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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/20/26 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claim 1 is amended.
Claims 2-15, 22-36 and 43-57 have been previously presented.
Claims 16-21, 37-42 and 58-147 have been cancelled.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8, 13-15, 22-27, 29, 34-36, 43-48, 50, and 55-57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson et. al, U.S Patent No 10,455,096 (hereinafter Anderson) in view of Lin et al. “FoodFab: Creating Food Perception Illusions using Food 3D Printing”, Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems; Association for Computing Machinery, pages 1-13 (hereinafter “Lin”).
Regarding Claim 22, Anderson teaches a system (Col. 33, Lines 57-67, Col. 34, Lines 1-9; Col. 35, Lines 33-36; Fig. 8, system 800; Fig. 1, system 100) comprising:
one or more processors (Col. 33, Lines 49-56; Fig. 8, Processor 810, 812);
a memory coupled to said one or more processors, the memory including a computer readable storage medium tangibly embodying at least one program of instructions executable by the one or more processors (Col. 34, Lines 10-14, Fig. 8, non-volatile memory 820, Fig. 8, system bus 850) to perform operations for producing an article having a related augmented reality (AR) asset that can be displayed in association with the article comprising: assigning a printable anchor image (Col. 3, Lines 34-36; Col. 33, Lines 10-12) to be printed on the article (Col. 20, Lines 51-59, process for decorating an edible medium 500) as a printed anchor image (Col. 23, Lines 40-44, image, edible media 544); preparing a reference anchor image (Col. 10, Lines 54-62, embedded augmented reality markers) to be used by an AR content display device for optical decoding of the printed anchor image on the article (Col. 23, Lines 49-53; Fig. 6, viewing augmented reality content using the system 600);
the reference anchor image comprising an altered form of the printable anchor image (Col. 23, Lines 6-7, Lines 14-16, image editing module 505) that is altered in a manner that facilitates the optical decoding of the printed anchor image on the article (Col. 23, Lines 58-64, embedded augmented reality marker; Col. 29, Lines 5-16); and
binding the AR asset to the printed anchor image (Col. 3, Lines 52-55, augmented reality content insertion; Col. 29, Lines 7-9) so that the printed anchor image may be used to trigger a display of the AR asset (Col. 10, Lines 54-62, augmented reality marker, images, augmented reality content) on the AR content display device (Col. 24, Lines 47-52, mobile device) when the printed anchor image is optically decoded by the AR content display device using the reference anchor image (Col. 24, Lines 37-46, augmented reality module 218 recognizes the augmented reality marker 606).
However, Lin further demonstrates a system (Page 1, Col. 2, Fig. 1, FoodFab system; Page 10, Col. 1, computer-controlled food fabrication), comprising: one or more processors (Page 1, Col. 2, Fig. 1, FoodFab user interface smartphone device, element a); a memory coupled to said one or more processors, the memory including a computer readable storage medium (Page 10, Col. 1, computer-controlled food fabrication) tangibly embodying at least one program of instructions (Page 1, Col. 2, Fig. 1, computational model, element b) executable by the one or more processors to perform operations for producing an article (Page 1, Col. 2, Fig. 1, output 3D printed food, element c; Page 3, Figure 2), comprising: assigning a printable anchor image (Page 3, Figure 2, user interface [input], element a; applying 3D print parameters, element e) to be printed on the article (Page 3, Figure 2, fabricates using a food 3D printer, element f) as a printed anchor image (Page 4, Col. 1, Applying 3D Printing Parameters to Food 3D Model; Slice and 3D Print);
Lin and Anderson are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of digital output to a print unit. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Anderson to incorporate the teachings of Lin in assigning a printable anchor image to be printed on the article as a printed anchor image. Doing so would provide the user with an additional parameter for customization when during the design and fabrication of a three-dimensional food product. Method Claim 1 is drawn to the method of using the corresponding apparatus claimed in Claim 22. Therefore, method Claim 1 corresponds to apparatus Claim 22 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness used above. Regarding Claim 43, differs from Claim 1 only in that it is a computer program product, comprising:
one or more computer readable data storage media; program instructions stored on the one or more computer readable data storage media for programming a data processing system having one or more processors to perform the method of Claim 1 (Anderson teaches a computer program product in Col. 34, Lines 27-37). It recites similar limitations as in Claim 1 and Anderson in light of Lin discloses them.
Regarding Claim 2, Claim 23, and Claim 44, Anderson in light of Lin teaches the method of Claim 1, the system of Claim 23, and the computer program product of Claim 43 respectively, further including printing the article (Anderson, Col. 23, Lines 40-44, image, edible media 544) by direct application of the printable anchor image onto the article (Lin, Page 4, Col. 1, Applying 3D Printing Parameters to Food 3D Model; Slice and 3D Print) to form the printed anchor image (Anderson, Col. 20, Lines 51-59, process for decorating an edible medium 500).
Regarding Claim 3, Claim 24, and Claim 45, Anderson teaches the method of Claim 1, the system of Claim 23, and the computer program product of Claim 43 respectively, wherein the reference anchor image comprises an altered form of the printable anchor image (Col. 23, Lines 6-7, image editing module 505) as a result of being optimized, adjusted, modified or varied to match the printed anchor image (Col. 23, Lines 14-16; Col. 29, Lines 5-16) as it will appear when printed on the article during optical decoding (Col. 24, Lines 37-46, displaying augmented reality content 607) by the AR content display device (Col 24, Lines 47-52).
Regarding Claim 4, Claim 25, and Claim 46, Anderson teaches the method of Claim 1, the system of Claim 23, and the computer program product of Claim 43 respectively, wherein the reference anchor image comprises an optimized reference anchor image formed as a composite of the printable anchor image overlaid onto an image of the article (Col. 33, Lines 19-37), with the printable anchor image forming a foreground portion of the optimized anchor image (Col. 26, Lines 4-10, augmented reality marker 1008) and the image of the article forming a background portion of the optimized reference anchor image (Col. 26, Lines 4-10, Fig. 10B, outside surface).
Regarding Claim 5, Claim 26, and Claim 47, Anderson teaches the method of Claim 4, the system of Claim 25, and the computer program product of Claim 46, wherein the optimized reference anchor image comprises an image of a real production item (Col. 2, Lines 60-61, edible media) comprising the printed anchor image printed on the article (Col. 10, Lines 54-62; Col. 23, Lines 35-39, preview 543, selected edible media). Regarding Claim 6, Claim 27, and Claim 48, Anderson teaches the method of Claim 4, the system of Claim 25, and the computer program product of Claim 46, wherein the background portion of the optimized anchor image formed by the image of the article is delimited to eliminate one or more edge portions of the article (Col. 26, Lines 4-10, Fig. 10B, augmented reality marker 1008, edge portion of article 1004, buffer around the augmented reality marker).
Regarding Claim 8, Claim 29, and Claim 50, Anderson teaches the method of Claim 1, the system of Claim 23, and the computer program product of Claim 43 respectively, wherein the reference anchor image comprises a plurality of modified variant reference anchor images that are each associated with the AR asset (Col. 23, Lines 58-64; Col. 29, Lines 5-16) so that any of the modified variant reference anchor images can be used for optical decoding of the printed anchor image (Col. 27, Lines 19-21, Lines 28-31) to trigger the display of the AR asset. (Col. 24, Lines 37-46).
Regarding Claim 13, Claim 34, and Claim 55, Anderson teaches the method of Claim 1, the system of Claim 23, and the computer program product of Claim 43 respectively, wherein the printed anchor image comprises a QR code, an App Clip code, or other standardized encoding (Col. 24, Lines 63-65, QR Code) that is encoded to trigger an imaging device to download an AR content receiver application, the AR asset, or either of them, (Col. 24, Line 67, Col. 25, Lines 1-5) in response to the imaging device detecting the encoding (Col. 25, Lines 60-67).
Regarding Claim 14, Claim 35, and Claim 56, Anderson in view of Lin teaches the method of Claim 1, the system of Claim 23, and the computer program product of Claim 43 respectively. Anderson fails to teach the limitation in which the article comprises a three-dimensional article formed as a non-sheet-like entity having non-de minimus length, width and height dimensions. Lin teaches the method of Claim 14, the system of Claim 35, and the computer program product of Claim 56, wherein the article comprises a three-dimensional article formed as a non-sheet-like entity having non-de minimus length, width and height dimensions (Lin, Page 4, Figure 3, Figure 4; Page 5, Table 1; Page 5-6, Preparation and Printing Process).
Regarding Claim 15, Claim 36, and Claim 57, Lin in view of Anderson teaches the method of Claim 11, the system of Claim 22, and the computer program product of Claim 53 respectively, wherein the article (Lin, Page 1, Abstract; Page 5, Col. 1, Figure 6; Col. 2, Table 1) comprises an edible article for human consumption (Anderson, Col. 4, Lines 1-2, edible sheet of paper)
Claim 7, Claim 28, and Claim 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson in view of Lin and further in view of "How to Create an Edible Image Heart in less than 2 minutes" by Topperoo - Edible Image Software (hereinafter "Topperoo").
Regarding Claim 7, Claim 28, and Claim 49, Anderson teaches the method of Claim 1, the system of Claim 23, and the computer program product of Claim 43 respectively, wherein the reference anchor image comprises an adjusted reference anchor image (Col. 18, Lines 1-9, image manipulation; Col. 29, Lines 5-16) comprising one or more of (1) an adjusted anchor image clipping path to increase or decrease its information content by altering image size or shape (Col. 18, Lines 6-9), (2) a color-to-gray scale translation (Col. 18, Line 6), (3) a foreground or background intensity adjustment (Col. 18, Lines 2-3), (4) contrast, sharpness, brightness, shadow, tint or hue adjustments (Col. 18, Lines 5-6), or (6) added frames, rings, ticks or other distinctive visual information to increase an image point count (Col. 18, Lines 2-3, frames).
Anderson fails to teach:an alpha channel adjustment to turn-off or turn-on areas of the anchor image.
However, Topperoo teaches an alpha channel adjustment to turn-off or turn-on areas of the anchor image (Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3).
Topperoo, Figure 1
PNG
media_image1.png
815
930
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Topperoo, Figure 2
PNG
media_image2.png
813
915
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
812
914
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Topperoo, Figure 3
Topperoo, Anderson and Lin are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of digital output to a print unit. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Anderson in view of Lin to incorporate the teachings of Topperoo for an alpha channel adjustment to turn-off or turn-on areas of the anchor image. Doing so would grant a user with further reference anchor image customization capability which can enable higher quality output.
Claim 9, Claim 30, and Claim 51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson in view of Lin and further in view of Dogan et al. “InfraredTags: Embedding Invisible AR Markers and Barcodes Using Low-Cost, Infrared-Based 3D Printing and Imaging Tools”, Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems; Association for Computing Machinery, pages 1-12 (hereinafter “Dogan”).
Regarding Claim 9, Claim 30, and Claim 51, Anderson teaches the method of Claim 8, the system of Claim 29, and the computer program product of Claim 50 respectively. Anderson fails to teach the modified variant reference anchor images depict the same subject matter viewed under different lighting characteristics or from different viewing angles.
However, Dogan teaches the modified variant reference anchor images depict the same subject matter viewed (Page 1, Fig. 1, embedding metadata such as a 3D model URLs into objects, element b; Page 6, 4.1 User Interface for Encoding Infrared Tags, Import and Position Tags) under different lighting characteristics (Page 10, Col. 1, Lighting conditions) or from different viewing angles (Page 2, Col. 2, scanning from multiple angles.)
Dogan, Anderson and Lin are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of digital output to a print unit. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Anderson in view of Lin to incorporate the teachings of Dogan in which modified variant reference anchor images depict the same subject matter viewed under different lighting characteristics or from different viewing angles. Doing so can utilize printed infrared-reflective edible ink to eliminate the scanning limitations produced in environments with suboptimal lighting as well as user limitations of limited perspectives in which the display of the AR asset is triggered.
Claims 10-12, 31-33, and 52-54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson in view of Lin and further in view of Schiffman et al, U.S Patent No 9,965,799 (hereinafter Schiffman). Regarding Claims 10, 31, and 52, Anderson teaches the method of Claim 1, the system of Claim 22, and the computer program product of Claim 43 respectively. Anderson fails to teach the limitation generating one or more custom image processing commands for programming a custom anchor image processing controller on the AR content display device.
However, Schiffman teaches generating one or more custom image processing commands (Col. 5, Lines 9-18, graphics drawing system 37) for programming a custom anchor image processing controller (Col. 5, Lines 9-18, event processor 35; Col. 5, Lines 61-67, Fig. 12; Col. 6, Lines 5-7, Fig. 13, element 64, user to assign a given design 64 to a specific store display 63) on the AR content display device (Col. 5, Lines 9-18, media 36, display device 38).
Schiffman, Lin and Anderson are considered to be analogous in the claimed invention because they are in the same fields of image processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Anderson in view of Lin to incorporate the teachings of Schiffman in which generating one or more custom image processing commands for programming a custom anchor image processing controller on the AR content display device. Doing so would enable a user to further customize how augmented reality content is processed and output to the display device.
Regarding Claims 11, 32, and 53, Anderson in view of Schiffman teaches the method of Claim 10, the system of Claim 31, and the computer program product of Claim 52 respectively, wherein there are plural reference anchor images (Anderson, Col. 27, Lines 19-21, Lines 28-31; Col. 29, Lines 7-9; Schiffman, Col. 2, Lines 52-58, Lines 61-64) that are each assigned to a particular set of one or more custom image processing commands (Schiffman, Col. 5, Lines 9-18; Col. 7, Lines 29-35; Col. 9, Lines 5-7).
Regarding Claims 12, 33, and 54, Anderson in view of Schiffman teaches the method of Claim 1, the system of Claim 22, and the computer program product of Claim 43 respectively, wherein the binding of the AR asset is user-programmable (Anderson, Col. 29, Lines 5-14) to dynamically change the AR asset in response to specified events or conditions (Schiffman, Col. 5, Lines 61-67, Fig. 12; Col. 6, Lines 5-7, Fig. 13, element 64, user to assign a given design 64 to a specific store display 63).
Response to Arguments
The applicant’s arguments in regards to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claims 1-15 are persuasive, and the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claims 1-15 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments filed 01/20/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In regards to claim 1, the applicant argues that the prior art fails to teach an altered form of the printable anchor image in a manner that facilitates the optical decoding of the printed anchor image. However, Anderson clearly teaches alteration of the printable anchor image in which the altered image can be decoded (col. 23 lines 6-28: “…the user may choose to edit the purchased image (535). Editing a purchased image can be performed using the image editing module 505. Referring now to FIG. 5D, the image editing module 505 verifies with the license module 503 that the user is authorized to modify the image. The verification identifies restrictions on editing particular images (536). If a license does not prevent the image from being altered, then the user makes desired edits to the image (537). The user may be able to crop, rotate, resize, brighten, darken, re-touch, and perform other operations to the selected image…user selects to print the image (538). The print module 506 prepares to print the image and, in some embodiments, the edible media module 501 prompts the user to enter a code (539) to prevent unauthorized use. The user can find the code (e.g., edible media code) in a location on the edible media, or on the packaging and documentation sent to the user…“). Therefore the applicant’s arguments in regards to claim 1 are unpersuasive in view of the teachings of Anderson.
In regards to claims 3, 24 and 45, the applicant argues that the prior art references Anderson and Lin fail to teach a printable anchor image used for printing and a separate reference anchor image. However, though Anderson teaches a printable anchor image (col. 23 lines 35-37) claims 3, 24 and 45 do not recite or make any mention of a ‘separate’ reference anchor image. Therefore, In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., separate reference anchor image) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Said Broome whose telephone number is (571)272-2931. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am-5pm.
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.
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.
/Said Broome/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2612
Prosecution Insights