Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on April 3, 2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed July 1, 2026 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Specifically, the Zhang reference from the year 2000 was not considered because no copy was provided.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendment have persuasively overcome the 103 rejections and all but one of the 112 rejections.
The remaining issues are addressed below.
Fees:
Applicant is reminded of the two interviews conducted on August 27, 2025, specifically the idea that a claim could be independent but written with a reference to another claim. Applicant is correct that there are some situations where a claim can properly depend from a parent claim in a different statutory category, such as a parent claim to an apparatus and a child claim to a method of using that apparatus (note that this may be subject to a restriction requirement, the examiner’s point is that the method claim incorporates all of the limitations of the apparatus because the apparatus is required to be present).
Applicant quotes from the MPEP “The fact that the independent and dependent claims are in different statutory classes does not, in itself, render the latter improper.” That paragraph concludes with “On the other hand, if claim 1 recites a method of making a specified product, a claim to the product set forth in claim 1 would not be a proper dependent claim if the product can be made by a method other than that recited in the base method claim, and thus, does not include the limitations of the base claim.”
Applicant has a parent method claim (i.e., claim 20 or one of its dependents), but claims 11-13 and 17-19 do not require performance of the method. Hence, Applicant cannot have them examined while only paying the fee for dependent claims.
112b:
Applicant argues “Applicant submits that the claim is clear that the "camera" is not part of the claimed system per se but rather part of the claim's environment. … In other words, the camera is a cooperating element of the recited system's environment even while not being positively recited, because the steps affirmatively require the camera to perform capturing while the positively recited devices (the display device and computer device) control the workflow.”
However, the camera is either a required part of the of the claimed system not. Applicant’s proposal is indefinite. Imagine a customs inspector determining if imported computer hardware meets the present claim limitations. If the display device and computer device of claim 14 are present, but there is not camera, would that not meet the limitations?
Claim Objections
Claims 11-13 and 17-19 reference claim 20 or one of its dependents, but do not properly depend from claim 20 or one of its dependents because the instructions can exist without performance of any of the method steps. Here, claim 20 is a method but claims 11-13 and 17-19 are apparatuses, and the apparatus claim can be met without necessarily practicing the method. MPEP 608.01(n)(III) addresses the “test for proper dependency.”
For purposes of determining the fee due the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, a claim will be treated as dependent if it contains reference to one or more other claims in the application. A claim determined to be dependent by this test will be entered if the fee paid reflects this determination.
Any claim which is in dependent form but which is so worded that it, in fact, is not a proper dependent claim, as for example it does not include every limitation of the claim on which it depends, will be required to be canceled as not being a proper dependent claim; and cancellation of any further claim depending on such a dependent claim will be similarly required. The applicant may thereupon amend the claims to place them in proper dependent form, or may redraft them as independent claims, upon payment of any necessary additional fee.
Therefore, Applicant does not owe fees for additional independent claims, but claims 11-13 and 17-19 are not proper dependent claims and thus are required to be canceled. In the interest of compact prosecution, the claims have been examined.
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 14-16 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 14 recites a “field of view of a camera,” but it is not clear what the relationship is between the computer device performing the method and the camera. In other words, is the camera part of the claimed system?
Dependent claims, and claims incorporating these elements by reference, are likewise rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 11-25 (all claims) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20160048953A1 (“Zhao”) in view of US20080062164A1 (“Bassi”)
Claims 11-13 are rejected as per their respective parent claims. See also Zhao, Fig. 2, teaching the claimed computer device.
14. (Currently Amended) A system, comprising:
a display device; and (Zhao, abstract, “the target including multiple of markers having calibration features that include identification features”)
a computer device configured to perform a method that includes: (Zhao, abstract, “a processor configured to …”)
in a portion of a field of view of a camera, displaying on the display device a first test chart; (Zhao, abstract, “a target coupled with the interface so as to be within the field of view of the imaging system.” While Zhao’s chart teaches the claimed displaying, the secondary reference Bassi teaches displaying the test chart on a screen.)
capturing image-data by capturing at least a portion of a displayed image of the first test chart in the portion of the field of view with the camera, the camera and the first test chart at a fixed relative position; (Zhao, abstract, “a target coupled with the interface so as to be within the field of view of the imaging system”)
generating a distortion map representing a correspondence between the first test chart and the captured-image-data of the first test chart; (Zhao, [0081] “The features (circles and dots) of partially visible markers are usually in the periphery of an image so that they may contribute more to the estimation of the distortion model than features in the middle of the image.” Zhao’s distortion model teaches the claimed distortion map.)
capturing image-data by capturing at least a portion of the displayed distorted image of the at least one second test chart in the portion of the field of view with the camera, the camera and the displayed distorted image at the fixed relative position; and (Zhao, abstract, “a target coupled with the interface so as to be within the field of view of the imaging system”)
performing resolution measurement using a contrast method based on the captured image-data of the displayed distorted image of the at least one second test chart. (Zhao, [0108] “For example, the respective relative MTF values for the two images at a particular spatial frequency can be used to calculate a percentage contrast difference at that spatial frequency.”)
Zhao is not relied on for the below claim language.
However, Bassi teaches based on the distortion map, generating and displaying a distorted image of at least one second test chart that forms a no-distortion image as captured by the camera; (Bassi, Fig. 5 and [0072] “The digital warping unit 15 will apply the correction fD C to the input image in order to warp (pre-distort) it prior to display.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Bassi to the teachings of Zhao such that Zhao’s contrast method is used with Bassi’s pre-compensation for the purpose of automating calibration and correction of display geometry and color (Bassi, title) as well as other issues (Bassi, abstract).
Based on the above, this is an example of “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.” MPEP 2143.
15. (Currently Amended) The system of claim 14, wherein the computer device is configured to display the distorted image of the at least one second test chart on the display device. (Bassi, Fig. 5 and [0072] “The digital warping unit 15 will apply the correction fD C to the input image in order to warp (pre-distort) it prior to display.”)
16. (Currently Amended) The system of claim 14,wherein the at least one second test chart is a plurality of second test charts. (Bassi, Figs. 4 and 12)
Claims 17-19 are rejected as per their respective parent claims. See also Zhao, Fig. 2, teaching the claimed computer readable media.
Claims 20-22 and 24 are rejected as per claim 14.
Claim 23 is rejected as per claim 15.
25. The computer-implemented resolution measurement method of claim 20, wherein the first test chart is a grid pattern. (Zhao, [0068] “Possible target designs include an existing “checkerboard” pattern”)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US10067029B2 – “Systems and methods for estimating modulation transfer function in an optical system”
US10334241B2 – Claim 7
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID ORANGE whose telephone number is (571)270-1799. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9-5.
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, Gregory Morse can be reached at 571-272-3838. 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.
/DAVID ORANGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2663
Prosecution Insights