DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The Information disclosure Statement(s) filed 11/12/2024 have been considered. Initialed copies of the Form 1449 are enclosed herewith.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more. Using the language in claim(s) 1 to illustrate, the limitations of capture at least one image of a person and an object; convert the captured at least one image to an outline of the person; transmit the converted, captured at least one image for determination of a height or a weight of the person determined from the at least one image; and receive a risk factor associated with the person based, at least in part, on the height or the weight of the person determined from the at least one image, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity, in particular, fundamental economic principles or practices (including insurance), but for the recitation of generic computer components. The claims as a whole recite a method of organizing human activity. The claimed invention allows for capturing images of a person and analyzing the image to determine a height and weight of the person and determine a risk factor for the person for insurance purposes which is a financial practice (insurance). The mere nominal recitation of at least one processor; a communication interface communicatively coupled to the at least one processor; and a memory storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause a computing device to perform the claimed functions, and a terminal do not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, under Eligibility Step 2A, prong one, (MPEP §2106.04(a)), the claims recite an abstract idea.
Under Eligibility Step 2A, prong two, (MPEP §2106.04(d)), this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite the additional elements—at least one processor; a communication interface communicatively coupled to the at least one processor; and a memory storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause a computing device to perform the claimed functions, and a terminal.
The at least one processor, communication interface, memory, and terminal are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer functions of capturing an image, converting the captured image, transmitting the image, receive a risk factor) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (see MPEP §2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Similar arguments can be extended to independent claims 9 and 16 and hence claims 9 and 16 are rejected on similar grounds as claim 1. In addition, claim 9 recites a computing device, at least one processor of a terminal and claim 16 recites a non- transitory machine-readable medium storing computer-executable instructions, a terminal comprising at least one processor, memory and a communication interface that amount to generic computer implementation.
The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Under Eligibility Step 2B, (MPEP §2106.05), the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using at least one processor; a communication interface communicatively coupled to the at least one processor; and a memory storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause a computing device to perform the claimed functions, and a terminal, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims have been given the full two part analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because for the same reasoning as above and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. Dependent claims 2-8, 10-15, 17-20 simply help to define the abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Viewing the claim limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the claim limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claim(s) 1-20 is/are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Claim(s) 1, 3, 9, 11, 16, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ross et al. (US 9839376) in view of Bipembi et al., “Calculation of Body Mass Index using Image Processing Techniques”. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Mechatronics. Volume 4, Issue 1, ISSN 2320-5121. July 2015. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280133090_Calculation_of_Body_Mass_Index_using_Image_Processing_Techniques, hereinafter, Bipembi.
Re-claim 1:
***It is noted that the Applicant’s Specification recites, “the images may be converted into a silhouette, such that only an outline of the individual may be received by the system.” –[0048].
Ross discloses:
a communication interface communicatively coupled to the at least one processor -Fig. 1;
and a memory storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, Fig. 1 and col. 4 lines 28-40 cause a computing device to:
capture at least one image of a person and an object (capture an image of potential customer holding a standard sized object-Fig. 4B items 420-430);
Ross discloses transmitting a captured image to a terminal (client provides pictures to a system that performs BMI calculations –col. 9 lines 23-67);
and receive, responsive to the transmitting and as determined by the terminal, a risk factor associated with the person based, at least in part, on the height or the weight of the person (system receives height and weight information as well as pictures of the client and performs automated body mass index calculations based on pictures-col. 9 lines 16-27) .
Ross fails to disclose converting the captured at least one image to an outline of the person; determination of a height or a weight of the person determined from the at least one image.
Bipembi however, teaches converting a captured image to a silhouette of a person in Abstract, p.1 [outline] and determining a height or a weight of the person from the at least one image-(The height and volume is determined using silhouette analysis.-Abstract, p. 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ross to include converting a captured image to a silhouette and determining a height or a weight of the person from the at least one image as taught by Bipembi in order to use the image and determined height or weight to calculate a body mass index (BMI) of an individual.
Re-claim 3. Ross discloses wherein the risk factor associated with the person is further based on a body mass index and the other of the height or the weight of the person. (system receives height and weight information as well as pictures of the client and performs automated body mass index calculations based on pictures-col. 9 lines 16-27).
Claims 9, 16 have similar limitations found in claim 1 above, and therefore are rejected by the same art and rationale.
Claims 11 and 17 have similar limitations found in claims 1 and 3 above in combination, and therefore are rejected by the same art and rationale.
8. Claim(s) 2, 10, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ross et al. in view of Bipembi in further view of Walker et al. (US 2012/0209513).
Re-claim 2: Ross discloses wherein the object includes a known size (capture an image of potential customer holding a standard sized object-Fig. 4B items 420-430) Ross fails to disclose the object is at least one of: a door frame, a door, an appliance, a window, or a vehicle.
Walker however, teaches image capture wherein objects such as doors in an image are used as a scale reference. -see [0047].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include in the automated BMI calculation system of Ross the ability to use a door as an object of known size as a scale reference as taught by Walker since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 10, 20 have similar limitations found in claim 2 above, and therefore are rejected by the same art and rationale.
9. Claim(s) 4, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ross et al. (US 9839376) in view of Bipembi in further view of Bartlett et al. (WO 2014/124014 A1).
Re-claim 4. Ross fails to disclose wherein a verification of an identity of the person further includes: receiving a captured image of a government issued identification; and verifying the identity of the person by comparing the captured image of the government issued identification to additional information. Bartlett however, disclose a capture device used to authenticate a user by taking an image of documentation of a user such as a driver’s license or passport to be cross referenced to verify the identity of a user.-[00105].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include in the automated BMI calculation system of Ross the ability to use a capture device to authenticate a user by taking an image of documentation of a user such as a driver’s license or passport to be cross referenced to verify the identity of a user as taught by Bartlett since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 12 has similar limitations found in claim 4 above, and therefore is rejected by the same art and rationale.
10. Claim(s) 5-7, 13-15, 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ross et al. (US 9839376) in view of Bipembi in further view of Aggarwal et al.(US 2015/0156419).
Re-claim 5. Aggarwal, not Ross, discloses further comprising instructions that, when executed, cause the computing device to transmit the captured at least one image to the terminal to: evaluate the captured at least one image against one or more predefined quality criteria; and generate and transmit an outcome of the evaluation of the captured at least one image against the one or more predefined quality criteria. (Fig. 1, image analysis module to determine image clarity and image quality-item 112, transmit outcome (image quality feedback item 124), [0031]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include in the system and method for automated BMI calculation of Ross the ability to evaluate captured image against predefined quality criteria and generate and transmit an outcome as taught by Aggarwal since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Re-claim 6. Ross discloses upon agent request, analytical engine retrieves one or more pictures-col 5 lines 41-45 (requisite number of captured images). Aggarwal, not Ross, disclose wherein the one or more predefined quality criteria includes the captured at least one image meeting a degree of clarity; whether a requisite number of captured images have been received; whether an instructed angle of the captured at least one image was met; whether one or more requested portions of the person was captured in the captured at least one image; or any combination thereof (degree of clarity [0032], camera focus and motion of image [0045]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include in the system and method for automated BMI calculation of Ross the ability to evaluate captured image against predefined quality criteria and determine degree of clarity, camera focus as taught by Aggarwal since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Re-claim 7. Aggarwal, not Ross, disclose receive one or more notifications indicative of the outcome of the evaluation that the captured at least one image did not meet the one or more predefined quality criteria; and re-capture one or more additional images of the person and the object in accordance with the one or more notifications. (immediate feedback on quality of image sent to user and system permits recapture of the images not meeting quality criteria-[0031]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include in the system and method for automated BMI calculation of Ross the ability to provide immediate feedback on quality of image sent to user and system permits recapture of the images not meeting quality criteria as taught by Aggarwal since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 13-15 have similar limitations found in claims 5-7 above, and therefore are rejected by the same art and rationale.
Claims 18-19 have similar limitations found in claims 5 and 7 above, and therefore are rejected by the same art and rationale.
11. Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ross et al. (US 9839376) in view of Bipembi in further view of Zhang et al. (US 200090179990).
Re-claim 8. Zhang, not Ross, discloses encode the at least one image to generate encoded information derived from the at least one image; and store the encoded information derived from the at least one image and not store the at least one image. (An encoder for encoding the captured images to generate encoded information; and a primary memory interface for receiving the encoded information and storing the encoded information, see page 2 col. 2, [0027]).
Double Patenting
12. The non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 § 2146 et seq. 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.
13. Claims 1, 3, 8-9, 11, 16-17 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 7-8, 9, 12, 16-17 of U.S. Patent No. 10,438,292. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims speak to determining body characteristics and BMI based on captured images in response to request for insurance products.
Regarding claims 1, 9, 16 the language in this claim can be found within claims 1, 9, 17 of U.S. Patent 10,438,292. Claims 1, 9, 17 of U.S. Patent 10,438,292 teaches limitations omitted from claims 1, 9, 16 of the instant application. It would have been obvious to omit the limitations because omission of an element and its function is obvious if the function of the element is not desired. See Ex parte Wu, 10 USPQ 2031 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989) (Claims at issue were directed to a method for inhibiting corrosion on metal surfaces using a composition consisting of epoxy resin, petroleum sulfonate, and hydrocarbon diluent. The claims were rejected over a primary reference which disclosed an anticorrosion composition of epoxy resin, hydrocarbon diluent, and polybasic acid salts wherein said salts were taught to be beneficial when employed in a freshwater environment, in view of secondary references which clearly suggested the addition of petroleum sulfonate to corrosion inhibiting compositions. The Board affirmed the rejection, holding that it would have been obvious to omit the polybasic acid salts of the primary reference where the function attributed to such salt is not desired or required, such as in compositions for providing corrosion resistance in environments which do not encounter fresh water.). See also In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 144 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1965) (Omission of additional framework and axle which served to increase the cargo carrying capacity of prior art mobile fluid carrying unit would have been obvious if this feature was not desired.); and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (deleting a prior art switch member and thereby eliminating its function was an obvious expedient).
Regarding claim 3, the language in this claim can be found within claim 3 of U.S. Patent 10,438,292.
Regarding claim 8 the language in this claim can be found within claims 7-8 of U.S. Patent 10,438,292.
Regarding claim 11 the language in this claim can be found within claim 12 of U.S. Patent 10,438,292.
Regarding claim 17 the language in this claim can be found within claim 18 of U.S. Patent 10,438,292.
14. Claims 2, 10, 20 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 9, 17 of U.S. Patent No. 10,438,292 (Rugel) in view of Walker et al. (US 20120209513).
Regarding claim 2, the language within these claims can be found in claim 1 of US Patent 10438292 (Rugel), claim 1 however, does not disclose wherein the object includes a known size and is at least one of: a door frame, a door, an appliance, a window, or a vehicle. Walker however, teaches image capture wherein objects such as doors in an image are used as a scale reference. -see [0047].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include in the system and method of determining body characteristics based on images of Rugel the ability to use a door as an object of known size as a scale reference that appears in a captured image as taught by Walker since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 10, 20 have similar limitations found in claim 2 above, and therefore are rejected by the same art and rationale.
15. Claims 4, 12 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 9, 17 of U.S. Patent No. 10438292 (Rugel) in view of Bartlett et al. (WO 2014/124014 A1).
Regarding claim 4. the language within these claims can be found in claim 1 of US Patent 10438292 (Rugel), claim 1 however, does not disclose wherein a verification of an identity of the person further includes: receiving a captured image of a government issued identification; and verifying the identity of the person by comparing the captured image of the government issued identification to additional information. Bartlett however, disclose a capture device used to authenticate a user by taking an image of documentation of a user such as a driver’s license or passport to be cross referenced to verify the identity of a user.-[00105].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include in the system and method of determining body characteristics based on images of Rugel the ability to use a capture device to authenticate a user by taking an image of documentation of a user such as a driver’s license or passport to be cross referenced to verify the identity of a user as taught by Bartlett since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 12 has similar limitations found in claim 4 above, and therefore is rejected by the same art and rationale.
16. Claims 5-7, 13-15, 18-19 rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 9, 17 of U.S. Patent No. 10,438,292 (Rugel) in view of Aggarwal et al.(US 2015/0156419).
Regarding claim 5, the language within this claim can be found in claim 1 of US Patent 10,438,292 (Rugel), claim 1 however, does not disclose evaluate the captured at least one image against one or more predefined quality criteria; and generate and transmit an outcome of the evaluation of the captured at least one image against the one or more predefined quality criteria.
Aggarwal however, teaches an image analysis module to determine image clarity and image quality in Fig. 1,item 112, transmit outcome (image quality feedback item 124), [0031]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include in the system and method of determining body characteristics based on images of Rugel the ability to evaluate captured image against predefined quality criteria and generate and transmit an outcome as taught by Aggarwal since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 6, the language within this claim can be found in claim 1 of US Patent 10438292 (Rugel), claim 1 however, does not disclose wherein the one or more predefined quality criteria includes the captured at least one image meeting a degree of clarity; whether a requisite number of captured images have been received; whether an instructed angle of the captured at least one image was met; whether one or more requested portions of the person was captured in the captured at least one image; or any combination thereof. Aggarwal, degree of clarity [0032], movement of camera and/or the scene [0042];camera focus and motion of image [0045].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include in the system and method of determining body characteristics based on images of Rugel the ability to evaluate captured image against predefined quality criteria and determine degree of clarity, camera focus as taught by Aggarwal since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Re-claim 7, the language within this claim can be found in claim 1 of US Patent 10,438,292 (Rugel), claim 1 however, does not disclose receive one or more notifications indicative of the outcome of the evaluation that the captured at least one image did not meet the one or more predefined quality criteria; and re-capture one or more additional images of the person and the object in accordance with the one or more notifications. Aggarwal however, discloses immediate feedback on quality of image sent to user and system permits recapture of the images not meeting quality criteria-[0031],[0033].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include in the It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include in the system and method of determining body characteristics based on images of Rugel the ability to provide immediate feedback on quality of image sent to user and system permits recapture of the images not meeting quality criteria as taught by Aggarwal since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 13-15 have similar limitations found in claims 5-7 above, and therefore are rejected by the same art and rationale.
Claims 18-19 have similar limitations found in claims 5 and 7 above, and therefore are rejected by the same art and rationale.
17. Claims 1-4, 8-12, 16-17, 20 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4, 7-9,11-13, 17-18, 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,263,698. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims speak to determining body characteristics and BMI based on captured images in response to request for insurance products.
Regarding claims 1, 9, 16, the language in these claims can be found within claims 1, 9, 17 of U.S. Patent 11,263,698. Claims 1, 9, 17 of U.S. Patent 11263698 teaches limitations omitted from claims 1, 9, 16 of the instant application. It would have been obvious to omit the limitations because omission of an element and its function is obvious if the function of the element is not desired. See Ex parte Wu, 10 USPQ 2031 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989) (Claims at issue were directed to a method for inhibiting corrosion on metal surfaces using a composition consisting of epoxy resin, petroleum sulfonate, and hydrocarbon diluent. The claims were rejected over a primary reference which disclosed an anticorrosion composition of epoxy resin, hydrocarbon diluent, and polybasic acid salts wherein said salts were taught to be beneficial when employed in a freshwater environment, in view of secondary references which clearly suggested the addition of petroleum sulfonate to corrosion inhibiting compositions. The Board affirmed the rejection, holding that it would have been obvious to omit the polybasic acid salts of the primary reference where the function attributed to such salt is not desired or required, such as in compositions for providing corrosion resistance in environments which do not encounter fresh water.). See also In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 144 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1965) (Omission of additional framework and axle which served to increase the cargo carrying capacity of prior art mobile fluid carrying unit would have been obvious if this feature was not desired.); and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (deleting a prior art switch member and thereby eliminating its function was an obvious expedient)..
Regarding claims 2-4, the language in this claim can be found within claims 2-4 of U.S. Patent 11,263,698.
Regarding claim 8, the language in this claim can be found within claims 7-8 of U.S. Patent 11,263,698.
Regarding claims 10-12, the language in this claim can be found within claims 11-13 of U.S. Patent 11,263,698.
Regarding claim 17, the language in this claim can be found within claim 18 of U.S. Patent 11,263,698.
Regarding claim 20, the language in this claim can be found within claim 20 of U.S. Patent 11,263,698.
18. Claims 5-7, 13-15, 18-19 rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 9, 17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,263,698 (Rugel) in view of Aggarwal et al.(US 2015/0156419).
Regarding claim 5, the language within this claim can be found in claim 1 of US Patent 11,263,698 (Rugel), claim 1 however, does not disclose evaluate the captured at least one image against one or more predefined quality criteria; and generate and transmit an outcome of the evaluation of the captured at least one image against the one or more predefined quality criteria.
Aggarwal however, teaches an image analysis module to determine image clarity and image quality in Fig. 1,item 112, transmit outcome (image quality feedback item 124), [0031]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include in the system and method of determining body characteristics based on images of Rugel the ability to evaluate captured image against predefined quality criteria and generate and transmit an outcome as taught by Aggarwal since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 6, the language within this claim can be found in claim 1 of US Patent 11,263,698 (Rugel), claim 1 however, does not disclose wherein the one or more predefined quality criteria includes the captured at least one image meeting a degree of clarity; whether a requisite number of captured images have been received; whether an instructed angle of the captured at least one image was met; whether one or more requested portions of the person was captured in the captured at least one image; or any combination thereof. Aggarwal, degree of clarity [0032], movement of camera and/or the scene [0042];camera focus and motion of image [0045].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include in the system and method of determining body characteristics based on images of Rugel the ability to evaluate captured image against predefined quality criteria and determine degree of clarity, camera focus as taught by Aggarwal since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Re-claim 7, the language within this claim can be found in claim 1 of US Patent 11,263,698 (Rugel), claim 1 however, does not disclose receive one or more notifications indicative of the outcome of the evaluation that the captured at least one image did not meet the one or more predefined quality criteria; and re-capture one or more additional images of the person and the object in accordance with the one or more notifications. Aggarwal however, discloses immediate feedback on quality of image sent to user and system permits recapture of the images not meeting quality criteria-[0031],[0033].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include in the It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include in the system and method of determining body characteristics based on images of Rugel the ability to provide immediate feedback on quality of image sent to user and system permits recapture of the images not meeting quality criteria as taught by Aggarwal since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 13-15 have similar limitations found in claims 5-7 above, and therefore are rejected by the same art and rationale.
Claims 18-19 have similar limitations found in claims 5 and 7 above, and therefore are rejected by the same art and rationale.
19. Claims 1-4, 8-12, 16-17, 20 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,710,189. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims speak to determining body characteristics and BMI based on captured images in response to request for insurance products.
Regarding claims 1, 9, 16 the language in these claims can be found within claims 1, 9, 17-18 of U.S. Patent 11,710,189. Claims 1, 9, 17-18 of U.S. Patent 11,710,189 teaches limitations omitted from claims 1, 9, 16 of the instant application. It would have been obvious to omit the limitations because omission of an element and its function is obvious if the function of the element is not desired. See Ex parte Wu, 10 USPQ 2031 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989) (Claims at issue were directed to a method for inhibiting corrosion on metal surfaces using a composition consisting of epoxy resin, petroleum sulfonate, and hydrocarbon diluent. The claims were rejected over a primary reference which disclosed an anticorrosion composition of epoxy resin, hydrocarbon diluent, and polybasic acid salts wherein said salts were taught to be beneficial when employed in a freshwater environment, in view of secondary references which clearly suggested the addition of petroleum sulfonate to corrosion inhibiting compositions. The Board affirmed the rejection, holding that it would have been obvious to omit the polybasic acid salts of the primary reference where the function attributed to such salt is not desired or required, such as in compositions for providing corrosion resistance in environments which do not encounter fresh water.). See also In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 144 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1965) (Omission of additional framework and axle which served to increase the cargo carrying capacity of prior art mobile fluid carrying unit would have been obvious if this feature was not desired.); and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (deleting a prior art switch member and thereby eliminating its function was an obvious expedient)..
Regarding claims 2-4, the language in this claim can be found within claims 2-4 of U.S. Patent 11,710,189.
Regarding claim 8, the language in this claim can be found within claim 7 and 8 of U.S. Patent 11,710,189.
Regarding claims 10-12, the language in this claim can be found within claims 11-13 of U.S. Patent 11,710,189.
Regarding claim 17, the language in this claim can be found within claim 18 of U.S. Patent 11,710,189.
Regarding claim 20, the language in this claim can be found within claim 20 of U.S. Patent 11,710,189.
20. Claims 5-7, 13-15, 18-19 rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 9, 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11, 710,189 (Rugel) in view of Aggarwal et al.(US 2015/0156419).
Regarding claim 5, the language within this claim can be found in claim 1 of US Patent 11,710,189 (Rugel), claim 1 however, does not disclose evaluate the captured at least one image against one or more predefined quality criteria; and generate and transmit an outcome of the evaluation of the captured at least one image against the one or more predefined quality criteria.
Aggarwal however, teaches an image analysis module to determine image clarity and image quality in Fig. 1,item 112, transmit outcome (image quality feedback item 124), [0031]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include in the system and method of determining body characteristics based on images of Rugel the ability to evaluate captured image against predefined quality criteria and generate and transmit an outcome as taught by Aggarwal since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 6, the language within this claim can be found in claim 1 of US Patent 11,710,189 (Rugel), claim 1 however, does not disclose wherein the one or more predefined quality criteria includes the captured at least one image meeting a degree of clarity; whether a requisite number of captured images have been received; whether an instructed angle of the captured at least one image was met; whether one or more requested portions of the person was captured in the captured at least one image; or any combination thereof. Aggarwal, degree of clarity [0032], movement of camera and/or the scene [0042];camera focus and motion of image [0045].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include in the system and method of determining body characteristics based on images of Rugel the ability to evaluate captured image against predefined quality criteria and determine degree of clarity, camera focus as taught by Aggarwal since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Re-claim 7, the language within this claim can be found in claim 1 of US Patent 11,710,189 (Rugel), claim 1 however, does not disclose receive one or more notifications indicative of the outcome of the evaluation that the captured at least one image did not meet the one or more predefined quality criteria; and re-capture one or more additional images of the person and the object in accordance with the one or more notifications. Aggarwal however, discloses immediate feedback on quality of image sent to user and system permits recapture of the images not meeting quality criteria-[0031],[0033].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include in the It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include in the system and method of determining body characteristics based on images of Rugel the ability to provide immediate feedback on quality of image sent to user and system permits recapture of the images not meeting quality criteria as taught by Aggarwal since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 13-15 have similar limitations found in claims 5-7 above, and therefore are rejected by the same art and rationale.
Claims 18-19 have similar limitations found in claims 5 and 7 above, and therefore are rejected by the same art and rationale.
21. Claims 1-4, 8-12, 16-17, 20 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4, 7-12, 16-17, 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,165,217. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims speak to determining body characteristics and BMI based on captured images in response to request for insurance products.
Regarding claims 1, 9, 16, the language in these claims can be found within claims 1, 9, 16 of U.S. Patent 12,165,217. Claims 1, 9, 16 of U.S. Patent 12,165,217 teaches limitations omitted from claims 1, 9, 16 of the instant application.
It would have been obvious to omit the limitations because omission of an element and its function is obvious if the function of the element is not desired. See Ex parte Wu, 10 USPQ 2031 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989) (Claims at issue were directed to a method for inhibiting corrosion on metal surfaces using a composition consisting of epoxy resin, petroleum sulfonate, and hydrocarbon diluent. The claims were rejected over a primary reference which disclosed an anticorrosion composition of epoxy resin, hydrocarbon diluent, and polybasic acid salts wherein said salts were taught to be beneficial when employed in a freshwater environment, in view of secondary references which clearly suggested the addition of petroleum sulfonate to corrosion inhibiting compositions. The Board affirmed the rejection, holding that it would have been obvious to omit the polybasic acid salts of the primary reference where the function attributed to such salt is not desired or required, such as in compositions for providing corrosion resistance in environments which do not encounter fresh water.). See also In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 144 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1965) (Omission of additional framework and axle which served to increase the cargo carrying capacity of prior art mobile fluid carrying unit would have been obvious if this feature was not desired.); and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (deleting a prior art switch member and thereby eliminating its function was an obvious expedient).
Regarding claims 2-4, the language in these claims can be found within claims 2-4 of U.S. Patent 12,165,217.
Regarding claim 8, the language in this claim can be found within claims 7-8 of U.S. Patent 12,165,217.
Regarding claims 10-12, the language in these claims can be found within claims 10-12 of U.S. Patent 12,165,217.
Regarding claim 17, the language in this claim can be found within claim 17 of U.S. Patent 12,165,217.
Regarding claim 20, the language in this claim can be found within claim 19 of U.S. Patent 12,165,217.
22. Claims 5-7, 13-15, 18-19 rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 9, 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,165,217 (Rugel) in view of Aggarwal et al.(US 2015/0156419).
Regarding claim 5, the language within this claim can be found in claim 1 of US Patent 12,165,217 (Rugel), claim 1 however, does not disclose evaluate the captured at least one image against one or more predefined quality criteria; and generate and transmit an outcome of the evaluation of the captured at least one image against the one or more predefined quality criteria.
Aggarwal however, teaches an image analysis module to determine image clarity and image quality in Fig. 1,item 112, transmit outcome (image quality feedback item 124), [0031]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include in the system and method of determining body characteristics based on images of Rugel the ability to evaluate captured image against predefined quality criteria and generate and transmit an outcome as taught by Aggarwal since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 6, the language within this claim can be found in claim 1 of US Patent 12,165,217 (Rugel), claim 1 however, does not disclose wherein the one or more predefined quality criteria includes the captured at least one image meeting a degree of clarity; whether a requisite number of captured images have been received; whether an instructed angle of the captured at least one image was met; whether one or more requested portions of the person was captured in the captured at least one image; or any combination thereof. Aggarwal, degree of clarity [0032], movement of camera and/or the scene [0042];camera focus and motion of image [0045].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include in the system and method of determining body characteristics based on images of Rugel the ability to evaluate captured image against predefined quality criteria and determine degree of clarity, camera focus as taught by Aggarwal since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Re-claim 7, the language within this claim can be found in claim 1 of US Patent 12,165,217 (Rugel), claim 1 however, does not disclose receive one or more notifications indicative of the outcome of the evaluation that the captured at least one image did not meet the one or more predefined quality criteria; and re-capture one or more additional images of the person and the object in accordance with the one or more notifications. Aggarwal however, discloses immediate feedback on quality of image sent to user and system permits recapture of the images not meeting quality criteria-[0031],[0033].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include in the It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include in the system and method of determining body characteristics based on images of Rugel the ability to provide immediate feedback on quality of image sent to user and system permits recapture of the images not meeting quality criteria as taught by Aggarwal since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 13-15 have similar limitations found in claims 5-7 above, and therefore are rejected by the same art and rationale.
Claims 18-19 have similar limitations found in claims 5 and 7 above, and therefore are rejected by the same art and rationale.
Conclusion
23. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELDA MILEF whose telephone number is (571)272-8124. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30am-3:30pm; Friday 7am-12pm.
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, Bennett Sigmond can be reached at (303)297-4411. 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.
/ELDA G MILEF/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694