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 November 10, 2025 has been entered and made of record.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I, claims 14-21, in the reply filed on November 10, 2025 is acknowledged. Currently, claims 1-21, 25-52, 55-58, 66-68 are pending.
Claim Interpretation
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.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that § 112(f) (pre-AIA § 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that § 112(f) (pre-AIA § 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke § 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke § 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim limitation “apparatus” (i.e., grading apparatus) has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “apparatus” coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 42-52, 55-58 and 66-68 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: a processor 120 that is programmed to perform the claim functions is described in paragraph [0206], [0207], and [0209] –[0020], for example..
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see M.P.E.P. § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claims 1-21 and 25-41 are not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the recitations of “memory” and “processor”.
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 1-13, 17, and 25-41 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1 as a presentative claim, the 101 analysis is presented below.
Step 1: It is noted that claim 1 recites an apparatus and thus is directed to one of statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong 1: Limitations “applying…” and “generating…” 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 images, annotating non-human observable defect (note: since claim does not recite any specific technical means to obtain such defect, it is interpreted as an imperfection or difference (i.e., markings, faded colors) that is presented in image but is not presented in the collectible) and writing a report. Claim does not specifically define anything particular to such limitations that could not be performed in human mind. Thus, these limitations 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 1 recites addition elements “memory” and “processor”. These additional elements 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, all of these additional elements do not amount to an integration of the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The additional elements, as pointed out in Step 2A prong 2, 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. These 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.
The advanced statements as applied to claim 1 above are incorporated hereinafter.
Regarding claim 2, the additional elements “generate a topological image of the collectible” are nothing more than data gathering which is insignificant extrasolution activity. These 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 claim 3, the additional elements “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” are nothing more than data gathering which is insignificant extrasolution activity. These 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 claim 4, the additional elements “wherein one or more surface imperfections on the collectible are identifiable using the topological image” 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 images and identifying surface imperfections on the collectible. Therefore, claim is not a patent eligible.
Regarding claim 5, the additional elements “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” are nothing more than data gathering which is insignificant extrasolution activity. These 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 claim 6, the additional elements “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”.
Regarding claim 7, the additional elements 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.
Regarding claim 8, the additional elements “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” are nothing more than data gathering which is insignificant extrasolution activity. These 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 claim 9, the additional elements “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” 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 images. Therefore, claim is not a patent eligible.
Regarding claim 10, the additional elements “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” 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 images. Therefore, claim is not a patent eligible.
Regarding claim 11, the additional elements “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, wherein at least one of the identified defects is annotated” are interpreted as being performed in human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. Therefore, claim is not a patent eligible.
Regarding claim 12, the additional elements “wherein the grade report of the collectible comprises one or more deductions for one or more defects, wherein the grade report comprises information related to the at least one of the identified defects that are annotated” are interpreted as being performed in human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. Therefore, claim is not a patent eligible.
Regarding claim 13, the additional elements “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” are interpreted as being performed in human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. Therefore, claim is not a patent eligible.
Regarding claim 17, the additional elements “wherein a control rate of the at least one processing routine is based on a variable speed of a slide actuator” are interpreted as being performed in human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. Therefore, claim is not a patent eligible.
Regarding claim 25, the additional elements “wherein the apparatus for grading the collectible is comprised within a mobile remote grading unit” 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. These additional elements do not amount to an integration of the judicial exception into a practical application. These 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 claim 26, additional elements “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” are interpreted as being performed in human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. Therefore, claim is not a patent eligible.
Regarding claim 27, the additional elements “wherein one or more steps of grading the collectible are performed by the remote grading unit” 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. These additional elements do not amount to an integration of the judicial exception into a practical application. These 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 claim 28, the additional elements “ wherein location data is stored within a database to generate statistical data indicating usage and an identity of collectibles submitted for grading” are nothing more than data gathering which is insignificant extrasolution activity. These 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 claim 29, the additional elements “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” are nothing more than data gathering which is insignificant extrasolution activity. These 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 claim 30, the additional elements (i)“wherein the remote grading unit in conjunction with a centralized grading unit are configured to grade the collectible” are interpreted as being performed in human mind or by a human using a pen and paper, (ii) “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” are nothing more than data gathering which is insignificant extrasolution activity, and (iii)“centralized grading unit” 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. These additional elements as pointed out at (ii)-(iii) do not amount to an integration of the judicial exception into a practical application. These 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 claim 31, the additional elements “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” are interpreted as being performed in human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. Therefore, claim is not a patent eligible.
Regarding claim 32, the additional elements “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” are interpreted as being performed in human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. Therefore, claim is not a patent eligible.
Regarding claim 33, the additional elements “wherein 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 with adjustments including distance from the one or more image capture devices, brightness of the lighting, angle of the lights, speed of the lights and/or number of lights” are interpreted as being performed in human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. Therefore, claim is not a patent eligible.
Regarding claim 34, the additional elements “wherein one or more lighting conditions comprise at least one of a refractive light from one or more different angles” are nothing more than data gathering which is insignificant extrasolution activity. These 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 claim 35, the additional elements “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” are interpreted as being performed in human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. Therefore, claim is not a patent eligible.
Regarding claim 36, the additional elements “wherein one or more lighting conditions comprises infrared (IR) lighting, wherein the IR lighting is configured to measure a thickness of the collectible” are interpreted as being performed in human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. Therefore, claim is not a patent eligible.
Regarding claim 37, the additional elements “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” are interpreted as being performed in human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. Therefore, claim is not a patent eligible.
Regarding claim 38, the additional elements “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” are interpreted as being performed in human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. Therefore, claim is not a patent eligible.
Regarding claim 39, the additional elements “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” are interpreted as being performed in human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. Therefore, claim is not a patent eligible.
Regarding claim 40, the additional elements “wherein the collectible grade comprises a scoring within a range of 1-10,000 point scoring, wherein the scoring is scaled to correlate to a collectible score based on a range that corresponds to a range of 1-10 grade value” are interpreted as being performed in human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. Therefore, claim is not a patent eligible.
Regarding claim 41, the additional elements “wherein the grade report comprises one or more different scoring metrics” are interpreted as being performed in human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. Therefore, claim is not a patent eligible.
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 42-52, 55-58 and 66-68 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 42-52, 55-58 and 66-78 of copending Application No. 17/805,846 (referred as ‘846 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 42-52, 55-58 and 66-68 of the ‘846 application. For example, regarding instant claim 42 as a representative claim, claim 42 of the ‘846 application discloses: a system for grading a collectible (see line 1: “A system for grading a collectible”), comprising:
a grading apparatus configured to (see line 2):
apply at least one processing routine to the at least one image of the collectible (see lines 4-5); and
generate a grade report of the collectible based at least on results of the at least one processing routine (see lines 6-7); and
an encasing apparatus configured to encase the graded collectible within a protective slab (see lines 8-9).
While claim 42 of the ‘846 application includes additional limitations (i.e., “receiving…collectible”) that are not set forth in the instant claim 42, the use of transitional term "comprising/comprises" in the instant claim 42 fails to preclude the possibility of additional elements. Therefore, instant claim 42 fails to define an invention that is patentably distinct from claim 42 of the ‘846 application. Furthermore, each of the limitations recited in instant claim 42 is anticipated by claim 42 of the ‘846 application and anticipation is “the ultimate or epitome of obviousness.”
Likewise, each of instant claims 43-52, 55-58 and 66-68 is fully defined by claims 43-52, 55-58 and 66-68 of the ‘846 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 claim 43, claim 43 of the ‘846 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 ‘846 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 ‘846 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 ‘846 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 ‘846 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 ‘846 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 ‘846 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 ‘846 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 ‘846 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 ‘846 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 ‘846 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 ‘846 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 ‘846 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 ‘846 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, claim 66 of the ‘846 application recites 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, claim 67 of the ‘846 recites 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, claim 68 of the ‘846 recites 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).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-16, 18 and 19-21 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:
Regarding claim 14 as a representative claim, the cited prior art does not teach or suggest claim limitations “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”. Likewise, claim 18 depends on claim 14 and thus is allowable for the same reasons as well.
Regarding claim 15, the cited prior art does not teach or suggest claim limitations “wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: receive at least one image of the collectible, wherein 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”.
Regarding claim 16, the cited prior art does not teach or suggest claim limitations “wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: receive at least one image of the collectible, wherein 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”.
Regarding claim 19, the cited prior art does not teach or suggest claim limitations” wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: receive at least one image of the collectible, wherein 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.” Likewise, claims 20-21 depend on claim 19 and thus are allowable for the same reasons as well.
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
2/2026
/DUY M DANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2662