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 .
This is in response to Applicant’s Amendments and Remarks filed on 3/4/2026. Claims 7, 17, 18, and 20 have been amended. Claims 1-22 are present for examination.
The 35 USC 112(b) rejections of claims 7-10, 17-20, and 22 have been withdrawn in view of the amendments and remarks.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/4/2026 with respect to the 35 USC 101 and 103 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
35 USC 101 Rejections:
Applicant submits: that the claims are directed to a specific, practical application that provides a tangible technical improvement in the field of surface feature analysis, the claimed method is a non-conventional and specific process tied to a particular machine (a multi-camera contactless imaging system) to solve technical problems inherent in prior art systems. (See Remarks filed on 3/4/3036, p. 8, last two paras.) Applicant asserts that the claimed method is part of a contactless system that captures data from a plurality of cameras and automatically process it. (See Remarks filed on 3/4/3036, p. 9, 2nd para.)
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 17 recites receiving 3D calibration data and a plurality of 3D bitmap images of a surface. Nowhere in claim 17 discloses a multi-camera contactless imaging system. As explained in the Non-Final Rejection dated 12/10/2025, the receiving step is merely data gathering, which is an insignificant extra solution.
Applicant further submits: the method uses a specific data type, 3D bitmap images, which is a specific data structure computationally generated from multiple physical cameras, not a simple image a human would look at. (See Remarks filed on 3/4/3036, p. 9, 3rd para.)
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Again, claim 17 only recites receiving the 3D bitmap images without disclosing how these 3D bitmap images are generated. Claim 17 then recites “automatically determine, with the processor, whether a surface feature in the 3D bitmap image for each frame is in focus.” As explained in the Non-Final Rejection dated 12/10/2025, a person can look at bitmap images and determine whether it is in focus or not. The claim does not provide any specific process to determine whether the 3D bitmap image is in focus or not. The processor is recited in such a high level without any details and has been interpreted as generic computer components. As MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III.C states, a claim that requires a computer may still recite a mental process. Performing a mental process on a generic computer is considered to recite a mental process.
Applicant further submits: the specification explains the focus determination is an automated process where the processor executes a specific algorithm on digital data. (See Remarks filed on 3/4/2026, p. 9, 4th para.)
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The disclosure cited by Applicant is in the specification, which has not been reflected in the claim. In addition, analyzing a “transition in the pixel intensity between adjacent pixels” against a defined threshold can be considered as mathematical concepts because it involves mathematical relationship, i.e., the pixel intensity and the defined threshold. Therefore, if the claim recites such disclosure, it still recites an abstract idea, i.e., mathematical concept.
Applicant further submits: the determination of a 3D model of the surface feature is not a person drawing with pen and paper, but a complex computational task that combines specific 3D calibration data with one or more of the 3D bitmap images where the surface feature is in focus. Applicant asserts that this process integrates data from multiple cameras and multiple frames into a cohesive, scaled 3D representation – a task that is computationally intensive and provides a level of speed and accuracy unattainable by a human. (See Remarks filed on 3/4/2026, p. 9, 5th para.)
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 17 recites “automatically determine, with the process, a 3D model of the surface features based on the 3D calibration data and one or more of the 3D bitmap images where the surface feature is in focus.” Note the term recited in claim is “based on”. Claim 17 does not disclose a process that combines specific 3D calibration data with one or more of the 3D bitmap images. As to the limitation cited above, a person can easily look at the 3D calibration data and the 3D bitmap images and draw a 3D model using pen and paper accordingly. The processor is recited in such a high level without any details and has been interpreted as generic computer components. As MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III.C states, a claim that requires a computer may still recite a mental process. Performing a mental process on a generic computer is considered to recite a mental process.
Applicant further submits: the method enables the measurement of “multiple different types of parameters of a large number of hairs (e.g. thousands) in a very short period of time (e.g. seconds)” and represents a fundamental shift from the prior art’s limitations and is a tangible technical improvement in the efficiency and capability of the measurement technology itself. (See Remarks filed on 3/4/2026, p. 9, 6th para.)
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 17 only recites “a surface feature” and “surface features”. Nowhere in claim 17 recites “hairs” or “a large number” of surface features. Applicant is reminded that the disclosed in the Specification cannot be read into the claim. See MPEP 2111.01 II, it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification. If Applicant intends such disclosure to be included in the claim, Applicant should amend the claim accordingly.
Applicant further submits: the combination of these steps is not a generic “gather data, analyze, and store” workflow. It is a specific, ordered process for transforming physically captured light from multiple sources into a precise, multi-frame 3D model for accurate parameter measurement, thereby improving the functioning of the computer and the imaging system itself. (See Remarks filed on 3/4/2026, p. 9, 7th para.)
The examiner respectfully disagrees. As explained above, such limitations are not recited in the claim. Therefore, it is improper to argue the recited limitations can improve the functioning of the computer and the imaging system itself.
Applicant further submits: the claims recite “significantly more” by integrating the steps into a practical application. Even if the individual steps were considered to touch on abstract concepts, the claims as a whole integrate these concepts into a practical application that amounts to “significantly more” than the exception itself. Applicant then argues that claim 18 recites a specific method for tracking and analyzing a surface feature over time, building a more complete and accurate model with each successive frame of data, and this dynamic updating process is a specific computational technique that has no real-world analog in mental processes, and it is a particular improvement to computer-based 3D modeling and tracking. (See Remarks filed on 3/4/2026, p. 9, last para. – p. 10, 3rd para.)
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 18 recites determining the 3D model of the surface features for a first frame, determining the value of the one or more parameters of the surface feature based on the 3D model is for the first frame, and then the method automatically determine an updated 3D model based on the 3D calibration data and the 3D bitmap image for each of a next frame, and determine the value of the one or more parameters of the surface feature based on the updated 3D model for each of the next frame. A person can look at the plurality of frames one by one and update the 3D model after looking at the data for each of the next frame after the first frame and determine parameter values of the surface feature based on the updated 3D model mentally. As discussed above, using a generic computer such as a processor to perform the mental process still recites a mental process.
Applicant further submits: Claims 19 and 22 ground the method in a specific technical field. The limitation to “skin surface” and “hair” ties the process to a specific, tangible application: dermatological analysis. The specification discloses technical details tailored to this specific application. Applicant asserts the process is not abstract, it is specifically adapted to manipulate data representing a particular physical reality (hair on skin) using specific physical principles (differential light absorption). (See Remarks filed on 3/4/2026, p. 10, 4th para.)
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 19 only recites “where the surface is a skin surface and the surface feature is a hair”. This is merely limiting the image data and a person can still look at images of a skin surface with hair to determine a 3D model of the hairs. Note the claims do not require the 3D model how the surface features are depicted in the 3D model. The claim does not recites representing a particular physical reality (hair on skin) using specific physical principles (differential light absorption) as argued by Applicant. Similar arguments can be applied to claim 22 and accordingly, claim 22 is still directed to abstract idea.
Applicant further submits: Claim 20 recites a specific technical implementation for tracking. The step of “automatically identifying a location of the surface feature” is not an abstract mental step of “finding something.” As described in the specification, this corresponds to a concrete technical implementation involving location identifiers and “tracking splices” to show the history and trajectory of a feature over a plurality of frames (see page 15, line 25 – page 16, line 27). This is a specific data visualization and validation technique that is part of an improved tracking algorithm. (See Remarks filed on 3/4/2026, p. 10, 5th para.)
The examiner respectfully disagrees. As explained above, such limitations on identifying and tracking disclosed in the specification are not recited in the claim. Therefore, it is improper to argue the recited limitations in claim 20 (without these details argued by Applicant) can be a specific data visualization and validation technique that is part of an improved tracking algorithm.
35 USC 103 Rejections:
Applicant submits: the proposed combination of Sun and Yang is improper. Firstly, Sun and Yang are from non-analogous fields of art, addressing fundamentally different problems with different goals. (See Remarks filed on 3/4/2026, p. 12, 4th para.) Applicant then asserts “A proper obviousness rejection requires that the prior art references be from the same field of endeavor or be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned. Sun and Yang fail this test.” (See Remarks filed on 3/4/2026, p. 12, 5th para.)
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's argument that Sun and Yang are nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, the question should not be whether Sun and Yang are analogous art with respect to each other, but whether Sun or Yang can be respectively be in the field of the endeavor or be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned.
Sun was provided by Applicant in the IDS submitted on 4/30/2025, and discloses a camera system with calibration techniques to retrieve 3D shape of the imaged specimen, which is pertinent to the problem of determining 3D models of an imaged surface using a plurality of cameras based on calibration data. They both involve a plurality of cameras and determine calibration data and 3D model of the imaged object accordingly. Therefore, Sun is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned.
Yang discloses a method for image processing and apparatus with a plurality of cameras acquiring the images with the cameras and generate stereo bitmap images based on the acquired images. On the other hand, Claim 1 of the current application discloses a plurality of cameras taking image data and determine a 3D bitmap image based on the image data. Therefore, Yang is reasonable pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned.
Sun and Yang both use a plurality of cameras and both can process the images captured by the corresponding plurality of cameras. It would be reasonable for a person skilled in the art to combine Sun and Yang to solve relevant problems.
Applicant further submits: the resulting system (from combining Sun and Yang) would not each or suggest the claimed invention, particularly the specific process for generating and using a “3D bitmap image” as claimed. (See Remarks filed on 3/4/2026, p. 12, 4th para.) Applicant then argues that the 3D bitmap image is different than the stereo bitmap disclosed in Yang. Applicant’s argues that the 3D bitmap image is a specific, unified data structure and points to the Specification that the Applicant’s controller “combines the image data from each of the plurality of cameras 115a-115c for each frame into a 3D bitmap image.” Applicant then asserts that the 3D bitmap image is different than Yang’s stereo bitmap because Yang’s stereo bitmap is not a unified data structure from multiple cameras, and modifying Sun’s complex deformation analysis system to perform Yang’s AR overlay process would require a complete re-architecture of Sun’s algorithm. Applicant also argues that the claim requires generating 3D bitmap image for each of the plurality of frames and submits that this teaches a dynamic, continuous process of capturing and processing data over time as described in the Application’s specification. (See Remarks filed on 3/4/2026, p. 13, 4th para. - p4, 1st para.)
The examiner respectfully disagrees. It appears that Applicant is again trying to incorporate the specification into the claims. The claims do not require the 3D bitmap image to be a specific unified data structure. Yang’s stereo bitmap is determined based on image data from multiple cameras, which can be considered as a 3D bitmap image. Both Sun and Yang use multiple cameras and process image data taken from the multiple cameras. Sun also teaches capturing a series of images. It would be obvious to combine Sun and Yang to generate 3D bitmap images for a series of images accordingly.
Applicant also submits claim 9 is improperly rejected and cites portions of the specification to support this submission. (See Remarks filed on 3/4/2026, p 14, 3rd para.) Again, it is improper to incorporate the specification into the claims.
Applicant further submits the references used in other 35 USC 103 rejections are impermissible hindsight and/or non-analogous prior art and/or no motivation to combine. Applicant has cited various portions of the specification to support these arguments. (See Remarks filed on 3/4/2026, pp 15-24.)
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the motivations have been stated in the respective rejection sections in the Non-Final Rejection dated 12/10/2025, and have also been restated in the corresponding rejections below.
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. Applicant is also reminded that if Applicant intends parts of the specification to be included in to claims, the corresponding claims should be amended accordingly.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 17-20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
MPEP 2106 III provides a flowchart for the subject matter eligibility test for product and processes. The claim analysis following the flowchart is as follows:
Regarding claim 17, it recites:
A method comprising:
receive, at a processor, 3D calibration data and a plurality of 3D bitmap images of a surface over a respective plurality of frames;
automatically determine, with the processor, whether a surface feature in the 3D bitmap image for each frame is in focus;
automatically determine, with the processor, a 3D model of the surface features based on the 3D calibration data and one or more of the 3D bitmap images where the surface feature is in focus;
automatically determine, with the processor, a value of one or more parameters of the surface feature that is in focus based on the 3D model for the plurality of frames, wherein the characteristic value is a statistical metric derived from a plurality of the determined values; and
automatically calculate, with the processor, a characteristic value of the one or more parameters of the surface feature over the plurality of frames; and
store, with the processor, the calculated characteristic value of the one or more parameters of the surface feature and an identifier that indicates the surface feature.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes. It recites a method, which is a process.
Step 2A, Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or nature phenomenon?
Yes.
The “determine … whether a surface feature in the 3D bitmap image for each frame is in focus” can be performed as a mental process because a person can look at the 3D bitmap image and determine whether a surface feature in the 3D bitmap image is in focus or not.
The “determine … a 3D model of the surface features based on the 3D calibration data and one or more of the 3D bitmap images where the surface feature is in focus” can be performed as a mental process with simple aid of pen and paper because a person can draw a 3D model based on the 3D calibration data and 3D bitmap images.
The “determine … a value of one or more parameters of the surface feature that is in focus based on the 3D model for the plurality of frames” can be performed mentally because a person can look at the 3D model to determine values of parameters of the surface features.
The “calculate … a characteristic value of the one or more parameters of the surface feature over the plurality of frames, wherein the characteristic value is a statistical metric derived from a plurality of the determined values” can be performed as mathematical concept because it expressly recite mathematical calculations or as a mental process when the calculations can be done mentally.
The claim recites a “processor” to performed these abstract ideas. However, the processor is recited in such high level without any details, so it can only be considered as a generic computer component. According to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III.C, a claim that requires a computer may still recite a mental process. Here, the mental processes are merely performed using a processor, as part of a generic computer, in a computer environment, or as a tool. Therefore, they are still mental processes.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
The “receive” step and the “store” step are additional elements but they can be considered as insignificant solutions such as data gathering (receive step) and simply storing/output results (store step). Even if the processor recited in the claim can be considered as an additional elements, it is still a generic computer components without any detailed structure. Therefore, these additional elements cannot integrate the abstract ideas into practically application.
Therefore, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements are either insignificant extra solutions or generic computer components.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
As discussed above, the additional elements are either insignificant extra solutions or generic computer components. Therefore, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, claim 17 is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Regarding claim 18, it depends from claim 17 and further recites wherein the automatically determining the 3D model of the surface is based on the 3D calibration data and the 3D bitmap image for a first frame of the plurality of frames; wherein the automatically determining the value of the one or more parameters of the surface feature based on the 3D model is for the first frame of the plurality of frames; and wherein the method further comprises: automatically determine, with the processor, an updated 3D model of the surface based on the 3D calibration data and the 3D bitmap image for each of a next frame after the first frame where the surface feature is in focus; and automatically determine, with the processor, the value of the one or more parameters of the surface feature based on the updated 3D model for each of the next frame after the first frame.
The determining steps are still mental processes for merely limiting the 3D bitmap image to be for a first frame.
The step “determine … an updated 3D model based on the 3D calibration data and the 3D bitmap image for each of a next frame after the first frame where the surface feature is in focus” can be performed mentally with the simple aid of pen and paper similar to the “determine … 3D model” step discussed above with respect to claim 17.
The step “determine … the value of the one or more parameters of the surface feature based on the updated 3D model for each of the next frame after the first frame” can be performed as a mental process because a person can determine parameter values based on a 3D model.
The process does not integrate the abstract ideas of claim 18 into practically application or amount to significantly more with similar reasons discussed above with respect to claim 17.
Therefore, claim 18 is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Regarding claim 19, it depends from claim 17 and further recites “where the surface is a skin surface and the surface feature is a hair.” It simply further limits the data without introducing additional elements that can integrate the abstract ideas of claim 18 into practically application or amount to significantly more with similar reasons discussed above with respect to claim 17.
Therefore, claim 19 is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Regarding claim 20, it depends from claim 17 and further recites “the automatically determining the value of the one or more parameter of the surface feature in the 3D model comprises automatically identifying a location of the surface feature in the 3D model for the first frame; and wherein the automatically determining the value of the parameter of the surface feature in the updated 3D model comprises automatically identifying a location of the surface feature in the updated 3D model for each of the next frame after the first frame.”
The claim recites two identifying steps, which can be performed as mental processes because a person can look at the 3D model and the updated 3D model to identify locations of surface features.
Therefore, no additional elements are recited that can integrate the abstract ideas of claim 20 into practically application or amount to significantly more.
Therefore, claim 20 is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Regarding claim 22, it recites similar limitations of claim 17 with further limiting the surface as a skin surface and a hair as surface feature. Limiting the input data does not introduce any additional elements that can integrate the abstract ideas of claim 20 into practically application or amount to significantly more.
Therefore, claim 22 is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-9, and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (Sun et al., Scheimpflug Camera-Based Stereo-Digital Image Correlation for Full-Field 3D Deformation Measurement) in view of Chinese Patent Publication No. CN 106604015 A to Yang.
Regarding claim 1, Sun discloses A system (Sun, Figure 3, showing a system) comprising:
a plurality of cameras (Sun, Figure 3, showing two cameras);
a plurality of optical elements configured to receive light from an area of a surface having one or more features and further configured to direct the light to the plurality of cameras (Sun, p. 5, col. 1, Sec. 4.1, 2nd para., disclosing two cameras to record the images of the specimen surface, equipped with Kowa lenses, 3rd para.-col. 2, 1st para., disclosing the specimen has a suitable speckle pattern, and two LED lamps, indicating the lenses can correspond to a plurality of optical elements configured to receive light from the specimen surface corresponding to an area of a surface having the suitable speckle pattern as one or more features and further configured to direct the light to the plurality of camera);
at least one processor communicatively coupled with the plurality of cameras; and at least one memory including one or more sequences of instructions, the at least one memory and the one or more sequences of instructions configured to, with the at least one processor (Sun, p. 5, col. 2, 1st para., disclosing a specially tailored experimental data processing software, indicating the system should have at least one processor communicatively coupled with the cameras and at least one memory including the software as one or more sequences of instruction), cause the system to perform at least the following,
determine 3D calibration data of the plurality of cameras (Sun, p. 6, col. 1, Sec. 4.2, 1st para., disclosing determining calibration data including intrinsic and extrinsic parameters using the stepwise stereo camera calibration technique. Because the calibration is for the stereo camera, the calibration data can be considered as 3D calibration data of the two cameras as the plurality of cameras);
automatically receive image data of the area in focus from the plurality of cameras over a plurality of frames (Sun, p. 5, col. 1, Sec. 4.1, 2nd para., disclosing two cameras simultaneously record the images of the specimen surface, 3rd para., disclosing adjusting the cameras and lenses to obtain entirely focused images with small distortions, p. 7, col. 1, 1st para., disclosing stereo images are simultaneously captured for each position of the specimen, p. 8, col. 1, Sec. 4.4, 1st para., disclosing a series of image pairs are recorded over a series of load, indicating the recorded series of image pairs over a series of load can correspond to the image data of the specimen as the area in focus from the two cameras as the plurality of cameras over a series of load corresponding to a plurality of frames);
automatically determine a 3D image for each of the plurality of frames based on the image data for each of the plurality of frames (Sun, p. 5, col. 1, Sec. 4.1, 2nd para., disclosing two cameras simultaneously record the images of the specimen surface, 3rd para., disclosing adjusting the cameras and lenses to obtain entirely focused images with small distortions, p. 7, col. 1, 1st para., disclosing stereo images are simultaneously captured for each position of the specimen, p. 8, col. 1, Sec. 4.4, 1st para., disclosing a series of image pairs are recorded over a series of load, indicating the stereo images can correspond to a 3D image for each of the plurality of frames determined based on the recorded images for each of the plurality of frames); and
store the 3D calibration data and the 3D images over the plurality of frames in the memory (Sun, p. 6, col. 1, Sec. 4.2, 1st para., disclosing determining the calibration data including the intrinsic and extrinsic parameters, 2nd para., disclosing verifying the calibration results by reconstructing the 3D coordinates and structure of checkerboards via the rig with the calibrated parameters, indicating the determined calibration data including the intrinsic and extrinsic parameters must have been stored in the memory for the verification stage; p. 8, col. 1, Sec. 4.4, disclosing a series of image pairs are recorded as the deformed configuration, indicating the series of image pairs can correspond to the 3D images over a plurality of frames being recorded corresponding to be stored in the memory).
However, Sun does not expressly disclose the 3D image to be 3D bitmap image.
On the other hand, Yang discloses a plurality of cameras (Yang, Translation, para. [0009], a terminal having two rear cameras), at least one processor communicatively coupled with the plurality of cameras (Yang, Translation, para. [0009], a terminal having two rear cameras, para. [0097], disclosing the terminal includes at least a transceiver and a processor); and at least one memory including one or more sequences of instructions, the at least one memory and the one or more sequences of instructions configured to, with the at least one processor (Yang, Translation, para. [0097], disclosing the terminal may further include a memory, para. [0110], disclosing the method can be implemented by a computer program, which can be stored in a computer-readable storage medium such as a memory), cause the system to perform at least the following, determine a 3D bitmap image for each of the plurality of frames based on the image data for each of the plurality of frames (Yang, Translation, para. [0011], disclosing based on the two acquired images, generate a stereo image and a stereo bitmap corresponding to the stereo image, para. [0055], disclosing the stereoscopic bitmap as 3D bitmap, indicating the stereo bitmap can correspond to a 3D bitmap image for each of the two acquired images as the plurality of frames determined based on the two acquired images corresponding to the image data for each of the plurality of frames).
Before the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art to combine Sun and Yang. The suggestion/motivation would have been to provide image processing that can present actual location of each scene to the user, as suggested by Yang (see Yang, Translation, para. [0007]).
Regarding claim 3, Sun in view of Yang discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of cameras define a respective plurality of image planes (Sun, FIGURE 1 and FIGURE 2, showing two cameras define respective two image planes); wherein the plurality of optical elements define a respective plurality of optical planes (Sun, p. 5, col. 1, Sec. 4.1, 2nd para., disclosing two cameras to record the images of the specimen surface, equipped with Kowa lenses, FIGURE 1, showing a lens plane for an imaging sensor which has an image plane, indicating the Kowa lenses corresponding to a plurality of optical elements can define a respective plurality of lens planes) and wherein the plurality of optical elements are configured such that each optical plane intersects at least one of the image planes within a plane of focus (Sun, p. 5, col. 1, Sec. 4.1, 2nd para., disclosing two cameras to record the images of the specimen surface, equipped with Kowa lenses, FIGURE 1, showing a lens plane for an imaging sensor which has an image plane, and the lens plane and image plane intersects at the object plane, p. 2, col. 1, Sec. 2.1, 1st para., disclosing the object plane as the plane that is in focus, indicating the Kowa lenses corresponding to a plurality of optical elements can configured such that each lens plane as optical plane intersects at least one of the image planes within the object plane as a plane of focus).
Regarding claim 4, Sun in view of Yang discloses the system of claim 3, wherein the plane of focus is aligned with the surface (Sun, FIGURE 1, showing an object plane, p. 5, col. 1, Sec. 4.1, 2nd para., disclosing two cameras to record the images of the specimen surface, equipped with Kowa lenses, 3rd para.-col. 2, 1st para., disclosing the specimen has a suitable speckle pattern, indicating the specimen corresponding to the surface can be the object and therefore the object plane can be the plane of focus aligned with the surface).
Regarding claim 5, Sun in view of Yang discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of optical elements are configured to reduce a first angular spread of light received from the area of the surface to a second angular spread of light incident on the plurality of cameras, wherein the second angular spread is less than the first angular spread (Sun, FIGGURE 1, showing the angular spread area on the object plane is larger than the angular spread area on the image plane when the lines passing through the lens, indicating the lens as optical elements are configured to reduce the first angular spread of light received from the area of the surface (corresponding to the area between the lens and the object plane bounded by the dashed lines) to a second angular spread of light incident on the plurality of cameras (corresponding to the area between the lens and the image sensor bounded by the dashed lines), and the second angular spread is less than the first angular spread).
Regarding claim 6, Sun in view of Yang discloses the system of claim 5, wherein the plurality of cameras are spaced apart by a first distance that is less than a second distance to space the plurality of cameras to receive light having the first angular spread without the plurality of optical elements (Sun, FIGURE 1, showing the first angular spread between the object plane and the lens, and the second angular spread between the lens and the image sensor, FIGURE 3, showing two cameras spaced apart with a first distance. To receive a larger light having a larger angular spread (such as the first angular spread) without the optical elements, the cameras have to be spaced apart by a second distance that is larger than the first distance which allows the cameras to receive light having the (smaller) second angular spread).
Regarding claim 7, Sun in view of Yang discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the system is a contactless system that is configured to receive a first image data and a second image data of the area of the surface without making contact with the surface (Sun, FIGURE 3, showing two cameras and the specimen is placed at a distance from the cameras, indicating the system is a contactless system that can receive a first image data and a second image data of the specimen corresponding to the area of the surface without making contact with the surface).
Regarding claim 8, Sun in view of Yang discloses the system of claim 7, further comprising a housing defining an opening, wherein the plurality of cameras are positioned within the housing (Sun, FIGURE 3, showing a housing having two cameras, the apparatus having the specimen, and two LED lamps, the housing defines an opening); wherein the plurality of optical elements are positioned within the housing between the opening and the plurality of cameras and wherein the plurality of optical elements are configured to receive light through the opening from the area (Sun, FIGURE 3, showing a housing having two cameras, and two LED lamps, the housing defines an opening between the cameras and the specimen, the Kowa lenses as the optical elements are positioned within the housing between the opening and the cameras, and the lenses as the optical elements are configured to receive light through the opening from the specimen area).
Regarding claim 9, Sun in view of Yang discloses the system of claim 8, wherein the housing is configured to be positioned at a distance from the area of the surface that is greater than a minimum distance threshold and less than a maximum distance threshold (Sun, FIGURE 3, showing a housing having two cameras, and two LED lamps, indicating the housing having the cameras is positioned at a distance to the specimen corresponding to the area of the surface, the distance is greater than 0 (minimum distance threshold) and less than the distance + 1 microns (a maximum distance threshold).
Regarding claim 14, it recites similar limitations of claim 1 but in a method form. The rationale of claim 1 rejection is applied to reject claim 14.
Regarding claim 15, Sun in view of Yang discloses the method of claim 14, further comprising: receive, at the processor, second image data of the area of the surface from the camera system (Sun, p. 6, col. 1, Sec. 4.2, 1st para., disclosing calibrating the cameras before the specimen testing, and during calibration, images of the checker-board under different orientations and positions are captured, 2nd para., disclosing verifying the calibration results using image pairs, indicating the obtained image pairs can correspond to the second image data of the area of the surface from the camera system received by the processor for verifying calibration); automatically determine, with the processor, whether the second image data is in focus with the surface (Sun, p. 5, col. 1, Sec. 4.1, last para., disclosing in order to obtain entirely focused images, the cameras and lenses are adjusted, p. 6, col. 1, Sec. 4.2, 1st para., disclosing calibrating the cameras before the specimen testing, and during calibration, images of the checker-board under different orientations and positions are captured to adjust the intrinsic and extrinsic parameters, 2nd para., disclosing verifying the calibration results using image pairs, indicating the image pairs can correspond to the second image data, and calibration verification will determine whether the image pairs are in focus with the surface); and wherein the automatic receiving of the first image data over the plurality of frames is based on the second image data being in focus (Sun, p. 5, col. 1, Sec. 4.1, last para., disclosing in order to obtain entirely focused images, the cameras and lenses are adjusted, p. 6, col. 1, Sec. 4.2, 1st para., disclosing calibrating the cameras before the specimen testing, and during calibration, images of the checker-board under different orientations and positions are captured to adjust the intrinsic and extrinsic parameters, 2nd para., disclosing verifying the calibration results using image pairs, indicating the entirely focused images as the first image data over the plurality of frames for specimen testing can be obtained after the calibration being verified (the image pairs are in focus)).
Regarding claim 16, Sun in view of Yang discloses the method of claim 14, wherein the 3D calibration data is determined by capturing, with the plurality of cameras, image data of an object with a predetermined geometry at a plurality of separations between the plurality of cameras and the object (Sun, p. 6, col. 1, Sec. 4.2, 1st para., disclosing calibrating the cameras before the specimen testing, and during calibration, images of the checker-board under different orientations and positions are captured to adjust the intrinsic and extrinsic parameters, the checker board can correspond to an object with a predetermined geometry and the images of the checker-board can correspond to the image data of an object with a predetermined geometry at different orientations and positions corresponding to a plurality of separations between the cameras and the object).
Claim(s) 2 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun in view of Yang, and further in view of US Patent Publication No. 20160324586 A1 to Zingaretti et al.
Regarding claim 21, it recites similar limitations recited in claim 1 but in a method form and further requires the surface having one or more features is a skin surface having one or more hairs.
The rationale of claim 1 rejection is applied to claim 21 but Sun or Yang does not expressly disclose a skin surface having one or more hairs.
On the other hand, Zingaretti discloses the surface is a skin surface (Zingaretti, para. [0056], discloses using a stereo camera pair to obtain image data regarding the position and orientation of objects of interest (e.g., hair follicles, wrinkle lines, tattoos, moles, etc.) on the skin surface).
Before the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art to combine Sun in view of Yang with Zingaretti. The suggestion/motivation would have been to determine and track objects on the skin surface, as suggested by Zingaretti (see Zingaretti, para. [0056]).
Regarding claim 2, Sun in view of Yang discloses the system of claim 1. However, Sun or Yang does not expressly disclose wherein the surface is a skin surface.
On the other hand, Zingaretti discloses the surface is a skin surface (Zingaretti, para. [0056], discloses using a stereo camera pair to obtain image data regarding the position and orientation of objects of interest (e.g., hair follicles, wrinkle lines, tattoos, moles, etc.) on the skin surface).
Before the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art to combine Sun in view of Yang with Zingaretti. The suggestion/motivation would have been to determine and track objects on the skin surface, as suggested by Zingaretti (see Zingaretti, para. [0056]).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun in view of Yang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Patent Publication No. 20220087406 A1 to Kosecoff.
Regarding claim 11, Sun in view of Yang discloses the system of claim 1, further comprising a radiation source configured to output a radiation signal to illuminate the surface features (Sun, FIGURE 3,, showing two LED lamps that can be a radiation source configured to output a radiation signal to illuminate the specimen thus illuminate the surface features). However, Sun or Yang does not expressly disclose wherein an absorption of the radiation signal in the surface feature is different from the surface.
On the other hand, Kosecoff discloses an absorption of the radiation signal in the surface feature is different from the surface (Kosecoff, para. [0073], disclosing relating the absorption of light of a certain wavelength to a skin or hair condition, skin and hair conditions related to hair density, tone, and dryness can be identified by measuring the absorption of light, and skin and hair diagnosis can be made based on images from a camera, indicating the skin and the hair as the surface feature can have different absorption of the light as the radiation signal).
Before the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art to combine Sun in view of Yang with Kosecoff. The suggestion/motivation would have been to provide treatment based on skin and hair conditions, as suggested by Kosecoff (see Kosecoff, para. [00073]).
Claim(s) 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Sun, Yang, and Kosecoff as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of US Patent Publication No. 20080154247 A1 to Dallarosa et al.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Sun, Yang, and Kosecoff discloses the system of claim 11, wherein the surface feature is a hair and the surface is a skin surface (Kosecoff, para. [0073], disclosing skin and hair diagnosis based on the absorption of light of a certain wavelength, indicating the surface feature can be a hair and the surface can be a skin surface). Before the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art to combine Sun in view of Yang with Kosecoff. The suggestion/motivation would have been to provide treatment based on skin and hair conditions, as suggested by Kosecoff (see Kosecoff, para. [00073]).
However, Sun, Yang, or Kosecoff does not expressly disclose wherein the radiation signal has a wavelength range such that the absorption of the radiation signal at the skin surface is greater than the absorption of the radiation signal at the hair.
On the other hand, Dallarosa discloses the radiation signal has a wavelength range such that the absorption of the radiation signal at the skin surface is greater than the absorption of the radiation signal at the hair (Dallarosa, para. [0066], disclosing under illumination by a diagnostic energy source, hair absorbs less energy than areas of skin).
Before the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art to combine Dallarosa into the combination of Sun, Yang, and Kosecoff. The suggestion/motivation would have been to detect hair in a region of skin not dependent upon the color of the hair, as suggested by Dallarosa (see Dallarosa, para. [0066]).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Sun, Yang, Kosecoff, and Dallarosa discloses the system of claim 12, wherein the wavelength of the radiation signal is within a range comprising at least one of a first range between about 500 nm and about 560 nm and a second range between about 1400 nm and about 1550 nm (Kosecoff, para. [0054], disclosing the energy in a range of wavelengths from about 200 nm to about 2000 nm, Dallarosa, para. [0066], disclosing the laser energy at a non-selective wavelength between about 1200 nm and about 1400 nm, the about 1400nm is within the second range between about 1400 nm and about 1550 nm). Before the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art to combine Sun in view of Yang with Kosecoff. The suggestion/motivation would have been to provide treatment based on skin and hair conditions, as suggested by Kosecoff (see Kosecoff, para. [00073]). Before the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art to combine Dallarosa into the combination of Sun, Yang, and Kosecoff. The suggestion/motivation would have been to detect hair in a region of skin not dependent upon the color of the hair, as suggested by Dallarosa (see Dallarosa, para. [0066]).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun in view of US Patent No. 10473454 B1 to Ding and Yang.
Regarding claim 17, Sun discloses A method comprising: receive, at a processor, 3D calibration data and a plurality of 3D images of a surface over a respective plurality of frames (Sun, p. 5, col. 2, 1st para., disclosing a specially tailored experimental data processing software, indicating there is a processor to execute the software; p. 6, col. 1, Sec. 4.2, 2nd para., disclosing to further verify the calibration results, the 3D coordinates and structure of 20 arbitrarily placed checkerboards are reconstructed via the rig with the calibrated parameters and simultaneously obtained image pairs, indicating the calibration parameters can correspond to 3D calibration data, and the image pairs of the 20 arbitrarily placed checkerboards can correspond to the plurality of 3D images of a surface over a respective plurality of frames, and are received by the processor for calibration verification); automatically determine, with the processor, a 3D model of the surface features based on the 3D calibration data and one or more of the 3D images where the surface feature is in focus (Sun, p. 5, col. 1, last para., disclosing to obtain entirely focused images, the cameras and lenses are adjusted, col. 2, 1st para., disclosing a specially tailored experimental data processing software, indicating there is a processor to execute the software; p. 6, col. 1, Sec. 4.2, 2nd para., disclosing to further verify the calibration results, the 3D coordinates and structure of 20 arbitrarily placed checkerboards are reconstructed via the rig with the calibrated parameters and simultaneously obtained image pairs, indicating the reconstructed 3D coordinates and structure of checkerboard can correspond to a 3D model of the checkerboard corresponding to surface features, which are determined based on the calibration parameters as the 3D calibration data and the image pairs as the one or more of the 3D images where the surface feature is in focus (after calibration to obtain entirely focused images); automatically determine, with the processor, a value of one or more parameters of the surface feature that is in focus based on the 3D model for the plurality of frames (Sun, p. 5, col. 2, 1st para., disclosing a specially tailored experimental data processing software, indicating there is a processor to execute the software; p. 6, col. 1, Sec. 4.2, 2nd para., disclosing to further verify the calibration results, the 3D coordinates and structure of 20 arbitrarily placed checkerboards are reconstructed via the rig with the calibrated parameters and simultaneously obtained image pairs, last para., disclosing the reconstructed 3D checkerboard points and the fitted plane while the error distribution of the reconstructed checkerboard points is presented, and the deviations of the reconstructed points are approximately symmetrical about the center of the fitted plane, indicating the deviations can correspond to a value of the reconstructed points as one or more parameters of the surface features of the checkerboard that is in focus determined based on the reconstructed 3D points as the 3D model for the plurality of frames); and automatically calculate, with the processor, a characteristic value of the one or more parameters of the surface feature over the plurality of frames, wherein the characteristic value is a statistical metric derived from as plurality of the determined values (Sun, p. 5, col. 2, 1st para., disclosing a specially tailored experimental data processing software, indicating there is a processor to execute the software; p. 6, col. 1, Sec. 4.2, 2nd para., disclosing to further verify the calibration results, the 3D coordinates and structure of 20 arbitrarily placed checkerboards are reconstructed via the rig with the calibrated parameters and simultaneously obtained image pairs, last para., disclosing the reconstructed 3D checkerboard points and the fitted plane while the error distribution of the reconstructed checkerboard points is presented, and the deviations of the reconstructed points are approximately symmetrical about the center of the fitted plane, and the maximum deviation of the reconstructed points is determined, indicating maximum deviation can correspond to a characteristic value of the checkerboards points corresponding to one or more parameters of the surface feature over the plurality of frames as a statistical metric derived from the deviations as the determined values); and store, with the processor, the calculated characteristic value of the one or more parameters of the surface feature and an identifier that indicates the surface feature (Sun, p. 5, col. 2, 1st para., disclosing a specially tailored experimental data processing software, indicating there is a processor to execute the software; p. 6, col. 1, Sec. 4.2, 2nd para., disclosing to further verify the calibration results, the 3D coordinates and structure of 20 arbitrarily placed checkerboards are reconstructed via the rig with the calibrated parameters and simultaneously obtained image pairs, last para., disclosing the reconstructed 3D checkerboard points and the fitted plane while the error distribution of the reconstructed checkerboard points is presented, and the deviations of the reconstructed points are approximately symmetrical about the center of the fitted plane, and the maximum deviation of the reconstructed points is determined, FIGURE 5 shows the reconstructed 3D checkerboard points and the fitted 3D plane and the error distribution of the reconstructed pointes with respect to the fitted plane. Although Sun does not expressly disclose storing these values including the maximum deviation as the calculated characteristic value and an identifier indicating the surface feature, Before the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art to modify Sun to store these values, because storing results is a well-known practice and storing the results for the calibration verification would yield of predictable results for documenting the verification results for future reference).
However, Sun does not expressly disclose the 3D images are 3D bitmap images and automatically determine, with the processor, whether a surface feature in the 3D bitmap image for each frame is in focus.
On the other hand Ding discloses automatically determine, with the processor, whether a surface feature in the 3D image for each frame is in focus (Ding, col. 13, lines 25-43, disclosing images 402-412 of features at various imaging planes captured with a 35x objective lens with a NA of 0.875 and a depth of field smaller than he feature height, in-focus portions of the images have different characteristic than out-of-focus portions, indicating the images 402-412 can correspond to the 3D image for each frame, and the in-focus portions can correspond to a surface feature that is determined as in focus based on the differences between the in-focus portion and the out-of-focus portions).
Before the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art to combine Sun and Ding. The suggestion/motivation would have been to provide image-based measurements of surface height, as suggested by Ding (see Ding, col. 1, lines 18-20).
However, Sun or Ding does not expressly disclose the 3D images are 3D bitmap images.
On the other hand, Yang discloses at least one processor (Yang, Translation, para. [0097], disclosing the terminal includes at least a transceiver and a processor); and 3D bitmap images (Yang, Translation, para. [0011], disclosing based on the two acquired images, generate a stereo image and a stereo bitmap corresponding to the stereo image, para. [0055], disclosing the stereoscopic bitmap as 3D bitmap, indicating the stereo bitmaps can correspond to 3D bitmap images).
Before the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art to combine Sun in view of Ding with Yang. The suggestion/motivation would have been to provide image processing that can present actual location of each scene to the user, as suggested by Yang (see Yang, Translation, para. [0007]).
Claim(s) 19 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Sun, Ding, and Yang, and further in view of Zingaretti.
Regarding claim 22, it recites similar limitations of claim 17 but further requires that the surface is a skin surface and the surface feature is a hair. The rationale of claim 17 rejection is applied to reject claim 22, but Sun, Ding, or Yang does not expressly disclose a skin surface and a hair.
On the other hand, Zingaretti discloses the surface is a skin surface and the surface feature is a hair (Zingaretti, para. [0056], discloses using a stereo camera pair to obtain image data regarding the position and orientation of objects of interest (e.g., hair follicles, wrinkle lines, tattoos, moles, etc.) on the skin surface).
Before the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art to combine the combination of Sun, Ding, and Yang with Zingaretti. The suggestion/motivation would have been to determine and track objects on the skin surface, as suggested by Zingaretti (see Zingaretti, para. [0056]).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Sun, Ding, and Yang discloses the method of claim 17. However, Sun, Ding, or Yang does not expressly disclose where the surface is a skin surface and the surface feature is a hair.
On the other hand, Zingaretti discloses the surface is a skin surface and the surface feature is a hair (Zingaretti, para. [0056], discloses using a stereo camera pair to obtain image data regarding the position and orientation of objects of interest (e.g., hair follicles, wrinkle lines, tattoos, moles, etc.) on the skin surface).
Before the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art to combine the combination of Sun, Ding, and Yang with Zingaretti. The suggestion/motivation would have been to determine and track objects on the skin surface, as suggested by Zingaretti (see Zingaretti, para. [0056]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10, 18, and 20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 10, none of the prior art references discloses the system of claim 9, wherein the minimum distance threshold is about 400 microns and the maximum distance threshold is about 800 microns.
Regarding claim 18, none of the prior art references discloses wherein the automatically determining the 3D model of the surface features is based on the 3D calibration data and the 3D bitmap image for a first frame of the plurality of frames; wherein the automatically determining the value of the one or more parameters of the surface feature based on the 3D model is for the first frame of the plurality of frames; and wherein the method further comprises: automatically determine, with the processor, an updated 3D model of the surface based on the 3D calibration data and the 3D bitmap image for each of a next frame after the first frame where the surface feature is in focus; and automatically determine, with the processor, the value of the one or more parameters of the surface feature based on the updated 3D model for each of the next frame after the first frame.
Claim 20 depends from claim 18 with additional limitations.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 HAIXIA DU whose telephone number is (571)270-5646. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am-4:00 pm.
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, Kee Tung can be reached at 571-272-7794. 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.
/HAIXIA DU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2611
Prosecution Insights