DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “video capture module for”, “an event module for”, “a coefficient calculation module for”, and “an inter-pupillary (PD) module for” in claim 2.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 2-18 are 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.
The term “known-size” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “known-size” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what the known-size reference is and how it is determined.
Applicant is required to correct.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 2-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vilcovsky et al. (US 20130229482 A1)
Regarding Claim 2, Vilcovsky et al. teaches a system for automatically performing measurements for fitting eyewear (Paragraph 61), comprising:
a video capture module for receiving digital images of a user's face (Paragraphs 46-48);
an event module for estimating head orientation in the digital images (Paragraph 106);
a coefficient calculation module for identifying a known-size reference in the digital images and deriving from the known-size reference a pixel coefficient enabling conversion of pixel distance in the digital images to physical distance (Paragraphs 106-108);
an inter-pupillary (PD) module for using the pixel coefficient to generate a PD measurement from the digital images of the user's face (Paragraph 145; Paragraphs 152-156; Paragraph 165).
Regarding Claim 3, Vilcovsky et al. teaches the system of claim 2, wherein the known-size reference comprises iris diameter and the pixel coefficient is derived by measuring an iris diameter expressed in number of pixels and taking a ratio of the diameter expressed in number of pixels and an average human iris size expressed in millimeters to thereby correlate object size in the digital image to actual physical size (Paragraph 145; Paragraphs 152-156; Paragraph 165).
Regarding Claim 4, Vilcovsky et al. teaches the system of claim 2, further comprising a glasses module for identifying glasses in the digital images and using the pixel coefficient to generate at least one of lens height and lens width of the physical glasses (Paragraphs 106-110; Paragraph 145; Paragraphs 152-156; Paragraph 165).
Regarding Claim 5, Vilcovsky et al. teaches the system of claim 4, further comprising an SH/OC module for using the pixel coefficient and the lens height to generate at least one of: segment height (SH) measurement and ocular center (OC) height from the digital images of the user's face (Paragraphs 106-110; Paragraph 145; Paragraphs 152-156; Paragraph 165).
Regarding Claim 6, Vilcovsky et al. teaches the system of claim 4, wherein the glasses module identifies one of physical or virtual glasses in the digital images (Paragraphs 106-110; Paragraphs 120-121; Paragraph 145; Paragraphs 152-156; Paragraph 165).
Regarding Claim 7, Vilcovsky et al. teaches the system of claim 2, further comprising a prescription module for identifying lens area of glasses within the digital images and calculating optical power at multiple locations within the lens area and generating a prescription based on the optical power at multiple locations (Paragraphs 106-110; Paragraphs 120-121; Paragraph 145; Paragraphs 152-156; Paragraph 165).
Regarding Claim 8, Vilcovsky et al. teaches the system of claim 2, wherein the PD module defines a line passing through a left iris and right iris in the digital images; defines a nose center point on the line; and measures from the nose center a left pupillary distance and a right pupillary distance (Paragraphs 72-73; Paragraphs 106-110; Paragraphs 120-121; Paragraph 145; Paragraphs 152-156; Paragraph 165).
Regarding Claim 9, Vilcovsky et al. teaches the system of claim 2, further comprising a virtual try-on (VTO) module for superimposing an eyeglasses image over the user's face; overlaying a graphical image indicating at least one of an ocular center height (OC) and segment height (SH) on the user's face; and providing a user interface for controlling the graphical image (Paragraphs 72-73; Paragraphs 106-110; Paragraphs 120-121; Paragraph 145; Paragraphs 152-156; Paragraph 165).
Regarding Claim 10, Vilcovsky et al. teaches the system of claim 2, further comprising a registration module for providing an offset of the user's face orientation with respect ideal orientation (Paragraphs 72-73; Paragraphs 106-110; Paragraphs 120-121; Paragraph 145; Paragraphs 152-156; Paragraph 165).
Regarding Claim 11, Vilcovsky et al. teaches the system of claim 10, wherein the registration module projects on a display screen a graphical target that indicates proper a position of the user's face for improved measurement accuracy (Paragraphs 72-73; Paragraphs 106-110; Paragraphs 120-121; Paragraph 145; Paragraphs 152-156; Paragraph 165).
Regarding Claim 12, Vilcovsky et al. teaches the system of claim 2, further comprising: a display screen for displaying the digital images (Paragraph 12); a memory for storing a plurality of virtual articles (Paragraph 12; Paragraph 59); a virtual try-on (VTO) module for fetching a virtual article from the memory and scaling the virtual article using the pixel coefficient to display the virtual article on the display screen (Paragraphs 72-73; Paragraphs 106-110; Paragraphs 120-121; Paragraph 145; Paragraphs 152-156; Paragraph 165).
Regarding Claim 13, Vilcovsky et al. teaches the system of claim 12, wherein the virtual article comprises an eye glasses frame, and wherein the VTO module further comprises an augmentation module for applying virtual lens characteristics to an interior part of the eye glasses frame (Paragraphs 72-74; Paragraphs 106-110; Paragraphs 120-121; Paragraph 145; Paragraphs 152-156; Paragraph 165).
Regarding Claim 14, Vilcovsky et al. teaches the system of claim 13, wherein the lens characteristics comprise one or more of lens thickness, UV coating, tint color, and tint opacity (Paragraphs 72-74; Paragraphs 106-110; Paragraphs 120-121; Paragraph 145; Paragraphs 152-156; Paragraph 165).
Regarding Claim 15, Vilcovsky et al. teaches the system of claim 12, wherein the virtual article comprises an alpha channel of eyeglasses and an RGB channel of the eyeglasses (Paragraphs 72-74; Paragraphs 106-110; Paragraphs 120-121; Paragraph 145; Paragraphs 152-156; Paragraph 165).
Regarding Claim 16, Vilcovsky et al. teaches the system of claim 2, wherein the event module further comprises accuracy thresholds assigned to vertical gaze and horizontal gaze errors obtained from the head orientation to determine whether a digital image is acceptable for the PD measurement (Paragraphs 72-74; Paragraphs 106-110; Paragraphs 120-121; Paragraph 139; Paragraph 145; Paragraphs 152-156; Paragraph 165).
Regarding Claim 17, Vilcovsky et al. teaches the system of claim 2, wherein the known-size reference comprises iris diameter and the pixel coefficient is derived by measuring a right eye iris diameter expressed in number of pixels and a left eye iris diameter expressed in number of pixels, and comparing the difference between the right eye iris diameter and the left eye iris diameter to a threshold; wherein when the difference is below the threshold, taking a ratio of an average of the right eye iris diameter and left eye iris diameter and the human iris size expressed in millimeters to thereby correlate object size in the digital image to actual physical size (Paragraphs 72-74; Paragraphs 106-110; Paragraphs 120-121; Paragraph 130; Paragraph 145; Paragraphs 152-156; Paragraph 165).
Regarding Claim 18, Vilcovsky et al. teaches the system of claim 2, further comprising: an adjusting module for overlaying landmarks on the digital images of the user's face and generating an adjustment interface enabling a user to fine tune locations of the landmarks (Paragraphs 72-74; Paragraphs 106-111; Paragraphs 120-121; Paragraph 130; Paragraph 145; Paragraphs 152-156; Paragraph 165).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARHAN MAHMUD whose telephone number is (571)272-7712. The examiner can normally be reached 10-7.
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, Joseph Ustaris can be reached at 5712727383. 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.
/FARHAN MAHMUD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483
Prosecution Insights