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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-7, 10 and 15 are amended.
Claims 8-9 and 11-14 are canceled.
Claims 1-7, 10 and 15 are pending.
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 1-7, 10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under step 1, claims 1, 7, and 15 belongs to the statutory categories of a device, method and device respectively.
Under Step 2A prong 1, the claims as a whole are identified as being directed to a judicial exception as claim 1 and similarly 7 and 15 recite(s) “configured to simulate target images, wherein the simulated target images correspond to a plurality of simulated object distances within a range extending from a minimum object distance to a maximum object distance;”, “wherein sharpness of the captured target images is determined using a modulation transfer function, wherein the camera is determined to satisfy the depth of field when modulation transfer function values measured over the plurality of simulated object distances within the range extending from focused minimum object distance to the maximum object distance are within a predefined range;”, “associate each selected collimator of the plurality of collimators with a corresponding simulated object distance of the plurality of simulated object distances, wherein the each selected collimator project a corresponding simulated target image of the simulated target images at the corresponding simulated object distance;”, “wherein the test process is performed to determine whether the camera satisfies the depth of field;” and “determine whether the recorded modulation transfer function values are within the predefined range; automatically decide, based on the determination, acceptance and non- acceptance of the camera corresponding to the camera product code” which are directed to mathematical concepts, organizing human activity, and/or mental processes based on applicants specification, for example see Par. 39, and 50-52.
Under Step 2A prong 2, evaluating whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application of that exception, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because “A system for measuring a depth of field for a camera comprising: a housing comprising: a collimators arrangement comprising a plurality of collimators, wherein the collimators arrangement is fixed,” and “the camera positioned beneath the collimators arrangement and configured to capture the simulated target images projected by the collimators arrangement,” are considered to be generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The elements of “a hardware processor; and a memory coupled to the hardware processor, wherein the memory comprises a set of program instructions in the form of a processing subsystem comprising a plurality of modules, configured to be executed by the hardware processor, wherein the processing subsystem hosted on a server and configured to execute on a network to control bidirectional communications among the camera and the plurality of modules, wherein the plurality of modules comprises the image sharpness measurement module, the lens parameter measurement module, and an automation processing module, wherein the automation processing module is configured to:”, “an image sharpness measurement module operatively connected with the camera,”, and “a lens parameter measurement module operatively connected with the camera,” are considered to be generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The elements of “wherein the image sharpness measurement module is adapted to measure the sharpness of each captured target image;”, “wherein the lens parameter measurement module is adapted to measure a plurality of lens parameters;”, “receive an input file from a user wherein the input file comprises a plurality of first parameters a plurality of second parameters and a camera product code; wherein the plurality of first parameters comprise a number of collimators, the plurality of simulated object distances within the range extending from the minimum object distance to the maximum object distance, wherein the plurality of second parameters comprise the predefined range;”, “read the input file and select collimators from the plurality of collimators based on the number of collimators;”, “load a plurality of optical parameters from the input file and initiate a test process,”, and “record the modulation transfer function values from the simulated target images captured by the camera at the plurality of simulated object distances;” are considered to be data gathering steps required to use the correlation do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity.
Under Step 2B, evaluating additional elements to determine whether they amount to an inventive concept both individually and in combination, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because “A system for measuring a depth of field for a camera comprising: a housing comprising: a collimators arrangement comprising a plurality of collimators, wherein the collimators arrangement is fixed,” and “the camera positioned beneath the collimators arrangement and configured to capture the simulated target images projected by the collimators arrangement,” are considered to be merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself per MPEP 2106.05(h) and are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities/elements previously known to the industry per MPEP 2106.05(d) (see prior art of record). The elements of “a hardware processor; and a memory coupled to the hardware processor, wherein the memory comprises a set of program instructions in the form of a processing subsystem comprising a plurality of modules, configured to be executed by the hardware processor, wherein the processing subsystem hosted on a server and configured to execute on a network to control bidirectional communications among the camera and the plurality of modules, wherein the plurality of modules comprises the image sharpness measurement module, the lens parameter measurement module, and an automation processing module, wherein the automation processing module is configured to:”, “an image sharpness measurement module operatively connected with the camera,”, and “a lens parameter measurement module operatively connected with the camera,” are well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d). The elements of “wherein the image sharpness measurement module is adapted to measure the sharpness of each captured target image;”, “wherein the lens parameter measurement module is adapted to measure a plurality of lens parameters;”, “receive an input file from a user wherein the input file comprises a plurality of first parameters a plurality of second parameters and a camera product code; wherein the plurality of first parameters comprise a number of collimators, the plurality of simulated object distances within the range extending from the minimum object distance to the maximum object distance, wherein the plurality of second parameters comprise the predefined range;”, “read the input file and select collimators from the plurality of collimators based on the number of collimators;”, “load a plurality of optical parameters from the input file and initiate a test process,”, and “record the modulation transfer function values from the simulated target images captured by the camera at the plurality of simulated object distances;” are considered to be adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception per MPEP 2106.05(g) (i or iv) and are well-understood, routine, conventional activities/elements previously known to the industry per MPEP 2106.05(d) as the courts have decided that storing and retrieving information in memory as well-understood, routine, conventional activity as a computer function when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)).
Claims 2-4 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are considered to be generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and considered to be merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself per MPEP 2106.05(h) and are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities/elements previously known to the industry per MPEP 2106.05(d) (see prior art of record).
Claim 5 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are considered to be generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer and well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Claims 6 and 10 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are considered to be data gathering steps required to use the correlation do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity and considered to be adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception per MPEP 2106.05(g) and are well-understood, routine, conventional activities/elements previously known to the industry per MPEP 2106.05(d)(see prior art of record).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The 112(f) interpretation and related 112(b) for the claims are withdrawn. Regarding applicant’s 101 arguments, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The amended claims are rejected based on the reasons cited above. Examiner notes that a modulation transfer function (MTF) is a mathematical algorithm, per MPEP 2106.05(a)(II) “However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology.” Thus, the claims are not considered to be an improvement. The recording of the MTF values amount to data gathering and the courts have decided that storing and retrieving information in memory as well-understood, routine, conventional activity as a computer function when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)). While applicant asserts the interaction between the abstract ideas and additional elements overcomes, as cited above they do not. Examiner notes that the abstract ideas do not result in any changes to they system or result in any change by the system. As claimed they the claims result in a determination if the camera is accepted, the result of this determination is not applied or result in anything beyond the output of the determination. Examiner notes that Par. 39, 50-52 are in reference to the submitted specification not the PG pub.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 10186301 B1, Camera Array Including Camera Modules; US 20190164312 A1, US 8947537 B2, Rotatable Camera Module Testing System.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BRANDON J BECKER whose telephone number is (571)431-0689. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-5:30.
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, Shelby Turner can be reached at (571) 272-6334. 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.
/B.J.B/ Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/KYLE R QUIGLEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
