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 .
Interview Summary
Examiner contacted Mr. Daniel Lent (reg. no. 44,867) on 8/11/2026 to propose amendments to place the application in a condition for allowance. Applicant requested an office action be submitted.
Information Disclosure Statement
IDS filed 10/18/2024 is being considered by the examiner
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term "means" or "step" or a term used as a substitute for "means" that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word "for" (e.g., "means for") or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"; and
(C) the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word "means" (or "step") in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word "means" (or "step") in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word "means" (or "step") are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word "means" (or "step") are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word "means," but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: "a controlled configured to identify" in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-10 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the position identifying image" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether "the position identifying image" refers to "a position specifying image" in line 11 or to a different image.
Claims 2-10 are rejected by virtue of their dependency.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kannas et al. [US Pub. 2022/0414902] teaches a method for identifying authenticity of an object, the method includes maintaining, in an identification server system, a reference image of an original object, the reference image and provided to represent all equivalent original objects, receiving, in the identification server system, one or more input images of the object to be identified, and generating, by the identification server system, a target image from the one or more input images. The method further includes aligning, by the identification server system, the target image with the reference image and analysing, by the identification server system, the target image in relation to the aligned reference image for identifying authenticity of the object.
Natori et al. [US Pub. 2017/0030706] teaches a magnifying observation device which makes it possible to readily and intuitively recognize a deviation between actual height image data and CAD data concerning a specific portion of a measurement target. A CAD height data generation unit generates a plurality of pieces of CAD height data based on basic CAD data. A reference height data selection unit selects reference height data from the plurality of pieces of CAD height data. A reference appearance image data acquisition unit acquires a reference appearance image corresponding to the reference height data. A target image display unit displays a target image based on texture image data or actual height image data, and a reference image display unit displays a reference image based on the reference appearance image data or the reference height data.
Hashimoto et al. [US Pub. 2020/0302642] teaches where in a setting mode, a processor stores in a memory a reference image and reference imaging position information indicating an imaging position of the reference image. In a measurement mode, the processor drives at least one of a table and an imaging section by a driving section according to the reference imaging position information stored in the memory to move an imaging position of the imaging section to the imaging position of the reference image and execute a pattern search.
Suenage et al. [US Pub. 2017/0032177] teaches an image inspection device, an image inspection method and an image inspection program which are capable of easily and accurately inspecting a shape of an inspection target. In a setting mode, positioning image data of a setting target placed on a stage is registered. In an inspection mode, a positioning image is displayed on a display part based on the positioning image data. An image for positioning of the inspection target placed on the stage is displayed in the display part. Thereafter, image data for alignment of the inspection target is acquired, and then aligned to image data for alignment of the setting target. A size in a height direction of a measurement target place of the inspection target is measured based on the aligned height image data.
Kim et al. [US Pub. 2014/0185939] teaches where an image transformation apparatus includes a detection unit which is configured to detect, from each of a user image and a reference image, feature points of a face and angle information of the face, a feature points adjusting unit which is configured to adjust the feature points of the user image or the reference image by using the detected angle information, a face analysis unit which is configured to compare facial features contained in the user image and the reference image by using the adjusted feature points, and an image transformation unit which is configured to transform the user image by using a result of the comparison of the facial features from the face analysis unit
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VINCENT W CHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1214. The examiner can normally be reached (M-F) 10:00 am - 6:00 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, Mohammad Ali can be reached at 571-272-4105. 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.
VINCENT WEN-LIANG CHANG
Examiner
Art Unit 2119
/MOHAMMAD ALI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2119
Prosecution Insights