perform one or more of image acquisitions of the collectible, the verification of the collectible, the generation of the grade report, or the encasing of the graded collectible (see claim 2: computer system; database refers to the so-called centralized grade unit).
Claims 1-2, 25-27 and 29-30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-32 of U.S. Patent No. 10,942,933 (referred as ‘933 patent hereinafter).
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each limitation of the instant claims is fully defined by claims of the ‘933 patent. For example, as to instant claim 1, claim 1 of the ‘933 patent discloses an apparatus for grading a collectible comprising (see line 1):
a memory (see line 2); and
at least one processor coupled to the memory and configured to (see lines 3-4):
receive at least one image of the collectible (see line 5)
apply at least one processing routine to said at least one image (see lines 9-10); and
generate a grade report of the collectible based at least on results of the at least one processing routine (see last 2 lines).
While claim 1 of the ‘933 patent includes additional limitations (i.e., access a database...) that are not set forth in the instant claim 1, the use of transitional term “comprising/comprises” in the instant claim 1 fails to preclude the possibility of additional elements. Therefore, instant claim 1 fails to define an invention that is patentably distinct from claim 1 of the ‘933 patent. Furthermore, each of the limitations recited in instant claim 1 is anticipated by patented claim 1 and anticipation is “the ultimate or epitome of obviousness.”
Regarding instant claim 2, claim 1 of the ‘933 disclose generating a topological image of the collectible (see line 5: image of said collectible).
Regarding instant claim 25, the ‘933 patent discloses wherein the apparatus for grading the collectible is comprised within a remote grading unit (see claim 1 lines 7-22: processor refers to claim remote grading unit because it is configured to received image of collectible for grading).
Regarding instant claim 26, the ‘933 patent discloses wherein location data captured from the collectible submitted for grading identifies a physical location of the remote grading unit and the collectible submitted for grading (see claim 1: location is inherently included in order to receive image of said collectible and transmit it to processor for grading).
Regarding instant claim 27, the ‘933 patent discloses wherein one or more steps of grading the collectible are performed by the remote grading unit (see claim 1).
Regarding instant claim 29, the ‘330 patent discloses wherein the remote grading unit is configured to perform at least one of an image acquisition of the collectible, a verification of the collectible, generation of the grade report, printing of an encasement, or an encasing of a graded collectible (see claim 1).
Regarding instant claim 30, the ‘330 patent discloses wherein the remote grading unit in conjunction with a centralized grading unit are configured to grade the collectible, wherein the remote grading unit or the centralized grading unit perform one or more of image acquisitions of the collectible, the verification of the collectible, the generation of the grade report, or the encasing of the graded collectible (see claim 2: computer system; database refers to the so-called centralized grade unit).
Claims 1-21, 25-52, 55-58 and 66-68 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-74 of copending Application No. 18/106999 (referred as ‘999 application hereinafter).
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each limitation of the instant claims is fully defined by claims 1-74 of the ‘999 application. For example, regarding instant claim 1 as a representative claim, claim 1 of the ‘999 application discloses: an apparatus for grading a collectible (see line 1: “An apparatus for grading a collectible”), comprising: a memory (see line 2: “memory”); and at least one processor coupled to the memory and configured to (see lines 3-4: “at least one processor coupled to the memory and configured to”): receive at least one image of the collectible (see lines 6: “collectible”); apply at least one processing routine to said at least one image (see lines 5-6: “apply at least one processing routine to at least one image of the collectible”); and generate a grade report of the collectible based at least on results of the at least one processing routine (see lines 7-8: “generate a grade report of the collectible based at least on results of the at least one processing routine”). Therefore, instant claim 1 fails to define an invention that is patentably distinct from claim 1 of the ‘999 application.
Likewise, each of instant claims 2-21, 25-52, 55-58 and 66-68 is fully defined by claims of the ‘999 application claims. Since claim languages between these two set of claims are substantially identical or similar, the generally mapping between the two are presented below:
Regarding instant claim 2, claim 2 of the ‘999 application recites wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: generate a topological image of the collectible (see lines 1-3).
Regarding instant claim 3, claim 3 of the ‘999 application recites wherein the topological image comprises a plurality of images of the collectible, wherein the plurality of images comprises a series of images of the collectible lighted under different lighting conditions (see lines 1-4).
Regarding instant claim 4, claim 4 of the ‘999 application recites wherein one or more surface imperfections on the collectible are identifiable using the topological image (see lines 1-3).
Regarding instant claim 5, claim 5 of the ‘999 application recites wherein the at least one processing routine is utilized to generate the topological image, wherein the topological image is used to identify one or more defects, wherein the topological image is used to score the identified one or more defects (see lines 1-5).
Regarding instant claim 6, claim 6 of the ‘999 application recites wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: overlay the topological image of the collectible onto the at least one image of the collectible, wherein an opacity of the topological image of the collectible is adjustable as overlaid onto the at least one image of the collectible and is used to identify one or more defects, wherein the topological image is used to score the identified one or more defects (see lines 1-8).
Regarding instant claim 7, claim 7 of the ‘999 application recites wherein adjusting the opacity of the topological image allows one or more surface imperfections on the collectible identified using the topological image to be compared against the at least one image of the collectible (see lines 1-4).
Regarding instant claim 8, claim 8 of the ‘999 application recites wherein the one or more surface imperfections comprise a card stock manipulation, wherein the topological image identifies variations in a surface topology or thickness of the collectible based on an expected surface topology or thickness of the collectible (see lines 1-5).
Regarding instant claim 9, claim 9 of the ‘999 application recites wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: identify one or more regions of the collectible, wherein the one or more regions comprise a portion of the collectible, wherein the one or more regions are prioritized based on an identifiable content of the collectible within the portion of the collectible (see lines 1-6).
Regarding instant claim 10, claim 10 of the ‘999 application recites wherein a first region of the one or more regions comprise facial features of the collectible, wherein the first region is prioritized for grading, wherein a box is generated around the first region (see lines 1-4).
Regarding instant claim 11, claim 11 of the ‘999 application recites wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: assign a deduction to each defect identified on the collectible, wherein the deduction is used to score the identified defects (see lines 1-5).
Regarding instant claim 12, claim 12 of the ‘999 application recites wherein the grade report of the collectible comprises one or more deductions for one or more defects (see lines 1-4).
Regarding instant claim 13, claim 13 of the ‘999 application recites wherein the deduction is applied to each defect identified on a front surface of the collectible and to each defect identified on a back surface of the collectible (see lines 1-3).
Regarding instant claim 14, claim 14 of the ‘999 application recites wherein to receive the at least one image of the collectible, the collectible is received by a slide actuator, wherein the slide actuator transports the collectible in order for the apparatus to receive the at least one image of the collectible (see lines 1-5).
Regarding instant claim 15, claim 15 of the ‘999 applicant recites wherein to receive the at least one image of the collectible, the collectible is received by a slide actuator that is positioned to receive an airflow blown over the collectible to remove airborne defects located between an image capture apparatus and a surface of the collectible, wherein the airborne defects are removed and not captured by the image capture apparatus (see lines 1-8).
Regarding instant claim 16, claim 16 of the ‘999 application recites wherein to receive the at least one image of the collectible, the collectible is received by a slide actuator comprising a suction device to position the collectible under an image capture apparatus in a duplicable configuration, such that each of the at least one image is captured in a similar configuration (see lines 1-7).
Regarding instant claim 17, claim 17 of the ‘999 applicant recites wherein a control rate of the at least one processing routine is based on a variable speed of a slide actuator (see lines 1-3).
Regarding instant claim 18, claim 18 of the ‘999 application recites wherein the slide actuator comprises a loading tray to receive the collectible, wherein the loading tray is maneuvered by the slide actuator to position the collectible within the apparatus (see lines 1-4).
Regarding instant claim 19, claim 19 of the ‘999 application recites wherein to receive the at least one image of the collectible, the collectible is received on a loading tray comprising one or more openings, wherein the one or more openings are covered by the collectible in response to the loading tray receiving the collectible (see lines 1-7).
Regarding instant claim 20, claim 20 of the ‘999 application recites wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: apply a suction force onto a surface of the collectible adjacent the loading tray, wherein the suction force pulls the collectible towards the loading tray such that the collectible is substantially flat (see lines 1-4).
Regarding instant claim 21, application recites wherein the one or more openings of the loading tray allow the suction force to pull the collectible towards the loading tray (see lines 1-3).
Regarding instant claim 25, claim 25 of the ‘999 application recites wherein the apparatus for grading the collectible is comprised within a remote grading unit (see lines 1-2).
Regarding claim instant 26, claim 26 of the ‘999 application recites wherein location data captured from the collectible submitted for grading identifies a physical location of the remote grading unit and the collectible submitted for grading (see lines 1-4).
Regarding instant claim 27, claim 27 of the ‘999 application recites wherein one or more steps of grading the collectible are performed by the remote grading unit (see lines 1-2).
Regarding instant claim 28, claim 28 of the ‘999 application recites wherein location data is stored within a database to generate statistical data indicating usage and an identity of collectibles submitted for grading (see lines 1-3).
Regarding instant claim 29, claim 29 of the ‘999 application recites wherein the remote grading unit is configured to perform at least one of an image acquisition of the collectible, a verification of the collectible, generation of the grade report, printing of an encasement, or an encasing of a graded collectible (see lines 1-5).
Regarding instant claim 30, claim 30 of the ‘999 application recites wherein the remote grading unit in conjunction with a centralized grading unit are configured to grade the collectible, wherein the remote grading unit or the centralized grading unit perform one or more of image acquisitions of the collectible, the verification of the collectible, the generation of the grade report, or the encasing of the graded collectible (see lines 1-6).
Regarding instant claim 31, claim 31 of the ‘999 application recites wherein to generate the grade report, the at least one processor is further configured to: identify at least one defect of the collectible by including at least one indicator on an image that comprises the at least one defect, wherein the at least one indicator comprises an indicator that indicates a defect location based on horizontal and vertical coordinates (see lines 1-7).
Regarding instant claim 32, claim 32 of the ‘999 application recites wherein the grade report comprises a detailed defect report of the at least one defect of the collectible, wherein the detailed defect report allows for the at least one defect of the collectible to be viewable, wherein the at least one defect is identified by the at least one indicator (see lines 1-5).
Regarding instant claim 33, claim 33 of the ‘999 application recites wherein to receive the at least one image of the collectible, the at least one processor is further configured to: apply one or more lighting conditions to the collectible, wherein the one or more lighting conditions assist to identify one or more defects on the collectible (see lines 1-8).
Regarding instant claim 34, claim 34 of the ‘999 application recites wherein one or more lighting conditions comprise at least one of a refractive light from one or more different angles (see lines 1-3).
Regarding instant claim 35, claim 35 of the ‘999 application recites wherein one or more lighting conditions create one or more shadows on the collectible, wherein the one or more shadows are measured to identify raised or depressed surface areas on the collectible (see lines 1-4).
Regarding instant claim 36, claim 36 of the ‘999 application recites wherein one or more lighting conditions comprises infrared (IR) lighting, wherein the IR lighting is configured to measure a thickness of the collectible (see lines 1-3).
Regarding instant claim 37, claim 37 of the ‘999 application recites wherein one or more lighting conditions create one or more shadows on the collectible, wherein the at least one image, individually, or a compositing of a plurality of images, is measured to identify raised or depressed surface areas of the collectible (see lines 1-5).
Regarding instant claim 38, claim 38 of the ‘999 application recites wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: examine one or more edges of the collectible to determine whether at least one of the one or more edges is inconsistent with other edges (see lines 1-5).
Regarding instant claim 39, claim 39 of the ‘999 application recites wherein determination of an inconsistent edge is based at least on the at least one processing routine that detects variations or inconsistencies on one or more edges (see lines 1-4).
Regarding instant claim 40, claim 40 of the ‘999 application recites wherein the collectible grade comprises a scoring within a range of 100 to 1000 point scoring, wherein the scoring is scaled to correlate to a collectible score based on a range of 1-10 grade value (see lines 1-4).
Regarding instant claim 41, claim 41 of the ‘999 application recites wherein the grade report comprises one or more different scoring metrics (see lines 1-2).
Regarding instant claim 42, claim 42 of the ‘999 application recites a system for grading a collectible, comprising (see line 1: “A system for grading a collectible”): a grading apparatus configured to (see line 2: ): receive at least one image of the collectible (see line 4: “collectible”); apply at least one processing routine to the at least one image (see lines 3-4: “apply at least one processing routine to the at least one image of the collectible”); and generate a grade report of the collectible based at least on results of the at least one processing routine (see lines 5-6: “generate a grade report of the collectible based at least on results of the at least one processing routine”); and an encasing apparatus configured to encase the graded collectible within a protective slab (see lines 7-8: “an encasing apparatus configured to encase the graded collectible within a protective slab”).
Regarding claim 43, claim 43 of the ‘999 application recites wherein the encasing apparatus is further configured to: print information derived from, and related to, at least one of identification, the results of the at least one processing routine, a collectible grade, and an authentication of the collectible printed on the protective slab (see lines 1-6).
Regarding claim 44, claim 44 of the ‘999 application recites wherein the information is printed on the protective slab using an ultra-violet (UV) printer with UV ink (see lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 45, claim 45 of the ‘999 application recites wherein the information comprises at least a security indicator and an identification indication, wherein the security indicator and the identification indication are viewable from opposing sides of the protective slab (see lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 46, claim 46 of the ‘999 application recites wherein the security indicator comprises authentication information related to the graded collectible, wherein the authentication information indicates that the graded collectible is authenticated as having been graded by the grading apparatus (see lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 47, claim 47 of the ‘999 application recites wherein the information printed on the protective slab is comprised of a plurality of layers, wherein the plurality of layers comprises a security mark layer, a contrasting layer, a background layer, and an identification layer, the identification layer comprising information related to the collectible and grading information (see lines 1-7).
Regarding claim 48, claim 48 of the ‘999 application recites wherein the information printed on the protective slab comprises an indicator to indicate that the collectible is free of any defects (see lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 49, claim 49 of the ‘999 application recites wherein the protective slab comprises a tracking device to identify a location of the protective slab (see lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 50, claim 50 of the ‘999 application recites wherein the tracking device comprises at least one of a global positioning system (GPS) device or a near field communication (NFC) device (see lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 51, claim 51 of the ‘999 application recites further comprising: an imaging device configured to capture at least one image of the collectible within the protective slab, wherein the at least one image of the collectible is stored on a database (see lines 1-7).
Regarding claim 52, claim 52 of the ‘999 application recites wherein the at least one image of the collectible is available, from the grading apparatus, for submission to an online platform for sale (see lines 1-3.
Regarding claim 55, claim 55 of the ‘999 application recites wherein the grade report of the collectible is stored on a grade report database, wherein information related to the collectible is stored on the grade report database (see lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 56, claim 56 of the ‘999 application recites wherein the information related to the collectible comprises at least a geographical location of the graded collectible, wherein the information related to the geographic location of the graded collectible is available to indicate a location of the graded collectible (see lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 57, claim 57 of the ‘999 application recites wherein the information related to the collectible comprises at least an order grading, wherein the order grading is based at least on one of an order of grading by the grading apparatus, an order of grading of a specific collectible by the grading apparatus, a ranking of the collectible based on its grade as reflected on the collectible, or a grade population report indicating a number of same collectibles graded by the grading apparatus (see lines 1-6).
Regarding claim 58, claim 58 of the ‘999 application recites wherein the information related to the collectible comprises a population report comprising at least one of a scarcity of graded collectibles, an amount of total graded collectibles, or an amount of total graded of a specific collectible (see lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 66, further comprising: a video recording system, wherein the video recording system records at least a portion of a grading process of the collectible, wherein a recording of at least the portion of the grading process of the collectible is available for sale or utilized for security purposes (see lines 1-6).
Regarding claim 67, wherein at least the portion of grading process includes receipt of the collectible, an image acquisition of the collectible, printing information of the collectible, encasing of the collectible within the protective slab, grading of the collectible, or shipment of the graded collectible (see lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 68, wherein the recording of the at least the portion of the grading process is utilized for identifying the portion within the grading process, actual grading, authentication of the graded collectible, or security to identify a location of the collectible at a time an image or a part of the grading process of the collectible was last obtained (see lines 1-6).
Claims 1-2 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 41 of copending Application No. 17/194056 (referred as ‘056 application hereinafter).
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each limitation of the instant claims is fully defined by claims 21-57 of the ‘056 application. For example, regarding instant claim 1 as a representative claim, claim 41 (claim 41 depends on claim 21 so it would inherit all claim limitations recited in its parent claim 21) of the ‘056 application discloses: an apparatus for grading a collectible (see claim 21 line 1: “An apparatus for examining a collectible”), comprising: a memory (see claim 21 line 2: “memory”); and at least one processor coupled to the memory and configured to (see claim 21 line 3: “at least one processor coupled to the memory and configured to”): receive at least one image of the collectible (see claim 21 line 4: “obtaining at least one image of the collectible”); apply at least one processing routine to said at least one image (see claim 21 lines 5-7: “apply at least one processing routine to the at least one image…the collectible”); and generate a grade report of the collectible based at least on results of the at least one processing routine (see claim 21 last 5 lines 7-8 and claim 41). Therefore, instant claim 1 fails to define an invention that is patentably distinct from claim 41 of the ‘056 application.
Regarding instant claim 2, claim 41 of the ‘056 application recites wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: generate a topological image of the collectible (see claim 21 line 4: image of the collectible is also the so-called topological image of the collectible per spec. para. [0080]).
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 1-5, 11-13, 25-28, 29-30 and 38-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 21 as a presentative claim, the 101 analysis is presented below.
Step 1: It is noted that claim 1 recites an apparatus, which is one of statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong 1: Limitations “apply at least one processing routine to the at least one image” and “generate a grade report of the collectible based at least on results of the at least one processing routine” are interpreted as being performed in human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. It is similar to an abstract idea of looking at or observing the collectible then presenting the condition of the collectible. Claim does not specifically define anything particular to the so-called processing routine that could not be performed in human mind. Thus, these limitations also fall into the “mental process” grouping of abstract idea. Therefore, claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: It is noted that claim does include additional elements (i.e., “obtain at least one image of the collectible”, “memory” and “at least one processor”). The additional element “obtain...” is nothing more than data gathering which is insignificant extrasolution activity. The additional elements “memory” and “processor” are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a conventional computer and do not point to a specific improvement in computer itself. Thus, these additional elements do not amount to an integration of the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The additional element “obtain...” is nothing more than data gathering which is insignificant activity. The additional elements “memory” and “processor” are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a conventional computer and do not point to a specific improvement in computer itself. The additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not contribute to an inventive concept and do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim is not a patent eligible.
Regarding claims 2-3, each of these claims does not recite any additional element that would make it statutory. Therefore, each of these claims recites an abstract idea.
Regarding claim 4, the additional claim limitations are interpreted as being performed in human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. It is similar to an abstract idea of looking at collectible then detecting any defect or abnormal (i.e., differences) presented in the collectible. Thus, these limitations also fall into the “mental process” grouping of abstract idea. Therefore, claim 4 recites an abstract idea.
Regarding claim 5, the additional claim limitations are interpreted as being performed in human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. It is similar to an abstract idea of looking at collectible, detecting any defect or abnormal (i.e., differences) presented in the collectible and then grade it by giving a score for each defect. Thus, these limitations also fall into the “mental process” grouping of abstract idea. Therefore, claim 5 recites an abstract idea.
Regarding claims 11-13, each of these claims does not recite any additional element that would make it statutory. The additional claim limitations are interpreted as being performed in human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. Therefore, each of these claims recites an abstract idea.
Regarding claims 25-28, each of these claims does not recite any additional element that would make it statutory. The additional claim limitations are nothing more than insignificant extrasolution activity. Therefore, each of these claims recites an abstract idea.
Regarding claims 29-30, each of these claims does not recite any additional element that would make it statutory. The additional claim limitations are nothing more than data gathering. Therefore, each of these claims recites an abstract idea.
Regarding claims 38-41, each of these claims does not recite any additional element that would make it statutory. The additional claim limitations are interpreted as being performed in human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. Thus, these limitations also fall into the “mental process” grouping of abstract idea. Therefore, each of these claim 38-41 recites an abstract idea.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUY M DANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7389. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday from 7:00AM to 3:00PM.
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, Amandeep Saini can be reached at 571-272-3382. 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.
DMD
8/2025
/DUY M DANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2662
Prosecution Insights