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 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.
Examiner’s Note
This Office Action is in response to application filed on 8/9/2024, where claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp. Claims 1, 7, and 14 have been provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,669,215 (hereinafter the ‘215 Patent).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 7, and 14 of the instant application and claim 1 of the ‘215 Patent are disclosing the invention of retrieving a last captured photo, extracting a device identifier from the last captured photo, automatically inputting the extracted device identifier into an entry field, and display the extracted device identifier as input into the entry field to a user. Claims 1, 7, and 14 of the instant application includes the additional limitation of displaying a guide to capture a screenshot of a computing device through a GUI. The US Patent Application Pub. No. 2022/0262189 (Dion) teaches such.
The ‘215 Patent and Dion are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are concerning with interface for extracting information from image(s) (i.e., same field of endeavor).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention having the ‘215 Patent and Dion before them to modify the method of retrieving computing device identifier of the ‘215 Patent to incorporate the function of displaying a guide to capture a screenshot of a computing device through a GUI as taught by Dion. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the elements as claimed by known methods as disclosed by Dion (¶ [0251]-[0260]), because the function of displaying a guide to capture a screenshot of a computing device through a GUI does not depend on the method of retrieving computing device identifier. That is the function of displaying a guide to capture a screenshot of a computing device through a GUI performs the same function independent on which interface it is incorporated onto, and therefore, the result of the combination would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. The motivation to combine would have been to determine whether it is a blacklisted or problematic identifier as suggested by Dion (¶ [0255]).
Claim 7 and 14 are device and non-transitory computer readable storage medium claims and include additional well-known elements for a device and non-transitory computer readable storage medium.
Therefore, for the above reason(s), the claims are obvious variation of each other.
Claims 2-6 of the instant application are also rejected under non-statutory obviousness type double patenting over claims 2 and 4-7 respectively of the ‘215 Patent, as the claims of the instant application disclose substantially similar limitations as the corresponding claims of the ‘215 Patent.
Claims 9-11 and 13 of the instant application are also rejected under non-statutory obviousness type double patenting over claims 2, 4, 5, and 7 respectively of the ‘215 Patent, as the claims of the instant application disclose substantially similar limitations as the corresponding claims of the ‘215 Patent.
Claims 15, 16, and 18-20 of the instant application are also rejected under non-statutory obviousness type double patenting over claims 2 and 4-7 respectively of the ‘215 Patent, as the claims of the instant application disclose substantially similar limitations as the corresponding claims of the ‘215 Patent.
This is a nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
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 14-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 14-20 are rejected to because of the following: independent claim 14 recites “a graphical user interface including a guide to capture a screenshot of the computing device”. The element “computing device” is recited with the article “the”, which indicates it is referring to a previously recited element of the same name. However, there is no such prior element in the instant claim. Therefore, it is unclear which prior element it is referring to. As such, renders the claim indefinite.
Claims 15-20 are rejected to as having the same deficiencies as the claim they depend from.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7-9, 11, 12, 14, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Dion et al., (US 2022/0262189 A1) (hereinafter Dion).
Referring to claim 1, Dion teaches a method comprising:
displaying, by a processing device, a graphical user interface including a guide to capture a screenshot of a computing device (¶ [0256], “the evaluation device interface may indicate to the POD owner the following instruction “Dial *#06#” by displaying it on the display of the evaluation device, and then requiring a POD owner to take a screenshot of the POD displaying the IMEI”);
extracting, by the processing device, a device identifier from a last captured photo (¶ [0258], “the unique identifier may be optically recognized using for example OCR”);
automatically inputting, by the processing device, the extracted device identifier into an entry field; and
displaying, on a display, the extracted device identifier as input into the entry field for confirmation by a user (¶ [0371], fig. 9A, “The evaluation report (also referred to as a transaction report) may include transaction identifying information such as, for example, the name and contact information of the entity issuing the report, transaction details such as a unique transaction identifier, the IMEI or other reliable unique identifier for the POD”).
Referring to claim 2, Dion further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein extracting the device identifier from the last captured photo comprises an optical character recognition (OCR) technique (¶ [0258], “the unique identifier may be optically recognized using for example OCR”).
Referring to claim 4, Dion further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the device identifier comprises an IMEI, an MEID, a serial number, a MAC address, a model number, or any combination thereof (¶ [0256], IMEI).
Regarding claims 7, 9, and 11, these claims recite the computing device that performs the steps of the method of claims 1, 2, and 4 respectively; therefore, the same rationale of rejection is applicable.
Referring to claim 8, Dion further teaches the computing device of claim 7, wherein the computing device is a smartphone (¶ [0031], “The pre-owned electronic devices (“POD”)…may include consumer and/or portable electronic devices such as, but not limited to, smartphones”).
Referring to claim 12, Dion further teaches the computing device of claim 7, wherein the computing device is a tablet (¶ [0031], “The pre-owned electronic devices (“POD”)…may include consumer and/or portable electronic devices such as, but not limited to…tablet computers”).
Regarding claims 14, 15, and 18, these claims recite the non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising instructions when executed by a processor to perform the steps of the method of claims 1, 2, and 4 respectively; therefore, the same rationale of rejection is applicable.
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 of this title, 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 3, 10, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dion as applied to claims 1, 7, and 14 above, in view of Baheti et al., (US 2014/0168478 A1) (hereinafter Baheti).
Referring to claim 3, Dion teaches the method of claim 1. However, Dion does not explicitly teach in response to the extracting the device identifier being unsuccessful, an error message is displayed on a display.
Baheti teaches in response to the extracting…being unsuccessful, an error message is displayed on a display (¶ [0043], “If in act 222 the image quality is found to be unacceptable for text recognition (e.g. if height is below a minimum number of pixels needed for OCR), feedback is automatically generated by processor(s) 404 in act 223. Subsequently, processor(s) 404 may obtain another image of the scene (in act 201), subsequent to generation of the feedback in act 223. The just-described feedback which is generated in act 223 may be either to the user (e.g. message to move closer to text being imaged as illustrated in FIGS. 11A and 11B)”).
Dion and Baheti are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are concerning with interface for extracting information from image(s) (i.e., same field of endeavor).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention having Dion and Baheti before them to modify the method of evaluating of electronic devices of Dion to incorporate the function of providing feedback relating to OCR as taught by Baheti. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the elements as claimed by known methods as disclosed by Baheti (¶ [0038]-[0043]), because the function of providing feedback relating to OCR does not depend on the method of evaluating of electronic devices. That is the function of providing feedback relating to OCR performs the same function independent on which interface it is incorporated onto, and therefore, the result of the combination would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. The motivation to combine would have been to ensure the image is of sufficient quality for performing OCR as suggested by Baheti (¶ [0042]-[0043]).
Regarding claim 10, the instant claim recites the computing device that performs the steps of the method of claim 3; therefore, the same rationale of rejection is applicable.
Regarding claim 16, the instant claim recites the non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising instructions when executed by a processor to perform the steps of the method of claim 3; therefore, the same rationale of rejection is applicable.
Referring to claim 17, Dion teaches the non-transitory, computer readable storage medium as discussed above. However, Dion does not explicitly teach the error message includes instructions for capturing a new screenshot of the computing device.
Baheti further teaches the error message includes instructions for capturing a new image (¶ [0043], “If in act 222 the image quality is found to be unacceptable for text recognition (e.g. if height is below a minimum number of pixels needed for OCR), feedback is automatically generated by processor(s) 404 in act 223. Subsequently, processor(s) 404 may obtain another image of the scene (in act 201), subsequent to generation of the feedback in act 223. The just-described feedback which is generated in act 223 may be either to the user (e.g. message to move closer to text being imaged as illustrated in FIGS. 11A and 11B)”).
Claims 5, 6, 13, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dion as applied to claims 1, 7, and 14 above, in view of Csulits et al., (US 2008/0219543 A1) (hereinafter Csulits).
Referring to claim 5, Dion teaches the method of claim 1. However, Dion does not explicitly teach the extracted device identifier as input on the display is editable.
Csulits teaches the extracted…identifier as input on the display is editable (¶ [0118], “In the embodiment illustrated in FIG. 9, a screen shot 900 for correcting OCR errors is shown from a display device associated with a PC or control panel. A snippet image 910 of an area of a currency bill containing a serial number is displayed above editing field 920, which easily allows an operator to correct image characters that are unreadable by the OCR algorithm.”)
Dion and Csulits are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are concerning with interface for extracting information from image(s) (i.e., same field of endeavor).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention having Dion and Csulits before them to modify the method of evaluating of electronic devices of Dion to incorporate the function of editing extracted identifier as taught by Csulits. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the elements as claimed by known methods as disclosed by Csulits (¶ [0118]-[0119]), because the function of editing extracted identifier does not depend on the method of evaluating of electronic devices. That is the function of editing extracted identifier performs the same function independent on which interface it is incorporated onto, and therefore, the result of the combination would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. The motivation to combine would have been to allow errors in OCR process be corrected afterward as suggested by Csulits (¶ [0118]).
Referring to claim 6, Dion teaches the method of claim 1. However, Dion does not explicitly teach in response to receiving an edit to the device identifier, storing the device identifier as edited in storage.
Csulits teaches in response to receiving an edit to the…identifier, storing the…identifier as edited in storage (¶ [0117], “The PC can then create a database with a record for each imaged bill using the information received from the scanning device for storage and subsequent processing. According to some embodiments, the device 400 obtains the images of bills, extracts data from the images such as the serial numbers of the bills, and stores some or all of this information in a database residing in a memory in the device 400.” ¶ [0118], “In the embodiment illustrated in FIG. 9, a screen shot 900 for correcting OCR errors is shown from a display device associated with a PC or control panel. A snippet image 910 of an area of a currency bill containing a serial number is displayed above editing field 920, which easily allows an operator to correct image characters that are unreadable by the OCR algorithm.”)
Dion and Csulits are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are concerning with interface for extracting information from image(s) (i.e., same field of endeavor).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention having Dion and Csulits before them to modify the method of evaluating of electronic devices of Dion to incorporate the function of editing extracted identifier as taught by Csulits. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the elements as claimed by known methods as disclosed by Csulits (¶ [0118]-[0119]), because the function of editing extracted identifier does not depend on the method of evaluating of electronic devices. That is the function of editing extracted identifier performs the same function independent on which interface it is incorporated onto, and therefore, the result of the combination would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. The motivation to combine would have been to allow errors in OCR process be corrected afterward as suggested by Csulits (¶ [0118]).
Regarding claim 13, the instant claim recites the computing device that performs the steps of the method of claim 6; therefore, the same rationale of rejection is applicable.
Regarding claims 19 and 20, these claims recite the non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising instructions when executed by a processor to perform the steps of the method of claims 5 and 6 respectively; therefore, the same rationale of rejection is applicable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
US 2021/0103988 (Marshall) – discloses method of performing OCR based on user inputted image to obtain unique identifier.
US 10,803,527 (Zankat) – discloses method of using OCR to extract necessary information to increase speed and efficiency.
US 10,740,638 (Annis) – discloses method for dynamic OCR based data extraction.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONG-SHUNE CHUNG whose telephone number is (571) 270-5817. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F (9-5) EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Baderman, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-3644. 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 Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/MONG-SHUNE CHUNG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118
Prosecution Insights