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 .
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 1-2, 5-6, 8-10, 12-15, 18, 21, 24, 27, 30, 32-33, 35 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In regarding claim 1
Step 1:
Claim 1 is directed towards a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter which is/are statutory subject matter.
Step 2A:
Claim 1 is directed to a method/system/manufacture executed by one or more processor for a fenestration replacement measuring system. The system involves in a control circuit; and a solid object sensor, wherein the solid object sensor is in electrical communication with the control circuit; wherein the fenestration replacement measuring system is configured to detect physical features of an existing fenestration unit using data from the solid object sensor; measure one or more dimensions of the existing fenestration unit using the physical features; and estimate one or more dimensions needed for fenestration replacement using the measured dimensions.
Prong 1:The limitations listed below covers performance of the limitation that could be carried out in mental processes.
a control circuit; and a solid object sensor, wherein the solid object sensor is in electrical communication with the control circuit:
Involves in acquiring data using the solid object sensor which is data gathering step that doesn’t add anything beyond the abstract idea of processing information.wherein the fenestration replacement measuring system is configured to detect physical features of an existing fenestration unit using data from the solid object sensor:
This limitation could be performed mentally because a person could look at a window image and detect physical features, such as corners or edges. Hence, this operation could be performed mentally, implying that the claim is directed to a mental process.measure one or more dimensions of the existing fenestration unit using the physical features:
This limitation could be performed mentally because a person could look at a window image and measure the dimensions of the existing window unit using the physical features. Hence, this operation could be performed mentally, implying that the claim is directed to a mental process.
and estimate one or more dimensions needed for fenestration replacement using the measured dimensions:
This limitation could be performed mentally because a person could look at a window image and estimate the dimensions for a window replacement using the measured dimensions. Hence, this operation could be performed mentally, implying that the claim is directed to a mental process.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation by a mental process, then it falls within the “Mental process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite additional elements – an apparatus (claim 1), is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computing component / software application.
Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception such as improvements to another technology or technical field, or other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
For a human, he/she will look at a window image and estimate dimensions needed for window replacement. The recitation of use of memory and processor to execute instruction doesn’t disclose any inventive concept since it merely invokes the use of generic computer to perform tasks that could otherwise be performed mentally.
Thus, the recited generic additional hardware/software (e.g., processor, machine-readable medium) perform no more than their basic computer function. In the court of Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Intl, the court cites a “data processing system” with a “communications controller” and “data storage unit,” for example, —is purely functional and generic (page 16). In the specification of instant application, processor, machine-readable medium are general computer components ([0023] in publication). Generic computer-implementation of a method is not a meaningful limitation that alone can amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Moreover, when viewed as a whole with such additional element considered as an ordered combination, claims modified by adding a generic computer are nothing more than a purely conventional computerized implementation of an idea in the general field of computer processing and do not provide significantly more than an abstract idea.
Consequently, the identified additional elements taken into consideration individually or in combination fails to amount of significantly more than the abstract idea above.
Regarding claims 2, 5-6, 8-10, 12-15, 18, 21, 24, 27, 30, 32-33, 35 and 37, these are dependent claims that recite limitations that extend the mental processes of their respective base claim and therefore also fall under mental steps as explained in their base claim.
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.
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 1 provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 1 of copending Application No. 18212549 (reference application). This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
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.
Claim 9 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.
The term “adjacent” in claim 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “adjacent” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear what locations are indicated as "adjacent the sill".
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 5, 14-15, 18 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ripley (US Patent Pub. No.: US 2020/0143453 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ripley teaches a fenestration replacement measuring system (AUTOMATED WINDOW ESTIMATE SYSTEMS AND METHODS. Title) comprising: a control circuit (The memory 216 may be configured to store data and instructions that, when executed, may cause the processor 214 to determine the cost of window replacement or repair. [0037]); and a solid object sensor (In some embodiments, a computing device may include a camera and a processor coupled to the camera. Abstract), wherein the solid object sensor is in electrical communication with the control circuit (The window replacement estimate application 201 may further include a camera module 318 that, when executed, may cause the processor 304 to control the camera 308 to capture one or more images of a window. [0055]); wherein the fenestration replacement measuring system (The memory 306 may store data and may store instructions that, when executed, may facilitate acquisition of an estimate for window repair and replacement based on a picture of the window. [0054]) is configured to detect physical features of an existing fenestration unit (In one example, the operator may align a dot or reticle with a corner of the window and touch the touchscreen display to place an object, for example, at the corner of the window. [0030]) using data from the solid object sensor (The memory 306 may further include a window size module 326 that, when executed, may cause the processor 304 to determine a size of a window based, at least in part, on the image data. [0057]); measure one or more dimensions of the existing fenestration unit (In a particular embodiment, the computing device 110 may be used to optically measure dimensions of the window 104 by orienting a camera of the computing device 110 toward a window to capture one or more images of the window. [0030]) using the physical features (In one example, the operator may align a dot or reticle with a corner of the window and touch the touchscreen display to place an object, for example, at the corner of the window. [0030]); and estimate one or more dimensions needed for fenestration replacement using the measured dimensions (The processor may be further configured to automatically determine costs of repair or replacement of the window in response to determining the dimensions. Abstract).
Regarding claim 2, Ripley teaches the fenestration replacement measuring system of claim 1, the physical features comprising at least one selected from the group consisting of spatial points, edges, surfaces, and corners (In a particular embodiment, the computing device 110 may be used to optically measure dimensions of the window 104 by orienting a camera of the computing device 110 toward a window to capture one or more images of the window. In one example, the operator may align a dot or reticle with a corner of the window and touch the touchscreen display to place an object, for example, at the corner of the window. [0030]. Note: the claim language is interpreted as disjunctive.).
Regarding claim 5, Ripley teaches the fenestration replacement measuring system of claim 1, the one or more dimensions needed for fenestration replacement comprising at least one selected from the group consisting of a rough opening size (Further, the memory 216 may include a window size module 236 that, when executed, may cause the processor 214 to determine dimensions of a window (or a plurality of windows) based on the image data and based on the determined distance. [0042]. The determined size, at this point, may reflect an initial size estimate, which may be refined using shape objects. [0042]) and a frame size (Note: the claim language is interpreted as disjunctive.).
Regarding claim 14, Ripley teaches the fenestration replacement measuring system of claim 1, wherein the fenestration replacement measuring system is configured to create a dimensional model (AUTOMATED WINDOW ESTIMATE SYSTEMS AND METHODS. Title) for a replacement fenestration unit (The memory 306 may store data and may store instructions that, when executed, may facilitate acquisition of an estimate for window repair and replacement based on a picture of the window. [0054]) using at least one of the measured one or more dimensions of the existing fenestration unit (In a particular embodiment, the computing device 110 may be used to optically measure dimensions of the window 104 by orienting a camera of the computing device 110 toward a window to capture one or more images of the window. [0030]) and the estimated one or more dimensions needed for fenestration replacement (The processor may be further configured to automatically determine costs of repair or replacement of the window in response to determining the dimensions. Abstract).
Regarding claim 15, Ripley teaches the fenestration replacement measuring system of claim 1, wherein the fenestration replacement measuring system is configured to accept user input from a system user regarding the physical features (In one example, the operator may align a dot or reticle with a corner of the window and touch the touchscreen display to place an object, for example, at the corner of the window. [0030]) and incorporate the same (In one example, the operator may align a dot or reticle with a corner of the window and touch the touchscreen display to place an object, for example, at the corner of the window. [0030]) when generating a measurement of the existing fenestration unit (In a particular embodiment, the computing device 110 may be used to optically measure dimensions of the window 104 by orienting a camera of the computing device 110 toward a window to capture one or more images of the window. [0030]) or an estimate of the dimensions needed for a fenestration replacement (The processor may be further configured to automatically determine costs of repair or replacement of the window in response to determining the dimensions. Abstract).
Regarding claim 18, Ripley teaches the fenestration replacement measuring system of claim 15, the user input comprising locations of physical features and/or points regarding the same (In one example, the operator may align a dot or reticle with a corner of the window and touch the touchscreen display to place an object, for example, at the corner of the window. [0030]).
Regarding claim 24, Ripley teaches the fenestration replacement measuring system of claim 1, wherein the fenestration replacement measuring system is configured to detect physical features of a replacement fenestration unit after installation (In one example, the operator may align a dot or reticle with a corner of the window and touch the touchscreen display to place an object, for example, at the corner of the window. [0030]) using data from the solid object sensor (The memory 306 may further include a window size module 326 that, when executed, may cause the processor 304 to determine a size of a window based, at least in part, on the image data. [0057]) and measure one or more dimensions of the replacement fenestration unit using the physical features (In a particular embodiment, the computing device 110 may be used to optically measure dimensions of the window 104 by orienting a camera of the computing device 110 toward a window to capture one or more images of the window. In one example, the operator may align a dot or reticle with a corner of the window and touch the touchscreen display to place an object, for example, at the corner of the window. [0030]).
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ripley (US Patent Pub. No.: US 2020/0143453 A1) hereinafter Ripley, in view of Xie (China Patent Publication Number: CN 110675592 A), hereinafter Xie.
Regarding claim 6, Ripley teaches the fenestration replacement measuring system of claim 1, wherein the fenestration replacement measuring system is configured to detect physical features of an existing fenestration unit using data from the solid object sensor (In a particular embodiment, the computing device 110 may be used to optically measure dimensions of the window 104 by orienting a camera of the computing device 110 toward a window to capture one or more images of the window. In one example, the operator may align a dot or reticle with a corner of the window and touch the touchscreen display to place an object, for example, at the corner of the window. [0030]).
Ripley does not teach the following limitations as further recited, but Xie further teaches while pointing upward at an angle of at least 30 degrees relative to a horizontal plane (The image capturing device 100 is used for capturing image information, where the image information refers to image information captured by the upward camera 120 for different floors of the residential building 400. Page 8 5th paragraph. The angle can be controlled to be at least 30 degrees relative to a horizontal plane by adjusting the distance between the camera and the building.).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ripley to incorporate the teachings of Xie to point the camera upward at an angle of at least 30 degrees relative to a horizontal plane in order to measure the dimension of a window higher up from the ground based on the image.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ripley (US Patent Pub. No.: US 2020/0143453 A1) hereinafter Ripley, in view of Zaibel (US Patent Pub. No.: US 2022/0329737 A1), hereinafter Zaibel.
Regarding claim 8, Ripley teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated in claim 1 except for the following limitations as further recited. However, Zaibel teaches wherein the fenestration replacement measuring system is configured to interpolate portions of the physical features (For example, extrapolation may include tracking a feature (e.g., an edge) to an unmeasured area and the predicting its location and/or continuation in the unmeasured area. [0099]) that are at least partially obscured (identifying at least a first key feature in the snapshot or extrapolating the feature to an occluded location. [0014]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ripley to incorporate the teachings of Zaibel to interpolate portions of the physical features that are at least partially obscured in order to improve measurement accuracy.
Regarding claim 9, Ripley in the combination teaches the fenestration replacement measuring system of claim 8, wherein the physical features are located adjacent the sill of the existing fenestration unit (In one example, the operator may align a dot or reticle with a corner of the window (which reads on “located adjacent the sill”) and touch the touchscreen display to place an object, for example, at the corner of the window. [0030]).
Zaibel in the combination further teaches wherein the physical features that are at least partially obscured are located adjacent the object (In some embodiments, the controller may recognize when a feature is occluded. For example, part of the edge 104a may be blocked by an occlusion 102 (e.g., a couch and/or a concave subspace). [0080]. In other words, a physical feature (i.e., the edge 104a) that is partially obscured is located adjacent the object (i.e., the wall).
PNG
media_image1.png
526
524
media_image1.png
Greyscale
).
Claims 30 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ripley (US Patent Pub. No.: US 2020/0143453 A1) hereinafter Ripley, in view of iScanner (How to Measure a Window for Replacements and Blinds Without Mistakes, https://iscanner.com/how-to-measure-a-window/, 29 sep 2023), hereinafter iScanner.
Regarding claim 30, Ripley teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated in claim 1 except for the following limitations as further recited. However, iScanner teaches wherein the fenestration replacement measuring system is configured to automatically take horizontal measurements of a feature at multiple locations (7. Always take three measurements for the window’s width and length: – top, middle, and bottom for the width – left, center, and right for the length. Page 3 1st paragraph) and compare a midpoint measurement with at least one of a top measurement and a bottom measurement (8. Use the narrowest of the measurements for the width and the shortest for the length when you order new windows. Page 3 1st paragraph. It is common knowledge that the measurements at different locations can be compared to ensure consistency.).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ripley to incorporate the teachings of iScanner to automatically take horizontal measurements of a feature at multiple locations and compare a midpoint measurement with at least one of a top measurement and a bottom measurement in order to ensure the measurement consistency.
Regarding claim 21, iScanner in the combination teaches the fenestration replacement measuring system of claim 1, wherein the one or more dimensions are measured with an accuracy of within 1/8 inch at a distance of 20 feet (5. Measure to the nearest 1/8 of an inch. Page 3 1st paragraph. It is common knowledge each measurement has its associated accuracy based on the measurement condition.).
Claims 27 and 32-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ripley (US Patent Pub. No.: US 2020/0143453 A1) hereinafter Ripley, in view of The Window Experts (How To Measure A Replacement Window, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ood19wYrGc, May 7, 2021), hereinafter The Window Experts.
Regarding claim 27, Ripley teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated in claim 1 except for the following limitations as further recited. However, The Window Experts teaches wherein the fenestration replacement measuring system is configured to identify at least one of warping, color distortion or irregularities, and out of square conditions of an existing fenestration (3:37 if it’s out of square or not if I see. 3:48 put it in the corner and measure tight and then do the opposite and that’ll tell you if it’s square okey.), or frame, or rough opening.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ripley to incorporate the teachings of The Window Experts to identify out of square conditions of an existing fenestration in order to improve the measurement accuracy.
Regarding claim 32, The Window Experts in the combination teaches the fenestration replacement measuring system of claim 1, wherein the fenestration replacement measuring system is configured to identify an exterior wall material (0:25 here’s how you measure a window and a brick opening).
Regarding claim 33, The Window Experts in the combination teaches the fenestration replacement measuring system of claim 32, wherein the fenestration replacement measuring system configured to initiate review by a specialist or project manager (0:08 with jeremy’s help how to measure your own window.) if a predetermined exterior wall material is identified (0:25 here’s how you measure a window and a brick opening.).
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ripley (US Patent Pub. No.: US 2020/0143453 A1) hereinafter Ripley, in view of Xu (Implementing augmented reality technology to measure structural changes across time, ARXIV ID: 2111.02555, Publication Date: 2021-11-03), hereinafter Xu.
Regarding claim 35, Ripley teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated in claim 1 except for the following limitations as further recited. However, Xu teaches wherein the fenestration replacement measuring system is configured to display an overlay of measurements on an actual image of a fenestration (The measurement text is rendered in 3D space and scaled relative to the user’s distance to maintain font readability with different lengths. As shown in Figure 11, the font size for the measurements automatically keeps the same despite measuring distance. Page 11 last paragraph.
PNG
media_image2.png
464
858
media_image2.png
Greyscale
).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ripley to incorporate the teachings of Xu to display an overlay of measurements on an actual image of a window in order to help user to conduct a fast assessment of the window measurement.
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ripley (US Patent Pub. No.: US 2020/0143453 A1) hereinafter Ripley, in view of cam-v3 (Can Cam v3 See Through Window Screen? https://forums.wyze.com/t/can-cam-v3-see-through-window-screen/235776, July 2022), hereinafter cam-v3.
Regarding claim 37, Ripley teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated in claim 1 except for the following limitations as further recited. However, cam-v3 teaches wherein the fenestration replacement measuring system is configured to detect the presence of a screen on the existing fenestration unit using data from the solid object sensor (I had the V2 cameras pressed up against the double pane glass window that had screen on the outside. The screen clearly affected the video. Could I see what was outside? Yes. Was it clear? No. Page 1 last paragraph).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ripley to incorporate the teachings of cam-v3 to detect the presence of a screen on the existing fenestration unit using data from the solid object sensor in order to obtain more accurate measurement.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 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, and also after overcoming the provisional statutory double patenting rejection.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the closest prior arts of record teach the fenestration replacement measuring system of claim 1. However, none of them alone or in any combination teaches wherein the fenestration replacement measuring system is configured to cross-reference dimensions of the existing fenestration unit as measured from an interior side with those as measured from an exterior side as specified in claim 10.
Claim 12 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the closest prior arts of record teach the fenestration replacement measuring system of claim 1. However, none of them alone or in any combination teaches wherein the fenestration replacement measuring system is configured to calculate differences in dimensions of the existing fenestration unit as measured from an interior side with those as measured from an exterior side as specified in claim 12.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEI ZHAO whose telephone number is (703)756-1922. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 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, VU LE can be reached at (571)272-7332. 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.
/LEI ZHAO/Examiner, Art Unit 2668
/VU LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2668
Prosecution Insights