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 .
Notice to Applicant
Limitations appearing inside {} are intended to indicate limitations not taught by said prior art(s)/combinations.
Response to Amendments
The Amendment filled 12/05/2025 in response to Non-Final Office Action mailed 10/09/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9, 12, 15, and 19-20 have been amended. Claims 5 and 16 are newly canceled. Claim 21 is previously canceled. Claims 8, 10-11, 13-14, and 17-18 have been previously presented.
Claims 1-4, 6-15, and 17-20 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
The claim rejections under 35 USC §112(b) are withdrawn in view of the amended claims.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, pages 10-12, filed 12/05/2025, with respect to claims 1-19 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC §101 rejections of claims 1-19 has been withdrawn in light of the amended claims.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, pages 8-12, filed 12/05/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 USC §103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejections are made for the pending claims.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 objected to because of the following informalities:
It appears there is a typographical error in the last line of the claim: “planing" should be “planning”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 8, 12, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Stannah” (Anonymous. “Accurate stair measurement for complex staircases”, Stannah Malta, (2020 05 22), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bcOSFVCtw4, [date accessed: 2026-02-17])., in view of Stairbiz (Anonymous, “StairBiz Brochure” (2019-02-10), https://www.stair.biz/downloads/StairBiz%20Brochure.pdf, [date accessed 2025-10-03]).
Regarding claim 1, Stannah teaches a method for producing a renovation element suited for renovating or {replacing a staircase part}, said method comprises:
a digital measuring step, said digital measuring step comprises extraction of information regarding dimensions of said staircase part, characterized in that one or more markers are positioned on the staircase part that is to be renovated, wherein said markers are captured by a recording device (Stannah, Figs 1 and 2 shown below, exhibits digital measurement of a step and one or more markers positioned on the staircase part to be renovated, and captured by a camera
PNG
media_image1.png
715
887
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1: (timestamp 0:18) Recording device capturing markers
),
thereby capturing a single image of said staircase part and corresponding markers and analyzing said single image by means of image analysis techniques, thereby defining the dimensions of the staircase part (See Stannah Figure 2, shown below, exhibits measuring and analyzing a single image, thereby defining the dimensions of the staircase part;
PNG
media_image2.png
667
941
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2: timestamps 0:25 (top) exhibits image analysis techniques and defining dimensions of stair.
),
wherein the markers include edge markers and center markers, wherein said edge markers are positioned at a corner of the staircase part, and wherein said center markers are positioned at a center of a surface of the staircase part (Stannah, Figure 3, shown below, exhibits edge markers on stair corners and center markers positioned on center of staircase part;
PNG
media_image3.png
708
939
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 3: (timestamp 0:20) Edge markers positioned on corners, and center markers positioned at a center of staircase part.
),
transferring data regarding the single image and corrected contours to (Stannah, Figure 1, exhibits a mobile phone with camera and capability to transfer image, and the Figure in 2 exhibits the corrected contours that may be transferred for production of renovation element) {a Computer Numerical Control (CNC)} machine for production of the renovation element, and producing a stair renovation element to be placed on a corresponding staircase position or to {replace said staircase part based on said dimensions using the CNC machine}.
Stannah does not explicitly disclose a Computer Numerical Control (CNC) machine to replace said staircase part based on said dimensions using the CNC machine.
However, Stairbiz, a similar field of endeavor of staircase measurement, teaches transferring data regarding the single image and corrected contours to a Computer Numerical Control (CNC) machine (Stairbiz [p 12, ¶2] main program allowing full communication between the design, the materials and the CNC)
to replace said staircase part based on said dimensions using the CNC machine (Stairbiz [p 13, col 2, ¶1]; You can create a new stair add bullnose treads … make strings “out of square” … make one or all units have open risers; [Figure on p 8] “Cutting List” exhibits “Risers”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a CNC machine as taught by Stairbiz to the invention of Stannah. The motivation to do so would be to automate production of customized parts.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Stannah and Stairbiz disclose the method according to claim 1. Stannah further teaches wherein the method further comprises determining contours of the staircase part in the single image based on information relayed by the single image and fitting said contours of the staircase part on said single image (See Stannah, Figure 4, shown below, exhibits contours of the staircase, and contours of the staircase part in the single image in Figure 2, shown above with claim 1.
PNG
media_image4.png
687
941
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figure 4: timestamp 0:28
).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Stannah and Stairbiz teach the method according to claim 1. Stairbiz further teaches characterized in that the CNC machine is a drilling machine, a sawing machine, and/or a planing machine (Stairbiz [p 12, ¶2] main program allowing full communication between the design, the materials and the CNC).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Stannah and Stairbiz disclose the method according to claim 1. Stannah further discloses wherein a camera captures an image of the staircase part provided with markers positioned on the surface and transmits the image to a processing unit comprising a computer program, wherein the transmission occurs by a wireless signal or by a storage medium (Stannah, Figure 1, shown above exhibits mobile phone with camera and processor to transmit the image wirelessly).
Claim 12 is similarly analyzed as analogous claims 1-2.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Stannah and Stairbiz disclose the method according to claim 1. Stairbiz further discloses wherein said staircase part is a stair tread, comprising a tread, a nose and a riser (Stairbiz [p 13, col 2, ¶1]; You can create a new stair add bullnose treads … make strings “out of square” … make one or all units have open risers; [Fig p 8] Cutting list exhibits “Risers”).
Regarding Claim 15, Stannah discloses A system for producing a renovation element suited for renovating or replacing a staircase part comprising:
a digital measurement system designed to extract dimensional information regarding the dimensions of said staircase, a recording device, a processing unit designed to process said dimensional information, a transmitting device for relaying said dimensional information to a production unit (Stannah, Fig 1 exhibits a mobile phone with camera):
a production unit for producing a renovation element, {wherein the production unit is a Computer Numerical Control (CNC) machine} (Stannah, Figure 5, shown below exhibits production unit for producing a renovation element, where the renovation element is a bespoke rail that fits to the contours of the staircase)
PNG
media_image5.png
635
890
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Figure 5: (timestamp 0:34) exhibits production of the bespoke rail
, and
markers, wherein each of the markers is a positional tracking component used for the extraction of information, wherein said markers are designed to be positioned and/or attached to a surface of the staircase part of a staircase, wherein the markers include edge markers and center markers, wherein said edge markers are positioned at a corner of the staircase part, and wherein said center markers are positioned at a center of a surface of the staircase part (Stannah, see Figures 1-3, shown above with claim 1, exhibit staircase markers with edge markers on edges and center markers on the center of the staircase part, and extraction of information from positional tracking component (i.e., Figure 2)).
Stannah, does not explicitly disclose a CNC machine.
However, Stairbiz, a similar field of endeavor of staircase measurement for renovation, teaches a CNC machine (Stairbiz [p 12, ¶2] main program allowing full communication between the design, the materials and the CNC).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a CNC machine Stairbiz to the invention of Stannah. The motivation to do so would be to automate production of customized parts.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stannah in view of Stairbiz, and further in view of Horton et al., GB 2591152 A, hereinafter Horton.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Stannah and Stairbiz disclose the method according to claim 1. The combination does not explicitly disclose wherein said contours the staircase in the single image are corrected by a predetermined offset.
However, Horton, a similar field of endeavor of staircase design, discloses wherein said contours of a captured staircase part and/or riser are corrected by a predetermined offset (Horton, [p 11, ¶6]; apparatus 1000 is configured to determine the amount of offset between the model of the staircase and the image of the staircase. The offset amount forms an offset region 7004 as illustrated in Figure 7. This may be determined by the apparatus through calculation of the residuals between the model 7002 and the image of the actual staircase 7000 at a number of discrete points across the staircase).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include correcting by a predetermined offset as taught by Horton to the combined invention of Stannah and Stairbiz. The motivation to do so would be to ensure that the model provides an accurate fit.
Claims 6. 7, 9, 10, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stannah in view of Stairbiz, and further in view of Naimark (L. Naimark and E. Foxlin, "Circular data matrix fiducial system and robust image processing for a wearable vision-inertial self-tracker," Proceedings. International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality, Darmstadt, Germany, 2002, pp. 27-36, doi: 10.1109/ISMAR.2002.1115065).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Stannah and Stairbiz teach the method according to claim 1. The combination does not explicitly disclose wherein each of the one or more markers comprises on its surface one or more submarkers, wherein a submarker is comprised of an outer and inner circle with pre-determined radius and center point, wherein centers of said inner circle and said outer circle coincide.
However, Naimark, a similar field of endeavor of fiducials for positional tracking, teaches wherein each of the one or more markers comprises on its surface one or more submarkers, wherein a submarker is comprised of an outer and inner circle with pre-determined radius and center point, wherein centers of said inner circle and said outer circle coincide (Naimark, See Fig. 5, shown below, exhibits fiducial markers with an outer black ring and an inner black ring; and “centroids of the rings must coincide [p 3,§3, Col 2, ¶1];
PNG
media_image6.png
337
366
media_image6.png
Greyscale
).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include circular markers with inner and outer coincident circles as taught by Naimark to the combined invention of Stannah and Stairbiz. The motivation to do so would be for positional tracking and to build a map of the fiducial constellation after installation automatically.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Stannah, Stairbiz and Naimark disclose the method according to claim 6. Naimark further wherein each of the one or more submarkers contains a unique ID code wherein said unique ID code allows determining an orientation and identity of said marker positioned on said staircase part. (Naimark, [§3.3, p. 5, col. 1, ¶1]; This particular sub-design [Fig 5, shown below] has 215=32768 possible codes; [¶2] ;determine fiducial orientation for identifying the barcode reading grid points).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Stannah and Stairbiz disclose the method according to claim 8. Stannah teaches wherein the computer program processes the image wherein the program identifies the markers by means of the {sub}markers and wherein positional data is retrieved by means of {centers of said sub}markers. (See Figure 2, shown with claim 1, exhibits image processed where positional data are identified by means of the markers). The combination does not submarkers and wherein positional data is retrieved by means of centers of said submarkers.
However, Naimark discloses wherein the program identifies the markers by means of submarkers (Naimark, Fig 7 and [§4.3, p. 7, col. 2, ¶1], shown below; candidate selection) and wherein positional data is retrieved (u and v axis basis vectors) by means of centers of said submarkers (white eyes used as an origin)
PNG
media_image7.png
315
314
media_image7.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include identifying the position of submarkers as taught by Naimark to the combined invention of Stannah and Stairbiz. The motivation to do so would be to develop a tracking system that can provide high accuracy.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Stannah, Stairbiz and Naimark teach the method according to claim 9. Naimark further teaches wherein the computer program determines the validation of the transmitted image, wherein parameters regarding image quality and identification of the markers are evaluated, wherein image analysis proceeds upon confirmation of the parameters (Naimark, Fig 6 and [§4.2, p. 7, col. 1-2, ¶1-3]; ¶[1] identify potential candidate objects that might be fiducials; ¶[2] final candidate selection involves several operations: image erosion, feature extraction, size, color and area test; [§4.3, p. 7, col. 2, ¶1], when candidate selection is finished, then each successful candidate is checked for a barcode as illustrated in Figure 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include image quality inspection as taught by Naimark to the combined invention of Stannah and Stairbiz. The motivation to do so would be to get back a good looking image of fiducials that can be read and to reject false positives.
Claim 17 is similarly analyzed as analogous claim 6.
Claim 18 is similarly analyzed as analogous claim 7.
Claim 19 is similarly analyzed as analogous claim 10.
Claims 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stannah in view of Stairbiz and further in view of Wexler et al., US 20160012611 A1, hereinafter Wexler.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Stannah and Stairbiz teach the method according to claim 8. Claim 11 similarly analyzed as claim 1-2. The combination does not explicitly disclose wherein the computer program corrects for lens distortion, angle variation and distance of the camera.
However, Wexler, a similar field of endeavor of field of endeavor of measurement in which a digital image is obtained that contains a target object dimension and a reference object dimension, discloses wherein the computer program corrects for lens distortion, angle variation and distance of the camera (Wexler, ¶[0169]; a camera calibration model that allows correction of other distortions due to lens design and sensor to lens alignment may be obtained by analysis of several images of a sufficiently complex pattern that covers a sufficiently large portion of the image; ¶[0115]; size correction may be performed to account for the perspective).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include image correction as taught by Wexler to the combined invention of Stannah and Stairbiz. The motivation to do so would be to obtain distortion free images.
Claims 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stannah in view of Stairbiz and further in view of Gets (Christopher Getschmann and Florian Echtler. 2021. Seedmarkers: Embeddable Markers for Physical Objects. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction (TEI '21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 26, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1145/3430524.3440645).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Stannah and Stairbiz teach the method according to claim 1. The combination does not explicitly disclose wherein said markers are made of a polymer.
However, Gets, a similar field of endeavor of markers for position tracking, discloses wherein said markers are made of a polymer (Gets, [Fig 1 caption]; a marker can be generated and from … plastic with 3Dprinting or laser cutting).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include polymer markers taught by Gets to the combined invention of Stannah and Stairbiz. The motivation to do so would be to obtain distortion free images.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stannah in view of Naimark, and further in view of Gets.
Regarding claim 20, Stannah teaches a kit to be used for performing a digital measurement of a staircase part for the purpose of renovating or replacing said staircase, said kit comprises a plurality of edge and center markers, wherein said edge markers are positioned at a corner of the staircase part, wherein said center markers are positioned at a center of a surface of the staircase part, characterized in that each of the markers constitutes one or multiple {sub}markers (Stannah, See Figure 1-3 shown above with claim 1, exhibits edge markers on corners and center markers on center of stair part),
{wherein a submarker is comprised of an outer and inner circle with pre- determined radius and center point, wherein a center of said circles coincides, wherein each of the submarkers contains a unique ID code, wherein the ID code of the submarkers is instrumental for a determination of the orientation of a marker, wherein the ID code of the submarkers is instrumental for a determination of the identity of an individual marker, and wherein the markers are produced of a plastic polymer}
Stannah does not explicitly disclose wherein a submarker is comprised of an outer and inner circle with pre- determined radius and center point, wherein a center of said circles coincides, wherein each of the submarkers contains a unique ID code, wherein the ID code of the submarkers is instrumental for a determination of the orientation of a marker, wherein the ID code of the submarkers is instrumental for a determination of the identity of an individual marker, and wherein the markers are produced of a plastic polymer
However, Naimark, a similar field of endeavor of fiducials for positional tracking, teaches submarkers, wherein a submarker is comprised of an outer and inner circle with pre- determined radius and center point, wherein a center of said circles coincides, wherein each of the submarkers contains a unique ID code, wherein the ID code of the submarkers is instrumental for a determination of the orientation of a marker, wherein the ID code of the submarkers is instrumental for a determination of the identity of an individual marker (Naimark exhibits circular fiducials with coinciding centroids and unique ID codes, see Figure shown with claim 6).
However, Gets, a similar field of endeavor of markers for position tracking, teaches wherein the markers are produced of a plastic polymer (Gets, [Fig 1 caption]; a marker can be generated and from … plastic with 3Dprinting or laser cutting).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include circular markers with inner and outer coincident circles as taught by Naimark to the combined invention of Stannah and Stairbiz. The motivation to do so would be for positional tracking and to build a map of the fiducial constellation after installation automatically.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include coded plastic submarkers as taught by Gets to the combined invention of Stannah and Stairbiz. The motivation to do so would be to facilitate pose estimate with the code and to allow a permanent embedding of the marker.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Topal, (US 10796183 B2), teaches a circular fiducial marker used in determining the position and direction of an object by means of a camera.
PNG
media_image8.png
204
296
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHANDHANA PEDAPATI whose telephone number is (571)272-5325. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-6pm (ET).
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, Chan Park can be reached at 5712727409. 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.
/CHANDHANA PEDAPATI/Examiner, Art Unit 2669 /CHAN S PARK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2669