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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/9/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed June 9 2026 has been entered and considered. Claims 1, 10-11, and 20 have been amended. Claims 8 and 18 were previously canceled. New claims 21-22 have been added. In light of the amendment the prior art rejections of claims 1 and 11 are withdrawn as moot.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 6/9/2026, Remarks Pgs. 11-14, with respect to claim(s) 1 and 11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments, Remarks Pgs. 14-16, with respect to new claim 21 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prior art does not disclose the subject matter of the newly added claim 21. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant argues (Pgs. 15-16): For example, Applicant submits that Song does not teach or suggest to include a standard distance between the first luminary and the second luminary, determine a distance between a first luminary and the second luminary based on the object image, to compare this distance with the standard distance, and to generate a calibration distance if the distances are not equal.
Examiner responds:
Song teaches to determine preset position information relating to the position of the LEDs (Pg. 3, Para. 2, standard distance information). Then, testing is performed by determining the position information of the starting light source, accessing the adjacent light source and outputting relative position information between the original light source and the adjacent light source, and comparing this relative position information (distance) to the preset position information to determine whether the display is normal (Pgs. 3, 4, Paras. 6, 1). To perform this comparison, a difference needs to be determined between the positions, this difference being the calibration distance.
Applicant’s arguments filed 6/9/2026, Remarks Pgs. 16-18, with respect to new claim 22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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, 6-7, 11-14, 16-17, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al. (previously cited) in view of Wang et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 2021/0209977 A1, published 2021).
Regarding claim 1, Song teaches a luminary measurement system, comprising: a camera, configured to obtain an object image of an object (Pg. 3, Para. 1, “The processing unit 120 captures a digital image through the image capturing unit 110. The image capturing unit 110 may be, but not limited to, a webcam, a digital camera, or a camcorder.”), wherein the object comprises a first luminary and a second luminary (Pg. 3, Para. 2, “Step S210: capturing a preset image of at least one LED of the preset computer; Step S220: selecting any one of the LEDs according to the preset image Determining the selected light-emitting diode as the first starting light source; step S230: accessing the adjacent light-emitting diodes one by one according to the first starting light source and using the shortest path means”); and a processor (Pg. 3, Para. 1, “The monitoring device 100 includes… a processing unit 120”), configured to: determine a first position of the first luminary and a second position of the second luminary based on the object image (Pg. 3, Para. 2, “and recording the light-emitting diode relative to the first start a position of the light source; and step S240: outputting preset position information according to a relative position of the first starting light source and the adjacent light emitting diode.”); generate a calibration distance between the first luminary and the second luminary based on standard alignment information (Pgs. 3, 4, Paras., 6, 1, “step S430: comparing the position information of the light source and the preset position information”), wherein the calibration distance is used to adjust the first luminary and the second luminary to a correct distance (Pgs. 3, 4, Paras., 6, 1, “comparing the position information of the light source and the preset position information to determine whether the LED display is normal; step S440: if the position information of the light is inconsistent with the preset position information, an error message is output”, the comparison between positions inherently provides a calibration distance which is used to adjust for errors); and determine whether the first position and the second position are correct or not based on standard alignment information (Pgs. 3-4, Paras. 6, 1, “step S420: outputting the light source position information according to the relative position of the second starting light source and the adjacent light emitting diodes; step S430: comparing The position information of the light source and the preset position information to determine whether the LED display is normal”).
Song does not explicitly disclose wherein the object further comprises an information pattern, and the information pattern is one of a OR code or a barcode, wherein, during a manufacturing process of the object, the information pattern is attached to the object to provide the manufacturing process, or determining whether the positions are correct based on the information pattern.
Wang teaches wherein the object further comprises an information pattern, and the information pattern is one of a OR code or a barcode, wherein, during a manufacturing process of the object, the information pattern is attached to the object to provide the manufacturing process, and determining whether the positions are correct based on the information pattern (Para. 27, “Each LED module 10 may also have a QR code, through which the IOT cloud system C can be directly linked. According to this link, it is possible to obtain the production traceability of each LED module 10, which can be used in conjunction with the non-volatile memory 12a in the LED module 10. That is, when the non-volatile memory 12a in the LED module 10 fails, it is still possible to link to the IOT cloud system C through the QR code to look up the traceability of the LED module 10 and perform the AI data analysis and maintenance.”, manufacturing process information can be stored in a QR code on the LED module which provides information to be used for maintenance).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Song to incorporate the teachings of Wang to include wherein the object further comprises an information pattern, and the information pattern is one of a OR code or a barcode, wherein, during a manufacturing process of the object, the information pattern is attached to the object to provide the manufacturing process, or determining whether the positions are correct based on the information pattern. Song discloses a system for testing light sources to verify that they are performing correctly, however they do not consider the manufacturing process of the light source when performing this verification. Wang teaches a method for calibrating LED modules where a QR code is placed on the module to trace the production the module has undergone for later use in data analysis and maintenance. One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that maintaining a record of the manufacturing process of the LED module can provide insight into what has caused its failure, as disclosed by Wang (Para. 27), providing incentive to include a pattern which stores this information into the light source testing system of Song.
Regarding claim 2, Song as modified in view of Wang teaches all of the elements of claim 1, as stated above, as well as wherein the object comprises a luminary array and the luminary array comprises the first luminary and the second luminary (Pg. 3, Para. 3, “The processing unit 120 selects one of all the light-emitting diodes 210 as the starting light source. The processing unit 120 starts to access the adjacent light-emitting diodes”).
Regarding claim 3, Song as modified in view of Wang teaches all of the elements of claim 1, as stated above, as well as wherein the standard alignment information comprises a first standard position of the first luminary (Pg. 3, Para. 6, “After the preset position information 134 and the preset brightness information 135 are completed, the monitoring device 100 can perform corresponding processing on the computer to be tested.”), and the processor is configured to compare the first position with the first standard position to determine whether the first position is correct or not (Pgs. 3-4, Paras. 6, 1, “step S430: comparing The position information of the light source and the preset position information to determine whether the LED display is normal”).
Regarding claim 4, Song as modified in view of Wang teaches all of the elements of claim 1, as stated above, as well as wherein the standard alignment information comprises a first standard luminance of the first luminary (Pg. 3, Para. 6, “After the preset position information 134 and the preset brightness information 135 are completed, the monitoring device 100 can perform corresponding processing on the computer to be tested.”), and the processor is configured to: determine a first luminance of the first luminary based on the object image (Pg. 4, Para. 6, “When the processing unit 120 completes the preset position information, the preset brightness information is also output together. When the monitoring device 100 detects the computer to be tested, the processing unit 120 can detect the brightness value of the light-emitting diode 120 in addition to detecting whether the position of the light-emitting diode 210 is illuminated.”); and compare the first luminance with the first standard luminance to determine whether the first luminance is correct or not (Pgs. 4-5, Paras. 6, 1, “The processing unit 120 can further compare the brightness of the 4 LEDs 120 at the same position according to the preset brightness information and the brightness information to be tested.”).
Regarding claim 6, Song teaches all of the elements of claim 1, as stated above, as well as wherein an angle between a direction of the camera and a normal line of the object is greater than zero (Pg. 3, Para. 1, “The image capturing unit 110 may be, but not limited to, a webcam, a digital camera, or a camcorder. The image capturing unit 110 can be built in the monitoring device 100 or connected to the monitoring device 100 by cable or wireless.”; Pg. 3, Para. 3, “The monitoring device 100 can select one of the captured images as a preset image by using edge detection or brightness detection”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Song to include wherein an angle between a direction of the camera and a normal line of the object is greater than zero. Song discloses multiple types of cameras being used as well as the possibility of the camera being built in to the monitoring device or wireless. They also disclose that edge detection or brightness detection is used to select one of the captured images as a preset image. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that having the camera at an angle greater than zero compared to the object would have been a routine implementation of the disclosed system.
Claim 7 corresponds to claim 6 and is rejected under the same analysis.
Claim 11 corresponds to claim 1 and is rejected under the same analysis.
Claim 12 corresponds to claim 2 and is rejected under the same analysis.
Claim 13 corresponds to claim 3 and is rejected under the same analysis.
Claim 14 corresponds to claim 4 and is rejected under the same analysis.
Claim 16 corresponds to claim 6 and is rejected under the same analysis.
Claim 17 corresponds to claim 7 and is rejected under the same analysis.
Regarding claim 21, Song as modified in view of Wang teaches a memory, configured to store standard alignment information including a standard distance between the first luminary and the second luminary (Pg. 3, Para. 2), wherein the processor is further configured to: determine a distance between the first luminary and the second luminary based on the object image (Pg. 3, Para. 6); compare the distance between the first luminary and the second luminary on the object image with the standard distance to determine whether the distance between the first luminary and the second luminary is correct or not (Pgs. 3-4, Paras. 6-1); and in response to determining that the distance between the first luminary and the second luminary on the object image is not equal to the standard distance, generate a calibration distance indicating a difference between the standard distance and the distance between the first luminary and the second luminary on the object image, and adjust the first luminary and the second luminary to a correct distance based on the calibration distance (Pgs. 3, 4, Paras., 6, 1, “step S430: comparing the position information of the light source and the preset position information; Pgs. 3, 4, Paras., 6, 1, “comparing the position information of the light source and the preset position information to determine whether the LED display is normal; step S440: if the position information of the light is inconsistent with the preset position information, an error message is output”, the comparison between positions inherently provides a calibration distance which is used to adjust for errors).
Claim(s) 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song as modified in view of Wang above, further in view of Garcia (previously cited).
Regarding claim 5, Song as modified in view of Wang teaches all of the elements of claim 1, as stated above, as well as wherein the standard alignment information comprises a first standard position of the first luminary, and the processor is configured to: determine a first position of the first luminary based on the object image; and compare the first position with the first standard position to determine whether the first position is correct or not.
Song does not explicitly disclose storing first standard size within the standard alignment information and using it to determine if the size is correct or not. However, they do check brightness of the luminary, which if the luminary is broken would have no emitted light and thus no size.
Garcia teaches wherein the standard alignment information comprises a first standard size of the first luminary (Para. 13, “a processing means, guided by user delineations, analyzes the image and compares the image size of the reference standard to its actual size, deriving the relationship between image size and the actual size of the objects depicted in the image”), and the processor is configured to: determine a first size of the first luminary based on the object image (Para. 13, “Fourth, the image size of the item of interest is measured.”); and compare the first size with the first standard size to determine the actual size (Para. 13, “Lastly, using the previously calculated relationship between image size and actual size, and the image size of the item of interest, the actual size of the item of interest is determined.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Song and Wang to incorporate the teachings of Garcia to include determining a first size of the first luminary based on the object image; and compare the first size with the first standard size to determine whether the first size is correct or not. Song determines a first position of the first luminary and determines whether that first position is correct or not. Garcia teaches a method of determining the actual size of an object from an image using a reference standard size. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that supplementing the modified inspection method of Song with the size determination method of Garcia would have provided extra calibration steps, improved the accuracy of the calibration, and increased the robustness of the inspection system to different types of light sources.
Claim 15 corresponds to claim 5 and is rejected under the same analysis.
Claim(s) 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song as modified in view of Wang, further in view of Zhang et al. (NPL, “A Flexible New Technique for Camera Calibration”, published 2000, previously cited).
Regarding claim 9, Song as modified in view of Wang teaches all of the elements of claim 8, as stated above, as well as finding the first position of the first luminary and the second position of the second luminary.
Song as modified in view of Wang does not explicitly disclose using a calibration tool configured to adjust a perspective relationship between the camera and the object based on the first position of the first luminary and the second position of the second luminary to compensate the standard alignment information.
Zhang teaches a calibration tool, configured to adjust a perspective relationship between the camera and the object (Pg. 1331, Col. 1, “Section 2.2: Homography between the Model plane and Its Image”) based on a first position and a second position to compensate the standard alignment information (Pg. 1332, Col. 2, “The recommended calibration procedure is as follows: 1. Print a pattern and attach it to a planar surface. 2. Take a few images of the model plane under different orientations by moving either the plane or the camera. 3. Detect the feature points in the images. 4. Estimate the five intrinsic parameters and all the extrinsic parameters using the closed-form solution, as described in Section 3.1. 5. Refine all parameters, including lens distortion parameters, by minimizing (10)”; Pg. 1334, Col. 1, “When we are given n points, we have n above equations, which can be written in matrix equation as Lx = 0, where L is a 2n x 9 matrix”, The processing can be done for an arbitrary number of points and it is used to calibrate camera perspective).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Song and Wang to incorporate the teachings of Zhang to include a calibration tool, configured to adjust a perspective relationship between the camera and the object based on the first position of the first luminary and the second position of the second luminary to compensate the standard alignment information. Song does not explicitly disclose a specific angle in which the camera needs to be position, and they also teach the possible usage of a wireless camera. This opens up the need for the camera to be calibrated to adjust the perspective relationship between the camera and the object. Zhang provides a robust method of camera calibration that can be done by detecting two feature points and using them to perform a homography. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that utilizing a well-known camera calibration technique increases the generalizability of the inspection method disclosed by Song.
Claim 19 corresponds to claim 9 and is rejected under the same analysis.
Claim(s) 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song in view of Wang and Zhang et al., as modified above, further in view of Mallet et al. (previously cited).
Regarding claim 10, Song as modified in view of Wang and Zhang teaches wherein the information pattern is one of the QR code, the barcode, or object information, and a calibration tool configured to adjust a perspective relationship between the camera and the object based on some points to compensate the standard alignment information.
They do not explicitly disclose wherein the processor is configured to adjust a perspective relationship between the camera and the object based on the information pattern to compensate the standard alignment information.
Mallet teaches wherein the object comprises an information pattern (Abstract, “Methods and systems are disclosed for calibrating a camera using a calibration target apparatus that contains at least one fiducial marking on a planar surface.”) and the information pattern is one of a QR code, a barcode, and object information (Para. 41, “Additional and/or alternative embodiments may include any of the following features. The fiducial markings may contain information within the pattern of black and white subsquares.”), and the processor is configured to adjust a perspective relationship between the camera and the object based on the information pattern to compensate the standard alignment information (Para. 42, “The particular sequence of fiducial markings around the border area of a quadrant of a planar surface may also contain information to assist in identification of the fiducial markings, and/or to assist in the calibration of the camera. Particular fiducials which are known to be easily recognized in a camera may be positioned at particular locations on the apparatus to aid in identifying which surface is being viewed.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Song, Wang, and Zhang to incorporate the teachings of Mallet to include wherein the object comprises an information pattern and the information pattern is one of a QR code, a barcode, and object information, and the processor is configured to adjust a perspective relationship between the camera and the object based on the information pattern to compensate the standard alignment information. Song and Zhang as modified above perform an adjustment of the perspective relationship between the camera and the object using feature points, and Wang discloses using QR codes for informational purposes. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that further supplementing this calibration procedure with the teachings of Mallet to include a QR code, barcode, and object information would have been a routine extension of the calibration procedure.
Claim 20 corresponds to claim 10 and is rejected under the same analysis.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song in view of Wang, further in view of Pryor (US Patent No. 4,753,569 A, published 1988).
Regarding claim 22, Song as modified in view of Wang teaches all of the elements of claim 1, as stated above, as well as a calibration tool, and detecting the first position of the first luminary and the second position of the second luminary.
They do not explicitly disclose wherein the calibration tool comprises a robotic arm, and the robotic arm is configured to adjust a perspective relationship between the camera and the object.
Pryor teaches a calibration tool, wherein the calibration tool comprises a robotic arm (Col. 4, Lines 36-37, “the robot arm 11 with the cameras thereon moves toward the work station”), and the robotic arm is configured to adjust a perspective relationship between the camera and the object based on predetermined position information (Col. 4, Lines 40-41, “As in FIG. 1, four dot matrix targets are desirable, although the system is operable for correcting in all six directions utilizing a minimum of three dots”; Lines 57-60, “Hence, the robot can be calibrated and hence corrected from a variety of angles by simply looking at the same target plate with different cameras or different points in time.”) to compensate the standard alignment information (Col. 4, Lines 40-41, “As in FIG. 1, four dot matrix targets are desirable, although the system is operable for correcting in all six directions utilizing a minimum of three dots”; Col. 5, Lines 36-42, “In addition, the dots in FIG. 3B illustrate that the target is off center in both axes. All of the correction data is then fed into the computer 14 to reset the memory which controls the computers movements, whereupon the servos operating the robot arm 11 are actually moved to reposition the robot so that its target appears as in FIG. 3A.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Song and Wang to incorporate the teachings of Pryor to include that the calibration tool comprises a robotic arm, and the robotic arm is configured to adjust a perspective relationship between the camera and the object. Song as modified discloses a system for testing light sources to verify that they are working properly by using a camera to image the light sources and compare the detected position information to the correct position information. They further disclose that defect detection for LEDs is normally performed manually, with a need for a robust automatic detection system using images (Pg. 2). However, they do not disclose any calibration processing for the camera to ensure that possible misalignments in perspective are accounted for during imaging, or using a robotic arm to adjust the perspective. Pryor discloses that a robotic apparatus is a known tool for inspecting objects (Col. 1, Lines 13-17). They further disclose a system for calibrating the camera of a robotic arm as it approaches a workstation by using known reference markers to adjust the camera by correcting deviations from a predetermined pattern. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that when comparing detected feature points in an image against stored alignment information, changes in the camera’s viewpoint introduce predictable geometric distortion that must be compensated to maintain accuracy, as disclosed by Pryor (Col. 5, Lines 21-35). Both Song and Pryor rely on optically detected reference features with known spatial relationships, leaving it obvious to apply the robotic-arm calibration method of Pryor to the luminary system of Song to compensate alignment information based on the predetermined position information of the light sources to improve the accuracy of the detected positional information and provide a robust calibration process against misalignment.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID A WAMBST whose telephone number is (703)756-1750. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6:30 EST.
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, Gregory Morse can be reached at (571)272-3838. 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.
/DAVID ALEXANDER WAMBST/Examiner, Art Unit 2663
/GREGORY A MORSE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2698
Prosecution Insights