DETAILED ACTION
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 27 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. In this case, it’s unclear what “(34)” means, which renders the claim indefinite.
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 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. When reviewing independent claim 21, and based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, claims 21-40 are held to claim an abstract idea without reciting elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and is/are therefore rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
The Examiner will analyze Claim 21, and similar rationale applies to independent Claims 36, and 38.
The rationale, under MPEP § 2106, for this finding is explained below. The claimed invention (1) must be directed to one of the four statutory categories, and (2) must not be wholly directed to subject matter encompassing a judicially recognized exception, as defined below. The following two step analysis is used to evaluate these criteria.
Step 1: Is the claim directed to one of the four patent-eligible subject matter categories: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
When examining the claim under 35 U.S.C. 101, the Examiner interprets that the claims is related to a process since the claim is directed to a method for identifying authenticity of a cylindrical object.
Step 2a, Prong 1: Does the claim wholly embrace a judicially recognized exception, which includes laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas, or is it a particular practical application of a judicial exception?
The Examiner interprets that the judicial exception applies since Claim 21 limitation of c) analysing the target image in relation to a reference image representing an original cylindrical object and generating an identification output based on the analysing; and d) generating an authenticity identification indication based on the identification output are directed to an abstract. The claim is related to mental process by having a human authenticator to review image of the cylindrical object in order to determine the authenticity of the object.
If/when the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea enumerated in MPEP § 2106.04(a), a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon), the claim requires further analysis in Prong Two.
Step 2a, Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
The additional claim limitations acquiring two or more photographic images of the cylindrical object from different angles around the cylinder axis (A) with an imaging device, is data gathering (which is insignificant extra solution activity).
An electronic identification system is used to generally apply the abstract idea without limiting how it functions.
Step 2b: If a judicial exception into a practical application is not recited in the claim, the Examiner must interpret if the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
“ b) generating a target image from the two or more photographic images by image stitching” doesn’t explicitly amount to significantly more because it is nothing more than stitching two images.
Furthermore, the generic computer components or machine learning algorithm of the processor/memory recited as performing generic computer or machine learning functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system.
The Examiner finds that Claims 22-35, 37, and 39-40 does not state significantly more since the claim only recites additional steps for analyzing images to determine authenticity of an object.
Thus, claims 21-40 recite the same abstract idea and therefore are not drawn to the eligible subject matter as they are directed to the abstract idea without significantly more.
Therefore, all claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
If the 101 rejection is overcome through further amendment or persuasive argument, claims 23, 24, 25, and 26 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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.
Claims 21, 22, and 36-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Der Meer et al. (Pub. No. US 2005/0069191) in view of HEIKEL et al. (Pub. No. US 2021/0374476) further in view of Leitzen et al. (Pub. No. US 2017/0334659).
Regarding claim 21, Van teaches a method for a cylindrical object (bottle) having a cylinder axis (A) (central axis) from photographic images (recordings), wherein the method comprises rotating the cylindrical object and imaging device (camera) in relation to each other around the cylinder axis (A) of the cylindrical object and the method further comprises the following steps carried out by an electronic identification system having one or more processors and at least one memory storing instructions for execution by the one or more processors [Para. 12, 48, and 55]; a) acquiring two or more photographic images (recordings) of the cylindrical object (bottle) from different angles around the cylinder axis (A) with an imaging device [Para. 37 “ The apparatus preferably comprises rotating means for rotating the container between the making of two successive recordings. Such an embodiment enables making of a plurality of recordings of one container,”; Para. 48 “The illuminating means provide illumination of the bottle from the top and/or bottom.”; and 55 “in a further embodiment (FIG. 4) a maximum of seven recordings are made of a bottle, and the bottle is rotated about its central axis during this period. ”]; b) generating a target image (complete peripheral view) from the two or more photographic images [Para. 6, 58, Abstract] c) analyzing the target image (flat representation) in relation to a reference image (robust reference image) [Para. 50 “the thus obtained flat representation is compared to a stored reference image or robust reference image. The method for obtaining this robust reference image is discussed in greater detail hereinbelow. A robust reference image comprises data relating to a plurality of images of bottles.”, and 18] and generating an identification output (approval) based on the analyzing [Para. 58, 18, and abstract]. d) generating an identification indication (approval) based on the identification output [Para. 18 and 21].
However, Van doesn’t explicitly teach authenticity identification indication based on the identification output; and the reference image representing an original cylindrical object.
HEIKEL teaches authenticity identification indication (authenticity identification response) based on the identification output (authenticity identification output) [Para. 7, 19 and claim 18 and related description]; and the reference image represents an original cylindrical object [Abstract “reference image data of an original object in an identification server”].
It would have been obvious to ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to replace Van’s a reference image by an image of the original cylindrical object as taught by HEIKEL, because comparing the inspected object against an authentic exemplar would have been a predictable way to convert Van’s inspection workflow into an authenticity identification workflow in order to identify the authenticity the object accurately.
Van in view of HEIKEL doesn’t explicitly teach about image stitching.
However, Leitzen teaches generating panoramic image of a scene based using image stitching [Para. 64].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Van in view of HEIKEL multi-image cylindrical object inspection process to use the image-stitching technique taught by Leitzen because combining overlapping views of a curved cylindrical surface into a single target image was a known approach that would have predictably improve full-surface analysis and streamlined comparison against a reference image.
Regarding claim 22, Van teaches acquiring the two or more photographic images (recordings) of the cylindrical object (bottle) around the cylinder axis (central axis) from directions transversal to the cylinder axis with the imaging device along the rotation of the cylindrical object and imaging device in relation to each other around the cylinder axis of the cylindrical object [Para. 17, 48, 55, fig. 1, 4 and related description].
Claims 36, 37, 38, and 40 are rejected for the same reason as claim 21 (Van in view of HEIKEL). Furthermore, HEIKEL teaches having a mobile device, a processor and memory to perform authentication inspection process [fig. 4, 5 and related description].
Regarding claim 35, Van in view of HEIKEL further in view Leitzen teaches the claim limitation as stated above. Furthermore, HEIKEL teaches wherein the step d) comprises generating a visual, or audio or tactile authenticity identification indication based on the identification output or identification output value [claim 18 and corresponding description].
Regarding claim 39, Van in view of HEIKEL further in view Leitzen teaches the claim limitation as stated above. Furthermore, HEIKEL teaches the device instructions when executed by the one or more device processors being caused the mobile user device to carry out steps a) and b); and the server instructions when executed by the one or more server processors being caused the identification server system to carry out steps c) and d) [Abstract, para. 19, 27, fig. 2 and corresponding description].
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Der Meer et al. (Pub. No. US 2005/0069191) in view of HEIKEL et al. (Pub. No. US 2021/0374476) further in view of Leitzen et al. (Pub. No. US 2017/0334659) further in view of MOORE et al. (Pub. No. US 2020/0257917).
Regarding claim 27, Van in view of HEIKEL further in view Leitzen doesn’t explicitly teach the claim limitation.
However, MOORE teaches wherein the method comprises utilizing a flashlight (34) of the imaging device in step a) upon acquiring the two or more photographic image of the cylindrical object with the imaging device [Para. 74].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Van in view of HEIKEL further in view Leitzen to teach the claim limitation, feature as taught by MOORE; because the modification improves cylindrical stent inspection by accounting for the stent’s diameters.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Der Meer et al. (Pub. No. US 2005/0069191) in view of HEIKEL et al. (Pub. No. US 2021/0374476) further in view of Leitzen et al. (Pub. No. US 2017/0334659) further in view of Rodriguez et al. (Pub. NO. US 20200380226).
Regarding claim 28, Van in view of HEIKEL further in view Leitzen doesn’t explicitly teach the claim limitation.
However, Rodriguez teaches wherein the step b) comprise: generating view angle corrected images (two frames of imagery) of cylindrical object in the two or more photographic images by distorting the two or more photographic images, the view angle corrected images representing front projection images (viewed straight-on) of the cylindrical object perpendicular to the cylinder axis (A) [Para. 212, 218 and 220].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Van in view of HEIKEL further in view Leitzen to teach the claim limitation, feature as taught by Rodriguez; because the modification improves cylindrical stent inspection by accounting for the stent’s diameters.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Der Meer et al. (Pub. No. US 2005/0069191) in view of HEIKEL et al. (Pub. No. US 2021/0374476) further in view of Leitzen et al. (Pub. No. US 2017/0334659) further in view of Davis et al. (Pub. No. US 2013/0223673).
Regarding claim 29, Van in view of HEIKEL further in view Leitzen doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the step b) comprise: generating rectilinear corrected images of cylindrical object in the two or more photographic images, by distorting the two or more photographic images, the rectilinear projection images representing rectilinear projection of the cylindrical object
However, Davis teaches wherein the step b) comprise: generating rectilinear corrected images of cylindrical object in the two or more photographic images, by distorting (horizontally warped) the two or more photographic images, the rectilinear projection images representing rectilinear projection of the cylindrical object [para. 187].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Van in view of HEIKEL further in view Leitzen to teach the claim limitation, feature as taught by Davis; because the modification improves object recognition of cylindrical items by converting multiple curved photographic views into a straight on, curvature compensated image that makes surface content easier to analyze.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Der Meer et al. (Pub. No. US 2005/0069191) in view of HEIKEL et al. (Pub. No. US 2021/0374476) further in view of Leitzen et al. (Pub. No. US 2017/0334659) further in view of Sones et al. (Pub. No. US 20190283445).
Regarding claim 30, Van in view of HEIKEL further in view Leitzen doesn’t explicitly teaches the claim limitation.
However, Sones teaches wherein the step b) comprise: image stitching the two or more photographic images to generate the target image (unwrapped image), the target image representing rectilinear projection of the cylindrical object (container) around the cylinder axis (A) [Para. 9, and 10].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Van in view of HEIKEL further in view Leitzen to teach the claim limitation, feature as taught by Sones; because the modification improves object recognition of Sones items by converting multiple curved photographic views into a straight on, curvature compensated image that makes surface content easier to analyze.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Der Meer et al. (Pub. No. US 2005/0069191) in view of HEIKEL et al. (Pub. No. US 2021/0374476) further in view of Leitzen et al. (Pub. No. US 2017/0334659) further in view of Cote et al. (Pub. No. US 2012/0002898).
Regarding claim 31, Van in view of HEIKEL further in view Leitzen doesn’t explicitly teaches the claim limitation.
However, Cote teaches wherein the step b) comprises: image aligning (aligns) the two or more photographic images (three images) and compositing the two or more aligned photographic images, respectively, to form the target image [Para. 81 and 82].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Van in view of HEIKEL further in view Leitzen to teach the claim limitation, feature as taught by Cote; because the modification improves mobile device photography by capturing multiple images at different exposures and then aligning and compositing them to produce a higher quality image.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Der Meer et al. (Pub. No. US 2005/0069191) in view of HEIKEL et al. (Pub. No. US 2021/0374476) further in view of Leitzen et al. (Pub. No. US 2017/0334659) further in view of Sadi et al. (Pub. No. US 2016/0088287).
Regarding claim 32, Van in view of HEIKEL further in view Leitzen doesn’t explicitly teaches the claim limitation.
However, Sadi teaches wherein the step b) comprises: detecting one or more alignment keypoints (feature points) in the two or more photographic images (photo image) [Para. 52, and 102]; matching corresponding alignment keypoints of the two or more photographic images [Para. 52 and 108]; aligning (realign) the corresponding alignment keypoints (corresponding feature points) of the two or more photographic images to each other [Para. 52 and 109]; and compositing (blend) the two or more aligned photographic images (aligned images), respectively, to form the target image (merged seamless image) [Para. 52 and 98].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Van in view of HEIKEL further in view Leitzen to teach the claim limitation, feature as taught by Sadi; because the modification improves mobile device photography by capturing multiple images at different exposures and then aligning and compositing them to produce a higher quality image.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Der Meer et al. (Pub. No. US 2005/0069191) in view of HEIKEL et al. (Pub. No. US 2021/0374476) further in view of Leitzen et al. (Pub. No. US 2017/0334659) further in view of Liu et al. (Pub. No. US 2021/0334934).
Regarding claim 33, Van in view of HEIKEL further in view Leitzen doesn’t explicitly teaches the claim limitation.
However, Liu teaches aligning the target image (warp image) to the reference image by distorting the target image and analysing the aligned target image in relation to the reference image [Para. 29]; detecting corresponding keypoints in the target image and in the reference image [Para. 89]; matching corresponding alignment keypoints (feature locations) of the target image and the reference image [Para. 89]; associating and locking a reference image grid on the reference image; associating and locking a target image grid on the target image [Para. 86]; and aligning the target image to the reference image by distorting the target image grid in relation to the reference image grid for aligning the target image to the reference image [Para. 29].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Van in view of HEIKEL further in view Leitzen to teach the claim limitation, feature as taught by Liu; because the modification improves device by capturing multiple images at different exposures and then aligning and compositing them to produce a higher quality image.
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Der Meer et al. (Pub. No. US 2005/0069191) in view of HEIKEL et al. (Pub. No. US 2021/0374476) further in view of Leitzen et al. (Pub. No. US 2017/0334659) further in view of Liu et al. (Pub. No. US 2021/0334934) and KANNAS et al. (Pub. No. US 2022/0414902).
Regarding claim 34, Van in view of HEIKEL further in view Leitzen and Liu don’t explicitly teaches the claim limitation.
However, KANNAS teaches wherein the step c) comprises: comparing the aligned target image to the reference image by utilizing statistical methods for identifying authenticity of the object [Para. 235]; and calculating an identification output value based on comparing the aligned target image to the reference image [Para. 251]; comparing the aligned target image to the reference image by utilizing the machine learning identification algorithm or the identification neural network [Para. 240]; calculating an identification output value based on comparing the aligned target image to the reference image [Para. 251].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Van in view of HEIKEL further in view Leitzen and Liu to teach the claim limitation, feature as taught by KANNAS; because the modification improves object authentication accuracy by comparing aligned images using statistical and machine learning techniques to generate a reliable identification output.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOLOMON G BEZUAYEHU whose telephone number is (571)270-7452. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 10 AM-7 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, O’Neal Mistry can be reached on 313-446-4912. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-0101 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SOLOMON G BEZUAYEHU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2666
Prosecution Insights