DETAILED ACTION
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application Nos. 62/838,046 and 17036589, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of claim 11 of this application. Claim 11’s limitations are not supported in the original disclosures of the priority documents. Specifically, the priority documents do not recite, “the second image is received from a second image sensor.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to mental processing abstract ideas without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1 recite(s): “process the image to identify at least one item of currency in the area; determine an error condition that prevents identification of the at least one item of currency; and when the error condition is determined, provide output to remedy the condition”, which can be reasonably be interpreted as a human observer viewing a displayed image of currency and mentally determining processing it for currency type or validity determination via visual perception and mentally determining the error condition via visual perception and verbally communicating instructions to remedy the error condition.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because additional elements of:
“A system for evaluating currency in areas using image processing, comprising: a non-transitory storage medium that stores instructions; and a processor that executes the instructions to” are generically recited computer elements that do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer; and
“receive an image of an area from an image sensor” are generically recited insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because additional elements of:
“A system for evaluating currency in areas using image processing, comprising: a non-transitory storage medium that stores instructions; and a processor that executes the instructions to” are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f); and
“receive an image of an area from an image sensor” are insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering.
Depending claims do not remedy these deficiencies:
Claims 2-7 further recite limitations that can reasonably be interpreted as a human observer mentally performing the determinations to output verbal instructions as indicated in each claims.
Claim 8 further recites limitations that are additional elements that are insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering.
Claim(s) 9 recite(s) “process the first image; and upon determining that identification of the at least one item of currency is not possible using the first image, provide output that enables identification of the at least one item of currency using a second image”, which can be reasonably be interpreted as a human observer viewing a displayed image of currency and mentally determining processing it for currency type or validity determination via visual perception and mentally determining the error condition via visual perception and verbally communicating instructions to remedy the error condition.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because additional elements of:
“A system for evaluating currency in areas using image processing, comprising: a non-transitory storage medium that stores instructions; and a processor that executes the instructions to” are generically recited computer elements that do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer; and
“receive a first image of at least one item of currency in an area from an image sensor” are generically recited insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because additional elements of:
“A system for evaluating currency in areas using image processing, comprising: a non-transitory storage medium that stores instructions; and a processor that executes the instructions to” are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f); and
“receive a first image of at least one item of currency in an area from an image sensor” are insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering.
Depending claims do not remedy these deficiencies:
Claims 10, 11, and 13 further recite limitations that are additional elements that are insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering.
Claims 12 and 14-16 further recite limitations that can reasonably be interpreted as a human observer mentally performing the determinations to output verbal instructions as indicated in each claims.
Claim(s) 17 recite(s) “A method for evaluating currency in areas using image processing, comprising: processing the first image; and upon determining that identification of the at least one item of currency is not possible using the first image, generating and providing a corrective remedy; processing the second image”, which can be reasonably be interpreted as a human observer viewing a displayed image of currency and mentally determining processing it for currency type or validity determination via visual perception and mentally determining the error condition via visual perception and verbally communicating instructions to remedy the error condition so as to follow-up the mental processing after the corrective memory.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because additional elements of:
“utilizing a non-transitory storage medium to store instructions; using an image sensor to capture a first image of at least one item of currency in a subject area; utilizing a processor to execute the instructions for” are generically recited computer elements that do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer;
“receiving the first image of the at least one item of currency in the subject area” are generically recited insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering; and
“after the corrective remedy has been undertaken, causing the image sensor to capture a second image of the at least one item of currency in a subject area” are generically recited insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because additional elements of:
“utilizing a non-transitory storage medium to store instructions; using an image sensor to capture a first image of at least one item of currency in a subject area; utilizing a processor to execute the instructions for” are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f);
“receiving the first image of the at least one item of currency in the subject area” are insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering; and
“after the corrective remedy has been undertaken, causing the image sensor to capture a second image of the at least one item of currency in a subject area” are insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering.
Depending claims do not remedy these deficiencies:
Claims 18-21 further recite limitations that can reasonably be interpreted as a human observer mentally performing the determinations to output verbal instructions as indicated in each claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-10 and 12-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2017/0193727 A1 (Van Horn).
As per claim 1, Van Horn teaches a system for evaluating currency in areas using image processing, comprising:
a non-transitory storage medium that stores instructions (Van Horn:
paras 5, 119, 124: software; para 57: “processor 36 is configured by software 38 (stored, for example, in a storage device 42 or memory 44”); and
a processor that executes the instructions to (Van Horn: paras 5, 57: processing circuitry; paras 5, 6, 9, 12, 57, 83, 84, 88, 119, 124: processor):
receive an image of an area from an image sensor (Van Horn: Fig. 12 (shown below): primarily 610-640 and associated text in paras 85-87 (shown below)
Figs. 1 and 2 (shown below): mainly 10 and 15;
PNG
media_image1.png
1195
475
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
822
1115
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
135
986
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
456
990
media_image4.png
Greyscale
);
process the image to identify at least one item of currency in the area (Van Horn: Fig. 12 (shown below): primarily 650 and associated text in paras 85-87 (shown below);
Also see: Fig. 10: primarily 450-460; Fig. 11: primarily 525; Fig. 14: primarily 850-870; Fig. 15: primarily 935; Fig. 16: primarily 1050; Fig. 17: primarily 1150; Fig. 18: primarily 1240-1260);
determine an error condition that prevents identification of the at least one item of currency; and when the error condition is determined, provide output to remedy the condition (Van Horn:
Fig. 12 (shown below): primarily 650-670;
PNG
media_image5.png
1068
662
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
885
621
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
702
665
media_image7.png
Greyscale
: see that, as stated in para 86, the steps 610-670 of Fig. 12, culminating in providing positioning feedback in step 670, are repeated until the positioning problems are corrected. The subsequent image capture and image processing are the capture and processing of a second image.
Also see: para 13: “The indicator signals may also indicate that a portion of the currency item is obscured”; para 23: “the validation process may include steps for providing feedback (e.g., audible, visual, or tactile) to help align the currency item and/or the CVAL device and/or to determine if the currency item is obscured in the digital images”).
As per claim 2, Van Horn teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the output includes an indication of a location of an obstruction that at least partially obscures the at least one item of currency (Van Horn: See arguments and citations offered in rejecting claim 1 above: primarily Fig 12 and paras 85-87).
As per claim 3, Van Horn teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the output specifies to turn over the at least one item of currency (Van Horn: See arguments and citations offered in rejecting claim 1 above: primarily Fig 12 and paras 85-87).
As per claim 4, Van Horn teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the output specifies to reorient the at least one item of currency (Van Horn: See arguments and citations offered in rejecting claim 1 above: primarily Fig 12 and paras 85-87;
also see para 11: “The validation device may also include means for providing feedback to a user. This feedback may (i) help a user position the item/validation-device”).
As per claim 5, Van Horn teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the output specifies to remove an obstruction to the at least one item of currency (Van Horn: See arguments and citations offered in rejecting claim 1 above: primarily Fig 12 and paras 85-87;
paras 11, 23, 85-87, 243-249).
As per claim 6, Van Horn teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the processor further executes instructions to:
notify personnel proximate to the at least one item of currency that a condition prevents identification of the at least one item of currency (Van Horn: See arguments and citations offered in rejecting claim 1 above: primarily Fig 12 and paras 85-87).
As per claim 7, Van Horn teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the processor further executes instructions to:
notify personnel proximate to the at least one item of currency of a corrective remedy (Van Horn: See arguments and citations offered in rejecting claim 1 above: primarily Fig 12 and paras 85-87).
As per claim 8, Van Horn teaches the system of claim 7, wherein the processor further executes instructions to:
receive an image of the area from the image sensor after the corrective remedy is performed (Van Horn: See arguments and citations offered in rejecting claim 1 above: primarily Fig 12 and paras 85-87;
also see para 11: “The validation device may also include means for providing feedback to a user. This feedback may (i) help a user position the item/validation-device”; para 23: “the validation process may include steps for providing feedback (e.g., audible, visual, or tactile) to help align the currency item and/or the CVAL device and/or to determine if the currency item is obscured in the digital images”).
As per claim 9, Van Horn teaches a system for evaluating currency in areas using image processing, comprising:
a non-transitory storage medium that stores instructions (Van Horn:
paras 5, 119, 124: software; para 57: “processor 36 is configured by software 38 (stored, for example, in a storage device 42 or memory 44”); and
a processor that executes the instructions to (Van Horn: paras 5, 57: processing circuitry; paras 5, 6, 9, 12, 57, 83, 84, 88, 119, 124: processor):
receive a first image of at least one item of currency in an area from an image sensor (Van Horn: Fig. 12 (shown below): primarily 610-640 and associated text in paras 85-87 (shown below);
Figs. 1 and 2 (shown below): mainly 10 and 15; paras 38 and 78 (both shown below));
process the first image (Van Horn: Fig. 12 (shown below): primarily 650 and associated text in paras 85-87 (shown below);
Also see: Fig. 10: primarily 450-460; Fig. 11: primarily 525; Fig. 14: primarily 850-870; Fig. 15: primarily 935; Fig. 16: primarily 1050; Fig. 17: primarily 1150; Fig. 18: primarily 1240-1260); and
upon determining that identification of the at least one item of currency is not possible using the first image, provide output that enables identification of the at least one item of currency using a second image (Van Horn:
Fig. 12 (shown below): primarily 650-670;
PNG
media_image5.png
1068
662
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
885
621
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
702
665
media_image7.png
Greyscale
: see that, as stated in para 86, the steps 610-670 of Fig. 12, culminating in providing positioning feedback in step 670, are repeated until the positioning problems are corrected. The subsequent image capture and image processing are the capture and processing of a second image.
Also see: para 13: “The indicator signals may also indicate that a portion of the currency item is obscured”; para 23: “the validation process may include steps for providing feedback (e.g., audible, visual, or tactile) to help align the currency item and/or the CVAL device and/or to determine if the currency item is obscured in the digital images”).
As per claim 10, Van Horn teaches the system of claim 9, wherein the second image is received from the image sensor (Van Horn: See arguments and citations offered in rejecting claim 9 above: primarily Fig 12 and paras 85-87).
As per claim 12, Van Horn teaches the system of claim 9, wherein the processor further executes instructions to:
notify personnel proximate to the at least one item of currency of a corrective remedy (Van Horn: See arguments and citations offered in rejecting claim 9 above: primarily Fig 12 and paras 85-87).
As per claim 13, Van Horn teaches the system of claim 12, wherein the processor further executes instructions to:
receive an image of the area from the image sensor after the corrective remedy is performed (Van Horn: See arguments and citations offered in rejecting claim 9 above: primarily Fig 12 and paras 85-87).
As per claim 14, Van Horn teaches the system of claim 9, wherein the output includes an indication of a location of an obstruction that at least partially obscures the at least one item of currency (Van Horn: See arguments and citations offered in rejecting claim 9 above: primarily Fig 12 and paras 85-87).
As per claim 15, Van Horn teaches the system of claim 9, wherein the output specifies to turn over the at least one item of currency (Van Horn: See arguments and citations offered in rejecting claim 9 above: primarily Fig 12 and paras 85-87).
As per claim 16, Van Horn teaches the system of claim 9, wherein the output specifies to reorient the at least one item of currency (Van Horn: See arguments and citations offered in rejecting claim 9 above: primarily Fig 12 and paras 85-87).
As per claim 17, Van Horn teaches a method for evaluating currency in areas using image processing, comprising:
utilizing a non-transitory storage medium to store instructions (Van Horn:
paras 5, 119, 124: software; para 57: “processor 36 is configured by software 38 (stored, for example, in a storage device 42 or memory 44”);
using an image sensor to capture a first image of at least one item of currency in a subject area (Van Horn: Fig. 10: primarily 430, 440; Fig. 11: primarily 515; *Fig. 12: primarily 630-640; Fig. 14: primarily 830-840; Fig. 15: primarily 930; Fig. 16: primarily 1030; Fig. 17: primarily 1120; Fig. 18: primarily 1230-1260; para 6: “captures image (or images)”; para 8: “Capturing multiple images of an item (e.g., banknote)”; para 18: “a banknote (i.e., bill, currency, etc.) holder may be used with the validation device to facilitate the imaging of the currency item”);
utilizing a processor to execute the instructions for (Van Horn: paras 5, 57: processing circuitry; paras 5, 6, 9, 12, 57, 83, 84, 88, 119, 124: processor):
receiving the first image of the at least one item of currency in the subject area (Van Horn: Fig. 12 (shown below): primarily 610-640 and associated text in paras 85-87 (shown below);
Figs. 1 and 2 (shown below): mainly 10 and 15; paras 38 and 78 (both shown below));
processing the first image (Van Horn: Fig. 12 (shown below): primarily 650 and associated text in paras 85-87 (shown below);
Also see: Fig. 10: primarily 450-460; Fig. 11: primarily 525; Fig. 14: primarily 850-870; Fig. 15: primarily 935; Fig. 16: primarily 1050; Fig. 17: primarily 1150; Fig. 18: primarily 1240-1260); and
upon determining that identification of the at least one item of currency is not possible using the first image, generating and providing a corrective remedy; after the corrective remedy has been undertaken, causing the image sensor to capture a second image of the at least one item of currency in a subject area; and processing the second image (Van Horn:
Fig. 12 (shown below): primarily 650-670;
PNG
media_image5.png
1068
662
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
885
621
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
702
665
media_image7.png
Greyscale
: see that, as stated in para 86, the steps 610-670 of Fig. 12, culminating in providing positioning feedback in step 670, are repeated until the positioning problems are corrected. The subsequent image capture and image processing are the capture and processing of a second image.
Also see: para 13: “The indicator signals may also indicate that a portion of the currency item is obscured”; para 23: “the validation process may include steps for providing feedback (e.g., audible, visual, or tactile) to help align the currency item and/or the CVAL device and/or to determine if the currency item is obscured in the digital images”).
As per claim 18, Van Horn teaches the method of claim 17, wherein the corrective remedy includes an indication of a location of an obstruction that at least partially obscures the at least one item of currency (Van Horn: See arguments and citations offered in rejecting claim 17 above: primarily Fig 12 and paras 85-87).
As per claim 19, Van Horn teaches the method of claim 17, wherein the corrective remedy specifies to turn over the at least one item of currency (Van Horn: See arguments and citations offered in rejecting claim 17 above: primarily Fig 12 and paras 85-87).
As per claim 20, Van Horn teaches the method of claim 17, wherein the output specifies to reorient the at least one item of currency (Van Horn: See arguments and citations offered in rejecting claim 17 above: primarily Fig 12 and paras 85-87).
As per claim 21, Van Horn teaches the method of claim 17, further comprising utilizing the processor for:
notifying personnel proximate to the at least one item of currency of the corrective remedy (Van Horn: See arguments and citations offered in rejecting claim 17 above: primarily Fig 12 and paras 85-87).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Horn as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Official Notice.
As per claim 11, Van Horn teaches the system of claim 9, wherein:
the image sensor is a first image sensor (Van Horn: See arguments and citations offered in rejecting claim 9 above: primarily Fig 12 and paras 85-87)
Van Horn does not teach the second image is received from a second image sensor. Examiner provides Official Notice that these limitations were well known prior to filing.
One of ordinary skill in the art, prior to filing, would have recognized the advantage of robust imaging using different sensor types, fields of view, or points of view. The teachings of the prior art could have been incorporated into Van Horn in that the second image is received from a second image sensor.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Atiba Fitzpatrick whose telephone number is (571) 270-5255. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10:00am-6pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Bee can be reached on (571) 270-5183. The fax phone number for Atiba Fitzpatrick is (571) 270-6255.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Atiba Fitzpatrick
/ATIBA O FITZPATRICK/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2677
Prosecution Insights