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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on 10/03/2024 is acknowledged. The Applicant has previously cancelled claims 4 and 8. Claims 1-3, 5-7 and 9-16 are pending in the application and have been examined.
The Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed on 10/03/2024 have been fully considered. However, during a final search to determine the patentability of the claimed invention, new prior art relevant to the Applicant’s claimed subject matter has been discovered. In view of the above, the Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection of the claims as detailed in the Office action mailed on 07/05/2024 are moot. A rejection based on newly discovered prior art is the subject of this Office action. The Examiner sincerely regrets any inconvenience to the Applicant due to the above.
Examiner’s Note
In this Office action, the Examiner has cited references from prior art of record that is relevant to the Applicant’s claimed invention. Although the citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages, paragraphs and figures may apply. The Applicant, in the response to this Office action, should consider fully the entire reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed/cited by the Examiner. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5, 9 and 14 are rejected because the claims fail to comply with the written description requirement, specifically with regard to the term/limitation “automatically”. The limitation “automatically” is not described or defined in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed limitation in the invention. The limitation “automatically”, under BRI, has been given the most generic interpretation for examination purposes.
Claims 2-3, 6-7 and 10 -13 are rejected because they are dependent on claim 1 or claim 5 or claim 10, and by virtue of their dependency on claim 1 or claim 5 or claim 9 they have all the deficiencies of their respective parent claims inherent in them.
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 1-3, 5-7 and 9-16 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.
Claims 1, 5, 9 and 14 are rejected because it is unclear what the limitation “automatically” entails or how the function is achieved or how it is performed. The lack of clarity due to the above has made the claims vague and indefinite.
Claims 2-3, 6-7 and 10 -16 are rejected because they are dependent on claim 1 or claim 5 or claim 9 or claim 14 which have the undefined limitation “automatically” in them, and by virtue of their dependency on claim 1 or claim 5 or claim 9 or claim 14 they have all the deficiencies of their respective parent claims inherent in them.
Claim 2 is further rejected because it recites the limitation "one or more previous observations" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no reference of a prior observation in the claim to refer to a previous observation.
Claim 15 is further rejected because it is dependent on claim 14, wherein claim 14 recites “a system comprising: one or more light sources …”, from which it can be safely assumed that the system of claim 14 requires only one light source. Claim 15 recites “The system of claim 14 wherein the one or more light sources are each configured to produce a beam of light having component wavelengths in each of red, green, and blue regions of the visible light spectrum. If the claimed system requires only one light source, the recitation “… light sources are each configured to produce a beam of light having component wavelengths in each of red, green, and blue regions” is contradiction with the earlier claimed one light source because it is reciting three light sources. The claiming of a single light source at the beginning of claim 15 and then subsequently claiming three light sources, each configured to produce a beam of light having component wavelengths in each of red, green, and blue regions, has made the claim vague and indefinite.
Claim 16 is further rejected because it is dependent on claim 14, wherein claim 14 recites “a system comprising: one or more light sources …”, from which it can be safely assumed that the system of claim 14 requires only one light source. However, claim 15 recites:
at least one light source is configured to produce a beam of light having wavelengths in the red region of the visible light spectrum;
at least one light source is configured to produce a beam of light having wavelengths in the green region of the visible light spectrum;
at least one light source is configured to produce a beam of light having wavelengths in the blue region of the visible light spectrum;
and thus presents three light sources configured to produce beams of light having different wavelengths. The claiming of a single light source in parent claim 14 and then claiming three light sources in dependent claim 16, each configured to produce a beam of light having component wavelengths in each of red, green, and blue regions, which is in contradiction with the earlier claimed one light source, has made the claim vague and indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zuzak et al (US 2010/0056928 A1).
Claim 1 is rejected because Zuzak et al (Zuzak hereinafter) teaches of a method of performing one of a plurality of applications using one or more light sources 200 and a light sensor 220 (see Figure 18), the method comprising:
with the one or more light sources 200, illuminating one or more physical objects 216;
with the light sensor 220, sensing light reflected by the one or more physical objects 216; and
configuring a computer processor 222 to automatically adjust one or more parameters of the one or more light sources in response to analysis of video data (see paragraphs [0233], [0238]) received from the light sensor 220, wherein the one or more parameters of the one or more light sources 200 includes a spectrum parameter and wherein the spectrum parameter is automatically adjusted, in response to the analysis of the video data received from the light sensor (see paragraph [0232]; Figure 18). Zuzak teaches that the computer 222 can be arranged to control the digital micromirror array 211 (see the last sentence in paragraph [0232]).
PNG
media_image1.png
431
554
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In claim 1, the recitation “to influence behavior of the one or more physical objects, or to avoid influencing the behavior of same”, has not been considered as a tangible limitation because “influencing behavior” is not a quantifiable limitation, does not have any structure for performing this function, and it only states an intended purpose for adjusting the spectrum parameter.
Regarding claim 2, Zuzak teaches that “reflected light 218 from a sample 216 is received by CCD Focal Plane Array detector 220 and the detected data is communicated to computer 222 for data processing. Computer 222 can also be arranged to control digital micromirror array 210 and the detector 220” (see paragraph 0232; Figure 18). Zuzak teaches that the data generated by the detector from a previous observation is communicated to the computer which then uses the data to control digital micromirror array. It is known in the art a computer that receives data from an external device comprises a non-transitory computer-readable data storage medium for temporarily storing/holding the data which is then accessed by the computer processor for processing the data for the purpose controlling an external device. The claimed non-transitory computer-readable data storage medium is considered inherent in Zuzak’s computer 222 (see paragraph [0232]; Figure 18).
Regarding claim 3, Zuzak teaches that one or more parameters of the one or more light sources includes an intensity parameter (see paragraph [0232]). Zuzak states “projected light 212 includes intensities of wavelengths of a complex spectrum reflected back into the optical path by array 211 in paragraph [0232].
Claim 14 is rejected for the same reasons of rejection of claim 1 because it is directed to a system/apparatus comprising components/parts that implements the method claimed in claim 1, and has limitations that are similar/identical to that of claim 1. Claim 14 is rejected because Zuzak teaches of a system comprising one or more light sources 200 configured to illuminate one or more physical objects 216; a light sensor 220 configured to sense light reflected by the one or more physical objects 216; and a computer processor 222 configured to adjust one or more parameters of the one or more light sources in response to an analysis of video data (see paragraphs [0162], [231], [0238]) received from the light sensor 220, wherein the one or more parameters of the one or more light sources includes a spectrum parameter and wherein the computer processor 222 is further configured to adjust the spectrum parameter automatically, in response to the analysis of the video data received from the light sensor 220 (see paragraphs [0162], [0231], [0232], [0233], [0238]; Figure 18).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 non-obviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zuzak et al (US 2010/0056928 A1).
Claim 15 is rejected because:
Zuzak teaches all claim limitations except that the claimed system comprises three light sources each configured to produce a beam of light having component wavelengths in each of red, green, and blue regions of the visible light spectrum; and further comprising one or more prisms configured to: disperse the beam of light by wavelength; direct a portion of the dispersed beam of light having wavelengths in the red region of the visible light spectrum to one or more digital micro-mirror devices; direct a portion of the dispersed beam of light having wavelengths in the green region of the visible light spectrum to one or more digital micro-mirror devices; direct a portion of the dispersed beam of light having wavelengths in the blue region of the visible light spectrum to one or more digital micro-mirror devices; and direct the beam reflected by each one or more digital micro-mirror devices to a projection lens to direct each wavelength component to a physical object to determine optical characteristics of the physical object from images of the physical object.
Zuzak’s system (see Figure 18) comprises a light source 202 configured to produce a beam of light; a dispersive element 209 configured to disperse the beam of light by wavelength; direct the dispersed beam of light to a digital micro-mirror device 211; direct the beam reflected by each one or more digital micro-mirror devices to a projection lens 214.
The system claimed in claim 15 differs from Zuzak’s system in that the claimed system has three light sources (red, green and blue), and three digital micro-mirror devices to direct each wavelength component to a physical object compared to Zuzak’s single light source 202, and a single digital micro-mirror device 211 to direct the beam reflected by each one or more digital micro-mirror devices to direct each wavelength component to a physical object to determine optical characteristics of the physical object from images of the physical object.
From the above it can be seen that the system claimed in claim 15 merely duplicates Zuzaks teachings by having three channels each having a separate light source and three digital micro-mirror devices to direct each wavelength component to a physical object to determine optical characteristics of the physical object from images of the physical object.
In view of Zuzak’s teaching of a system having a single light source and a single digital micro-mirror device to direct each wavelength component to a physical object it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to duplicate Zuzak’s teachings to illuminate an object under test with only specific wavelength bands so that wavelength-specific optical characteristics of said object can be determined with improved accuracy by eliminating undesired wavelengths that may create noise from being incident on the object.
Claim 16 is rejected for reasons similar to the rejection of claim 15 detailed above because claim 16 differs from claim 15 only in the recitation “one or more second prisms configured to direct the beam reflected by the one or more digital micro-mirror devices to a projection lens.” Since the prism is used only for directing the beam reflected by the one or more digital micro-mirror devices to a projection lens, under BRI, the concave lens (the upper lens in the lens assembly 214 of Figure 18) is being considered as a functional equivalent of the claimed second prism, and the convex lens (the lower lens in the lens assembly 214 of Figure 18) is being considered as a projection lens.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zuzak et al (US 2010/0056928 A1) in view of Talbert et al (US 2020/0400498 A1).
Claim 5 is rejected because:
Zuzak teaches all claim limitations except that the spectrum parameter is automatically adjusted to control white balance (for a desired/intended purpose) for determining optical characteristics of a physical object from images of the physical object.
Talbert et al (Talbert hereinafter) teaches of adjusting/modulating a spectrum parameter for controlling white balance in a hyperspectral imaging system (see paragraphs [0212] and [0214]).
In view of Talbert’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to incorporate Talbert’s teachings into Zuzak’s system for gathering a wide dynamic range statistics for the purpose of improving the accuracy of measurements using the images for determining optical characteristics of a physical object from images of the physical object.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected for the same reasons of rejection of claim 5 as detailed above because claims 6 and 7 are directed to a media that includes water or a water-based solution that may include salt water, which is considered merely as a sample under test and therefore not a part of the claimed system. Furthermore, providing any desired sample for testing would have only required routine skill in the art and not any specialized knowledge or skill.
Claims 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zuzak et al (US 2010/0056928 A1) in view of Chang et al (U. S. Patent 8,970,693 B1).
Claim 9 is rejected because:
Zuzak teaches all claim limitations except that the parameters of at least one light source is adjusted to produce one of a plurality of pre-defined patterns of light in a system for determining optical characteristics of a physical object from images of the physical object.
Chang et al (Chang hereinafter) teaches of a system (see abstract) in which structured/patterned light is produced and projected from a DMD (see col. 5, lines 32-39) to an object (see col. 2, lines 59-62; see col. 4, lines 5-7), for determining physical characteristics of an object from images of a physical object (see col. 1, lines 52-61).
In view of Chang’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to incorporate Chang’s teachings into Zuzak’s system for determining dimensions or shape of an object from patterned light projected to an object from the images of the object because a pattern would differ from point to point depending on the shape of the object under test and the shape or dimension of the object can be determined easily and accurately from the shape of the projected pattern on the object.
Claim 10 is rejected for the same reasons of rejection of claim 9 as detailed above and because Chang teaches that the pre-defined patterns of light include a grid (see col. 7, lines 20-22).
Claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons of rejection of claim 10 as detailed above and because Chang teaches of analyzing the reflected grid pattern sensed to determine a contour of the one or more physical objects (see col. 7, lines 20-22).
Regarding claims 12 and 13, in view of Chang’s teaching of projecting a grid pattern to an object for determining its shape of dimensions, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to project a checkerboard pattern onto the object under test because a checkerboard pattern is merely an alternate pattern in comparison to a grid pattern, and furthermore use the checkerboard pattern for facilitating calibration of the system (see col. 10, line 58- col. 12, line 2).
The prior art cited in the accompanying PTO-892 is made of record and not relied upon, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Status/Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Roy M. Punnoose whose telephone number is 571-272-2427 or Fax number 571-273-2427. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30 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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached on 571-270-5789. The fax 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.
/ROY M PUNNOOSE/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2877