Exhibit 1010
`Exhibit 1010
`
`

`
`Exhjbit1010
`Europiisches
`Patent-mt
`
`
`
`5:{2l’f%"m.e
`o..,,,,,,,,,,ée,,
`“*5 '""=*=
`
`Brophy, David Timothy
`FRKe||y
`27 Clyde Road
`Ballsbridge
`Dublin 4
`IRLANDE
`
`Page 1
`
`European Patent Office
`80298 MUNICH
`
`GERMANY
`Tel. +49 (0)89 2399 - o
`Fax +49 (0)89 2399 - 4465
`
`this communication:
`
`Te|.:+31 (0)70 340 45 00
`
`Date
`
`20.09.1 3
`
`Reference
`P105280EP00
`
`Application No./Patent No.
`
`11737562.6 - 1902 / 2529333 PCT/US2011022549 App|icantlProprietor
`
`Pathway Innovations And Technologies, Inc.
`
`The extended European search report is enclosed.
`
`Communication
`
`The extended European search report includes, pursuant to Rule 62 EPC, the supplementary European
`search report (Art. 153(7) EPO) and the European search opinion.
`
`Copies of documents cited in the European search report are attached.
`
`E 0 additional set(s) of copies of such documents is (are) enclosed as well.
`
`Refund of the search fee
`
`If applicable under Article 9 Rules relating to fees, a separate communication from the Receiving Section
`on the refund of the search fee will be sent later.
`
`Should you wish to further prosecute this application in the examination phase, your attention is drawn to
`the provisions of Rule 70a EPC. An invitation to respond to the extended European search report will be
`issued shortly (R. 70(2) EPC).
`
`EPO Form1507S 06.12
`
`Exhibit 1010
`
`Page 1
`
`

`
`Exhibit 1010
`
`Datum
`
`Date
`Date
`
`Cf Form 1 5 O 7
`
`Page 2
`
`Blatt
`
`Sheet
`Feuille
`
`1
`
`Anmelde-Nr:
`
`Application No: 1 1 73 7
`Demande n °:
`
`5 6 2 . 6
`
`The examination is being carried out on the following application documents
`
`Description, Pages
`
`1-13
`
`filed with entry into the regional phase before the EPO
`
`Claims, Numbers
`
`1-15
`
`filed with entry into the regional phase before the EPO
`
`Drawings, Sheets
`
`1/9-9/9
`
`filed with entry into the regional phase before the EPO
`
`1
`
`Reference is made to the following documents; the numbering will be adhered
`
`to in the rest of the procedure.
`
`D1
`
`WO 03/083805 A1 (PULSE DATA INTERNAT LTD [NZ]; SEAKINS PAUL
`
`JOHN [NZ]) 9 October 2003 (2003-10-09)
`
`D2
`
`DE 200 19 927 u1 (ABEND SONJA BARBARA [DE]) 22 March 2001
`
`(2001-03-22)
`
`2
`
`The following document has been cited in the international search report; the
`
`numbering will be adhered to in the rest of the procedure.
`
`D8
`
`US 2005/177783 A1 (AGRAWALA ET AL.) 11 August 2005 (2005-08-11)
`
`3
`
`The application does not meet the requirements of Article 84 EPC, because
`
`claims 1, 2, 9, 11, and 13 are not clear.
`
`Claims 1 and 9 have been drafted as separate independent claims.
`
`Under Article 84 in combination with Rule 43(2) EPC, an application may
`
`contain more than one independent claim in a particular category only if the
`
`subject-matter claimed falls within one or more of the exceptional situations
`
`set out in paragraph (a), (b) or (c) of Rule 43(2) EPC. This is not the case in
`
`the present application, however, for the following reason(s):
`
`EPO Form 1703 01.91TR|
`
`Exhibit 1010
`
`Page 2
`
`

`
`Exhibit 1010
`
`Datum
`Date
`Date
`
`C
`
`If Form 1507
`
`Page 3
`
`Blatt
`
`Sheet
`Feuille
`
`2
`
`Anmelde-Nr:
`
`Application No: 11 737 562 . 6
`Demande n°:
`
`Claim 9 defines essentially the same subject matter as claim 1 with additional
`
`specifications that the "external processor" of claim 1
`
`is referred to in claim 9
`
`as a "master personal processor" and that the images are captured by a
`
`"slave digital image sensing unit" which is removably connected to the master
`
`personal processor. Furthermore, claim 9 refers to "zooming in or out" instead
`
`to "adjusting the resolution" of claim 1. Since the wording "external processor"
`
`of claim 1
`
`is equivalent to the master/slave terminology of claim 9, claim 9 is
`
`merely a rewrite of claim 1 using different terms and as such is pleonastic.
`
`In the further prosecution of the application, failure to file an amended set of
`
`claims which complies with Rule 43(2) EPC, or to submit convincing
`
`arguments as to why the current set of claims does in fact comply with these
`
`provisions, may lead to refusal of the application under Article 97(2) EPC.
`
`Moreover, claim 9 states that the images are zoomed in or out "without
`
`changing resolution of the frame images". This would suggest either using an
`
`optical zoom of changing the distance between a camera and a document,
`
`neither of which is supported by the description. On the contrary, the
`
`description and claim 11, which is drafted as a dependent claim of claim 9,
`
`disclose that a digital zoom is used, that is the resolution is indeed changed.
`This contradiction renders claim 9 unclear.
`
`Claim 13 discloses that the miniaturized digital image sensing unit comprises
`
`optics having an "infinite focal length". This is clearly an error, since the only
`
`lens which can be thought of as having an "infinite focal length" is a telecentric
`
`lens, which is definitely not suited for document imaging.
`
`Claim 2 refers to "the output frame" which lacks antecedent.
`
`The present application does not meet the requirements of Article 52(1) EPC
`
`because the subject—matter of claim 1 (and mutatis mutandis of claims 9 and
`
`13) is not new within the meaning of Article 54(1) and (2) EPC.
`
`Document D1 discloses (the references in parentheses applying to this
`
`document):
`
`A method of acquiring an image of a target comprising (Figure 2):
`
`determining a reference resolution at which each frame image of a series of
`
`frame images will be maintained and storing the reference resolution in a non-
`
`transitory medium (column 5, lines 12-15);
`
`capturing a video image comprising the series of frame images in one
`
`instantaneous snapshot of a subject's entire surface area without line-by-line
`
`scanning (Figure 2, column 8, lines 7-17);
`
`EPO Form 1703 01.91TR|
`
`Exhibit 1010
`
`Page 3
`
`

`
`Exhibit 1010
`
`Datum
`Date
`Date
`
`C
`
`If Form 1507
`
`Page 4
`
`Blatt
`
`Sheet
`Feuille
`
`3
`
`Anmelde-Nr:
`
`Application No: 11 737 562 . 6
`Demande n°:
`
`using an external processor to compare a resolution of each frame image of
`
`the video image with the reference resolution (Figure 2, the electronic
`
`processing means 22);
`
`adjusting the resolution of each frame image to correspond to the reference
`
`resolution (page 10, lines 23-28); and
`
`after comparing the resolution of each frame image, storing and/or displaying
`
`in real-time each frame image on a display (Figure 8).
`
`The subject-matter of claim 1
`
`is therefore not new (Article 54(1) and (2) EPC).
`
`For the sake of completeness, document D2 also discloses the subject-matter
`
`of claim 1 (and mutatis mutandis of claims 9 and 13), that is using a 2D
`
`camera to capture input frames (claim 1, the video camera) at a given
`
`resolution (implicit, each camera has a given resolution) and displaying or
`
`storing them at a different resolution (claim 5, the electronic zoom) after
`
`rescaling (claim 5, the electronic zoom).
`
`Dependent claims 3-8, 10-12, and 14-15 do not appear to contain any
`
`additional features which, in combination with the features of any claim to
`
`which they refer, meet the requirements of the EPC with respect to novelty
`
`and/or inventive step.
`
`The additional feature of claim 3, a correction of perspective distortion, is a
`
`common practice in the art.
`
`The additional feature of claim 4, panning of a zoomed in part of the
`
`document, is disclosed in D1, abstract.
`
`The additional feature of claim 5, image rotation, is a common practice in the
`art.
`
`The additional feature of claim 6, image annotation, is a common practice in
`
`the art, as document D8, abstract, shows.
`
`Claim 7 claims using one of the operations disclosed in claims 2-6 and as
`
`such is pleonastic.
`
`The additional feature of claim 8, annotation in conjunction of image resizing,
`
`is disclosed by D8, abstract.
`
`The additional feature of claim 10, real-time image processing, is disclosed in
`
`D1, abstract, the live mode.
`
`The additional feature of claim 11, down sampling of an image when larger
`
`than output resolution or interpolating an image when smaller, is disclosed in
`
`D1, Figure 8, the subsample mode and digital zoom respectively.
`
`EPO Form 1703 01.91TR|
`
`Exhibit 1010
`
`Page 4
`
`

`
`Exhibit 1010
`
`Datum
`Date
`Date
`
`C
`
`If Form 1507
`
`Page 5
`
`Blatt
`
`Sheet
`Feuille
`
`4
`
`Anmelde-Nr:
`
`Application No: 11 737 562 . 6
`Demande n°:
`
`The additional feature of claim 12, an external PC, is disclosed in D2, claim 1,
`
`the notebook.
`
`The additional feature of claim 14, the processor being housed in a folding
`
`arm, is disclosed in D1, Figure 2, together with page 5, line 27, an adjustable
`
`implies folding in the context of document cameras.
`
`The additional feature of claim 15, an external PC, is disclosed in D2, claim 1,
`
`the notebook.
`
`It is not at present apparent which part of the application could serve as a
`
`basis for a new, allowable claim. Should the applicant nevertheless regard
`
`some particular matter as patentable, an independent claim should be filed
`
`taking account of Rule 43(1) EPC. The applicant should also indicate how the
`
`subject-matter of the new claim differs from the state of the art and the
`
`significance thereof.
`
`EPO Form 1703 01.91TR|
`
`Exhibit 1010
`
`Page 5
`
`

`
`Exhibit 1010
`
`Page 6
`
`Europiisches
`Patentamt
`European
`
`
`
`"‘**"‘°‘"‘°
`Office européen
`‘°*"'°"**‘
`
`SUPPLEMENTARY
`EUROPEAN SEARCH REPORT
`
`Application Number
`
`EP 11 73 7562
`
`DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED TO BE RELEVANT
`
`X
`
`(PULSE DATA INTERNAT LTD
`NO 03/083805 A1
`[NZ]; SEAKINS PAUL JOHN [NZ])
`9 October 2003 (2003-10-09)
`* abstract *
`* page 5,
`line 4 - page 11,
`figures 2-8 *
`
`line 8;
`
`1-15
`
`INV.
`G06K9/32
`H04N5/232
`H04Nl/00
`H04Nl/195
`
`(ABEND SONJA BARBARA
`DE 200 19 927 U1
`[DE]) 22 March 2001 (2001-03-22)
`* claims 1-10 *
`
`(CASIO COMPUTER CO LTD
`EP 1 524 847 A2
`[JP]) 20 April 2005 (2005-04-20)
`* paragraph [0037]
`- paragraph [0040]
`
`*
`
`(HASHIMOTO SUSUMU [JP]
`US 2005/243073 A1
`ET AL) 3 November 2005 (2005-11-03)
`* paragraph [0067]
`- paragraph [0070];
`figures 4-6 *
`
`TECHNICAL FIELDS
`SEARCHED
`(IPC)
`
`H04N
`
`The supplementary search report has been based on the last
`set of claims valid and available at the start of the search.
`
`|_|
`
`Place of search
`
`Date of completion of the search
`
`Examiner
`
`Munich
`CATEGORY OF CITED DOCUMENTS
`
`X : particularly relevant if taken alone
`Y : particularly relevant if combined with another
`document of the same category
`A : technological background
`0 : non-written disclosure
`P : intermediate document
`
`Bakstein, Hynek
`11 September 2013
`T : theory or principle underlying the invention
`E : earlier patent document, but published on, or
`after the filing date
`D : document cited in the application
`L : document cited for other reasons
`
`& : member of the same patent family, corresponding
`document
`
`
`
`
`
`EPOFORM150303.82(P04CO4)
`
`Exhibit 1010
`
`Page 6
`
`

`
`Exhibit 1010
`
`Page 7
`
`ANNEXTOTHEEUROPEANSEARCHREPORT
`ON EUROPEAN PATENT APPLICATION NO.
`
`EP 11 73 7562
`
`This annex lists the patent family members relating to the patent documents cited in the above-mentioned European search report.
`The members are as contained in the European Patent Office EDP file on
`The European Patent Office is in no way liable for these particulars which are merely given for the purpose of information.
`
`Patent document
`cited in search report
`
`Publication
`date
`
`P
`atent family
`member(s)
`
`WO 03083805
`
`09-10-2003
`
`22-03-2001
`
`20-04-2005
`
`US 2005243073
`
`03-11-2005
`
`AU
`CA
`EP
`NZ
`US
`
`Al
`Al
`
`2003215972
`2479964
`1488401
`518092
`2005162512
`03083805
`
`10156317
`20019927
`
`1627175
`1524847
`2005123707
`20050036742
`2005078052
`
`DE 102004062733
`JP
`2005318177
`2005243073
`
`11-09-2013
`
`Publication
`date
`
`13-10-2003
`09-10-2003
`22-12-2004
`26-11-2004
`28-07-2005
`09-10-2003
`
`18-07-2002
`22-03-2001
`
`15-06-2005
`20-04-2005
`12-05-2005
`20-04-2005
`14-04-2005
`
`24-11-2005
`10-11-2005
`03-11-2005
`
`POFORMP0459
`
`For more details about this annex : see Official Journal of the European Patent Office, No. 12/82
`
`Exhibit 1010
`
`Page 7
`
`

`
`Exhibit 1010
`
`Page 8
`
`European Patent Office
`D-80298 Miinchen
`
`Germany
`
` LY
`
`EUROPEAN PATENT AND
`TRADE MARK ATTORNEYS
`
`Your Ref:
`Our Ref:
`
`11737562.6
`P105280EP00/DB/AQ
`
`24 February 2014
`
`Dear Sirs,
`
`European Patent Application No. 11737562.6
`"Document imaging system having camera-scanner
`apparatus and personal computer based processing
`software"
`
`Pathway Innovations And Technologies, Inc.
`
`In response to the communication dated 9 October 2013, I hereby confirm that the applicant
`does wish to proceed with examination of this application.
`
`Furthermore, in response to the search opinion, I file herewith a replacement claim set together
`with the following submissions. Additionally, I enclose a copy of the replacement claims
`marked-up to indicate the amendments that have been made.
`
`Claim Amendments
`Claims 9 to 12 have been deleted.
`
`A minor clarifying amendment has been made to claim 2.
`
`All amendments are made without abandonment of subject matter.
`
`Clarity
`The objections raised with respect to claims 2 and 9 have been addressed by the above
`amendments.
`
`The examiner stated that the term “infinite focal length”, which is recited in claim 13, is clearly
`an error as such a lens is “definitely not suited for document imaging”. We respectfully
`disagree.
`In particular, as discussed in the last paragraph of page 9 of the description, a
`benefit of the claimed apparatus is that infinite focal length lenses can be used for document
`imaging.
`If the examiner maintains that such lenses cannot be used for document imaging in
`the claimed configuration then we request that he explain why he believes this to be the case.
`
`Novelty and Inventive Step
`In section 4 of the search opinion, the examiner stated the subject matter of claim 1 lacks
`novelty over D1. We respectfully disagree, as discussed in detail below.
`
`D1 is directed toward a device for assisting visually impaired users to view printed material;
`pictures; objects; etc. The device includes a base 14 on which a source material 13 can be
`
`FHKeI|y 27 Clyde Road, Dublin 4, Ireland. Tel: +353-I 2314848 Fax: +353-I 6144756 dublin@frl<elly.c0m wvvw.frl<eIly.ccm
`
`OFFICES: DUBLIN 84 BELFAST
`
`Exhibit 1010
`
`Page 8
`
`

`
`Exhibit 1010
`
`Page 9
`
`
`
`placed. A camera 15 having a lens 17 and an image sensor 18 is positioned directly above the
`source material 13. The image sensor can be a plurality of low resolution image sensors that,
`together, form a single high-resolution image sensor (D1 page 7, lines 25 — 27). Alternatively,
`to increase resolution, the sensor 18 of D1 can be a low resolution image-sensor that is micro-
`scanned, which involves moving the low-resolution sensor by sub-pixel amounts across the
`source material and acquiring images at different positions. The images are then combined to
`form a single high resolution image (D1 page 7, lines 27 — 31).
`
`D2 is also directed toward a device for enhancing an image for a visually impaired user.
`Particularly, the disclosure of D2 is directed toward a compact device that is easily
`transportable.
`
`Independent claim 1, on the other hand, recites "using an external processor to compare a
`resolution of each frame image of the video image with the reference resolution....". None of the
`cited references discloses this feature.
`
`Instead, the device disclosed in D1 is directed toward enhancing an image. Three possibilities
`for image enhancement are disclosed: 1) a high magnification image; 2) a medium
`magnification image; and 3) a low magnification image. What happens to the resolution, i.e.,
`In
`whether the resolution of each frame is altered at all, is not disclosed anmhere in D1 or D2.
`contrast, the presently claimed subject matter discloses comparing a resolution of "each frame
`image of the video image with the reference resolution... and adjusting the resolution of each
`frame image to correspond to the reference resolution". This feature of claim 1, at least, is
`neither disclosed nor suggested by D1 or D2. Accordingly, the subject matter of claim 1 is
`novel over each of D1 and D2.
`
`Furthermore, there is nothing whatsoever in either D1 or D2 to suggest comparing a resolution
`of "each frame image of the video image with the reference resolution... and adjusting the
`resolution of each frame image to correspond to the reference resolution". The skilled person
`starting at either D1 or D2 would therefore never arrive at the subject matter of claim 1 without
`the use of inventive skill. Hence, the subject matter of claim 1 also involves an inventive step
`with respect to D1 and D2, both individually and in combination.
`
`These comments apply equally to independent apparatus claim 9 (formerly claim 13).
`
`It is submitted that the application is now in order for grant. However, should any minor matters
`remain outstanding, please let us know. Oral proceedings are requested as a precaution
`against refusal.
`
`Yours faithfully,
`
`QUINLAN; Angela Elizabeth
`Representative
`a.quin|an@frke||y.com
`+35312314823
`
`H:\Draft Response.rtf
`
`Exhibit 1010
`
`Page 9
`
`

`
`Exhibit 1010
`
`Page 10
`
`Europfiisches
`
` Patentamt
`
`E,,,°,,ea,,
`Patent Office
`~
`A
`§’::'i,°,§.,‘;'§"°°"
`
`Brophy, David Timothy
`FRKe|ly
`27 Clyde Road
`
`Dublin 4
`IRLANDE
`
`L
`
`F1
`
`4
`
`European Patent Office
`80298 MUNICH
`GERMANY
`Tel: +49 89 2399 0
`Fax: +49 89 2399 4465
`
`Formalities Officer
`Name: Poquet, Rosa
`Tel: +49 89 2399 — 2911
`or call
`+31 (0)70 340 45 00
`
`.
`.
`fi‘;i’§;“S§li¥s'ieEl1‘f‘fl‘y'.?§i
`Tel: +49 89 2399 - 2624
`
`Application No.
`11 737 562.6 — 1902
`
`Applicant
`
`Rel.
`P105280EP00
`
`Date
`09.06.2015
`
`Pathway Innovations And Technologies, Inc.
`
`Communication pursuant to Article 94(3) EPC
`
`The examination of the above-identified application has revealed that it does not meet the requirements of the
`European Patent Convention for the reasons enclosed herewith. If the deficiencies indicated are not rectified
`the application may be refused pursuant to Article 97(2) EPC.
`
`You are invited to file your observations and insofar as the deficiencies are such as to be rectifiable, to correct
`the indicated deficiencies within a period
`
`of
`
`4 months
`
`from the notification of this communication, this period being computed in accordance with Rules 126(2) and
`131 (2) and (4) EPC. One set of amendments to the description, claims and drawings is to be filed within the
`said period on separate sheets (R. 50(1) EPC).
`
`If filing amendments, you must identify them and indicate the basis for them in the application as filed. Failure
`to meet either requirement may lead to a communication from the Examining Division requesting that you
`correct this deficiency (R. 137(4) EPC).
`
`Failure to comply with this invitation in due time will result in the application being deemed to be
`withdrawn (Art. 94(4) EPC).
`
`Registered letter
`EPO Form 2001 12.10CSX
`
`Exhibit 1010
`
`Page 10
`
`

`
`Exhibit 1010
`
`Page 11
`
`Date 09.06.2015
`
`Sheet 2
`
`Application No.: 11 737 562.6
`
`Bakstein, Hynek
`Primary Examiner
`For the Examining Division
`
`Enc|osure(s):
`
`2 page/s reasons (Form 2906)
`
`Registered letter
`EPO Form 2001 12.10CSX
`
`Exhibit 1010
`
`Page 11
`
`

`
`Exhibit 1010
`
`Datum
`
`Date
`Date
`
`09.06.2015
`
`Page 12
`
`Blatt
`
`Sheet
`Feuille
`
`1
`
`Anmelde-Nr:
`
`ApplicationNo: 11 737 562.6
`Demande n°:
`
`The examination is being carried out on the following application documents
`
`Description, Pages
`
`1-13
`
`filed with entry into the regional phase before the EPO
`
`Claims, Numbers
`
`1-11
`
`filed in electronic form on
`
`24-02-2014
`
`Drawings, Sheets
`
`1/9-9/9
`
`filed with entry into the regional phase before the EPO
`
`1
`
`2
`
`The arguments of the applicants have been carefully studied, but the
`
`examining division is still of the opinion that claim 1 lacks novelty and claim 9
`
`lacks clarity for the reasons given below.
`
`Regarding claim 1, it is submitted that both D1 and D2 do disclose digital
`
`zoom (D1: page 10, lines 23-28, D2: claim 5, the electronic zoom), that is,
`
`they do disclose using a reference resolution — the resolution of the zoomed
`
`image. The step of comparing a resolution of an acquired image to the desired
`
`reference resolution is at least implicitly disclosed by the magnification factor
`used.
`
`3
`
`Regarding claim 9, the term "infinite focal length" by definition means that the
`
`optical system has zero power (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_power),
`
`the only optical system which does have this property is a transparent glass.
`
`However, a glass alone does not focus an image on a sensor (unless located
`
`at infinity).
`
`A lens equivalent to an "infinite focal length" lens would be a lens which has a
`
`zero viewing angle - captures only parallel rays (orthographic projection).
`
`Such a lens is called a telecentric lens (http://www.edmundoptics.com/
`
`technical—resources-center/imaging/advantages—of-telecentricity/) and is used
`
`for object inspection. Since it captures only parallel rays, its field of view is
`
`limited by the size of the entrance pupil. For a document, it would have to be
`
`the size of the document, or vice versa.
`
`None of the above interpretations of the term "infinite focal length" would
`
`result in a plausible document scanner.
`
`EPO Form 2906 01 .9‘lTR|
`
`Exhibit 1010
`
`Page 12
`
`

`
`Exhibit 1010
`
`Datum
`
`Date
`Date
`
`09.06.2015
`
`Page 13
`
`Blatt
`
`Sheet
`Feuille
`
`2
`
`Anmelde-Nr:
`
`ApplicationNo: 11 737 562.6
`Demande n°:
`
`Since the last paragraph on page 9 of the description refers to a simple lens
`
`assembly without a need for an optical zoom, such as a mobile phone
`
`camera, it is believed, that the term "infinite focal length" was meant to be
`
`interpreted either as a fixed focus optical system, a pinhole camera, or a
`
`hyperfocal lens. However, these interpretations cannot be used as a basis for
`
`amendment of the unclear term, since there is a plurality of different
`
`interpretations and such an amendment would not be direct and
`
`unambiguous.
`
`The arguments regarding the dependent claims set out in the search opinion
`are maintained.
`
`The applicant is invited to file a new (independent) claim which takes account
`of the above comments.
`
`4
`
`5
`
`EPO Form 2906 01 .9‘lTR|
`
`Exhibit 1010
`
`Page 13