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
The Amendment filed November 14 2025 has been entered and considered. Claims 1, 9-11, and 19-20 have been amended. Claims 8 and 18 have been canceled. The amendment does not overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 previously set forth. The rejection is maintained and is restated below with additional discussion of the amended limitations; accordingly, this action is made final.
Specification Objection –
In view of the amendments to the specification, the objection is withdrawn as moot.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/14/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prior art does not disclose the newly added amendments to independent claim 1. Remarks of 11/14/25 at Pg. 10.
Applicant argues (Pg. 10):
For example Applicant submits that Song does not teach or suggest an ability to generate a calibration distance to adjust the first luminary and the second luminary to a correct distance.
Examiner responds:
Song teaches to determine preset position information relating to the position of the LEDs (Pg. 3, Para. 2) as well as to record the relative position information between the light emitting diodes (Pg. 3, Para. 5). Then, a comparison is performed between the position information obtained from the relative position of the starting light source and the adjacent light sources and the preset position information (Pgs. 3, 4, Paras. 6, 1). To perform this comparison, a difference needs to be determined between the positions. This difference is effectively the calibration distance required to move the luminary from its current incorrect position to the correct position. This calibration distance is used to adjust the LEDs to a correct distance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Song et al. (Taiwan Patent Pub. No. 201327425 A, published 7/1/2013, foreign translation previously attached).
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”).
Regarding claim 2, Song 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 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 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 11, the recited method performs variably the same function as the system of claim 1. It is rejected under the same analysis.
Regarding claim 12, the recited elements perform variably the same function as that of claim 2. It is rejected under the same analysis.
Regarding claim 13, the recited elements perform variably the same function as that of claim 3. It is rejected under the same analysis.
Regarding claim 14, the recited elements perform variably the same function as that of claim 4. It is rejected under the same analysis.
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) 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al.
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.
Regarding claim 7, the recited elements perform variably the same function as that of claim 6. It is rejected under the same analysis.
Regarding claim 16, the recited elements perform variably the same function as that of claim 6. It is rejected under the same analysis.
Regarding claim 17, the recited elements perform variably the same function as that of claim 7. It is rejected under the same analysis.
Claim(s) 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al. in view of Garcia (US Patent Pub. No. 20140300722 A1, published 10/9/2014).
Regarding claim 5, Song 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 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 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.
Regarding claim 15, the recited elements perform variably the same function as that of claim 5. It is rejected under the same analysis.
Claim(s) 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al. in view of Zhang et al. (NPL, “A Flexible New Technique for Camera Calibration”, published 2000, pdf attached).
Regarding claim 9, Song 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 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 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.
Regarding claim 19, the recited elements perform variably the same function as that of claim 9. It is rejected under the same analysis.
Claim(s) 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al. in view of Zhang et al., as modified above, further in view of Mallet et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 20150288951 A1, published 2015).
Regarding claim 10, Song as modified in view of Zhang teaches 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 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.
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 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. 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.
Regarding claim 20, the recited elements perform variably the same function as that of claim 10. It is rejected under the same analysis.
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 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