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 6-25 are pending.
Claims 1-5 were cancelled in the Applicant’s filing on 2/13/2025.
This office action is being issued in response to the Applicant's filing on 2/13/2025.
3. 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.
Claims 9, 17 and 23 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 23 recites a method wherein the uniform pre-defined image is configured to make cracks on the screen of the information processing device easier to identify.
Claim 23, as written, contain terms that are subjective or determinations of whether the claim limitations are satisfied are subjective. Specifically, said claims contain terminology such as a configuration to make cracks on a screen “easier to identify”. Claims are indefinite in circumstances where a claim contains a term that is completely dependent on a person’s subjective opinion. See MPEP §2173.05(b)(IV). As such, claims containing the cited claim limitations are rejected under §112, 2nd paragraph.
Examiner notes that the claim, as written, recites the benefit to be derived from the method step “to make cracks on the screen of the information processing device easier to identify” rather than the method step actually being performed (e.g., displaying a background image on the screen of the information processing device – see specification, para. 20).
Claims 9 and 17 are similarly rejected.
Appropriate correction is requested.
4. 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) 6-9, 12-17, 19-23 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen ‘16 (US PG Pub. 2016/0225036) in view of Oleson (US PG Pub. 2019/0253614).
Regarding Claim 20, Nguyen ‘16 discloses a computer-implemented method comprising:
controlling a camera of an information processing device (electronic device) to capture imagery of another information processing device (electronic device). (see fig. 1; abstract; para. 16-17);
displaying a positional reference (visual instructions, such as images shown on the screen of the device) on a screen of the information processing device, such that the positional reference is configured to be aligned (positioned) 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 para. 28);
displaying a uniform pre-defined image (static image background) on an entirety of the screen of the information processing device after determining the representation of the screen of the information processing device is aligned (positioned correctly) with the positional reference. (see para. 25-27);
capturing one or more captured images comprising the representation of the screen of the information processing device displaying the uniform pre-defined image (static image background). (see abstract); and
sending, by a transmitting unit, the one or more captured images of the information processing device to a third party device. (see para. 13).
Nguyen ‘16 does not explicitly teach a method wherein the positional reference is displayed simultaneous with live view video.
Oleson discloses a method wherein the position reference is displayed simultaneous with live view. (see fig. 2A; para. 17-20 and 44-47).
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 Nguyen ‘16 to incorporate an ability to display the positional reference simultaneous with the live view, as disclosed by Oleson, thereby assisting the user in adjusting the alignment for operating the camera.
Regarding Claim 21, Nguyen ‘16 discloses a method comprising controlling an inward-facing camera of the camera of the information processing device (toward itself) to capture the imagery of the information processing device reflected in a mirror. (see abstract; para. 16-17).
Regarding Claim 22, Nguyen ‘16 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. 17); and
automatically capturing the imagery of the information processing device. (see para. 17).
Regarding Claim 23, Nguyen ‘16 discloses a method wherein the uniform pre-defined image (gridlines) is configured to make cracks (imperfections) on the screen of the information processing device easier to identify. (see para. 51).
Regarding Claim 25, Nguyen ‘16 does not teach a method comprising displaying a predetermined graphic simultaneous with the live view video on the screen of the information processing device; and determining a position of the information processing device in the live view based on the predetermined graphic.
Oleson discloses a method comprising:
displaying a predetermined graphic simultaneous with the live view video on the screen of the information processing device. (see fig. 2A; para. 17-20 and 44-47); and
determining a position of the information processing device in the live view based on the predetermined graphic. (see fig. 2A; para. 17-20 and 44-47).
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 Nguyen ‘16 and Oleson to incorporate the ability to display the positional reference simultaneous with the live view, as disclosed by Oleson, thereby assisting the user in adjusting the alignment for operating the camera.
Regarding Claims 6-11, such claims recite substantially similar limitations as claimed in previously rejected claims and, therefore, would have been obvious based upon previously rejected claims.
Regarding Claim 12, Nguyen ’16 does not teach a system comprising an audio output unit configured to output audio messages based on a position of the information processing device in the live view video relative to the positional reference.
Oleson discloses a system comprising an audio output unit configured to output audio messages (audio indicator) based on a position of the information processing device in the live view video relative to the positional reference. (see para. 75).
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 Nguyen ‘16 and Oleson to incorporate the ability to issue audio instructions, as disclosed by Oleson, thereby providing an additional non-visual means to relay instructions to the user.
Regarding Claims 12-17 and 19, such claims recite substantially similar limitations as claimed in previously rejected claims and, therefore, would have been obvious based upon previously rejected claims.
Claim(s) 24, 10, 11, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen ’16 and Oleson, as applied to Claims 6, 14 and 20 above, and further in view of Nguyen ’15 (US PG Pub. 2015/0324926).
Regarding Claim 24, Nguyen ’16 does not teach a method comprising acquiring, by a device information acquiring unit, device information from an operating system of the information processing device; and sending, from the information processing device to the third party device, application data including the device information.
Nguyen ’15 discloses a method comprising:
acquiring, by a device information acquiring unit, device information (device ID number, manufacturer, model, operating system) from an operating system of the information processing device (electronic device). (see fig. 1-2; para. 23); and
sending, from the information processing device to the third party device, application data including the device information. (see fig. 1-2; para. 23).
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 Nguyen ‘16 and Oleson to incorporate the ability to obtain device information, as disclosed by Nguyen ‘15, thereby obtaining more information needed to ascertain the condition of a device.
Regarding Claims 10, 11 and 18, such claims recite substantially similar limitations as claimed in previously rejected claims and, therefore, would have been obvious based upon previously rejected claims.
5. Conclusion
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 March 5, 2026