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 Amendments
Submission dated 02/20/2026 amends claims 1 and 9, cancels claim 19 and adds claims 20-21. Previously, claims 14-19 were withdrawn from consideration per an election requirement. Claims 1-13 and 20-21 are being examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claims 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 § 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 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the type of article” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the prior art purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “a type of the article.”
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) 1-3, 7-9, 13 and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Us patent application publication no. 2020/0175294 to Ichikawa in view of us patent application publication no. 2014/0263654 to Davis et al. (hereinafter Davis) and us patent no. 7359070 to Smith.
For claim 1, Ichikawa as applied teaches a system, the system comprising:
a digital camera (see, e.g., pars. 101-104, which teach obtaining the image data with an OCR device; the examiner interprets the cited paragraphs to at least implicitly teach or suggests a digital camera because they teach using an OCR device, which digitizes an image of physical documents, to obtain a digital image);
a computer including a processor communicatively coupled to the digital camera (see, e.g., pars. 71 and 102-104 and FIG. 1, which teach that a cpu acquires the character image data); and
a monitor to display a graphical user interface provided by the computer (see, e.g., par. 71 and FIG. 1, which teach a display device), wherein the processor is configured to execute an application stored in a memory that is communicatively coupled to the processor (see, e.g., par. 71 and FIG. 1, which teach a RAM and a ROM coupled to the cpu), the application, when executed, causing the processor to:
command the digital camera to capture a first image of identification information marked on an article (see, e.g., pars. 103-104 and FIG. 6, which teach acquiring the character image data),
perform optical character recognition of the first image to identify characters of the identification information and create therefrom a second image (see, e.g., pars. 103-104 and FIG. 6, which teach acquiring the recognized character data from the character image data using an OCR device),
display the first image and the second image via the graphical user interface on the monitor so that the first image can be compared to the second image (see, e.g., pars. 118-121, 135, and 141-142 and FIG. 8, which teach displaying, via the GUI, the character image data and the recognized character data next to one another on the work screen so that the displayed data can be easily compared and verified).
As mentioned above, Ichikawa as applied at least implicitly teaches or suggests a digital camera because it teaches using an OCR device, which digitizes an image of physical documents, to obtain a digital image (see, e.g., pars. 101-104). However, for the interest of compact prosecution, the examiner relies on Davis in the analogous art to explicitly teach the digital camera and also creating a machine-readable code representing the identification information.
Davis in the analogous art teach using a scanner to obtain the image of an article (see, e.g., pars. 7-9, 23-24, 28, 30, 32, 35, and 38 and FIG. 2 of Davis) and creating a machine-readable code representing the identification information (see, e.g., pars. 7, 24-25, 27, 31, 38, and 40 and Fig. 4 of Davis).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ichikawa to encode the identifier information into a barcode because doing so would yield predictable results of allowing easier and faster access to the relevant information about an article by simply scanning a single code (see, e.g., pars. 9-10 of Davis and MPEP 2143(I)(D)).
Ichikawa in view of Davis does not explicitly teach that the digital camera is specifically positioned relative to a fixture, wherein the fixture is configured to hold a device to be captured by the digital camera.
In the analogous art, Smith as applied teaches a digital camera that is specifically positioned relative to a fixture that holds an object to be captured by the digital camera (see, e.g., lines 20-41 in col. 3 and FIGS. 1b and 2 of Smith, which teach using fixtures, such as backdrop/screen, platen cover and rotating table, for imaging).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ichikawa in view of Davis to use the imaging set-up of Smith because doing so would yield predictable results of being able to mount and hold objects of various sizes/shapes/types (see MPEP 2143(I)(D)).
For claim 2, Ichikawa in view of Davis and Smith teaches that at least one of the first and second images is a digital image (see, e.g., par. 103-104 of Ichikawa, which teach digitally, e.g., using an OCR, obtaining the recognized character data).
For claim 3, Ichikawa in view of Davis and Smith teaches that the application further causes the processor to accept an input from a user wherein the input includes instructions for editing the second image (see, e.g., pars. 34-35, 43, 113, and 117-121 of Ichikawa, which teach shifting into the input screen where the operator start the verification of the recognized character data).
For claim 7, while Ichikawa and Smith does not explicitly teach, Davis in the analogous art teaches that the machine-readable code is a barcode (see, e.g., pars. 7, 24-25, 27, 31, 38, and 40 and Fig. 4 of Davis, which teach creating a barcode representing the identification information).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ichikawa to encode the identifier information into a barcode as taught by Davis because doing so would yield predictable results of allowing easier and faster access to the relevant information about an article by simply scanning a single code (see, e.g., pars. 9-10 of Davis and MPEP 2143(I)(D)).
For claim 8, while Ichikawa and Smith does not explicitly teach, Davis in the analogous art teaches that the machine-readable code is displayed on the monitor (see, e.g., par. 27 and FIGS. 3-4 of Davis, which verifying the barcode on verification screen on display).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ichikawa to verify the code on a screen as taught by Davis because doing so would yield predictable results of previewing and doing a quality check before actual printing of the code (see, e.g., par.27 of Davis and MPEP 2143(I)(D)).
For claim 9, Ichikawa as applied teaches a method, the method comprising:
capturing a digital image of identification information marked on an article (see, e.g., pars. 103-104 and FIG. 6, which teach acquiring the character image data);
performing optical character recognition of the digital image to identify characters of the identification information (see, e.g., pars. 103-104 and FIG. 6, which teach acquiring the recognized character data from the character image data using an OCR device);
displaying the digital image and results of the optical character recognition via a graphical user interface on a monitor (see, e.g., pars. 118-121, 135, and 141-142 and FIG. 8, which teach displaying, via the GUI, the character image data and the recognized character data next to one another on the work screen so that the displayed data can be easily compared and verified);
via the graphical user interface, allowing a user to (i) accept the results of the optical character recognition and (ii) edit the results of the optical character recognition (see, e.g., pars. 34-35, 43, 113, 118-121, 135, and 141-142 and FIG. 8, which teach that the user can compare and edit the recognized character data to the character image data).
Ichikawa as applied does not explicitly teach creating a machine-readable code representing the identification information.
Davis in the analogous art teach creating a machine-readable code representing the identification information (see, e.g., pars. 7, 24-25, 27, and 31, 38, 40 and Fig. 4 of Davis).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ichikawa to encode the identifier information into a barcode because doing so would yield predictable results of allowing easier and faster access to the relevant information about an article by simply scanning a single code (see, e.g., pars. 9-10 of Davis and MPEP 2143(I)(D)).
Ichikawa in view of Davis does explicitly teach placing an article in a fixture that is configured to hold an article to be captured by the camera.
In the analogous art, Smith as applied teaches using a fixture to place and hold an object to be imaged (see, e.g., lines 20-41 in col. 3 and FIGS. 1b and 2 of Smith, which teach using fixtures, such as backdrop/screen, platen cover and rotating table, for imaging).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ichikawa in view of Davis to use the imaging set-up of Smith because doing so would yield predictable results of being able to mount and hold objects of various sizes/shapes/types (see MPEP 2143(I)(D)).
For claim 13, Ichikawa in view of Davis and Smith teaches comparing, by the user, the digital image and results of the optical character recognition(see, e.g., pars. 118-121, 135, and 141-142 and FIG. 8 of Ichikawa, which teach displaying, via the GUI, the character image data and the recognized character data next to one another on the work screen so that the displayed data can be easily compared and verified).
For claim 20, while Ichikawa in view of Davis does not explicitly teach, Smith in the analogous art teaches a fixture holding device (see, e.g., lines 20-41 in col. 3 and FIGS. 1b and 2 of Smith, which teach using the multi-function peripheral includes fixtures such as the backdrop/screen, platen cover and the rotating table);
the fixture holding device is configured to hold a plurality of fixtures (see, e.g., lines 20-41 in col. 3 and FIGS. 1b and 2 of Smith, which teach using the multi-function peripheral includes fixtures such as the backdrop/screen, platen cover and the rotating table);
wherein the fixture holding device can be adjusted to place any one of the plurality fixtures in alignment with the digital camera such that a device placed within that fixture can be captured by the digital camera (see, e.g., lines 20-41 in col. 3 and FIGS. 1b and 2 of Smith, which teach using fixtures of various kinds, such as the backdrop/screen, platen cover and the rotating table, in line with the digital camera).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ichikawa in view of Davis to use the imaging set-up of Smith because doing so would yield predictable results of being able to image objects of various sizes/shapes/types (see MPEP 2143(I)(D)).
For claim 21, while Ichikawa in view of Davis does not explicitly teach, Smith in the analogous art teaches selecting a fixture from one of a plurality of fixtures (see, e.g., lines 20-41 in col. 3 and FIGS. 1b and 2 of Smith, which teach using difference fixtures such as the backdrop/screen, platen cover and the rotating table);
Wherein the fixture corresponds to the type of article to be placed therein (see, e.g., lines 20-41 in col. 3 and FIGS. 1b and 2 of Smith, which teach that the fixtures such as the backdrop/screen, platen cover and the rotating table, corresponds to the type of the object being placed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ichikawa in view of Davis to use the imaging set-up of Smith because doing so would yield predictable results of being able to image objects of various sizes/shapes/types (see MPEP 2143(I)(D)).
Claim(s) 4, 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ichikawa in view of Davis and Smith and further in view of us patent application publication no. 2016/0019439 to Wang et al. (hereinafter Wang).
For claim 4, while Ichikawa in view of Davis and Smith does not explicitly teach, Wang in the analogous art teaches validating a format of the identification information (see, e.g., par. 117 and FIG. 8 of Wang, which teach validating the format of the identification number based on the stored configuration data).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ichikawa in view of Davis and Smith to validate the identification information as taught by Wang because doing so would allow determining the most accurate location of the identification information (see, e.g., pars. 118-119 of Wang).
For claim 10, while Ichikawa in view of Davis and Smith does not explicitly teach, Wang in the analogous art teaches validating a format of the identification information (see, e.g., par. 117 and FIG. 8 of Wang, which teach validating the format of the identification number based on the stored configuration data).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ichikawa in view of Davis and Smith to validate the identification information as taught by Wang because doing so would allow determining the most accurate location of the identification information (see, e.g., pars. 118-119 of Wang).
For claim 11, while Ichikawa in view of Davis and Smith does not explicitly teach, Wang in the analogous art teaches that the format of the identification information is predetermined based on the article (see, e.g., par. 117 and FIG. 8 of Wang, which teach that the format of the identification number is predicted based on the card type).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ichikawa in view of Davis and Smith to predict the format of the identification information as taught by Wang because doing so would allow accessing information about the specific article (see, e.g., par. 117 of Wang).
Claim(s) 5 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ichikawa in view of Davis and Smith and further in view of us patent application publication no. 2021/0232814 to Schultz et al. (hereinafter Schultz).
For claim 5, while Ichikawa in view of Davis and Smith does not explicitly teach, Schultz in the analogous art teaches that the application further causes the processor to, via the graphical user interface, allow the user to cause the processor to command the digital camera to capture another image of the identification information marked on the article and perform another optical character recognition of the digital image to identify the characters of the identification information (see, e.g., pars. pars. 38 and 48 and FIG. 4 of Schultz, which teach recommending the user to capture another image of the object and perform another round of OCR).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ichikawa in view of Davis and Smith to recommend taking another picture for another round of OCR as taught by Schultz because doing so would improve the accuracy of text determined by OCR (see, e.g., pars. 38, 41 and 48 of Schultz).
For claim 12, while Ichikawa in view of Davis and Smith does not explicitly teach, Schultz in the analogous art teaches via the graphical user interface, allowing the user to (iii) cause capturing another image of the identification information marked on the article and performing another optical character recognition of the digital image to identify the characters of the identification information (see, e.g., pars. pars. 38 and 48 and FIG. 4 of Schultz, which teach recommending the user to capture another image of the object and perform another round of OCR).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ichikawa in view of Davis and Smith to recommend taking another picture for another round of OCR as taught by Schultz because doing so would improve the accuracy of text determined by OCR (see, e.g., pars. 38, 41 and 48 of Schultz).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ichikawa in view of Davis and Smith and further in view of us patent application publication no. 2008/0267504 to Schloter et al. (hereinafter Schloter).
For claim 6, while Ichikawa in view of Davis does not explicitly teach, Schloter in the analogous art teaches that the article is a mobile device (see, e.g., pars. 78-81 of Schloter, which teach detecting OCR tag on a laptop computer).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ichikawa in view of Davis and Smith to capture a tag on an article such as a laptop as taught by Schloter because doing so would constitute a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (see, e.g., MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
Additional Citations
The following table lists several references that are relevant to the subject matter claimed and disclosed in this Application. The references are not relied on by the Examiner, but are provided to assist the Applicant in responding to this Office action.
Citation
Relevance
McGarry et al. (us pat. pub. No. 2020/0320740)
Describes a vision system capable of performing run-time 3D calibration. In one embodiment, the system includes a mount configured to hold an object, the mount including a 3D calibration structure; a camera; a motion stage coupled with the mount or the camera; and a computing device configured to perform operations including: acquiring images from the camera when the mount is in respective predetermined orientations relative to the camera, each of the acquired images including a representation of at least a portion of the object and at least a portion of the 3D calibration structure that are concurrently in a field of view of the camera; performing at least an adjustment of a 3D calibration for each of the acquired images based on information relating to the 3D calibration structure as imaged in the acquired images; and determining 3D positions, dimensions or both of one or more features of the object.
Lee (us pat. pub. No. 2015/0109424)
Describes a three-dimensional scanner, three-dimensional measurement, and CAD/CAM. In a desktop three-dimensional scanner for dental use of the related art, a two-axis rotation motion unit, on which a target object can be placed and rotated in order to image the entire shape of the target object, is coupled to the scanner, and thus, when a subject is placed on the imaging stage and is rotated along the horizontal axis of rotation of the stage, the subject is dropped from the stage by gravity after being inclined, and accordingly, additional fixing means or a receiving jig should be placed on the stage together with the subject to prevent same. In such a case, inconvenience is caused because the target objects to be scanned have various shapes and the fixing means or receiving jigs should fit the shapes thereof. According to one embodiment of the desktop three-dimensional scanner for dental user of the present invention, a camera and a projector are provided on the unit for changing the horizontal axis of rotation of the imaging stage, and thus a target object does not have to be inclined during the scanning process and dental prostheses of various shapes can be three-dimensionally scanned even without additional fixing means or a receiving jig.
Table 1
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Table 1 and form 892.
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 WOO RHIM whose telephone number is (571)272-6560. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30 am - 6:00 pm et.
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, Henok Shiferaw can be reached at 571-272-4637. 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.
/WOO C RHIM/Examiner, Art Unit 2676
/Henok Shiferaw/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2676
Prosecution Insights