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
This Office Action is sent in response to Applicant’s Communication received 14 July 2025 for application number 19/268,540. The Office hereby acknowledges receipt of the following and placed of record in file: Specification, Drawings, Abstract, Oath/Declaration, Claims.
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,412,135 in view of claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,856,299 in view of claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,375,817.
Regarding claim 1, ‘135 discloses a system comprising: a photographic booth comprising: a floor comprising an item placement portion; one or more walls coupled to the floor; a ceiling located above the one or more walls (claim 1); one or more lights (claim 1); and one or more light diffusing screens configured to: receive light from the one or more lights; diffuse the light (claim 1); and cast the light onto the item placement portion (claim 1); one or more cameras (claim 2); and one or more computer systems configured to: cause the one or more cameras to capture images of an item in the item placement portion (claim 3).
‘135 does not explicitly disclose one or more computer systems configured to: activate the one or more lights.
In the same field of endeavor, ‘299 discloses one or more computer systems configured to: activate the one or more lights (claim 7).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with motivation to modify ‘135 to include the teachings of ‘299 in order to control the lighting.
Although ‘299 further discloses cameras travel around the item (claim 19), ‘135 and ‘299 does not explicitly disclose generate a 360-degree view of the item using the images.
In the same field of endeavor, ‘817 discloses generate a 360-degree view of the item using the images (claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with motivation to modify ‘135 and ‘299 to include the teachings of ‘817 in order to obtain better views of the item.
Regarding claim 2, see teachings of claim 1. ‘135 further discloses wherein the ceiling comprises the one or more light diffusing screens (claim 1).
Regarding claim 3, see teachings of claim 1. ‘299 further discloses wherein the item placement portion is configured to tilt relative to the one or more cameras (claim 19).
Regarding claim 4, see teachings of claims 1 and 3. ‘299 further discloses wherein, when the item placement portion is tilted, the images show an elliptical orbit of the one or more cameras around the item (claim 19).
Regarding claim 5, see teachings of claim 1. ‘135 further discloses further comprising a gap located between the one or more light diffusing screens and at least one of the ceiling or the one or more walls (claim 1).
Regarding claim 6, see teachings of claim 1. ‘135 further discloses wherein the diffused light comprises omni-directional light configured to minimize shadows cast by the item in the images captured by the one or more cameras (claim 1).
Regarding claim 7, see teachings of claim 1. ‘135 further discloses wherein the one or more walls create a bowl shaped photographic stage (claim 1).
Regarding claim 8, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 2.
Regarding claim 10, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 3.
Regarding claim 11, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 4.
Regarding claim 12, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 5.
Regarding claim 13, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 6.
Regarding claim 14, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 7.
Regarding claim 15, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 2.
Regarding claim 17, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claims 3 and 4.
Regarding claim 18, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 5.
Regarding claim 19, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 6.
Regarding claim 20, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 7.
Prior Art not relied upon: Please refer to the references listed in attached PTO-892, which are not relied upon for the claim rejections, since these references are pertinent to the disclosure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NGUYEN T TRUONG whose telephone number is (571)272-5262. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri, 6AM - 2PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JAMIE ATALA can be reached on 571-272-7384. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NGUYEN T TRUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights