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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 09/28/2023 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) has/have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 objected to because of the following informalities: “wherein pattern region comprises” in line 1 should be “wherein the pattern region comprises”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a profile identification module… for conducting a visual feedback loop to refine a part profile picture on the display screen” in claim 19. The corresponding structure described in the specification can be found as part identification module 18 in Fig. 1 described as a computer implementation through software. Algorithmic structure can be found in Fig. 2 and ¶36-38.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the input picture" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as “an initial input picture” is previously recited. Claims 3-13 are rejected as being dependent on claim 2.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the input image" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as “an image of the part” is previously recited. Claims 4-11 are rejected as being dependent on claim 3.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the input picture" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as “an initial input picture” and “another input picture” are previously recited. Claims 9-11 are rejected as being dependent on claim 8.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the steps are recursively repeated" in line 2. It is unclear if this limitation refers to all or only some of the steps of projecting, capturing, displaying, determining, and generating. Examiner recommends listing out the steps.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the steps are recursively repeated" in line 3. It is unclear if this limitation refers to all or only some of the steps of projecting, capturing, displaying, determining, and generating. Examiner recommends listing out the steps.
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 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (a mental process) without significantly more. The flow chart in MPEP 2106, Subject Matter Eligibility Test For Products and Processes, will be referred to establish ineligible subject matter.
Regarding claim 1, Step 1: The claim(s) recite(s) “A method of identifying a part” which would be categorized as a process under the 4 statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03. Step 2A Prong One: However, the claim is further directed to an abstract idea (a mental process) of conducting a visual feedback loop… to refine a part profile picture. A visual feedback loop to refine a part profile can be done mentally. Specifically, a user could manually create a part profile and refine it to make it more accurate. See MPEP 2106.04 subsection II and 2106.04(a)(2) subsection III. Step 2A Prong Two: Additional elements include positioning the part between a display and an image capturing device pointed toward the display; and display corresponding to a profile of the part in an image captured by the image capturing device. These steps are considered insignificant extra-solution activity that can be performed manually by a user. See MPEP 2106.04(d) Step 2B: The additional claim elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These elements are considered insignificant extra-solution activity, and are claimed in a way that is well understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05. Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter. Claim 19 is the corresponding system claim to claim 1 with additional elements to generic computer components that do not amount to significantly more, see MPEP 2106.04 (A2) III. Therefore it is not considered eligible subject matter.
Regarding claims 2-7, 12-13, 14-18, additional limitations do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as explained above. Therefore the claims are ineligible.
Regarding claim 20, Step 1: The claim(s) recite(s) “A method of measuring one or more dimensions of a part” which would be categorized as a process under the 4 statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03. Step 2A Prong One: However, the claim is further directed to an abstract idea (a mental process) of determining a z-axis position; refine a part profile picture. Determining a z-axis position can be done manually using a ruler. Refining a part profile can be done mentally with the use of pen and paper. See MPEP 2106.04 subsection II and 2106.04(a)(2) subsection III. Step 2A Prong Two: Additional elements include positioning the part between a display and an image capturing device; and determining the one or more dimensions of the part based on the z-axis position and the part profile picture. These steps are considered insignificant extra-solution activity that can be performed manually by a user. See MPEP 2106.04(d) Step 2B: The additional claim elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These elements are considered insignificant extra-solution activity, and are claimed in a way that is well understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05. Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter.
Regarding claim 8, additional limitations amount to significantly more than the abstract idea by incorporating the inventive concept found in ¶37 of applicant’s originally filed specification, integrating the claim into a practical application. Therefore it is considered eligible subject matter.
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) 1-4, 12, 14-17, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buibas (Pub. No. US20220327777A1) in view of Yang (Pub. No. CN113570517A see attached translation for reference numbers).
Regarding claim 1, Buibas discloses A method of identifying a part, the method comprising: positioning the part between a display and an image capturing device pointed toward the display; (Buibas ¶74 Fig. 3; an item is placed on a monitor screen (element 113 in fig. 3) and images are captured of it.) and conducting a visual feedback loop using the display and the image capturing device to refine a part profile picture (Buibas ¶66 and 74, Fig. 3 and 6; the background (color or pattern) is changed providing a mask of the part that is made more accurate (refined) by utilizing different backgrounds (visual feedback loop).)
Buibas does not explicitly disclose refine a part profile picture on the display corresponding to a profile of the part in an image captured by the image capturing device.
However, Yang discloses refine a part profile picture on the display corresponding to a profile of the part in an image captured by the image capturing device. (Yang ¶48-52; an image of the contour of the part is displayed behind the part.)
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Buibas with the teachings of Yang by including the step of displaying the contour of the part in order to make measurements of the part (Yang ¶51-52).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Buibas and Yang disclose the claim limitations with regards to claim 1, as described above. They further disclose wherein said conducting the visual feedback loop comprises projecting an initial input picture on a display screen of the display, the input picture including a pattern region. (Buibas ¶74; an initial pattern or color (i.e. an input picture) is displayed behind the item.)
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Buibas and Yang disclose the claim limitations with regards to claim 2, as described above. They further disclose wherein said conducting the visual feedback loop comprises capturing an image of the part and the display screen displaying the input image in background behind the part. (Buibas ¶74 and 78, Fig. 3 and 6; an image is taken of the item with a displayed pattern behind it as can be seen in Fig. 6 (see elements 531 and 532).)
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Buibas and Yang disclose the claim limitations with regards to claim 3, as described above. They further disclose wherein said conducting the visual feedback loop comprises determining part interference with the pattern region in the captured image. (Buibas ¶74 and 78, Fig. 3 and 6; Fig. 6 shows extracting a hue to determine the outline of an object in the captured image (see 531 to 601 to 611).)
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Buibas and Yang disclose the claim limitations with regards to claim 2, as described above. They further disclose further comprising conducting a color setting routine to determine pattern colors for the initial input image before conducting the visual feedback loop. (Buibas ¶10 and 27 the use of any number of hues as the background is disclosed. The back ground is distinguishable from the foreground is also disclosed. Therefore different colors are chosen as the background so that the object can be distinguished from the background.)
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Buibas and Yang disclose the claim limitations with regards to claim 1, as described above. They further disclose further comprising determining a part type of the part based on the part profile picture. (Buibas ¶117-118; a shape type of the object is determined by comparing the observed image masks and corresponding silhouettes of a shape with varying parameters.)
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Buibas and Yang disclose the claim limitations with regards to claim 14, as described above. They further disclose wherein said determining the part type comprises comparing the part profile picture to a plurality of pictures of different part types. (Buibas ¶117-118; a shape type of the object is determined by comparing the observed image masks and corresponding silhouettes of a shape with varying parameters (i.e. pictures of different part types).)
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Buibas and Yang disclose the claim limitations with regards to claim 1, as described above. They further disclose further comprising determining one or more dimensions of the part based on the part profile picture. (Yang ¶48-51; the size can be measured according to the contour of the part (from the image taken of the display).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Buibas and Yang disclose the claim limitations with regards to claim 16, as described above. They further disclose further comprising determining a calibration relating images captured by the image capturing device to real world dimensions of the display (Yang ¶41-43 and 50-51; the physical size of the LED screen is used to measure the size of the part.) and determining a z-axis position of the part along a z-axis extending between the display and the image capturing device, and wherein determining the one or more dimensions of the part comprises relating the part profile picture to the calibration and the z-axis position. (Yang ¶5,17; the relative position between the camera and screen is consistent, which is important for the measurement of the part. Therefore the z position would be determined and used in the calculation.)
Regarding claim 19, Buibas discloses A system for identifying a profile of a part, the system comprising: a display comprising a display screen, wherein the display is configured to project pictures on the display screen; (Buibas ¶74 Fig. 3; an item is placed on a monitor screen (element 113 in fig. 3) and images are captured of it.) an image capturing device pointed toward the display, wherein the system is configured to hold the part between the display and the image capturing device and wherein the image capturing device is oriented to capture images of the part with the display screen in background behind the part; and (Buibas ¶74 Fig. 3; an item is placed on a monitor screen (element 113 in fig. 3) cameras (elements 115a-e) are pointed toward the screen with the item (element 102) in between the cameras and screen as the background.) a profile identification module controlling the display and the image capturing device for conducting a visual feedback loop to refine a part profile picture (Buibas ¶66 and 74, Fig. 3 and 6; the background (color or pattern) is changed providing a mask of the part that is made more accurate (refined) by utilizing different backgrounds (visual feedback loop).)
Buibas does not explicitly disclose refine a part profile picture on the display screen corresponding to the profile of the part.
However, Yang discloses refine a part profile picture on the display screen corresponding to the profile of the part. (Yang ¶48-52; an image of the contour of the part is displayed behind the part.)
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Buibas with the teachings of Yang by including the step of displaying the contour of the part in order to make measurements of the part (Yang ¶51-52).
Regarding claim 20, Buibas discloses A method, the method comprising: positioning the part between a display and an image capturing device spaced apart along a z-axis; (Buibas ¶74 Fig. 3; an item is placed on a monitor screen (element 113 in fig. 3) and images are captured of it.) refine a part profile picture (Buibas ¶66 and 74, Fig. 3 and 6; the background (color or pattern) is changed providing a mask of the part that is made more accurate (refined) by utilizing different backgrounds (visual feedback loop
Buibas does not explicitly disclose A method of measuring one or more dimensions of a part, determining a z-axis position of the part; refine a part profile picture on the display corresponding to a profile of the part in an image captured by the image capturing device; and determining the one or more dimensions of the part based on the z-axis position and the part profile picture.
Yang, however, discloses A method of measuring one or more dimensions of a part, (Yang ¶41-43 and 50-51; the physical size of the LED screen is used to measure the size of the part.) determining a z-axis position of the part; (Yang ¶5,17; the relative position between the camera and screen is consistent, which is important for the measurement of the part. Therefore the z position would be determined and used in the calculation.) ).) refine a part profile picture on the display corresponding to a profile of the part in an image captured by the image capturing device; (Yang ¶48-52; an image of the contour of the part is displayed behind the part.) and determining the one or more dimensions of the part based on the z-axis position and the part profile picture. (Yang ¶5,17; the relative position between the camera and screen is consistent, which is important for the measurement of the part. Therefore the z position would be determined and used in the calculation.)
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Buibas with the teachings of Yang by including the step of displaying the contour of the part in order to make measurements of the part (Yang ¶51-52).
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buibas (Pub. No. US20220327777A1) in view of Yang (Pub. No. CN113570517A see attached translation for reference numbers) and Agata (Hiroki AGATA, Atsushi YAMASHITA, Toru KANEKO, "Chroma Key Using a Checker Pattern Background" in IEICE TRANSACTIONS on Information, vol. E90-D, no. 1, pp. 242-249, January 2007, doi:.).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Buibas and Yang disclose the claim limitations with regards to claim 4, as described above.
They do not explicitly disclose wherein pattern region comprises an alternating pattern of contrasting color sections and wherein said determining part interference with the pattern region comprises determining, for each color section, whether the part interferes with (i) an entirety of the color section, (ii) none of the color section, or (iii) a portion of the color section less than the entirety.
Agata, however, discloses wherein pattern region comprises an alternating pattern of contrasting color sections (Agata Figs. 3 and 5 and second paragraph on lefthand column on p. 243; a two-tone checker pattern background is described.) and wherein said determining part interference with the pattern region comprises determining, for each color section, whether the part interferes with (i) an entirety of the color section, (ii) none of the color section, or (iii) a portion of the color section less than the entirety. (Agata Fig. 11 and righthand column on p. 245; foreground objects are considered to interfere with the entirety of the section, a background section that has an endpoint of the gridlines is considered to interfere with a portion of the section, and background with full gridlines are considered to have no interference.)
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify method of the combination of Buibas and Yang with the teachings of Agata by including a checkered background and the foreground/background segmentation described in order to segment when the foreground is the same color as the background (Agata p.243 second full paragraph on left hand side).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Buibas, Yang, and Agata disclose the claim limitations with regards to claim 5, as described above. They further disclose wherein said conducting the visual feedback loop further comprises generating a refined picture based on the initial input picture and the determined part interference. (Agata Figure 11 and 12, p. 246 left hand column; the foreground contour is set using interpolation between endpoints of the gridlines (on partially interfered color sections) and then refined using Snakes algorithm.)
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buibas (Pub. No. US20220327777A1) in view of Yang (Pub. No. CN113570517A see attached translation for reference numbers) and Usikov (Pub. No. CN110248085A see attached translation for reference numbers).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Buibas and Yang disclose the claim limitations with regards to claim 4, as described above.
Buibas and Yang do not explicitly disclose wherein said determining the z-axis position comprises generating a z-axis depth map of the part using a depth camera.
Usikov, however, discloses wherein said determining the z-axis position comprises generating a z-axis depth map of the part using a depth camera (Usikov ¶23-24; a depth camera is used to create a depth map, which is utilized in segmentation.)
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify method of the combination of Buibas and Yang with the teachings of Usikov by including a depth camera in order to accurately identify boundaries of objects (Usikov ¶23).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEREDITH TAYLOR whose telephone number is (571)270-5805. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-5.
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, Vincent Rudolph can be reached at (571)272-8243. 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.
/MEREDITH TAYLOR/Examiner, Art Unit 2671
/VINCENT RUDOLPH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2671
Prosecution Insights