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 .
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a mental process with generic computer elements. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the recited computer elements are generic. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the disclosed memory is generic and is used to store a computer program, the processor disclosed is generic and executes the program, and the disclosed display device is a generic disclosure of a form of display.
In regards to claim 1, a control method, performed at an image acquisition device, comprising: in response to receiving, at the image acquisition device, an image switching instruction indicating that a display device begins to switch a displayed image, collecting images displayed on the display device at a second photographing frame rate to obtain a second resolution image sequence associated with a second resolution (A person of ordinary skill in the art can receive a signal of some kind that indicates that the images must be switched or will be switched shortly and collect a group of images that are displayed on some kind of display device at a frame rate and resolution), the image switching instruction being used to instruct the display device to switch the displayed image (A person of ordinary skill could use the signal to switch the displayed image by removing the image and showing another one or by holding up a new image), the second resolution image sequence being used for detecting whether the display device has completed switching of the displayed image (A person of ordinary skill in the art can visibly see the difference between the switched images due to their different resolutions and use that to determine whether the switching was completed or not); the second resolution image sequence being used for detecting whether the display device has completed switching of the displayed image (A person of ordinary skill can switch images in regards to change of some attribute of the image that satisfies some kind of condition and determine that the switching was completed); and after determining that the display device has completed switching of the displayed image, collecting images displayed on the display device at a first photographing frame rate to obtain a first resolution image sequence associated with a first resolution, the first photographing frame rate being smaller than the second photographing frame rate, the first resolution being greater than the second resolution, and the first resolution image sequence being used for defect detection of the display device (A person of ordinary skill can collect a different set of image that are displayed on a device at different but smaller frame rate and a different resolution with one resolution being greater than the other and use that sequence for the detection of any potential defects).
In regards to claim 2, wherein: the target attribute includes at least one of brightness or grayscale of the image with the second resolution, brightness or grayscale of an object attached to the display device, a shape of the attached object, or an area of the attached object (A person of ordinary skill could reasonably choose the target attribute to be the brightness or grayscale of an image or an object of the image, a shape of an object, or some area of an object).
In regards to claim 3, wherein the condition that the change of the target attribute of the image with the second resolution in the second resolution image sequence includes: the brightness or grayscale of the image with the second resolution in the second resolution image sequence decreasing and then increasing to a stable state for a predetermined amount of time (A person of ordinary skill in the art can have the target attribute be the brightness or grayscale of an image and can have the resolution decrease and then increase to some kind of stable state for some amount of time).
In regards to claim 4, In regards to claim 4, wherein the condition that the change of the target attribute of the image with the second resolution in the second resolution image sequence satisfies includes at least one of: at least one of the brightness, the grayscale, the area of the attached object in the image with the second resolution in the second resolution image sequence decreasing and then increasing and then remaining stable for a first predetermined period of time (A person of ordinary skill can have the target attribute or the change thereof be about the brightness, grayscale, or the area of an attached object in an image with the resolution decreasing, then increasing, and arriving at some kind of stable state for some amount of time); or a shape of the attached object in the image with the second resolution in the second resolution image sequence disappearing and then appearing and remaining unchanged for a second predetermined period of time (A person of ordinary skill could also make the change in attributes be about a shape disappearing and then reappearing at some sort of stable shape for some amount of time).
In regards to claim 5, further comprising: collecting an image of the display device in an off state at the first photographing frame rate to obtain an image to be recognized (A person of ordinary skill can take an image of a display device whether it is turned on or off at some frame rate to obtain an image by drawing or other means); recognizing the attached object from the image to be recognized to determine at least one of a position, a shape, an area, brightness, or a grayscale of the recognized attached object (A person of ordinary skill can recognize some attached object by the position, shape, area, brightness, or grayscale of the object); and using the target attribute of the attached object recognized at a target position to determine the change of the target attribute of the image with the second resolution image in the second resolution image sequence (A person of ordinary skill in the art can use the previously described attribute to detect a change in that attribute); wherein a confidence level of the attached object at a target position is higher than a confidence level of the attached object at a non-target position (A person of ordinary skill in the art can assign some kind of confidence level to the attached object when it is located within a target position or area that is higher than if it is located away from that area).
In regards to claim 6, wherein the confidence level of the attached object at the target position being higher than the confidence level of the attached object at the non-target position includes at least one of: the shape of the attached object at the target position being a shape other than a rectangular shape, a circular shape, or an equilateral polygon (A person of ordinary skill in the art can determine if a shape is different from a rectangular shape, circular shape, or an equilateral polygon); the area of the attached object at the target position being larger than or equal to the area of the attached object at the non-target position (A person of ordinary skill in the art can determine of two areas are of different sizes and assign values accordingly); the brightness of the attached object at the target position being larger than or equal to the brightness of the attached object at the non-target position (A person of ordinary skill in the art can see if an object’s brightness is higher either at a target position or not and adjust their valuations accordingly); or the grayscale of the attached object at the target position being larger than or equal to the grayscale of the attached object at the non-target position (A person of ordinary skill in the art can see if an object’s grayscale is higher either at a target position or not and adjust their valuations accordingly).
In regards to claims 7 and 13, they are similar to claim 1, and they are similarly rejected.
In regards to claims 8 and 14, they are similar to claim 2, and they are similarly rejected.
In regards to claims 9 and 15, they are similar to claim 3, and they are similarly rejected.
In regards to claims 10 and 16, they are similar to claim 4, and they are similarly rejected.
In regards to claims 11 and 17, they are similar to claim 5, and they are similarly rejected.
In regards to claims 12 and 18, they are similar to claim 6, and they are similarly rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 7-10, and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroaki (US 20210250518 A1) in view of Suzuki et al. (US 20210297537 A1), hereinafter referred to as Suzuki.
In regards to claim 1, a control method, performed at an image acquisition device, comprising: in response to receiving, at the image acquisition device, an image switching instruction indicating that a display device begins to switch a displayed image, collecting images displayed on the display device at a second photographing frame rate to obtain a second resolution image sequence associated with a second resolution (Paragraphs 274 and 203, Paragraph 274 discloses an image switching operation for the playback while paragraph 203 discloses a method of selecting which frame rate is used to collect the image along with the resolution being selectable), the image switching instruction being used to instruct the display device to switch the displayed image (Paragraph 274, Paragraph 274 discloses an image switching operation for the playback), the second resolution image sequence being used for detecting whether the display device has completed switching of the displayed image (Paragraphs 77, 272, and 274, Paragraph 77 discloses an attribute changing button which could change specific attributes in an image to satisfy some kind of condition with paragraph 272 allows for the system to determine when the rendering of all displayed images has been completed when tied with the switching operation of 274); the second resolution image sequence being used for detecting whether the display device has completed switching of the displayed image (Paragraphs 77, 272, and 274, Paragraph 77 discloses an attribute changing button which could change specific attributes in an image to satisfy some kind of condition with paragraph 272 allows for the system to determine when the rendering of all displayed images has been completed when tied with the switching operation of 274); and after determining that the display device has completed switching of the displayed image, collecting images displayed on the display device at a first photographing frame rate to obtain a first resolution image sequence associated with a first resolution, the first photographing frame rate being smaller than the second photographing frame rate, the first resolution being greater than the second resolution, and the first resolution image sequence being used for defect detection of the display device (Paragraphs 235, 243, 274, and 203, Paragraph 274 discloses an image switching operation for the playback while paragraph 203 discloses a method of selecting which frame rate, which could be lower than an original frame rate, is used to collect the image along with the resolution being selectable and paragraphs 235 and 243 focus on defect detection with paragraph 235 focusing on where the largest amount of brightness while 243 focuses on the pixel values for gamma correction).
Hiroaki does not explicitly disclose that the first resolution being greater than the second resolution.
Suzuki does disclose that the first resolution being greater than the second resolution (Paragraph 62 and claim 14, both of these parts of the reference disclose one resolution being higher than the other).
It would have been prima facie obvious to combine the teachings of Hiroaki and Suzuki. It would be simple substitution to combine the resolutions of Suzuki with the resolutions of Hiroaki. Hiroaki already allows for the usage of multiple resolutions with some higher than others. However, Hiroaki does not require for one to be specifically greater than the other in any particular order. Suzuki does have a particular order for the usage of the higher and lower images. As such, one could simply substitute the ordering of the resolutions from Suzuki into Hiroaki to predictable results. As such, it would be prima facie obvious to combine the teachings of these two arts.
In regards to claim 2, Hiroaki discloses wherein: the target attribute includes at least one of brightness or grayscale of the image with the second resolution, brightness or grayscale of an object attached to the display device, a shape of the attached object, or an area of the attached object (Paragraphs 237 and 243, Paragraphs 237 and 243 focus on the brightness within the image with paragraph 237 focusing on the brightness of specific objects).
In regards to claim 3, Hiroaki discloses wherein the condition that the change of the target attribute of the image with the second resolution in the second resolution image sequence includes: the brightness or grayscale of the image with the second resolution in the second resolution image sequence decreasing and then remaining stable for a predetermined period of time (Paragraphs 149, 203, 237, and 243, 203 allows for the resolution to be selectable allowing for decreases, increases, and stability of a state of the resolution along with paragraphs 237 and 243 focusing on the relative brightness of objects within the image with paragraph 149 allowing for a prescribed set time for reviewing the displayed images).
In regards to claim 4, Hiroaki discloses wherein the condition that the change of the target attribute of the image with the second resolution in the second resolution image sequence includes: the brightness or grayscale of the image with the second resolution in the second resolution image sequence decreasing and then remaining stable for a first predetermined period of time (Paragraphs 149, 203, 237, and 243, 203 allows for the resolution to be selectable allowing for decreases, increases, and stability of a state of the resolution along with paragraphs 237 and 243 focusing on the relative brightness of objects within the image with paragraph 149 allowing for a prescribed set time for reviewing the displayed images and allows the user to adjust to make one or more times. Hiroaki only has to disclose one option as the or allows for one or the other to be read upon)
In regards to claims 7 and 13, they are similar to claim 1, and they are similarly rejected.
In regards to claims 8 and 14, they are similar to claim 2, and they are similarly rejected.
In regards to claims 9 and 15, they are similar to claim 3, and they are similarly rejected.
In regards to claims 10 and 16, they are similar to claim 4, and they are similarly rejected.
Claims 5-6, 11-12, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroaki (US 20210250518 A1) in view of Suzuki et al. (US 20210297537 A1), hereinafter referred to as Suzuki, as applied to claims 1-4, 7-10, and 13-16 above, and further in view of Youval et al. (US 20210374836 A1), hereinafter referred to as Youval.
In regards to claim 5, Hiroaki discloses further comprising: collecting an image of the display device in an off state at the first photographing frame rate to obtain an image to be recognized (Paragraphs 355-357, Describes how the device can detect the display object and the display in the image so one could take an image of a display in the off state); recognizing the attached object from the image to be recognized to determine at least one of a position, a shape, an area, brightness, or a grayscale of the recognized attached object (Paragraphs 237 and 243, Paragraphs 237 and 243 focus on the brightness within the image with paragraph 237 focusing on the brightness of specific objects); and using the target attribute of the attached object recognized at a target position to determine the change of the target attribute of the image with the second resolution image in the second resolution image sequence (Paragraphs 203, 237, and 243, 203 allows for the resolution to be selectable allowing for decreases, increases, and stability of a state of the resolution along with paragraphs 237 and 243 focusing on the relative brightness of objects within the image).
Hiroaki does not explicitly disclose wherein a confidence level of the attached object at a target position is higher than a confidence level of the attached object at a non-target position.
Youval does disclose wherein a confidence level of the attached object at a target position is higher than a confidence level of the attached object at a non-target position (Paragraphs 110 -111 and 440, Paragraphs 110-111 disclose the usage of confidence values for individual products within the store with the ending of paragraph 111 disclosing that it can relate to the “location of the product in the retail store” with paragraph 440 disclosing the target positions as the score can be just the position, this would imply instances where an object is misplaced and thus render two objects to have two different confidence levels in similar positions).
It would have been prima facie obvious to combine these two disclosures as it would have led to a predictable increase in accuracy. The confidence scores of Youval would allow for the system to be able to generate a value that shows the relative accuracy at certain target positions as such, this would allow for any assessments made by the system to have greater accuracy as one would be able to easily tell the overall reliability at those positions. As such, it would have been prima facie obvious to combine these two arts.
In regards to claim 6, Youval discloses wherein the confidence level of the attached object at the target position being higher than the confidence level of the attached object at the non-target position includes at least one of: the shape of the attached object at the target position being a shape other than a rectangular shape, a circular shape, or an equilateral polygon (Paragraph 184, Discloses that it can detect if objects are irregular shapes which are described as being separate from square or rectangular shapes which would be within a BRI of the rectangular shape and equilateral polygon ); the area of the attached object at the target position being larger than or equal to the area of the attached object at the non-target position (Paragraph 180-181, These paragraphs disclose that the areas can differ from shelf to shelf which would be classified as target positions as those are where products go); the brightness of the attached object at the target position being larger than or equal to the brightness of the attached object at the non-target position (Paragraph 351, Discloses that various products can have their brightness information detected and compared); or the grayscale of the attached object at the target position being larger than or equal to the grayscale of the attached object at the non-target position (Paragraphs 139 and 351, Paragraph 139 discloses that grayscale images can be used by this apparatus and since the detection of grayscale appears to be analogous to brightness but merely in a black and white image, the brightness comparison of paragraph 139 would cover this limitation).
In regards to claims 11 and 17, they are similar to claim 5, and they are similarly rejected.
In regards to claims 12 and 18, they are similar to claim 6, and they are similarly rejected.
Response to Amendment
The amendment, entered 12/19/2025, has been considered in full. The amendments made overcome all objections, 102, and 112 rejections made for the claims. They do not overcome all 101 rejections, and further search put forward new art that renders the claims prima facie obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards to the Step 2A Prong One analysis, acquiring a set of images and making determinations on them is an abstract idea regardless of whether or not it has a specific ordering of elements. Further, for the Prong Two Analysis, this is merely using a computer as a generic tool to perform the process. The device is acquiring the images at a specific setting, and then transitions the image acquisition to a different set of settings where it then proceeds to determine if the higher resolution images possess evidence of a defect of some kind. As shown in MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), this is merely using a computer as tool.
For the 2B analysis, simply acquiring data in a specific way it not inherently an inventive concept or significantly more. To the contrary of the applicant’s arguments, this appears to be more aligned with an instruction to observe and think. Acquiring less resource expedient images, detecting an error within, and only then using more accurate methods seems like the exact concept of observing images and then requesting a more detailed image. Nothing disclosed would put it beyond a person’s ability to observe various images and come to a judgement to get better images of possible defects which would render it a mental process and nothing significantly more.
In regards to the arguments against Hiroaki, the claims as they are written, do not require photographing a display at all. The claims require merely that images be collected, and that the images were taken at different frame rates and at different resolutions. If the claims required the collecting of the photos to be done by a camera or via photography, then this argument would be more persuasive. However, the BRI of the claims only requires the images to be “collected” which is a much broader requirement than photographing. The other arguments alleging that Hiroaki is unrelated are similarly not persuasive.
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 CONOR AIDAN O'MALLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-0226. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am. - 5:00 pm. 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, Andrew Moyer can be reached at 5722729523. 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.
CONOR AIDAN. O'MALLEY
Examiner
Art Unit 4146
/CONOR A O'MALLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 2675
/ANDREW M MOYER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2675