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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the images, software component/module, transparent material plate, image acquisition device/means, (at least two opposite) lighting means, the/a lens, etc. (i.e. any structural component presented in the claims and not shown in the Drawings) must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Similarly, the drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the structural details outlined above as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
In general, the Drawings have been deemed incomplete for failing to provide a comprehensive illustration of the invention.
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.
Claims 1-13 are 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 1 recites the limitations "the real-time acquisition" (line 1), “the visual spectrum” (line 2), “the analog optical acquisition” (line 6), “the upper base” (line 9), “the lower base” (line 10), “the sidewalls” (line 12), “the inner surface” (line 13), “the upper part” )line 14), “the lens” (line 15), “the image acquisition” (lines 16-17) (image acquisition device recited, real-time acquisition and analog optical acquisition recited, but no previous mention of an image acquisition), “the sum” (line 21), “the auditory frequency range” (lines 21-22), “the saturation value” (line 23), “the HSL array” (line 23), “the space” (line 24), “the brightness value” (line 27), and “the time” (line 28). There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim, given there is no previous mention of said elements.
Claim 1, please clarify whether “a transparent flat surface” and “a transparent (material) plate” are the same element, related to each other, or different from each other. Mention of the transparent plate is also made in claims 7 and 8.
Further in claim 1, please clarify whether “the acquisition device”, in lines 15-16 and line 19 is intended as the previously recited image acquisition device.
Claim 1, line 18, the recitation of “each pixel acquired” is indefinite, given there is no previous mention of pixel acquisition or pixels in general.
Claim 1, line 18, please clarify that ”RGB” should be interpreted under the common definition of color codes. The Specification does not specify how the term should be construed.
Similarly, line 23, please clarify how “HSL” should be interpreted. Standard definition includes hue, saturation and lightness. The present Specification deems the term to include opacity, saturation and brightness.
Claim 1, lines 25 and 29, please clarify whether “the flat transparent surface” is the same as the previously recited “transparent flat surface”.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the inner surfaces" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, given there is only previous mention of a single inner surface.
Claim 3 further recites the limitations "the plate made of glass or another transparent material" (line 3), “the diffusion and refraction” (line 4), and “the module” (line 5). There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim, given there is no previous mention of such elements..
Claim 5 recites the limitation "said dedicated software component" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, given there is no previous mention of a dedicated software component..
Further in claim 5, line 3, it has been held that the recitation that an element is "adapted to" perform a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. It does not constitute a limitation in any patentable sense. In re Hutchison, 69 USPQ 138.
Regarding claim 7, the phrase "such as" (line 3) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 7, line 2, please clarify whether “a lens” is the same as, related to, or different from, the previously recited “the lens”.
Claim 7 further recites the limitations "the two-dimensional working surface", “the depth-of-field effect”, and “the outer surface” in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 makes mention of a working surface. Please clarify whether this working surface is related to the previously recited working space (claim 1).
Claim 8 recites the limitations "the arrangement" (line 2), “the natural geometric distortions” (line 4), “the shooting optics” (lines 4-5), “the correct selection and calibration” (line 5), “the focus plane” (line 5), “the optics” (lines 5-6), and “the two-dimensional working area” (line 6). There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
In terms of claim 10, many of the rejections applied to claim 1, can be applied to claim 10. Some in particular:
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the real-time acquisition” (line 1), “the visual spectrum” (line 2), “the image” (line 10), “the pixels” (line 11), “the acquired image pixels” (line 12), “the sum “ (line 16), “the auditory frequency range” (line 16), “the saturation value” (line 17), “the HSL array” (line 17), “the brightness value” (line 18), “the space” (line 20), “the flat transparent surface” (line 21), and “the time” (line 23). There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Again, please clarify that which the Applicant deems as RGB and HSL.
Further in claim 10, line 10, please clarify whether “the image” is related to the previously recited images.
Claim 10, line 10, please clarify of which element the “working surface” corresponds (i.e. a working surface of what).
Claim 10, line 13, “please clarify whether “each acquired pixel” refers to each of the acquired image pixels or different pixels.
Claim 10, line 15, please clarify whether “the acquired pixels” relate to the acquired image pixels.
Clam 10, line 12, the processing step is performed by the software module, but there is no clear recitation by what means the processing and converting steps of line 14 are performed.
Claim 10, line 22, please clarify whether “the hardware component” is related to the hardware module, or whether this is a separate element leading to an antecedent basis issue.
Claim 11 recites the limitations "the brain activity" (line 3), and “the corresponding/said image of (said) brain activity (lines 5 and 6). There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 11, given both “transparent flat surface” and “flat transparent surface” have both been used in preceding claim 1, please clarify that “transparent flat surface” in line 4 is the intended term.
Claim 11, last two lines, please clarify what is intended by “to the that generated by the processing of the images acquired by said image acquisition means”
Further, in the last line, please clarify whether “said image acquisition means” is intended instead as the “image acquisition device” recited in preceding claim 1, or if it is intended as a different element, thus presenting an antecedent basis issue.
Claim 12 presents the same issues as discussed above in claim 3.
The remaining claims, not specifically addressed, depend from, and therefore include, the rejected limitations outlined above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-13 are believed to be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Presently, the closest prior art of record are the US patents to Nease et al. (7,692,086) and Chu (6,747,764), the WIPO publication to Kim (WO 2007/105927 A1), the US publications to Miki et al. (US 2017/358284), Monk et al. (US 2005/007776) and Abahri (US 2009/021798), the Japanese publication to Kono (JP H08223377 A), and the European publication to Mukawa et al. (EP 2323368 A1).
In particular, the prior art fails to explicitly teach or suggest:
"wherein the software component is configured to detect every RGB value of each pixel acquired by the acquisition device, and process and convert the values detected in order to associate, with each of the acquired pixels, three values consisting of, respectively: - a sound frequency value, given by the sum of the R, G and B values converted into the auditory frequency range; - a sound intensity value, corresponding to the saturation value from the HSL array, wherein said saturation value, and thus said sound intensity value, is correlated to the space occupied by said images either moved or drawn on the flat transparent surface of the hardware component; - a sound duration value, corresponding to the brightness value from the HSL array, wherein said brightness value, and thus said sound duration value, is correlated to the time it took to move or draw said images on the flat transparent surface of the hardware component; wherein said three values correspond to a specific sound associated with a specific acquired pixel."
Some of the prior art teach: - providing a pixel by pixel color to note association based on hue values and brightness octave or volume determination (using values of hue, brightness, saturation), and - an association between pitches and color, -the use of values of HSV colors for each pixel of the image and the pixel positions to select an associated frequency.
The above features therefore differ from the prior art in that the pixel's sum of RGB values is associated with sound frequency, the pixel’s saturation in HSL to sound intensity and brightness value in HSL to sound duration
The features further appear to show choosing HSL parameters for audio conversion may be considered as bound by technical considerations because the saturation and brightness parameters seem to be selected to represent the ways an image is drawn or moved on the flat transparent surface of the hardware component. In other words, specific image parameters have been selected based on their effect for interpreting images moved or drawn on a flat transparent surface of the hardware component. Thus it seems that there indeed is a technical relationship between the use of a flat transparent surface of the hardware component on which an image is moved or drawn and the image parameters sound correspondence.
Once a formal response is filed, and a better understanding of that which the Applicant deems as their invention is received, a further search and consideration of the prior art will be conducted.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Christina Schreiber whose telephone number is (571)272-4350. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-4 PM.
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, Dedei Hammond can be reached at 571-270-7938. 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.
/CHRISTINA M SCHREIBER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837 03/06/2026