DETAILED ACTION
1. 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 .
2. Status of Application and Claims
Claims 6-28 are pending.
Claims 6, 9, 14, 17, 20, 23 and 26-28 were amended and/or newly added in the Applicant’s filing on 08/03/2026.
This office action is being issued in response to the Applicant's filing on 08/03/2026.
3. Claim Interpretation
The subject matter of a properly construed claim is defined by the terms that limit its scope when given their broadest reasonable interpretation. see MPEP §2013(I)(C). Specifically, the “broadest reasonable construction ‘in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.’” See MPEP §2111, citing Phillips v. AWH Corp., 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005). However, “[t]hough understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into claim limitations that are not part of the claim.” See MPEP §2111.01, citing Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Construing claims broadly during prosecution is not unfair to the applicant, because the applicant has the opportunity to amend the claims to obtain more precise claim coverage. See MPEP §2111, citing In re Yamamoto, 222 USPQ 934, 936 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
As a general matter, grammar and the plain meaning of terms, as understood by one having ordinary skill in the art, used in a claim will dictate whether, and to what extent, the language limits the claim scope. See MPEP §2013(I)(C). Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. See MPEP §2013(I)(C).
As such, claim limitations that contain statement(s) such as “if,” “may,” “might,” “can,” and “could” are treated as containing optional language. See MPEP §2013(I)(C). As matter of linguistic precision, optional claim elements do not narrow claim limitations, since they can always be omitted. See MPEP §2013(I)(C).
Similarly, a method step exercised or triggered upon the satisfaction of a condition, where there remains the possibility that the condition was not satisfied under the broadest reasonable interpretation, is an optional claim limitation. See MPEP §2111.04(II). As the Applicant does not address what happens should the optional claim limitations fail, Examiner assumes that nothing happens (i.e., the method stops). An alternative interpretation is that the claim limitations based upon the condition are not triggered or performed.
In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art. See MPEP §2143.03, citing Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2009);
Language in a method or system claim that states only the intended use or intended result, but does not result in a manipulative difference in the steps of the method claim nor a structural difference between the system claim and the prior art, fails to distinguish the claims from the prior art.
The following types of claim language may raise a question as to its limiting effect (this list is not exhaustive):
Statements of intended use or field of use, including statements of purpose or intended use in the preamble. See MPEP §2111.02;
Clauses such as “adapted to”, “adapted for”, “wherein”, and “whereby.” See MPEP §2111.04;
Contingent limitations. See MPEP §2111.04(II);
Printed matter. See MPEP §2111.05; and
Functional language associated with a claim term. See MPEP §2181.
As such, while all claim limitations have been considered and all words in the claims have been considered in judging the patentability of the claimed invention, the following italicized, underlined and/or boldened language is interpreted as not further limiting the scope of the claimed invention.
Additionally, the following italicized, underlined and emboldened language is not necessarily an exhaustive list of claim language that is interpreted as not further limiting the scope of the claimed invention. The Applicant should review all claims for additional claim interpretation issues.
Claim 26 recites the information processing device, wherein the computer-readable program code portions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the at least one processor to:
display a current date and time superimposed on the uniform pre-defined image to enable verification of the one or more captured images.
System claims are defined by the method steps the system is configured to perform or, when executing instructions, the method steps that the system is being instructed to perform. Claim 26 recites that the system is displaying a current date and time superimposed on the uniform predefined image. The motivation for the method steps performed (i.e., to enable verification of the one or more captured images) does not distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art.
4. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 28 recites an information processing wherein the positional reference comprises a graphic code that is different each time a series of processing operations is performed, and wherein a position of the information processing device in the live view video is determined based on recognition of the graphic code in the one or more captured images.
However, Claim 6 recites that the position of the information processing device in the live view video is determined to enable capturing an image. However, Claim 28 recites that the reverse. An image is captured and, from the captured image, the position of the information processing device is determined.
Appropriate correction is requested.
5. 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
Claim(s) 6-11, 13-25, 27 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fitzgerald (US PG Pub 2021/0116392).
Regarding Claim 20, Fitzgerald discloses a method comprising:
controlling a camera of an information processing device (mobile device) to capture imagery of the information processing device (mobile device). (see abstract);
displaying a positional reference (second fiducial providing guidance or a placement guidance fiducial that includes an indicia of alignment) simultaneous with live view video (real time live video preview mode) on a screen of the information processing device (mobile device), such that the positional reference is configured to be aligned with a representation of the screen of the information processing device in the live view video of the information processing device obtained from the camera. (see fig. 4A-E; para. 13 and 40);
determining that the representation of the screen of the information processing device in the live view video is aligned (acceptable orientation) with the positional reference (a placement guidance fiducial that includes an indicia of alignment). (see para. 13);
switching from displaying the live view video to displaying a uniform pre-defined image (white screen, black screen or colored screen) on an entirety of the screen of the information processing device (mobile device). (see para. 126 and 142);
capturing one or more captured images comprising the representation of the screen of the information processing device displaying the uniform pre-defined image. (see para. 13); and
sending, by a transmitting unit, the one or more captured images of the information processing device to a third party device (server). (see para. 13).
Fitzgerald does not explicitly teach a method wherein switching from displaying the live view video to displaying a uniform pre-defined image on an entirety of the screen of the information processing device is conditional on determining that the representation of the screen of the information processing device in the live view video is aligned with the positional reference.
However, Fitzgerald discloses a method wherein displaying a uniform pre-defined image on an entirety of the screen of the information processing device is conditional on “determine[ing] that the mobile device is in optimal position to capture an image.” (see para. 142).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fitzgerald to incorporate the positional reference, as disclosed by Fitzgerald, to determine whether the mobile device was in an optimal position, as the positional reference would communicate the position and orientation of the information processing device for image capturing purposes.
Regarding Claim 21, Fitzgerald discloses a method comprising controlling an inward-facing camera of the information processing device to capture the imagery of the information processing device reflected in a mirror. (see para. 13).
Regarding Claim 22, Fitzgerald discloses a method comprising:
determining that a video image of the information processing device from the live view video is aligned with the positional reference. (see para. 13); and
capturing the imagery of the information processing device. (see para. 13).
Fitzgerald does not explicitly teach a method wherein the capturing of the image is performed automatically.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Fitzgerald by performing the method step automatically or via automated means. See MPEP §2144.04 (III).
Regarding Claim 23, Fitzgerald discloses a method wherein the uniform pre-defined image comprises a solid color image (white screen, colored screen or black screen) displayed on the entirety of the screen. (see para. 126 and 142).
Regarding Claim 24, Fitzgerald discloses a method comprising:
acquiring, by a device information acquiring unit, device information (electronic serial number, a local area identity identifier, an integrated circuit identifier, an international mobile subscriber identifier, an authentication key identifier, and/or an operator-specific emergency number identifier) from an operating system of the information processing device (mobile device). (see para. 90); and
sending, from the information processing device to the third party device (host server), application data including the device information. (see para. 90).
Regarding Claim 25, Fitzgerald discloses a method comprising:
displaying a predetermined graphic (second fiducial providing guidance or a placement guidance fiducial that includes an indicia of alignment) simultaneous with the live view video (real time live video preview mode) on the screen of the information processing device. (see fig. 4A-E; para. 13 and 40); and
determining a position of the information processing device in the live view based on the predetermined graphic. (see fig. 4A-E; para. 13 and 40).
Regarding Claims 6-11, and 13-19, such claims recite substantially similar limitations as claimed in previously rejected claims and, therefore, would have been obvious based upon previously rejected claims.
Regarding Clim 27, Fitzgerald discloses a system wherein instructions cause at least one processor to capture one or more additional captured images (multiple images) using a different uniform pre-defined image (white screen, colored screen and black screen) displayed on the screen of the information processing device. (see para. 126 and 142).
Regarding Clim 28, Fitzgerald discloses a system wherein the positional reference comprises a graphic code that is different each time a series of processing operations is performed (multiple alternative fiducials), and wherein a position of the information processing device in the live view video is determined based on recognition of the graphic code in the one or more captured images. (see para. 61 and 68-69).
Claim(s) 12 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fitzgerald, as applied to Claim 6 above, and further in view of Dwivedi (US PG Pub. 2017/0256051).
Regarding Claim 12, Fitzgerald discloses a system comprising an audio output unit configured to output audio messages (a speaker to provide auditory output). (see para. 84).
Fitzgerald does not teach a system wherein the audio message is based on a position of the information processing device in the live view video relative to the positional reference.
Dwivedi discloses a system comprising an audio output unit configured to output audio messages (audio prompts) based on a position of the information processing device in the live view video relative to the positional reference (to adjust the position). (see para. 57).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fitzgerald to incorporate the ability to issue audio instructions, as disclosed by Dwivedi, thereby providing an additional non-visual means to relay instructions to the user.
Regarding Claim 26, Fitzgerald does not teach a system wherein instructions cause at least one processor to display a current time and date superimposed on the uniform pre-defined image to enable verification.
Dwivedi discloses a system wherein instructions cause at least one processor to transmit the current time and date (date and/or timestamp) with the uniform pre-defined image (captured image) to enable verification. (see para. 52).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fitzgerald and Dwivedi to incorporate the current and date into the displayed pre-defined image, as disclosed by Dwivedi, thereby providing bundling all necessary information into the captured and transmitted image.
6. Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
7. Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON M. BORLINGHAUS whose telephone number is (571)272-6924. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, RYAN D. DONLON can be reached on (571)270-3602. 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.
/Jason M. Borlinghaus/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692 October 10, 2026
