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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The United States Patent & Trademark Office appreciates the application that is submitted by the inventor/assignee. The United States Patent & Trademark Office reviewed the following application and has made the following comments below.
Priority
This application claims benefit under 35 U.S.C 119(e) of U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 63/627,699, filed 01/31/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/16/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph [0026], on line 4, it appears a period is missing at the end of the sentence “shape elements of the feature”. The Examiner suggests adding a period at the end of the sentence to read “shape elements of the feature.”
In paragraph [00104], on line 9, “two facets 602, F04” is suggested to read “two facets 602, 604”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, 12-18, and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Regev (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20160232432 A1, hereafter referred to as Regev) in view of Navot et al. (U.S. Patent Pub No. 20210374401 A1, hereafter referred to as Navot).
Regarding Claim 1, Regev teaches a method of identifying gemstones (Abstract, Regev teaches a method for identification of gemstones.), the method comprising: obtaining a set of measurements of a gemstone (Paragraphs [0063], [0067], Regev teaches generating measurements which can comprise a quantification of one or more identification features of a gemstone. Identification features can comprise external features of the gemstone such as shape, face angles, light scattering properties, blemishes, etc. Identifying features can also comprise internal features of a gemstone such as clarity, critical angle, pavilion facet angles, etc.) including measurements regarding vertices (Paragraphs [0092], [0095], Regev teaches quantified measurements include distances between edges and vertices where edges meet and the extent to which vertices with edges are really a single point.), edges (Paragraph [0095], Regev teaches measuring angles everywhere edges meet, measuring whether edges reach their vertex, and measuring the pairwise distances between intersection points when 4 edges meet.), and/or facets of the gemstone (Paragraphs [0063-65], Fig. 2A, Regev teaches external features can be features associated with the surface of the gemstone, such as facet junctions. Measurements of one or more facets on a gemstone can include shape of the face, dimensions of the face (e.g., height, width, and/or side length of each side of a boundary of the face), total number of facets on the gemstone, and/or relative facet angle between a first and second face. See Fig. 2A (below), examples of facet measurements of gemstone such as height and width. Under Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI), the Examiner interprets “and/or” to mean only one of the types of measurements (regarding vertices or edges or facets) are required to meet the claim limitation. However, citations for each have been included for each for completeness.);
PNG
media_image1.png
360
472
media_image1.png
Greyscale
grouping subsets of the measurements into multiple feature sets (Paragraphs [0067], [0063], Regev teaches the identifying features comprise internal and external features of a gemstone. Internal features can comprise clarity of the gemstone and/or measurements of one or more inclusions, an inclusion can be any material or mineral contained in the gemstone. Other internal features that can be measured/quantified include twinning, critical angle, pavilion facet angles and junctions, and culet proportion. External features can be features associated with the surface of the gemstone. External features comprise shape of the gemstone, face angles on the gemstone, light scattering properties of the gemstone, light reflectivity properties of the gemstone, facet junctions, table proportions, blemishes, chips, nicks, etc. Under BRI, the Examiner interprets the “multiple feature sets” to be (1) internal features and (2) external features. “Subsets” of the measurements are categorized into (1) internal features (examples of internal features: measurements of inclusions, critical angle, pavilion facet angle, etc.) and (2) external features (examples of external features: face angles, facet functions, etc.).), each of the feature sets defining a feature of the gemstone (Paragraph [0067], Regev teaches identifying features comprise internal and external features of the gemstone. Under BRI, the Examiner interprets the two “feature sets” defining a feature of the gemstone to be (1) internal features and (2) external features. Each “feature set” defines a feature of the gemstone, for example, (1) internal features include measurements of inclusions, critical angle, pavilion facet angle, etc. and (2) external features include face angles, facet functions, etc.); and identifying one or more matching gemstone records in a database (Paragraphs [0027], [0096-97], [0089], Regev teaches a matching module configured to recognize the test gemstone in a signature database. Recognizing a test gemstone comprises matching the unique signature with a plurality of candidate signatures in a signature database.) by comparing the features of the gemstone to one or more gemstone records (Paragraph [0092], [0114], Regev teaches using various quantified measurements to compare a reference diamond with a test diamond. Examples of quantified measurements include size, the degree to which a table is centered over a point, height, angles between edges, distances between edges and vertices where the edges meet, the extent to which vertices with edges are really a single point, lines (including line orientation, intersections between lines, intersections between lines and other shape elements, convergence of lines at a point, and divergence of lines from a point), cuts (including cut orientation, cut angle, interactions between cuts, and intersection between cuts and shape elements).) stored in the database (Paragraphs [0072-73], Regev teaches matching one or more images of the gemstone with one or more images of a known gemstone stored in the library. External and internal characteristics between the image of the gemstone and an image of a gemstone with the same code.), each of the gemstone records (Paragraph [0008], Regev teaches a signature database of the plurality of gemstones.) including multiple recorded features (Paragraph [0073], Regev teaches matching external and internal characteristics between the image of the gemstone and an image of the gemstone with the same code. The image processing program may require that an image of one or more internal or external features of a gemstone match with a library image. Under BRI, the Examiner interprets (1) internal features and (2) external features to be “multiple” recorded features since “multiple” implies a minimum of two features.) representing record feature sets consisting of one or more measurements (Paragraph [0067], Regev teaches identifying features comprise internal and external features of the gemstone. Under BRI, the Examiner interprets the “feature sets” to be (1) internal features and (2) external features. Each “feature set” defines a feature of the gemstone, for example, (1) internal features include measurements of inclusions, critical angle, pavilion facet angle, etc. and (2) external features include face angles, facet functions, etc. The Examiner interprets each feature “set” (1) internal and (2) external, each consist of “one or more measurements. Such as, for (1) internal: measurements of inclusions, critical angle, and so on. For (2) external: face angles, facet junctions, and so on.), and wherein comparing the features of the gemstone to the one or more gemstone records (Paragraphs [0097], [0089], [0078], Regev teaches comparing the signature of the test gemstone with a plurality of signatures in the signature database. Recognizing a test gemstone comprises matching the unique signature with a plurality of candidate signatures in the signature database.) includes comparing (Abstract, Paragraphs [0003], [0092], [0095], [0097], Regev teaches the quantification of one or more internal and/or external features of the gemstone can be compared to a previously labeled and stored characterization. Further, various quantified measurements (features) can be used to compare a reference diamond with a test diamond. Examples include size, the degree to which a table is centered over a point, height, angles between edges, distances between edges and vertices where the edges meet, etc.) to identify multiple matching features (Paragraph [0073], Regev teaches matching external and internal characteristics between the image of the gemstone (to be validated) and an image of a gemstone with the same code. The image processing program requires that an image of one or more internal or external features of a gemstone match with a library image within a match percentage range (such as within 95%, for example). The Examiner interprets “one or more” internal or external features to be “multiple” matching features. Further, under BRI, “internal” and “external” features are types of “features”.).
Regev does not explicitly disclose comparing each the features of the gemstone to at least one of the recorded features in the database.
Navot is in the same field of art of performing gemstone identification by calculating a matching criterion between a first gemstone and multiple gemstones stored in a database. Further, Navot discloses comparing each the features of the gemstone to at least one of the recorded features in the database (Paragraphs [0102], [0120], [0015], [0057], Figs. 4d & 4e, Navot teaches calculating the matching score can comprise calculating matching scores for each pair of corresponding areas in respective composite images. For example, referring to Figs. 4d-4e, matching score can be calculated for the pairs of rings 46-1/47-1, 46-2/47-2, 46-3/47-3. A match can be determined when a normalized cross-correlation score of each pair meets a respective predefined criterion. The gemstones can be considered as different when at least one pair of areas has a cross-correlation score that does not meet the predefined criterion. A match can be determined when a certain function of matching scores calculated for all pairs meets a predefined matching criterion. Unique identifications can be stored in one or more databases accessible to a computer providing gemstone identification.).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
249
504
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Regev by comparing each concentric area portion of the gemstone to the respective concentric area portion in the reference gemstone that is taught by Navot, to make the invention that separately calculates matching scores for each pair of concentric areas to identify the gemstone; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the references since comparing each of the concentric areas separately to the respective concentric areas on the reference gemstone enables a different matching criterion to be set for each area (feature) based on previous experiences and experimental results (Navot, Paragraphs [0015], [0101]), which may enable more accurate matching of gemstones since gemstones vary widely in appearance and properties, and no single feature can be used to definitively identify a gemstone.
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 2, Regev in view of Navot teaches the method of claim 1, wherein: each of the recorded features in the database includes a recorded feature set stored in the database (Paragraphs [0061], [0095], Regev teaches the one or more memory storage devices can comprise a library of gemstone fingerprints/signatures. Features can then be compared. For example, difference between angles vs. size vs. an edge not quite reaching its vertex are features of signatures that can be compared.), each of the recorded feature sets is associated with at least one of the gemstone records (Paragraphs [0015], [0096-97], Regev teaches the signature database comprises signatures, each said signature uniquely representing a gemstone.), and each of at least some of the recorded feature sets is associated with multiple gemstone records in the database (Paragraph [0097], Regev teaches comparing the signature of the test gemstone with a plurality of signatures in the signature database. Recognizing a test gemstone comprises matching the unique signature with a plurality of candidate signatures in the signature database.); and each gemstone record in the database has a corresponding control number stored in the database (Paragraph [0072], Regev teaches a “code” which refers to a reference name or number (list of numbers and letters, a barcode, or an apriltag code) that is given to a specific gemstone for which images exist in the image library. The code can be etched onto the item.); and further comprising: scoring at least some of the matching gemstone records based on their similarity to the gemstone to generate similarity scores (Paragraph [0073], Regev teaches in some cases, the image processing program requires that an image of one or more internal or external features of a gemstone match with a library image with within about 70%, 75%, 80%, 85%, 90%, 95%, 99%, 99.9%, 99.99%, or 100% with respect to the library image. In some cases, the image processing program requires that an image of one or more internal or external features of a gemstone match with a library image in a range of about 70% to about 85%, about 80% to about 95%, about 85% to 100%, or about 90% to about 100%. The Examiner interprets “match percentage” to by synonymous to similarity score.); and populating a list with the control numbers of at least some of the plurality of gemstone records (Paragraph [0077], Regev teaches displaying a tabular list of all items with an object name and description.)
Regev does not explicitly disclose (populating a list with the control numbers) based on the similarity scores.
Navot is in the same field of art of unique identification of gemstones based on matching the gemstone with a unique identification. Further, Navot teaches (populating a list with the control numbers) based on the similarity scores (Paragraphs [0094-101], Navot teaches the first unique identification associated with a first gemstone and the second unique identification associated with a second gemstone can be generated in advance, pre-stored, and later obtained in the storage location(s). A matching score for the first and second unique identifications is calculated. The computer determines, in accordance with the matching score, if the first unique identification matches the second unique identification. The first gemstone can be determined as being the same to the second gemstone when the matching score meets a predefined matching criterion.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Regev by creating a list of matching gemstone records based on a similarity/matching score threshold that is taught by Navot, to make the invention that determines whether a “test” gemstone matches a “reference” or pre-stored gemstone record in order to perform gemstone identification; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the references to visually display to the user which stored (reference) gemstones have the highest shared similarity with the test gemstone to identify whether a gemstone is positively matched with any of the stored reference gemstones (Regev, Paragraph [0073-74]).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
In regards to Claim 4, Regev in view of Navot teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the step of obtaining measurements of the gemstone includes obtaining measurements of relative or absolute positional or angular relationships between vertices, edges, and/or facets of the gemstone (Paragraphs [0092], [0064], [0094], Regev teaches obtaining various quantified measurements to compare a reference diamond with a test diamond. Examples of quantified measurements include angles between edges, distances between edges and vertices where the edges meet, the extent to which vertices with edges are really a single point, etc. Further, a facet angle may be calculated, which is the relative angle between a first facet and a second facet. The Examiner interprets “distances between edges and vertices where the edges meet” is an example of a measurement of fixed positional relationship between vertices and edges. Further, under BRI, the Examiner interprets “between” and “and/or” to mean only two of the three listed items (vertices, edges, facets) are required to meet the claim limitation.).
In regards to Claim 6, Regev in view of Navot discloses the method of claim 1, wherein none of the features includes a distance measurement or an angular measurement of any portion of a girdle of the gemstone (Paragraphs [0009], [0015], Navot teaches dividing the composite image into a plurality of concentric areas, for each given area, generating a per-set area of rotation-invariant values informative of rotational cross-correlation relationship between a given area and its rotation versions; and generating unique identification corresponding to all per area sets of rotation-invariant values respectively generated; respectively to each of the concentric areas. The matching score is calculated based on a matching criterion between pairs of corresponding concentric areas. Further, Navot’s disclosure does not include measuring the distance or angular measurement of the girdle of the gemstone to identify a matching gemstone.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Regev in view of Navot by excluding any measurements of the girdle for gemstone identification/matching that is taught by Navot, to make the invention that identifies the matching gemstone based on features excluding any features related to the girdle; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the references since calculations regarding the facets of the girdle are generally mere mathematical approximations and are not used in identification because they represent such small facets that are only approximations of facets and are therefore not accurate (Applicant’s Specification, Paragraph [0098]). Therefore, by excluding measurements regarding the facet for matching/identification, accuracy in identification may be improved.
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
In regards to Claim 7, Regev in view of Navot teaches the method of claim 1, wherein each of at least some of the feature sets includes the length of a first one of the edges (Paragraph [0064-65], Fig. 2A, Regev teaches generating measurement of one or more facets of a gemstone. Examples of the measurements include dimensions of the face (e.g., height, width, and/or side length of each side of a boundary of the face. Under BRI, the Examiner interprets the “side length of each side of a boundary” to be a length of an “edge”. See annotated Fig. 2A below.)
PNG
media_image3.png
365
455
media_image3.png
Greyscale
and an angle between adjacent facets that meet along the first one of the edges (Paragraph [0064], Regev teaches a first facet and a second facet can form an angle relative to each other called a facet angle.).
In regards to Claim 12, Regev in view of Navot teaches the method of claim 1, wherein each feature comprises one or more values specifying measurements of the feature set corresponding to the feature (Paragraphs [0067], [0063], Regev teaches internal features that can be measured or quantified such as clarity, inclusions, twinning, critical angle, pavilion facet angles and junctions, and/or culet proportion and external features such as shape, face angle, light scattering properties, light reflectivity properties, facet junctions, table proportions, blemishes, chips, nicks, etc.).
In regards to Claim 13, Regev in view of Navot teaches the method of claim 1, wherein each of the features is part of a taxonomy of features classifying each feature by feature type (Abstract, Paragraphs [0067], [0063], Regev teaches one or more internal and/or external characteristics/properties/identifying features of a gemstone. Internal features comprise clarity of the gemstone and/or measurements of one or more inclusions, twinning, critical angle, pavilion facet angles and junctions, and culet proportion. External features can be features associated with the surface of the gemstone. External features may comprise shape, face angles, light scattering properties, light reflectivity properties, facet junctions, table proportions, blemishes, chips, nicks, a natural, and/or surface reaching feathers. The Examiner interprets each of the features is a part of a “taxonomy” since each feature/measurement is categorized/classified into either “external feature” or “internal feature” groups by their type.).
In regards to Claim 14, Regev in view of Navot teaches the method of claim 1, wherein identifying the one or more matching gemstone records further includes defining a metric (Paragraph [0073], Regev teaches a match percentage.) used to determine which of the recorded features in the database are within a threshold similarity (Paragraph [0073], Regev teaches in some cases, the image processing program requires that an image of one or more internal or external features of a gemstone match with a library image with within about 70%, 75%, 80%, 85%, 90%, 95%, 99%, 99.9%, 99.99%, or 100% with respect to the library image. In some cases, image processing program requires that an image of one or more internal or external features of a gemstone match with a library image in a range of about 70% to about 85%, about 80% to about 95%, about 85% to 100% or about 90% to about 100%.) to each of the features of the gemstone (Paragraphs [0073], [0067], [0063], Regev teaches the match percentage can be based on a match between one or more qualities, pixel values, RGB values, brightness, or other quantitative images values measured by the image processing program. Internal features can comprise clarity of the gemstone and/or measurements of one or more inclusions, an inclusion can be any material or mineral contained in the gemstone. Other internal features that can be measured and/or quantified include, but not limited to, twinning, critical angle, pavilion facet angles and junctions, and/or culet proportion if available. External features can be features that are associated with the surface of the gemstone. In some cases, external features comprise shape of the gemstone, face angles on the gemstone, light scattering properties of the gemstone, light reflectivity properties of the gemstone, facet junctions, table proportions, blemishes, chips, nicks, a natural, and/or surface reaching feathers.).
In regards to Claim 15, Regev in view of Navot discloses the method of claim 14, wherein the metric comprises any of a Manhattan metric and a Euclidian metric that is pre-scaled such that a distance, in a coordinate space (Paragraph [0088], Regev teaches to locally improve a line segment from (x1, y1) to (x2, y2), a first step can create a unit vector in the direction of the line segment. For example, the vector (x2-x1, y2-y1) can be divided by its Euclidean length. This vector can be denoted (u1, u2). Under BRI, the Examiner interprets “any of a” to mean either the Manhattan or Euclidean metric is required to meet the limitation.), between one of the feature sets and a corresponding recorded feature set is below a threshold value (Paragraphs [0088], [0084-85], Regev teaches a distance threshold “t” can be defined, which will start at 1.0. The process comprises an optimization where minimizing errors can be repeated with an initial threshold of 1.0 until no improvement in error minimization is found. The process can be repeated again but with another threshold, such as 0.5. The analysis can keep repeating the process with various threshold values until the threshold t is small enough. Examples of a small threshold t are t<⅕, t<⅛, t< 1/10, t< 1/16, or t< 1/20.).
In regards to Claim 16, Regev in view of Navot discloses the method of claim 2, further comprising: for each control number populated in the list (Paragraph [0072], Regev teaches a code such as a list of numbers and letters, a barcode, or an apriltag code present on the item. In some cases, the code refers to a reference name or number that is given to a specific gemstone for which images exist in the image library. Codes are stored in library information.), assigning a label specifying whether the corresponding gemstone record is predicted to be among the matching gemstone records (Paragraph [0073], Fig. 5, Regev teaches if a gemstone is a positive match the user interface can display a positive match screen (503). The positive match screen can comprise a checkmark. If a gemstone is not a positive match the user interface can display a negative match screen (504). The negative match screen can comprise an “X”.)
PNG
media_image4.png
587
468
media_image4.png
Greyscale
based on the similarity scores computed (Paragraph [0073], Regev teaches matching external and internal characteristics between the image of the gemstone and an image of the gemstone with the same code. In some cases, the image processing program requires that the image of one or more internal or external features of a gemstone match with the library image with within about 70%, 75%, 80%, 85%, 90%, 95%, 99%, 99.9%, 99.99%, or 100% with respect to the library image.); and causing display of the list with the labels (Paragraph [0077], Fig. 7, Regev teaches displaying a tabular list (701) of all items with an object name and description.).
In regards to Claim 17, Regev in view of Navot discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the similarity score is based on the quantity of matching features relative to a total quantity of recorded features of the corresponding gemstone record (Paragraph [0073], Regev teaches the image processing program requires that an image of one or more internal or external features of a gemstone match with a library image with within about 70%, 75%, 80%, 85%, 90%, 95%, 99%, 99.9%, 99.99%, or 100% with respect to the library image.).
In regards to Claim 18, Regev in view of Navot discloses the method of claim 2, further comprising: generating, for each gemstone record, a relative score (Paragraph [0073], Regev teaches determining a match percentage. The match percentage can be based on a match between one or more qualities, pixel values, RGB values, brightness, or other quantitative image values measured by the image processing program.) based on the similarity scores (Paragraph [0073], Regev teaches the image processing program requires that an image of one or more internal or external features of a gemstone match with a library image with within about 70%, 75%, 80%, 85%, 90%, 95%, 99%, 99.9%, 99.99%, or 100% with respect to the library image. The Examiner interprets the match percentage to be a “similarity score” since it quantifies the match between a image of the gemstone and the library (gemstone) image.) for multiple gemstone records in the database (Paragraph [0097], Regev teaches recognizing a test gemstone comprises matching the unique signature with a plurality of candidate signatures in a signature database.).
In regards to Claim 21, Regev teaches a non-transitory computer readable media with computer-executable instructions thereon configured to instruct a processor to perform a series of steps (Paragraph [0009], Regev teaches a non-transitory storage media comprising instructions executable by a processor to create an image processing application.) comprising: obtaining a set of measurements of a gemstone (Paragraph [0063], Regev teaches generating measurements which can comprise a quantification of one or more identification features of a gemstone. Identification features can comprise external features of the gemstone.) including measurements regarding vertices (Paragraphs [0092], [0095], Regev teaches quantified measurements include distances between edges and vertices where edges meet, the extent to which vertices with edges are really a single point.), edges (Paragraph [0095], Regev teaches measuring angles everywhere edges meet, measuring whether edges reach their vertex, and measuring the pairwise distances between intersection points when 4 edges meet.), and/or facets of the gemstone (Paragraphs [0063-65], Regev teaches external features can be features associated with the surface of the gemstone, such as facet junctions. Measurements of one or more facets on a gemstone can include shape of the face, dimensions of the face (e.g., height, width, and/or side length of each side of a boundary of the face), total number of facets on the gemstone, and/or relative facet angle between a first and second face. Under Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI), the Examiner interprets “and/or” to mean only one of the measurements (vertices or edges or facets) are required to meet the claim limitation. However, citations have been included for each for completeness.); grouping subsets of the measurements into multiple feature sets (Paragraphs [0067], [0063], Regev teaches the identifying features comprise internal and/or external features of a gemstone. Internal features can comprise clarity of the gemstone and/or measurements of one or more inclusions, an inclusion can be any material or mineral contained in the gemstone. Other internal features that can be measured/quantified include twinning, critical angle, pavilion facet angles and junctions, and culet proportion. External features can be features associated with the surface of the gemstone. External features comprise shape of the gemstone, face angles on the gemstone, light scattering properties of the gemstone, light reflectivity properties of the gemstone, facet junctions, table proportions, blemishes, chips, nicks, etc. Under BRI, the Examiner interprets the “multiple feature sets” to be (1) internal features and (2) external features. Subsets of the measurements are categorized into (1) internal features (examples of internal features: measurements of inclusions, critical angle, pavilion facet angle, etc.) and (2) external features (examples of external features: face angles, facet functions, etc.).), each of the feature sets defining a feature of the gemstone (Paragraph [0067], Regev teaches identifying features comprise internal and external features of the gemstone. Under BRI, the Examiner interprets the “feature sets” to be (1) internal features and (2) external features. Each “feature set” defines a feature of the gemstone, for example, (1) internal features include measurements of inclusions, critical angle, pavilion facet angle, etc. and (2) external features include face angles, facet functions, etc.); and identifying one or more matching gemstone records in a database (Paragraphs [0027], [0096-97], [0089], Regev teaches a matching module configured to recognize the test gemstone in a signature database. Recognizing a test gemstone comprises: matching the unique signature with a plurality of candidate signatures in a signature database.) by comparing the features of the gemstone to one or more gemstone records (Paragraph [0092], [0114], Regev teaches using various quantified measurements to compare a reference diamond with a test diamond. Examples of quantified measurements include size, the degree to which a table is centered over a point, height, angles between edges, distances between edges and vertices where the edges meet, the extent to which vertices with edges are really a single point, lines (including line orientation, intersections between lines, intersections between lines and other shape elements, convergence of lines at a point, and divergence of lines from a point), cuts (including cut orientation, cut angle, interactions between cuts, and intersection between cuts and shape elements).) stored in the database (Paragraphs [0072-73], Regev teaches matching one or more images of the gemstone with one or more images of a known gemstone stored in the library. External and internal characteristics between the image of the gemstone and an image of a gemstone with the same code.), each of the gemstone records including multiple recorded features (Paragraph [0073], Regev teaches matching external and internal characteristics between the image of the gemstone and an image of the gemstone with the same code. The image processing program may require that an image of one or more internal or external features of a gemstone match with a library image. Under BRI, the Examiner interprets (1) internal features and (2) external features to be “multiple” recorded features since “multiple” implies at least two features.) representing record feature sets consisting of one or more measurements (Paragraph [0067], Regev teaches identifying features comprise internal and external features of the gemstone. Under BRI, the Examiner interprets the “feature sets” to be (1) internal features and (2) external features. Each “feature set” defines a feature of the gemstone, for example, (1) internal features include measurements of inclusions, critical angle, pavilion facet angle, etc. and (2) external features include face angles, facet functions, etc. The Examiner interprets each feature “set” (1) internal and (2) external, each consist of “one or more measurements. Such as, for (1) internal: measurements of inclusions, critical angle, and so on. For (2) external: face angles, facet junctions, and so on.), and wherein comparing the features of the gemstone to the one or more gemstone records (Paragraphs [0097], [0089], [0078], Regev teaches comparing the signature of the test gemstone with a plurality of signatures in the signature database. Recognizing a test gemstone comprises matching the unique signature with a plurality of candidate signatures in the signature database.) includes comparing (Abstract, Paragraphs [0003], [0092], [0095], [0097], Regev teaches the quantification of one or more internal and/or external features of the gemstone can be compared to a previously labeled and stored characterization. Further, various quantified measurements (features) can be used to compare a reference diamond with a test diamond. Examples include size, the degree to which a table is centered over a point, height, angles between edges, distances between edges and vertices where the edges meet, etc.) to identify multiple matching features (Paragraph [0073], Regev teaches matching external and internal characteristics between the image of the gemstone (to be validated) and an image of a gemstone with the same code. The image processing program requires that an image of one or more internal or external features of a gemstone match with a library image within a match percentage range (such as within 95%, for example). The Examiner interprets “one or more” internal or external features to be “multiple” matching features. Further, under BRI, internal and external features are types of “features”.).
Regev does not explicitly disclose comparing each the features of the gemstone to at least one of the recorded features in the database.
Navot is in the same field of art of performing gemstone identification by calculating a matching criterion between a first gemstone and multiple gemstones stored in a database. Further, Navot discloses comparing each the features of the gemstone to at least one of the recorded features in the database (Paragraphs [0102], [0120], [0015], [0057], Figs. 4d & 4e, Navot teaches calculating the matching score can comprise calculating matching scores for each pair of corresponding areas in respective composite images. For example, referring to Figs. 4d-4e, matching score can be calculated for the pairs of rings 46-1/47-1, 46-2/47-2, 46-3/47-3. A match can be determined when a normalized cross-correlation score of each pair meets a respective predefined criterion. The gemstones can be considered as different when at least one pair of areas has a cross-correlation score that does not meet the predefined criterion. A match can be determined when a certain function of matching scores calculated for all pairs meets a predefined matching criterion. Unique identifications can be stored in one or more databases accessible to a computer providing gemstone identification.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Regev by comparing each concentric area portion of the gemstone to the respective concentric area portion in the reference gemstone that is taught by Navot, to make the invention that separately calculates matching scores for each pair of concentric areas to identify the gemstone; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the references since comparing each of the concentric areas separately to the respective concentric areas on the reference gemstone enables a different matching criterion to be set for each area (feature) based on previous experiences and experimental results (Navot, Paragraphs [0015], [0101]), which may enable more accurate matching of gemstones since gemstones vary widely in appearance and properties, and no single feature can definitively identify a gemstone.
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
In regards to Claim 22, Regev in view of Navot teaches the non-transitory computer readable media of claim 21, wherein each of the recorded features in the database includes a recorded feature set stored in the database (Paragraphs [0061], [0095], Regev teaches the one or more memory storage devices can comprise a library of gemstone fingerprints/signatures. Features can then be compared. For example, difference between angles vs. size vs. an edge not quite reaching its vertex are features of signatures that can be compared.), each of the recorded feature sets is associated with at least one of the gemstone records (Paragraphs [0015], [0096-97], Regev teaches the signature database comprises signatures, each said signature uniquely representing a gemstone.), and each of at least some of the recorded feature sets is associated with multiple gemstone records in the database (Paragraph [0097], Regev teaches comparing the signature of the test gemstone with a plurality of signatures in the signature database. Recognizing a test gemstone comprises matching the unique signature with a plurality of candidate signatures in the signature database.); and each gemstone record in the database has a corresponding control number stored in the database (Paragraph [0072], Regev teaches a “code” which refers to a reference name or number (list of numbers and letters, a barcode, or an apriltag code) that is given to a specific gemstone for which images exist in the image library. The code can be etched onto the item.); and the step of identifying a matching gemstone record (Paragraph [0072], Regev teaches matching one or more images of the gemstone with one or more images of a known gemstone stored in the library.) includes: identifying, for each of the features of the gemstone (Paragraph [0102], Navot teaches a match can be determined when a normalized cross-correlation score of each pair meets a respective predefined criterion.), all recorded feature sets in the database (Paragraph [0072], Regev teaches the gemstone can be identified by matching one or more images of the gemstone with one or more images of a known gemstone stored in the library.) that match the feature set of the feature within a threshold similarity (Paragraph [0073], Regev teaches match percentage can be based on a match between one or more qualities. The image processing program requires that one or more internal or external features of a gemstone match with the library image with within about 70%, 75%, 80%, 85%, 90%, 95%, 99%, 99.9%, 99.99%, or 100% with respect to the library image.), and computing a similarity score (Paragraph [0073], Regev teaches a match percentage based on a match between one or more qualities, pixel values, RGB values, brightness, or other qualitative image values measured by the image processing program.) for each of a plurality of the gemstone records (Paragraph [0061], Regev teaches the library of gemstone fingerprints/signatures comprises at least 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55, 60, 65, 70, 75, 80, 85, 90, 95, 100, 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, 700, 800, 900, 1000, 5000, 10,000, 50,000, 100,000 gemstones. The gemstone image fingerprints/signatures can be provided to the image analysis program to positively identify a gemstone based on an image from the camera as matching a previously stored image fingerprint.) based on a quantity of the features of the gemstone that match recorded features of said gemstone records (Paragraph [0102], Navot teaches the gemstones are considered different when at least one of the pair of areas has a cross-correlation score that does not exceed the predefined criterion.); and the instructions further instruct the processor to (Paragraph [0009], Regev teaches computer instructions executable by a processor.) populate a list with the control numbers of at least some of the plurality of gemstone records (Paragraph [0077], Regev teaches displaying a tabular list of all items with an object name and description.), based on the similarity scores (Paragraphs [0094-101], Navot teaches the first unique identification associated with a first gemstone and the second unique identification associated with a second gemstone can be generated in advance, pre-stored, and later obtained in the storage location(s). A matching score for the first and second unique identifications is calculated. The computer determines, in accordance with the matching score, if the first unique identification matches the second unique identification. The first gemstone can be determined as being the same to the second gemstone when the matching score meets a predefined matching criterion.).
In regards to Claim 23, Regev teaches a system for analyzing gemstones (Paragraph [0008], Regev teaches a system for identifying and distinguishing a plurality of gemstones.), the system comprising: a computer (Paragraph [0003], Regev teaches a computer system.) with a processor (Paragraph [0061], Fig. 1, Regev teaches the computing device can comprise one or more processors (106).) and memory (Paragraph [0061], Fig. 1, Regev teaches the one or more processors can be in communication with one or more memory storage units (107). The memory storage units (107) can provide instructions for one or more programs that can be executed on the one or more processors (106).) configured to: obtain multiple images of a gemstone (Paragraph [0060], Regev teaches capturing multiple images of a gemstone configured at different settings and varying imaging angles.); derive a set of measurements from the images of the gemstone (Paragraphs [0063], [0114], Figs. 9A-9C, Regev teaches an image analysis program generates measurements from an image captured by the camera (104). Measurements may comprise a quantification of one or more identification features of a gemstone. See Figs. 9A-9C, the image analysis program identifies one or more facet junctions, table proportions, blemishes, chips, nicks, a natural, surface reaching feathers, inclusions, facets, and/or other features 904 of the stone 901.) including measurements regarding vertices (Paragraphs [0092], [0095], Regev teaches quantified measurements include distances between edges and vertices where edges meet, the extent to which vertices with edges are really a single point.), edges (Paragraph [0095], Regev teaches measuring angles everywhere edges meet, measuring whether edges reach their vertex, and measuring the pairwise distances between intersection points when 4 edges meet.), and/or facets of the gemstone (Paragraphs [0063-65], Regev teaches external features can be features associated with the surface of the gemstone, such as facet junctions. Measurements of one or more facets on a gemstone can include shape of the face, dimensions of the face (e.g., height, width, and/or side length of each side of a boundary of the face), total number of facets on the gemstone, and/or relative facet angle between a first and second face. Under Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI), the Examiner interprets “and/or” to mean only one of the measurements (vertices or edges or facets) are required to meet the claim limitation. However, citations have been included for completeness.); group subsets of the measurements into multiple feature sets (Paragraphs [0067], [0063], Regev teaches the identifying features comprise internal and/or external features of a gemstone. Internal features can comprise clarity of the gemstone and/or measurements of one or more inclusions, an inclusion can be any material or mineral contained in the gemstone. Other internal features that can be measured/quantified include twinning, critical angle, pavilion facet angles and junctions, and culet proportion. External features can be features associated with the surface of the gemstone. External features comprise shape of the gemstone, face angles on the gemstone, light scattering properties of the gemstone, light reflectivity properties of the gemstone, facet junctions, table proportions, blemishes, chips, nicks, etc. Under BRI, the Examiner interprets the “multiple feature sets” to be (1) internal features and (2) external features. Subsets of the measurements are categorized into (1) internal features (examples of internal features: measurements of inclusions, critical angle, pavilion facet angle, etc.) and (2) external features (examples of external features: face angles, facet functions, etc.).), each of the feature sets defining a feature of the gemstone (Paragraph [0067], Regev teaches identifying features comprise internal and external features of the gemstone. Under BRI, the Examiner interprets the “feature sets” to be (1) internal features and (2) external features. Each “feature set” defines a feature of the gemstone, for example, (1) internal features include measurements of inclusions, critical angle, pavilion facet angle, etc. and (2) external features include face angles, facet functions, etc.); and identify one or more matching gemstone records in a database (Paragraphs [0027], [0096-97], [0089], Regev teaches a matching module configured to recognize the test gemstone in a signature database. Recognizing a test gemstone comprises matching the unique signature with a plurality of candidate signatures in a signature database.) by comparing the features of the gemstone to one or more gemstone records (Paragraph [0092], [0114], Regev teaches using various quantified measurements to compare a reference diamond with a test diamond. Examples of quantified measurements include size, the degree to which a table is centered over a point, height, angles between edges, distances between edges and vertices where the edges meet, the extent to which vertices with edges are really a single point, lines (including line orientation, intersections between lines, intersections between lines and other shape elements, convergence of lines at a point, and divergence of lines from a point), cuts (including cut orientation, cut angle, interactions between cuts, and intersection between cuts and shape elements).) stored in the database (Paragraphs [0072-73], Regev teaches matching one or more images of the gemstone with one or more images of a known gemstone stored in the library. External and internal characteristics between the image of the gemstone and an image of a gemstone with the same code.), each of the gemstone records including multiple recorded features (Paragraph [0073], Regev teaches matching external and internal characteristics between the image of the gemstone and an image of the gemstone with the same code. The image processing program may require that an image of one or more internal or external features of a gemstone match with a library image. Under BRI, the Examiner interprets (1) internal features and (2) external features to be “multiple” recorded features since “multiple” implies at least two features.) representing record feature sets consisting of one or more measurements (Paragraph [0067], Regev teaches identifying features comprise internal and external features of the gemstone. Under BRI, the Examiner interprets the “feature sets” to be (1) internal features and (2) external features. Each “feature set” defines a feature of the gemstone, for example, (1) internal features include measurements of inclusions, critical angle, pavilion facet angle, etc. and (2) external features include face angles, facet functions, etc. The Examiner interprets each feature “set” (1) internal and (2) external, each consist of “one or more measurements. Such as, for (1) internal: measurements of inclusions, critical angle, and so on. For (2) external: face angles, facet junctions, and so on.), and wherein comparing the features of the gemstone to the one or more gemstone records (Paragraphs [0097], [0089], [0078], Regev teaches comparing the signature of the test gemstone with a plurality of signatures in the signature database. Recognizing a test gemstone comprises matching the unique signature with a plurality of candidate signatures in the signature database.) includes comparing (Abstract, Paragraphs [0003], [0092], [0095], [0097], Regev teaches the quantification of one or more internal and/or external features of the gemstone can be compared to a previously labeled and stored characterization. Further, various quantified measurements (features) can be used to compare a reference diamond with a test diamond. Examples include size, the degree to which a table is centered over a point, height, angles between edges, distances between edges and vertices where the edges meet, etc.) to identify multiple matching features (Paragraph [0073], Regev teaches matching external and internal characteristics between the image of the gemstone (to be validated) and an image of a gemstone with the same code. The image processing program requires that an image of one or more internal or external features of a gemstone match with a library image within a match percentage range (such as within 95%, for example). The Examiner interprets “one or more” internal or external features to be “multiple” matching features. Further, under BRI, internal and external features are types of “features”.).
Regev does not explicitly disclose comparing each the features of the gemstone to at least one of the recorded features in the database.
Navot is in the same field of art of performing gemstone identification by calculating a matching criterion between a first gemstone and multiple gemstones stored in a database. Further, Navot discloses comparing each the features of the gemstone to at least one of the recorded features in the database (Paragraphs [0102], [0120], [0015], [0057], Figs. 4d & 4e, Navot teaches calculating the matching score can comprise calculating matching scores for each pair of corresponding areas in respective composite images. For example, referring to Figs. 4d-4e, matching score can be calculated for the pairs of rings 46-1/47-1, 46-2/47-2, 46-3/47-3. A match can be determined when a normalized cross-correlation score of each pair meets a respective predefined criterion. The gemstones can be considered different when at least one pair of areas has a cross-correlation score that does not meet the predefined criterion. A match can be determined when a certain function of matching scores calculated for all pairs meets a predefined matching criterion. Unique identifications can be stored in one or more databases accessible to a computer providing gemstone identification.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Regev by comparing each concentric area portion of the gemstone to the respective concentric area portion in the reference gemstone that is taught by Navot, to make the invention that separately calculates matching scores for each pair of concentric areas to identify the gemstone; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the references since comparing each of the concentric areas separately to the respective concentric areas on the reference gemstone enables a different matching criterion to be set for each area (feature) based on previous experiences and experimental results (Navot, Paragraphs [0015], [0101]), which may enable more accurate matching of gemstones since gemstones vary widely in appearance and properties, and no single feature can definitively identify a gemstone.
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
In regards to Claim 24, Regev in view of Navot discloses the system of claim 23, further comprising: a digital camera configured to capture the images of the gemstone (Paragraph [0060], Fig. 3, Regev teaches a camera (104) such as a digital camera. The camera can capture an image from the microscope. Fig. 3 shows a schematic of image (300) of a [AltContent: arrow]gemstone (301) that could be obtained with a camera.).
PNG
media_image5.png
598
478
media_image5.png
Greyscale
In regards to Claim 25, Regev in view of Navot teaches the system of claim 23, wherein: each of the recorded features in the database includes a recorded feature set stored in the database (Paragraphs [0061], [0095], Regev teaches the one or more memory storage devices can comprise a library of gemstone fingerprints/signatures. Features can then be compared. For example, difference between angles vs. size vs. an edge not quite reaching its vertex are features of signatures that can be compared.), each of the recorded feature sets is associated with at least one of the gemstone records (Paragraphs [0015], [0096-97], Regev teaches the signature database comprises signatures, each said signature uniquely representing a gemstone.), and each of at least some of the recorded feature sets is associated with multiple gemstone records in the database (Paragraph [0097], Regev teaches comparing the signature of the test gemstone with a plurality of signatures in the signature database. Recognizing a test gemstone comprises matching the unique signature with a plurality of candidate signatures in the signature database.); each gemstone record in the database has a corresponding control number stored in the database (Paragraph [0072], Regev teaches a “code” which refers to a reference name or number (list of numbers and letters, a barcode, or an apriltag code) that is given to a specific gemstone for which images exist in the image library. The code can be etched onto the item.); and the computer (Paragraphs [0099], [0104-107], Regev teaches computer control systems that are programmed to implement the methods of the disclosure.) is further configured to populate a list with the control numbers of at least some of the plurality of gemstone records (Paragraph [0077], Regev teaches displaying a tabular list of all items with an object name and description.), based on the similarity scores.
Regev does not explicitly disclose (populat
Navot is in the same field of art of unique identification of gemstones based on matching the gemstone with a unique identification. Further, (populate(ing) a list with the control numbers of at least some of the plurality of gemstone records) based on the similarity scores (Paragraphs [0094-101], Navot teaches the first unique identification associated with a first gemstone and the second unique identification associated with a second gemstone can be generated in advance, pre-stored, and later obtained in the storage location(s). A matching score for the first and second unique identifications is calculated. The computer determines, in accordance with the matching score, if the first unique identification matches the second unique identification. The first gemstone can be determined as being the same to the second gemstone when the matching score meets a predefined matching criterion.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Regev by creating a list of matching gemstone records based on a similarity/matching score threshold that is taught by Navot, to make the invention that determines whether a “test” gemstone matches a “reference” or pre-stored gemstone record in order to perform gemstone identification; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the references since to visually display to the user which stored (reference) gemstones have the highest shared similarity with the test gemstone to identify whether a gemstone is positively matched with any of the stored reference gemstones (Regev, Paragraphs [0073-74]).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Regev (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20160232432 A1, hereafter referred to as Regev) in view of Navot et al. (U.S. Patent Pub No. 20210374401 A1, hereafter referred to as Navot) in further view of Shen et al. (NPL “Precision Measurement of Inter-Facet Angles on Faceted Gems Using a Goniometer”, Spring 2012, hereafter referred to as Shen).
Regarding Claim 3, Regev in view of Navot discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the step of obtaining measurements of the gemstone (Paragraph [0063], Regev teaches the generating measurements quantifying one or more identification features of a gemstone.) includes: (Paragraph [0064], Regev teaches a first facet and a second facet can form an angle relative to each other, called a facet angle.); and for each of multiple pairs of adjacent vertices of the gemstone, obtaining a distance between the adjacent vertices (Paragraphs [0095], [0079], Regev teaches measuring the pairwise distances between intersection points when 4 edges meet. The Examiner interprets “pairwise distances” (plural) to indicate that multiple pairs of adjacent vertices (intersection points) are measured.).
Regev in view of Navot does not explicitly disclose for each of multiple pairs of adjacent facets of the gemstone, (obtaining an angle between the adjacent facets).
Shen is in the same field of art of measuring features of gemstones, such as facet angles. Further, Shen teaches for each of multiple pairs of adjacent facets of the gemstone (Box A: Derivation of Inter-Facet Angles, Shen teaches measuring inter-facet angles for each facet. The Examiner interprets “inter-facet angle” to be the angle between two adjacent facets.), (obtaining an angle between the adjacent facets) (Abstract, Table 2, Shen teaches measurements of all inter-facet angles. Table 2 below shows comparison of angles relative to the table facet.).
PNG
media_image6.png
765
1000
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Regev in view of Navot by measuring facet angles for each of the adjacent facets on the gemstone that is taught by Shen, to make the invention that produces a well characterized set of reference stones for comparison; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the references to produce a well characterized set of reference gemstones (Shen, Abstract), therefore enabling comparison between one or more identifying features, such as inter-facet angles between a reference gemstone and a gemstone previously measured/labeled and stored in a database (Regev, Paragraphs [0004], [0006]). Further, the reference gemstone may be identified accurately based on a large quantity of measurements.
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 5 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Regev (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20160232432 A1, hereafter referred to as Regev) in view of Navot et al. (U.S. Patent Pub No. 20210374401 A1, hereafter referred to as Navot) in further view of Smith et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20120274751 A1, hereafter referred to as Smith).
Regarding Claim 5, Regev in view of Navot teaches the method of claim 1.
Regev in view of Navot does not explicitly disclose wherein the features of the gemstone exclude feature sets having edge length measurements below a predetermined minimum length threshold or angular measurements within a predetermined coplanar threshold.
Smith is in the same field of art of identifying gemstone features via image analysis. Further, Smith teaches wherein the features of the gemstone exclude feature sets having edge length measurements below a predetermined minimum length threshold (Paragraphs [0115-120], [0109], Fig. 13, Smith teaches a feature is classified as being a surface feature if it satisfies certain criteria. One of the criteria is “it is longer than a threshold”. Fig. 13 shows a 3D model of a diamond showing the position estimates of tracked features within the model. Fig. 13 depicts edges of the diamond. Further, edges are “surface features” of the diamond.) or angular measurements within a predetermined coplanar threshold (Under BRI, the Examiner interprets “or” to mean only one of either the edge length measurements below a predetermined minimum length threshold or angular measurements within a predetermined coplanar threshold are excluded to meet the claim limitation.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Regev in view of Navot by excluding surface feature measurements below a threshold length that is taught by Smith, to make the invention that removes spurious or erroneous features; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the references to remove false or spurious features from the 3D model (Smith, Paragraphs [0024-26]), therefore enabling the 3D model to be used to identify inclusions in the gemstone (Smith, Paragraph [0032]).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
In regards to Claim 20, Regev in view of Navot discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the set of measurements is derived from one or more pixelated images of the gemstone (Paragraphs [0084-85], Regev teaches every pixel of an image can be evaluated its subpixel location with respect to its corresponding reference points.) including the steps of: detecting multiple edges and/or vertices in the pixelated images of the gemstone (Paragraphs [0081-83], [0085], Regev teaches fitting a template of line segments with images of the gemstone. A code can be written for sub-pixel accurate line fitting. A Hough Transform can be used to detect analytically defined shapes (e.g., line). The Examiner interprets edges and line segments to be synonymous. Under BRI, the Examiner interprets “and/or” to mean only one of either edges or vertices are required to meet the claim limitation.); (Paragraph [0095], Regev teaches measuring the pairwise distances between intersection points when 4 edges meet.), and angles between facets (Paragraph [0065], Regev teaches measuring a facet angle (i.e., the angle relative to a first facet and a second facet.).
Regev in view of Navot does not explicitly disclose generating a three-dimensional model of the gemstone using the detected edges and/or vertices; and from the generated three-dimensional model.
Smith is in the same field of art of identifying gemstone features via image analysis. Further, Smith teaches generating a three-dimensional model of the gemstone (Paragraph [0011], Smith teaches obtaining an initial 3D model by analysis of the silhouette images.) using the detected edges and/or vertices (Paragraphs [0011], [0107-108], [0078-80], Fig. 10, Smith teaches refining an initial 3D model by aligning facet edges in the model with edges in the diffuse images so the facet edges best align with the diamond edges in the images. Under BRI, the Examiner interprets “and/or” to mean using only one of either edges or vertices are required to meet the claim limitation.); and from the generated three-dimensional model (deriving measurements) (Abstract, Smith teaches features may be identified in diffuse images and tracked between subsequent diffuse images. The tracked features may be located relative to the 3D model of the gemstone.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Regev in view of Navot by generating the 3D model of the gemstone using edge information captured from the image that is taught by Smith and derive features relative to the 3D model of the gemstone, to make the invention that refines the 3D model based on detected features such as edges; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the references since errors can be reduced by refining the model so that the facet edges in the 3D model align with the edges in the diffuse images of the gemstone (Smith, Paragraph [0080]). Therefore, refining the 3D model of the gemstone based on edges detected in the 2D diffuse images may reduce errors in the 3D model.
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Regev (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20160232432 A1, hereafter referred to as Regev) in view of Navot et al. (U.S. Patent Pub No. 20210374401 A1, hereafter referred to as Navot) in further view of Parikh et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20210027447 A1, hereafter referred to as Parikh).
Regarding Claim 8, Regev in view of Navot discloses the method of claim 7.
Regev in view of Navot does not explicitly disclose wherein the subset of measurements comprising each of the feature sets is devoid of measurements of edges or facets of the gemstone that are not adjacent to at least one other edge or facet for which at least one measurement thereof is included in the subset.
Parikh is in the same field of art of verification of gemstones through evaluation of one or more images of a gemstone and unique gemstone characteristics. Further, Parikh teaches wherein the subset of measurements comprising each of the feature sets is devoid of measurements of edges or facets of the gemstone that are not adjacent to at least one other edge or facet for which at least one measurement thereof is included in the subset (Paragraph [0089], Parikh teaches measuring physical characteristics of a gemstone, particularly its girdle. A feature pertaining to the girdle of the gemstone may include the top and bottom edges where the girdle intersects with adjacent facets. Therefore, the Examiner interprets the top and bottom edges where the girdle intersects with adjacent facets are included in the feature measurement. Under BRI, the Examiner interprets “or” to mean only one of either edges or facets are required to meet the claim limitation.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Regev in view of Navot by using measurements of edges where the girdle intersects adjacent facets that is taught by Parikh, to make the invention that uses the collected gemstone characteristic measurements to identify/authenticate gemstones; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the references since utilizing the measured features, such as differences in the gemstone girdle can be used to identify a gemstone (Parikh, Paragraph [0089]). Further, collecting measurements regarding adjacent facets, asymmetries, or deviations between the gemstones may be identified.
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Regev (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20160232432 A1, hereafter referred to as Regev) in view of Navot et al. (U.S. Patent Pub No. 20210374401 A1, hereafter referred to as Navot) in further view of Palmieri et al. (U.S. Patent Pub No. 20140063485 A1, hereafter referred to as Palmieri).
Regarding Claim 9, Regev in view of Navot discloses the method of claim 1.
Regev in view of Navot does not explicitly disclose wherein none of the recorded feature sets in the database includes more than six measurements.
Palmieri is in the same field of art of identification of gemstones based on a plurality of measured metrics regarding the gemstone. Further, Palmieri teaches wherein none of the recorded feature sets in the database includes more than six measurements (Paragraph [0215], Palmieri teaches the database can include gemstone identifiers, corresponding to characteristic information (e.g., shape, cut, color, and size), measured light performance data and associated performance grades (e.g., data concerning light return, optical symmetry, and scintillation), and images captured of the gemstone. The Examiner interprets the “gemstone identifiers corresponding to characteristic information” to be (1) recorded feature set with less than six measurements, only four are listed, (4 – shape, cut, color, size) and the “measured light performance data and associated performance grades” to be the second (2) recorded feature set with less than six measurements, only 3 are listed, (3 - data concerning light return, optical symmetry, scintillation.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Regev in view of Navot by measuring less than 6 measurements for each “feature set” that is taught by Palmieri, to make the invention that compares the gemstone being analyzed with known light performance data (measurement data) for previously analyzed gemstones stored in the database; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the references since using and storing fewer measurements to identify the gemstone may reduce the amount of data to be stored since the dataset’s dimensionality is lower. Further, gemstones may be identified using only a few features such as shape, cut, color, and/or size, potentially enabling a non-expert to match the gemstone, such as a police officer searching for a stolen gem for example (Palmieri, Paragraphs [0215], [0130]).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Regev (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20160232432 A1, hereafter referred to as Regev) in view of Navot et al. (U.S. Patent Pub No. 20210374401 A1, hereafter referred to as Navot) in further view of Gonta et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20230385896 A1, hereafter referred to as Gonta).
Regarding Claim 10, Regev in view of Navot discloses the method of claim 1.
Regev in view of Navot does not explicitly disclose wherein each of the recorded feature sets includes a predetermined number of measurements, and wherein the step of grouping subsets of the measurements of the gemstone into feature sets includes grouping a number of such measurements corresponding to the predetermined number of measurements of at least one of the recorded feature sets.
Gonta is in the same field of art of storing a reference signature comprising feature values for a set of features about the item (gemstone) and comparing a test gemstone signature with the reference signature to authenticate/match the test signature and reference signature. Further, Gonta teaches wherein each of the recorded feature sets includes a predetermined number of measurements (Paragraph [0073], Gonta teaches the extracted feature values used as a reference signature for the marked item can be a vector or matrix of many features (e.g., 10x10, 50x50, 100x100 matrices of feature values as examples.), and wherein the step of grouping subsets of the measurements of the gemstone into feature sets (Paragraph [0012], Gonta teaches the set of features for which the feature values are to be extracted can be determined based on AI, ML, and/or computer vision techniques.) includes grouping a number of such measurements corresponding to the predetermined number of measurements of at least one of the recorded feature sets (Paragraph [0073], Gonta teaches the extracted feature values can be a matrix of many features (e.g., 10x10 matrices of features).).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Regev in view of Navot by grouping the features into feature sets having a predetermined number of measurements that is taught by Gonta, to make the invention that stores a reference signature for each gemstone in a database having a specified number of measurements for comparison via correlation analysis or causal analysis; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the references since the number of features can be set to be small or large, with the expectation that using a larger number of features will greatly enhance the reliability of the reference signature as a unique identifier of the marked item but will result in a large amount of data that will need to be stored and later evaluated as part of the authentication process (Gonta, Paragraph [0073]), therefore, the number of stored features can be set/predetermined depending on storage requirements in the computer/computer system.
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Regev (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20160232432 A1, hereafter referred to as Regev) in view of Navot et al. (U.S. Patent Pub No. 20210374401 A1, hereafter referred to as Navot) in further view of Gonta et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20230385896 A1, hereafter referred to as Gonta) in further view of Palmieri (U.S. Patent Pub No. 20140063485 A1, hereafter referred to as Palmieri).
Regarding Claim 11, Regev in view of Navot in further view of Gonta discloses the method of claim 10.
Regev in view of Navot in further view of Gonta does not explicitly disclose wherein the predetermined number of measurements of each one of the recorded feature sets does not exceed six measurements.
Palmieri is in the same field of art of identification of gemstones based on a plurality of measured metrics regarding the gemstone. Further, Palmieri teaches wherein the predetermined number of measurements of each one of the recorded feature sets does not exceed six measurements (Paragraph [0215], Palmieri teaches the database can include gemstone identifiers, corresponding to characteristic information (e.g., shape, cut, color, and size), measured light performance data and associated performance grades (e.g., data concerning light return, optical symmetry, and scintillation), and images captured of the gemstone. The Examiner interprets the “gemstone identifiers corresponding to characteristic information” to be (1) feature set with less than six measurements (4 – shape, cut, color, size) and the “measured light performance data and associated performance grades” to be the second (2) feature set with less than six measurements (3 - data concerning light return, optical symmetry, scintillation.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Regev in view of Navot in further view of Gonta by having each feature set stored in the database for each gemstone have less than six measurements that is taught by Palmieri, to make the invention that identifies the gemstone based on fewer measurements; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the references since storing a larger number of features can result in a larger amount of data that will need to be stored and later evaluated as part of the authentication process (Gonta, Paragraph [0073]). Therefore, by using a smaller number of features for gemstone identification, such as six or fewer measurements, less data is required to be stored on the computer/computer system performing the identification.
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Regev (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20160232432 A1, hereafter referred to as Regev) in view of Navot et al. (U.S. Patent Pub No. 20210374401 A1, hereafter referred to as Navot) in further view of Hong (U.S. Patent Pub No. 20220349830 A1, hereafter referred to as Hong).
Regarding Claim 19, Regev teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the set of measurements of the gemstone are obtained from one or more images of the gemstone (Paragraphs [0063], [0113-114], Figs. 9A-9C, Regev teaches generating measurements from an image captured by the camera (104). Fig. 9A shows an image (900) of a stone that is analyzed using a microscope. The image (900) is an input to an image analysis program. Figs. 9B and 9C show results of an image analysis performed on image (900) by an image analysis program. The image analysis program identifies one or more facet junctions, table proportions, blemishes, chips, nicks, a natural, surface reaching feathers, inclusions, facets, and/or other features of the stone (901). The image analysis results can be quantified by the image analysis program. The size, location relative to the edges of the stone, any other physical and/or location properties can be quantified by the image analysis program based on the results (902) and (903).),
PNG
media_image7.png
581
529
media_image7.png
Greyscale
(Paragraph [0060], Fig. 1, Regev teaches a camera (104). The camera can be a charge coupled device (CCD) camera, CMOS camera, UV camera, IR camera, or a digital camera. The camera can capture an image from the microscope.), the one or more images of the gemstone (Paragraph [0060], Regev teaches multiple images of the gemstone can be captured at different settings, such as different levels of light exposure and varying imaging angles.)
Regev does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more images are captured by: causing rotation of the gemstone on a stage and (capturing one or more images of the gemstone) as the gemstone rotates on the stage, relative to the digital camera.
[AltContent: arrow]Hong is in the same field of art of imaging a gemstone to create a 3D model of the gemstone. Further, Hong teaches wherein the one or more images are captured by: causing rotation of the gemstone on a stage (Paragraphs [0035-36], [0039], [0044], Fig. 2, Hong teaches a rotatable turntable (102) onto which the gemstone can be placed. Images of the gemstone are captured at each predetermined angular interval or discrete rotational increment, at each required camera view. After each incremental rotation, i.e., for each camera view, at least one 2D silhouette image of the surface if the gemstone is captured by the camera.)
PNG
media_image8.png
518
536
media_image8.png
Greyscale
and (capturing one or more images of the gemstone) as the gemstone rotates on the stage (Paragraphs [0011], [0044], Fig. 2, Hong teaches rotating the gemstone as the first series of 2D images is obtained. Multiple camera views are captured as the gemstone is rotated on the turntable.), relative to the digital camera (Paragraphs [0044], [0034], Hong teaches capturing multiple camera views of the stone as it is rotated on a turntable. The image capture device (camera) is stationary.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Regev by imaging the gemstone as it is rotated on a rotating mechanism such as a turntable that is taught by Hong, to make the invention that captures images of the gemstone at a predetermined angular interval i.e., at each required camera view; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the references since the stepper motor is used to rotate the turntable (102) and the gemstone supported thereon, accurately through any specified angle (Hong, Paragraph [0035]) whereas manual rotation of the gemstone may be less accurate and require more human intervention.
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Feld (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20220308743 A1) teaches a system and method for visualizing a precious gemstone database. The database displays grading gemstone attributes, such as a purchaser’s desired attributes.
Schaefer (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20180300546 A1) teaches a method of computing a unique identifier for a gemstone. Identifiers can be stored in an identifiers database, for example with other items of information relating to the gemstone (weight, color, clarity, cut, origin, producer, current owner, etc.). At a later point in time, to recognize and identify the same gemstone, a retrieved identifier is computed. This retrieved identifier can be compared to the original identifiers database to find a matching original identifier.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYDNEY L BLACKSTEN whose telephone number is (571)272-7120. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am-4:30pm.
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, Oneal Mistry can be reached at 313-446-4912. 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.
/SYDNEY L BLACKSTEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2674
Prosecution Insights