Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
This action is in response to the communication filed on June 27, 2025.
Claims 1-20 are examined and are pending.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No.11,106,648 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are substantially similar in scope and they use the same limitations. Especially, the U.S. Patent No. 11,106,648 discloses more details in mapping and parameterizing inclusion of a gem to calculate the clarity grade of a gem. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to realize that claims 1-20 of the instant application is fully disclosed by the U.S. Patent No. 11,106,648.
The following table shows the claims in Instant Application that are rejected by corresponding claim(s) in U.S. Patent No. 11,106,648 B2.
Instant Application: 19253503
Patent: 11,106,648 B2
1. A computer comprising: a processor; and a memory comprising instructions which, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: receive image data for a gem; map a number of inclusions of the gem using the image data; parameterize a location of each of the mapped inclusions; determine a relief parameter for each mapped inclusion that indicates a contrast between each inclusion and a surrounding facet distribution and reflection pattern; and calculate a grade for the gem based at least on the relief parameter for each inclusion and the parameterized location of each mapped inclusion.
2. The computer of claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause the processor to: calculate a size of the gem based on determining a number of pixels in the image data of the gem.
3. The computer of claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause the processor to: calculate an area of the gem from the image data.
4. The computer of claim 1, wherein the grade for the gem comprises a combination of, for each identified inclusion, a relative inclusion area, the relief parameter, and an inclusion type.
5. The computer of claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause the processor to: calculate a pixel histogram of any inclusion measured relative to the histogram of an area proximate to the inclusion.
6. The computer of claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause the processor to: calculate an ellipse to approximate the inclusions within the image data for each gem.
7. The computer of claim 1 wherein the determining a grade for the gem includes using a lookup curve or table.
8. The computer of claim 1, further comprising, determining whether each inclusion is either a feather or crystal, wherein the grade for the gem is more impacted by a feather than a crystal inclusion.
9. The computer of claim 1, further comprising, determining whether each inclusion is either an internal or surface reaching inclusion, wherein the calculated grade for the gem is more impacted by a surface reaching than an internal inclusion.
10. The computer of claim 1, wherein the grade for the gem includes a calculated relationship of multiple mapped inclusions.
11. The computer of claim 1, wherein the parameterized locations are at least one of pavilion, girdle, crown, table-crown, culet, and table, and wherein the grade for the gem is more impacted by a location in the culet then the table-crown.
12. The computer of claim 1, wherein each inclusion is determined to be a white, black, brown, dark red or green inclusion, wherein the grade for the gem is more impacted by a black than a brown inclusion.
13. The computer of claim 1, wherein the location of each inclusion is calculated by a digital gravity point of pixels of the inclusion.
14. The computer of claim 1, wherein the parameterized locations are at least one of pavilion, girdle, crown, table-crown, culet, and table, wherein the grade for the gem is more impacted by a location in the culet than the crown.
15. The computer of claim 1, wherein the parameterized locations are at least one of pavilion, girdle, crown, table-crown, culet, and table, wherein the grade for the gem is more impacted by a location in the culet than the table.
16. The computer of claim 1, wherein the parameterized locations are at least one of pavilion, girdle, crown, table-crown, culet, and table, wherein the grade for the gem is more impacted by a location in the culet than the girdle.
17. The computer of claim 1, wherein the parameterized locations are at least one of pavilion, girdle, crown, table-crown, culet, and table, wherein the grade for the gem is more impacted by a location in the culet than the pavilion.
18. The computer of claim 1, wherein each inclusion is determined to be a white, black, brown, dark red or green inclusion, wherein the grade for the gem is more impacted by a black than a dark red-inclusion.
19. The computer of claim 1, wherein each inclusion is determined to be a white, black, brown, dark red or green inclusion, wherein the grade for the gem is more impacted by a black than a green-inclusion.
20. The computer of claim 1, wherein each inclusion is determined to be a white, black, brown, dark red or green inclusion, wherein the grade for the gem is more impacted by a black than a white inclusion.
1. A non-transitory computer-readable medium including one or more sequences of instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the processors to perform operations comprising: receiving pixelated image data for a gem, wherein the image data includes an overall gem image and any inclusion within the overall gem image; mapping any inclusions within the pixelated image data of the gem by counting a number of pixels in the image data of the inclusions; calculating a size of the overall gem using a number of pixels in the image data of the gem; parameterizing locations of the mapped inclusions within the pixelated image data of the gem; determining a relief parameter for each inclusion in the gem using a calculated ratio of an average pixel value within each inclusion to an average pixel value of an area of the pixelated image with a constant radius surrounding the inclusion; calculating a derived clarity grade for the gem as a function of the relief parameter for each inclusion, and the parameterized locations of the mapped inclusions.
2. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1, further comprising, determining whether each inclusion is either a feather or crystal, wherein the calculated derived clarity grade for the gem is more impacted by a feather than a crystal inclusion.
3. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1, further comprising, determining whether each inclusion is either an internal or surface reaching inclusion, wherein the calculated derived clarity grade for the gem is more impacted by a surface reaching than an internal inclusion.
4. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 3, wherein, if the inclusion is a surface reaching inclusion, determining a durability risk of high, medium, or low, based on the mapped pixel location and size, wherein the calculated derived clarity grade for the gem is more impacted by a high durability risk than a medium durability risk, and more impacted by a medium durability risk than a low durability risk of an inclusion.
5. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1, wherein the derived clarity grade for the gem includes a calculated relationship of multiple mapped inclusions.
6. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1, wherein the parameterized locations are at least one of pavilion, girdle, crown, table-crown, culet, and table, wherein the calculated derived clarity grade for the gem is more impacted by a location in the culet then the table-crown.
7. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1, wherein each inclusion is determined to be a white, black, brown, dark red or green inclusion, wherein the calculated derived clarity grade for the gem is more impacted by a black than a brown inclusion.
8. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1, wherein the location of each inclusion is calculated by a digital gravity point of the pixels of the inclusion.
9. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1, wherein the parameterized locations are at least one of pavilion, girdle, crown, table-crown, culet, and table, wherein the calculated derived clarity grade for the gem is more impacted by a location in the culet than the crown.
10. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1, wherein the parameterized locations are at least one of pavilion, girdle, crown, table-crown, culet, and table, wherein the calculated derived clarity grade for the gem is more impacted by a location in the culet than the table.
11. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1, wherein the parameterized locations are at least one of pavilion, girdle, crown, table-crown, culet, and table, wherein the calculated derived clarity grade for the gem is more impacted by a location in the culet than the girdle.
12. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1, wherein the parameterized locations are at least one of pavilion, girdle, crown, table-crown, culet, and table, wherein the calculated derived clarity grade for the gem is more impacted by a location in the culet than the pavilion.
13. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1, wherein each inclusion is determined to be a white, black, brown, dark red or green inclusion, wherein the calculated derived clarity grade for the gem is more impacted by a black than a dark red-inclusion.
14. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1, wherein each inclusion is determined to be a white, black, brown, dark red or green inclusion, wherein the calculated derived clarity grade for the gem is more impacted by a black than a green-inclusion.
15. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1, wherein each inclusion is determined to be a white, black, brown, dark red or green inclusion, wherein the calculated derived clarity grade for the gem is more impacted by a black than a white inclusion.
16. A method comprising: receiving pixelated image data for a gem, wherein the image data includes an overall gem image and any inclusion within the overall gem image; mapping any inclusions within the pixelated image data of the gem by counting a number of pixels in the image data of the inclusions; calculating a size of the overall gem using a number of pixels in the image data of the gem; parameterizing locations of the mapped inclusions within the pixelated image data of the gem; determining a relief parameter for each inclusion in the gem using a calculated ratio of an average pixel value within each inclusion to an average pixel value of an area of the pixelated image with a constant radius surrounding the inclusion; calculating a derived clarity grade for the gem as a function of the relief parameter for each inclusion, and the parameterized locations of the mapped inclusions.
“Omission of element and its function in combination is obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform same functions as before.” See In re Karlson (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184, decide Jan 16, 1963, Appl. No. 6857, U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED R UDDIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3138. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 AM-5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Apu Mofiz can be reached at (571) 272-4080. 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.
/MOHAMMED R UDDIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2161
Prosecution Insights