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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 2/12/26 have been considered. See the updated rejection below incorporating Fink (20180153399) which teaches a mobile camera with remote processing in pars. 113-125. Fink also teaches different positions in pars. 102-103.
Wong (20210264585) teaches using a neural network to detect edges of a contact lens in par. 29.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-11, 13-15, 18-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoyos (20160117544) in view of Devine (20190370448) in further view of Fink (20180153399).
Regarding claim 1, Hoyos teaches determining, by a first processing module, if an object is present in a first image received from an image capture device (par. 105, iris);
if the object is determined to be present in the first image, then determining, by a second processing module, if the object is meets at least one predetermined criterion (par. 126, predetermined range and location);
wherein the at least one predetermined criterion includes at least one of a size and a location in an image (see par. 128, 158).
Devine teaches if the object does not meet the at least one predetermined criterion, then determining, by a third processing module, at least one adjustment to be made snf communicating an instruction to perform the at least one adjustment. (see par. Figs 7c-g and par. 267).
It would have been obvious prior to the effective fling date of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in Hoyos the ability to give user instructions as taught by Devine. The reason is to give feedback to improve image quality and object identification.
Fink teaches the images are captured using by a mobile phone and the evaluation is performed on a cloud (see pars. 7, 43-46 and 113-125)
It would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in Devine and Hoyos the ability to remotely process an image taken by a smartphone as taught by Fink in order to add flexibility and mobility to the system.
Regarding claim 2, see pars. 60-61 of Hoyos, one processor.
Regarding claim 3, see pars. 77 and figure 1a of Devine, which shows multiple processors/controllers for each process.
Regarding claim 5, see par. 173 of Devine, haptic feedback. Par. 49 of Fink teaches a rear facing camera and using the phone screen.
Regarding claim 6, see figures 7c-g of Devine.
Regarding claims 7-8, see Devine, pars. 400-401.
Regarding claim 9, see Devine par. 412, second time.
Regarding clam 10, see the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, see par. 125 of Hoyos.
Regarding claim 13, see par. 267 of Devine.
Regarding claim 14, see par. 71 and 105 of Hoyos.
Regarding claim 15, see par. 281 and figures 7g of Devine, moving face moves eyes to get in view.
Regarding claim 18, see par. 412 of Devine, will store once thresholds are met.
Regarding claim 19, par. 166 of Hoyos teaches blink detection.
Regarding claim 20, see figures 7g of Devine.
Regarding claim 21, see par. 264 of Devine, location.
Regarding claim 22, see figure 7g of Devine.
Regarding claim 23, see par. 412 of Devine. Also see pars. 102-103 of Fink, different position in subsequent images.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoyos (20160117544) in view of Devine (20190370448) in view of Fink and in further view of Wexler (20200050862).
Regarding claim 4, Hoyos teaches an audio output in par. 60. Par. 49 of Fink teaches a rear facing camera and using the phone screen.
Wexler teaches audio feedback in par. 630.
It would have been obvious prior to the effective fling date of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in Fink, Hoyos and Devine the ability to give user instructions using audio as taught by Wexler. The reason is to give feedback to improve image quality and object identification by using audio.
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoyos (20160117544) in view of Devine (20190370448) in view of Fink and in further view of Wong (20210264585).
Regarding claim 12, Wong teaches using a neural network to detect edges of a contact lens in par. 29 and the abstract.
It would have been obvious prior to the effective fling date of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in Hoyos and Devine the ability to give detect contact lenses as taught by Sarver. The reason is to detect specific objects like a contact lens.
Claim(s) 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoyos (20160117544) in view of Devine (20190370448) in further view of Joyce (2019005355).
Regarding claim 16, Joyce teaches using a neural network to find an object and tracking it (see par. 20).
It would have been obvious prior to the effective fling date of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in Hoyos and Devine the ability to use a neural network as taught by Joyce. The reason is to improve tracking an object by using a learning model.
Regarding claim 17, par. 20 of Joyce teaches using multiple CNN’s across the frames.
Conclusion
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 HADI AKHAVANNIK whose telephone number is (571)272-8622. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM - 5 PM Monday to Friday.
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, Henok Shiferaw can be reached at (571) 272-4637. 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.
/HADI AKHAVANNIK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2676