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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/4/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First Applicant argues Gupta fiducial features are used for calibration and alignment and are intentionally blurred or defocused. However, this is not germane to the claimed invention. The claimed invention merely requires the markers block rays of light to reach a portion of the image sensor and that the marker provides a pattern as a visual marking on each image. Gupta’s markers clearly do this.
Applicant then argues Siemens does not cure the deficiencies of Gupta and their markings are applied “directly onto the image sensor using an adhesive layer” arguing the imager is fragile and one of ordinary skill would recognize adverse effects on yield. However, it would be improper to characterize Siemens as requiring the markings be “directly” on the image when it explicitly discusses them as being directly or indirectly on the imager in paragraph 14 with paragraph 15 giving an explicit description of how they could be indirectly applied on an intermediate element which can include an optical lens. Additionally, simply stated without evidence the directly applied embodiment is somehow inferior would be contrary to the disclosure of Siemens whose main purpose is for providing these marking near the image sensor.
Additionally, with respect to claim 15 Applicant traverses the Official Notice that “using a polarizing filter as an identification marker” is well known and expected.
The Examiner notes the traversal is improper. MPEP 2144.03 – C states:
To adequately traverse a finding based on official notice, an applicant must specifically point out the supposed errors in the examiner’s action, which would include stating why the noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art. A mere request by the applicant that the examiner provide documentary evidence in support of an officially-noticed fact is not a proper traversal.
As required by MPEP 2144.03 – C the common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art.
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) 1-7 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0096385 A1 to Gupta et al in view of DE 10 2018 200 595 A1 to Siemens et al.
With respect to claim 1 Gupta discloses, in Fig. 1A-27G, a camera (paragraph 50), comprising: a lens (100);an image sensor (102) receiving light from the lens (Fig. 1A); and a cover glass (110) for the image sensor on an optical path for the lens and the image sensor (Fig. 1A and paragraph 52); wherein: the cover glass comprises an identification marker (120) at the optical path, wherein the identification marker is configured to block rays of light to reach a portion of the image sensor, such that the identification marker provides a pattern as a visual marking in each image captured by the image sensor (paragraph 52).
Gupta does not expressly disclose the cover glass is between the lens and the image sensor.
However, in analogous art, Siemens teaches a similar camera system having an identification marker (28) on a layer, as seen in Fig. 3, that is provided between the lens (13) and the image sensor (18) as seen in Fig. 2. Therefore, Siemens teaches the cover glass is between the lens and the image sensor.
Before the invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art to have placed the cover glass of Gupta between the lens and image sensor as taught by Siemens for doing so would be use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way as Siemens also discloses their mark is for identification (paragraph 4), also is a patterned code (paragraph 24) and functions by causing a shadow on the imager (paragraph 19).
With respect to claim 2 Gupta in view of Siemens further teaches wherein the identification marker is configured to cast a shadow image of the identification marker to the image sensor (paragraph 52 of Gupta and paragraph 19 of Siemens).
With respect to claim 3 Gupta in view of Siemens does not expressly disclose wherein the identification marker comprises a polarizing filter.
However, Official Notice (MPEP § 2144.03) is taken that both the concepts and advantages of using a polarizing filter as an identification marker are well known and expected in the art. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to have use a polarizer to the markers of Gupta in view of Siemens for doing so would merely be a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
With respect to claim 4 Gupta in view of Siemens further teaches wherein the identification marker comprises a grating configured to produce a spectra by diffraction to the image sensor (paragraph 42 of Gupta).
With respect to claim 5 Gupta in view of Siemens further teaches wherein the identification marker comprises a sticker attached to the cover glass or the identification marker is printed on the cover glass (paragraph 42 of Gupta or paragraph 23 of Siemens).
With respect to claim 6 Gupta in view of Siemens further teaches wherein the identification marker comprises a coating on a portion of the cover glass, wherein portions of the coating have been removed to provide the image of the identification marker (paragraph 42 of Gupta).
With respect to claim 7 Gupta in view of Siemens further teaches wherein the identification marker comprises an etching of the cover glass (paragraph 42 of Gupta).
Claim 14 is similarly rejected for the same reasons as claim 1 above as Gupta then also discloses using the device within a method that captures an image with the marker (paragraph 46-47 of Gupta).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-13 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
With respect to claim 8 the closest available prior art is discussed above with respect to claim 1. Additionally, it is known within the art to use cameras for scanning optical identity tags that include holograms as made clear by US 2018/0276523 A1 to Okada. But the prior art does not teach or fairly suggest a combination of using them together wherein a system is provided for detecting an optical identity tag, comprising: a camera, having a lens, an image sensor receiving light from the lens, and a cover glass for the image sensor on an optical path between the lens and the image sensor; and an optical identity tag placed outside the camera and configured to be captured by the camera, wherein: the optical identity tag comprises a security hologram configured to reflect rays of light in a first predefined light pattern; the cover glass comprises an identification marker at the optical path, wherein the identification marker is configured to block rays of light to reach a portion of the image sensor; and the identification marker is configured to alter the first predefined light pattern into a second predefined light pattern, when the first predefined light pattern is reflected from the optical identity tag to the identification marker.
Claims 9-13 are allowable as they depend from claim 8 which is allowable as discussed above.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claim 15 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims for similar reasons as claim 8 is allowable above.
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 DANIEL M PASIEWICZ whose telephone number is (571)272-5516. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 AM - 5:30 PM EST.
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, George Eng can be reached at (571)272-7495. 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.
/DANIEL M PASIEWICZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2699
May 19, 2026
Prosecution Insights