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 .
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.
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.
Claims 7, 14, and 21 are 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.
Claims 7, 14 and 21 recite, “displaying a toggle option; receiving a signal indicative of a toggle command; and alternating between displaying the video or image of the inspection data at the fill-screen resolution and the full-image resolution responsive to receipt of the signal.”
Claims 7, 14 and 21 depend on claim , 8 and 15 respectively.. Based on claim 1,8 and 15, claims 7, 14 and 21 can’t happen. Claim 1 indicates displaying fill-screen or full-screen based on scaling factor. So for one scaling factor, display would be in either fill-screen or full screen resolution. Then there would be no chance of alternating between fill-screen or full screen resolution for same scaling factor. Claim 7, 14 and 21 contradict claim 1, 8 and 15.
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, 8, 10, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jandhyala et al. ( US Patent Publication: 20200090315, “Jandhyala”) in view of Ben-Shachar (US patent: 7293243, “Ben-Shachar”).
Regarding claim 8, Ben-Shachar teaches, A system (Fig. 2) comprising:
A non-destructive inspection device; (borescope 100)
at least one data processor (Fig. 2 element 160) ; and non-transitory memory ( element 162) storing instructions, which, when executed by the at least one data processor causes the at least one data processor to perform operations comprising:
receiving inspection data characterizing a video or image from the non-destructive inspection device, the video or image being at a specified resolution; ([0034] The borescope 100 can include an imaging device 114. The imaging device 114 can include an imaging sensor 118 and a processor 120 capable of converting light incident on the imaging sensor 118 into an electronic signal. The imaging device 114 can be connected in data communication to the lens 104, such as via a set of fiber optic cables 122. The lens 104 can form a plurality of optical images which can be collected by the imaging device 114 to produce a video image 150. The video image 150 can include one or more two dimensional images.
[0035] The video image 150 can be stored in the memory 158 of the system 98. By way of non-limiting example, the memory 158 of the system 98 can be a scope memory 116 for further viewing or processing of the video image 150. Additionally, the video image 150 stored in the scope memory 116 can be communicated with a controller 160.
[0036] Alternatively, the video image 150 can be stored in a controller memory 162 for further viewing or processing. By way of non-limiting example, the memory 158 of the system 98 can be the controller memory 162.” Any image coming from borescope would have a resolution. )
Jandhyala teaches, the processor processes the image stored in memory and send the processed image to the display 170 (“[0036] Alternatively, the video image 150 can be stored in a controller memory 162 for further viewing or processing.”) however Jandhyala doesn’t expressly teach, determining scaling factor based on the specified resolution and a resolution of a display; displaying the video or image data of the inspection data on the display at a fill-screen resolution or at a full- image resolution based on the determined scaling factor
However Ben-Schachar teaches,, determining scaling factor based on the specified resolution and a resolution of a display; ( Step 711 and Column 9 Lines 30-46 “(38) If instead it is determined at step 707 that the size of the shared window exceeds the available viewing area at the viewing computer 301, then the process flows to step 711, at which point a scaling factor is calculated such that scaling of the shared window by the scaling factor would enable the entirety of the shared window to be displayed within the available viewing area. “)
displaying the video or image data on the display at a fill-screen resolution or at a full- image resolution based on the determined scaling factor.( Fig.7Step 715 and 717, Based on a scaling factor the image is displayed at a fill-screen resolution at 715 or the image is displayed at full screen resolution where the complete image is shown in the viewer display. Column 9 Lines 30-46 “……….Subsequently at step 713, it is determined whether the scaling factor calculated in step 711 falls below 60%, that is, whether the scaled image resulting from application of the scaling factor to the shared window would be smaller than 60% of the size of the shared window. If the scaled image would be smaller than 60% of the size of the shared window, then the process moves to step 715, and displays the shared window in the available application sharing viewing area on the viewing computer 301 at 60% scale, with scroll bars provided for accessing portions of the document that are not currently visible.” See Fig.4 for fill screen resolution image and Fig.5 for full-image resolution image )
Zendhyala and Ben-Schachar are analogous as they are from the field of image processing.
Therefore it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zendhyala to have included determining scaling factor based on the specified resolution and a resolution of a display; displaying the video or image data of the inspection data on the display at a fill-screen resolution or at a full- image resolution based on the determined scaling factor as taught by Ben-Schachar.
The motivation to include the modification is to display the borescope image based on the size or resolution of the connected display device.
Claim 1 is directed to a method and its steps are similar in scope and functions of the elements of the device claim 8 and therefore claim 1 is rejected with same rationales as specified in the rejection of claim 8
Claim 15 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable memory ( Zendhyala, “[0039] By way of non-limiting example, any computer hardware, software, language, or operating system can be used to execute, support, construct, or interface with or between the controller 160, the controller memory 162, the user interface 170, the screen 172, the modules 164, 166, or the color detection capability 168. The controller 160, the modules 164, 166, the color detection capability 168, the controller memory 162, the user interface 170, or the screen 172 can be any known computer system or combination or computer systems.”) and its elements are similar in scope and functions of the elements of the device claim 8 and therefore claim 15 is rejected with same rationales as specified in the rejection of claim 8
Regarding claims 3, 10 and 17, Zendhyala as modified by Ben-Schachar doesn’t expressly teach, determining the scaling factor is less than or equal to 1.35; and displaying the video or image in the inspection data at a fill-screen resolution.
However Ben-Shachar teaches determining the scaling factor is less than or equal to 0.6; and displaying the data at a fill-screen resolution. (If the scaled image would be smaller than 60% of the size of the shared window, then the process moves to step 715, and displays the shared window in the available application sharing viewing area on the viewing computer 301 at 60% scale, with scroll bars provided for accessing portions of the document that are not currently visible.”)
Scaling ratio 0.6 and scaling ratio 1.35 are obvious variations.
It would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have modified Zendhyala as modified by Ben-Schachar to have included determining the scaling factor is less than or equal to 1.35; and displaying the data at a fill-screen resolution.
The motivation for the modification is to enhance Zendhyala by including a different threshold scaling factor to determine full-image or fill-screen resolution.
Claim(s) 2, 6, 9, 13, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zendhyala as modified by Ben-Schachar and further in view of f Mao et al. ( US patent: 8880605, “Mao”).
Regarding claims 2, 9 and 16, Zendhyala as modified by Ben-Schachar is silent about wherein determined the scaling factor comprises: determining a specified resolution width of the video or image in the inspection data; determining a specified resolution height of the video or image in the inspection data; determining a resolution width of the display; determining a resolution height of the display; determining a width scaling factor based on a ratio of the resolution width of the display to specified resolution width of the video or image in the inspection data; determining a height scaling factor based on a ratio of resolution height of the display to the specified resolution height of the video or image in the inspection data; and determining the smaller of the width scaling factor or the height scaling factor to be the scaling factor.
However Mao teaches, determined the scaling factor comprises: determining a specified resolution width of the data; determining a specified resolution height of the data; determining a resolution width of the display; determining a resolution height of the display; determining a width scaling factor based on a ratio of the resolution width of the display to specified resolution width of the data; determining a height scaling factor based on a ratio of resolution height of the display to the specified resolution height of the data; and determining the smaller of the width scaling factor or the height scaling factor to be the scaling factor. ( Column 3 Lines 4-17: “Any suitable technique may be employed in the embodiments of the present invention to scale the image by executing browser code at the attendee computer. The flow diagram of FIG. 5 illustrates an embodiment wherein a width scale is calculated by dividing the width of the display area of the attendee computer by the width of the presenter image (step 22). A height scale is calculated by dividing the height of the display area by the height of the presenter image (step 24), and a scale factor is generated by selecting the minimum of the width scale and the height scale (step 26).”)
Zendhyala as modified by Ben-Schachar and Mao are analogous as both of them are from the field of display processing.
Therefore it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective foiling date of the claimed invention to have modified Zendhyala as modified by Ben-Schachar to have included determining the scaling factor comprises: determining a specified resolution width of the video or image in the inspection data; determining a specified resolution height of the video or image in the inspection data; determining a resolution width of the display; determining a resolution height of the display; determining a width scaling factor based on a ratio of the resolution width of the display to specified resolution width of the video or image in the inspection data; determining a height scaling factor based on a ratio of resolution height of the display to the specified resolution height of the video or image in the inspection data; and determining the smaller of the width scaling factor or the height scaling factor to be the scaling factor as taught by Mao.
The motivation to include the modification to determine the scaling factor correctly when there are different scaling factor for width and length
Regarding claims 6,13 and 20, Zendhyala as modified by Ben-Schachar and Mao doesn’t expressly teach, determining a scaling factor is greater than 1.35; and displaying the video or image data of the inspection device on the display at the full-image resolution.
However Ben-Schachar teaches, determining a scaling factor is greater than 0.6; and displaying the data at a full-image resolution. (If the scaled image would be smaller than 60% of the size of the shared window, then the process moves to step 715, and displays the shared window in the available application sharing viewing area on the viewing computer 301 at 60% scale, with scroll bars provided for accessing portions of the document that are not currently visible.”)
Scaling ration 0.6 and scaling ratio 1.35 are obvious variation.
It would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have modified Ben-Shachar as modified by Mao to have included determining a scaling factor is greater than 1.35; and displaying the video or image data of the inspection device on the display at the full-image resolution.as obviously taught by Ben-Shachar.
The motivation for the modification is to enhance Zendhyala by including a different threshold scaling factor to determine full-image or fill-screen resolution.
Claim(s) 4-5, 11-12 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zendhyala as modified by Ben-Schachar in further view of Lee et al. (US patent publication: 20130300632, “Lee”).
Regarding claims 4, 11 and 18, Zendhyala as modified by Ben-Schachar doesn’t teach, saving the video or image in the inspection data displayed at the fill-screen resolution to a memory ; and saving portions of the data not displayed at the fill-screen resolution within the memory as metadata of the image or video.
However, Lee teaches, saving the data displayed as an image or video; ([0013] In step S20, the data obtaining 23 obtains the data from the storage unit 22 in response to the operation.[0014] In step S21, the display control unit 25 controls the display unit 24 to display the data obtained.” )
saving portions of the data not displayed within metadata of the image or video. ( “[0009]…..When a portion of data that is not displayed on the display unit 24, the control unit 26 stores the undisplayed portion, and further generates an enable signal..”)
Zendhyala as modified by Ben-Schachar and Lee are analogous as they are from the field of display processing.
Therefore it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zendhyala as modified by Ben-Schachar to have included saving the data displayed at the fill-screen resolution as an image or video; and saving portions of the data not displayed at the fill-screen resolution within metadata of the image or video similar to saving the data displayed as an image or video and saving portions of the data not displayed within metadata of the image or video as taught by Lee.
The motivation for the modification is to provide the missing portion of the display to the user.
Regarding claims 5, 12 and 19, Zendhyala as modified by Ben-Schachar and Lee teaches, receiving video or image in the inspection data from the memory; (Lee, “[0013] In step S20, the data obtaining 23 obtains the data from the storage unit 22 in response to the operation.”)
determining portions of the metadata that are representative of the saved portions of the inspection data; and displaying the video or image of the inspection data on the at the full- image resolution. (Lee, “[0009]…..When a portion of data that is not displayed on the display unit 24, the control unit 26 stores the undisplayed portion, and further generates an enable signal. The communicating unit 21 searches the second portable electronic device 30 and establishes a communication with the second portable electronic device 30 in response to the enable signal. The display control unit 25 controls the display unit 24 to display an image of the second portable electronic device 30 when the communication between the first portable electronic device 20 and the second electronic device 30 has been established. The image of the second portable electronic device 30 may be an icon which is mapped to the second portable electronic device 30. When the user selects the image of the second portable electronic device 30, the control unit 26 controls the communicating unit 21 to transmit the undisplayed portion of to the second portable electronic device 30.”)
. The motivation for the modification is to provide the user complete image in that is viewable and readable easily on the display.
Claim(s) 7, 14 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zendhyala as modified by Ben-Schachar and further in view of Siminou et al. (US patent Publication: 20170358247, “Siminou”).
Regarding claims 7, 14 and 21, Zendhyala as modified by Ben-Schachar fails to expressly teach,
displaying a toggle option on the display; receiving a signal indicative of a toggle command; and
alternating between displaying the video or image of the inspection data at the fill-screen resolution and the full-image resolution responsive to receipt of the signal.
However, Siminou teaches, displaying a toggle option; receiving a signal indicative of a toggle command; and alternating between displaying the video or image of the inspection data at the fill-screen resolution and the full-image resolution responsive to receipt of the signal.. (“[0083] If no motion is detected, then at step 128, the controller 30 determines whether the finder button 54 has been activated. If the finder button 54 has been activated, the controller 30 receives a finder command from the finder button. In response to the finder command, at step 130, the controller 30 toggles between displaying the currently displayed magnified image (e.g., the first magnified image or a successive magnified image) and the full, initial electronic image (i.e., the full extent of the initial electronic image”).
Zendhyala as modified by Ben-Schachar and Kiminou are analogous as they are from eth filed of display processing.
Therefore it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zendhyala as modified by Ben-Schachar to have included displaying a toggle option; receiving a signal indicative of a toggle command; and alternating between displaying the video or image of the inspection data at the fill-screen resolution and the full-image resolution responsive to receipt of the signal similar to displaying a toggle option; receiving a signal indicative of a toggle command; and alternating between displaying the data at a first -screen resolution and a full-image resolution responsive to the signal as taught by Siminou.
The motivation for the modification is to provide control to the user to see same image in different resolution.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks Pages 8, filed 03/20/2026, with respect to rejection of claims under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are partially persuasive. The rejection of claims 4-5, 11-12 and 18-19 has been withdrawn. However the rejections of claims 7, 14 and 21 are maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks Pages 8, filed 03/20/2026, with respect to rejection of claims 1. 8 and 15 under 35 USC 102(a)(2) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection has been withdrawn. However upon further considerations, a new ground(s) of rejection has been made under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jandhyala et al. ( US Patent Publication: 20200090315, “Jandhyala”) in view of Ben-Shachar (US patent: 7293243, “Ben-Shachar”).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tapas Mazumder whose telephone number is (571)270-7466. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM-5:00 PM PST.
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, Alicia Harrington can be reached at 571-272-2330. 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.
/TAPAS MAZUMDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2615
Prosecution Insights