DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action for U.S. Patent Application 17/720,670 is responsive to communications filed on 10/8/25, in reply to the Final Rejection of 6/18/25. Currently, claims 1-15 and 17-21 are pending.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's request for reconsideration of the finality of the rejection of the last Office action is persuasive and, therefore, the finality of that action is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/8/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues on pages 9-10 (and 12-13) of the Response that Takashima does not teach “tunably extract, with postprocessing, a second signal of a first wavelength band from the first signal” (emphasis added by Applicant). In particular, that Takashima does not teach “the first signal” and therefore cannot teach extracting a signal from a signal that it does not acquire in the first place.
However, Takashima teaches a spectroscope 31 (i.e., “tunably extract”) that includes a plurality of optical filters that transmit a predetermined wavelength region of light (Fig. 1; para[0046]). Takashima is not relied upon to specifically teach “a first signal”. The “first signal” is taught in Neumann and as a signal passed through a band pass filter to allow visible light to pass in approximate wavelengths between 400nm and 700nm (i.e., “one or more wideband filters”) (para[0224]). The spectroscope 31 of Takashima performs filtering on collected light (i.e., a “signal”) and would therefore be able to perform such filtering on the “first signal” taught by Neumann. The monikers “first”, “second”, “third”, etc. for the “signal” in the claim limitations are interpreted as showing the transformation of an initial signal through the device and does not necessitate “first”, “second”, “third”, etc. signals to be explicitly taught by the prior art.
Applicant also argues on page 10 (and 13) of the Response that Takashima does not teach “postprocessing” or that the spectral sensor 23 of Takashima performs postprocessing.
However, “postprocessing” as claimed is interpreted to have the broadest reasonable interpretation of any type of secondary processing, or any type of additional processing. Applicant’s specification does not provide any details of the “postprocessing”. The term “postprocessing” only appears in the restatement of the claims in para[0006]-[0009] and [0022] of the specification, and in the language of the claims themselves. As Neumann teaches a type of primary processing (i.e., filtering a signal), namely, a band pass filter to allow visible light to pass in approximate wavelengths between 400nm and 700nma (para[0224]), then Takashima’s further processing of the signal (i.e., a spectroscope 31 that includes a plurality of optical filters; Fig. 1; para[0046]) is interpreted to be “postprocessing”.
In addition, Applicant argues on pages 10-11 (and 13-14) of the Response that the proposed combination of Takashima with Neumann is not obvious because Takashima does not need to perform any postprocessing to extract a predetermined wavelength of light.
However, as stated above, “postprocessing” as claimed is interpreted to have the broadest reasonable interpretation of any type of secondary processing, or any type of additional processing. Takashima provides further processing of the signal (i.e., a spectroscope 31 that includes a plurality of optical filters; Fig. 1; para[0046]) which is interpreted to be “postprocessing”. In addition, the motivation to combine the teachings of Takashima with those of Neumann rests in the benefit Neumann teaches of using a band pass filter. Neumann teaches a dual band pass filter incorporated into the optical path of an imaging sensor and configured to allow visible light and light at the wavelengths emitted by the infrared light source, to pass (See, for example, Neumann, para[0035], [0224]). The benefit of Neumann would render the combination of Takashima and Neumann to be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention.
Therefore, Takashima and Neumann teach all of the limitations of claim 1. In addition, please see the below-stated rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claims 2-15 and 17-20, please see the above-stated discussion for claim 1. In addition, please see the below-stated rejection of the claims.
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 nonobviousness.
Claims 1-11, 13-15, 17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takashima et al. (PCT/JP2016/067321 – PUB as U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0136116 cited as art of record and used for the translation; cited in the IDS filed 3/14/22) in view of Neumann (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0006914; cited in the IDS filed 3/14/22).
In regard to claim 1, Takashima teaches a signal processing device (i.e., vegetation inspection apparatus 11, signal processing block 24) (Fig. 1) comprising:
an acquisition circuitry (i.e., optical system 21, diaphragm 22) (Fig. 1) configured to
tunably extract (i.e., spectroscope 31 includes a plurality of optical filters that transmit a predetermined wavelength region of light) (Fig. 1; para[0046]), with postprocessing (i.e., spectral sensor 23) (Fig. 1, 14)…, a first signal (i.e., optical system 21 includes one or more lenses, collects light reflected from the inspection target 12 and the reference reflective plate 13) (Fig. 1; para[0043]) of a first wavelength band from the first signal (i.e., red light R, R1, R2, green light G, G1, G2, blue light B, B1, B2, infrared light IR, IR1, IR2) (Figs. 3, 8, 9, 14),
acquire a third signal based on second light filtered by one or more special purpose filters (i.e., red light R, infrared IR used for determining a good/degraded vegetation state; normalized difference vegetation index NDVI is calculated from Equation (1) by using the pixel value of red light R and the pixel value of infrared light IR (near-infrared region component)) (Fig. 3; para[0041], [0051], [0058]), and
extract a fourth signal (i.e., optical system 21 includes one or more lenses, collects light reflected from the inspection target 12 and the reference reflective plate 13) (Fig. 1; para[0043]) of a second wavelength band from the third signal (i.e., red light R, R1, R2, green light G, G1, G2, blue light B, B1, B2, infrared light IR, IR1, IR2) (Figs. 1, 3, 8, 9, 14); and
a signal processing circuitry (i.e., spectral sensor 23, signal processing block 24) (Fig. 1) configured to perform signal processing based (i.e., processes the detection signal outputted from the spectral sensor 23 to build an image) (Fig. 1; para[0045], [0051]) on at least one of the second signal or the fourth signal (i.e., uses the individual pixels of the sensing element 32 to detect the brightness of each of the different wavelength regions of light (spectroscopic components), and supplies the resulting detection signal to the signal processing block 24) (Figs. 8,9; para[0051]).
However, Takashima does not explicitly teach acquire a first signal based on the first light filtered by one or more wideband filters.
In the same field of endeavor, Neumann teaches acquire a first signal based on the first light filtered by one or more wideband filters (i.e., a band pass filter to allow visible light to pass in approximate wavelengths between 400nm and 700nm) (para[0224]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of Takashima and Neumann because Neumann teaches the benefit of a dual band pass filter being incorporated into the optical path of an imaging sensor and configured to allow visible light and light at the wavelengths emitted by the infrared light source, to pass (See, for example, Neumann, para[0035], [0224]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Takashima with those of Neumann.
In regard to claim 2, Takashima and Neumann teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. In addition, Takashima teaches wherein the signal processing circuitry is further configured to
acquire a third signal based on second light filtered by one or more special purpose filters (i.e., red light R, infrared IR used for determining a good/degraded vegetation state; normalized difference vegetation index NDVI is calculated from Equation (1) by using the pixel value of red light R and the pixel value of infrared light IR (near-infrared region component)) (Fig. 3; para[0041], [0051], [0058]), and
extract a sixth signal of a third wavelength band from the fifth signal (i.e., optical system 21 includes one or more lenses, collects light reflected from the inspection target 12 and the reference reflective plate 13; red light R, R1, R2, green light G, G1, G2, blue light B, B1, B2, infrared light IR, IR1, IR2) (Fig. 1, 3, 8, 9; para[0043]),
wherein the signal processing circuitry is configured to perform signal processing based on the sixth signal (i.e., optical system 21 includes one or more lenses, collects light reflected from the inspection target 12 and the reference reflective plate 13) (Fig. 1; para[0043]) (i.e., red light R, R1, R2, green light G, G1, G2, blue light B, B1, B2, infrared light IR, IR1, IR2) (Figs. 1, 3, 8, 9).
In regard to claim 3, Takashima and Neumann teach all of the limitations of claims 1 and 2 as discussed above. In addition, Takashima teaches wherein the signal processing circuitry is further configured to calculate a vegetation characteristic (i.e., normalized difference vegetation index NDVI, ratio vegetation index (RVI), green NDVI (GNDVI)) (Fig. 3; para[0041], [0051], [0058-0059]) based on at least one of the fourth signal or the sixth signal (i.e., normalized difference vegetation index NDVI is calculated from Equation (1), by using the pixel value of red light R and the pixel value of infrared light IR (near-infrared region component)) (Fig. 3; para[0041], [0051], [0058]).
In regard to claim 4, Takashima and Neumann teach all of the limitations of claims 1-3 as discussed above. In addition, Takashima teaches wherein the vegetation characteristic includes one of a normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI), a green normalized difference vegetation index (GNDVI), a photochemical reflectance index (PRI), or a sun-induced fluorescence (SIF) (i.e., normalized difference vegetation index NDVI is calculated from Equation (1), by using the pixel value of red light R and the pixel value of infrared light IR (near-infrared region component)) (Fig. 3; para[0041], [0051], [0058]).
In regard to claims 5 and 6, the claims recite analogous limitations to claims 1 above, and are therefore rejected on the same premise.
In regard to claim 7, Takashima and Neumann teach all of the limitations of claim 6 as discussed above. In addition, Takashima teaches wherein the first detection circuitry is a first portion of pixels of an image sensor (i.e., individual pixels of the sensing element 32 to detect the brightness of each of the different wavelength regions of light (spectroscopic components), set of 8 pixels (i.e. 2x4) arrayed pixels, plurality of pixels in a matrix form) (Fig. 1; para[0045]-[0049]), and wherein the second detection circuitry is a second portion of the pixels of the image sensor (i.e., individual pixels of the sensing element 32 to detect the brightness of each of the different wavelength regions of light (spectroscopic components), set of 8 pixels (i.e. 2x4) arrayed pixels, plurality of pixels in a matrix form) (Fig. 1; para[0045]-[0049]).
In regard to claim 8, Takashima and Neumann teach all of the limitations of claims 6 and 7 as discussed above. In addition, Takashima teaches …have different spectral characteristics than the one or more special purpose filters (i.e., red light R, infrared IR used for determining a good/degraded vegetation state; normalized difference vegetation index NDVI is calculated from Equation (1) by using the pixel value of red light R and the pixel value of infrared light IR (near-infrared region component)) (Fig. 3; para[0041], [0051], [0058]).
In the same field of endeavor, Neumann teaches wherein the one or more wideband filters (i.e., a band pass filter to allow visible light to pass in approximate wavelengths between 400nm and 700nm) (para[0224]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of Takashima with those of Neumann for the same reasons as those discussed above for claim 1.
In regard to claim 9, Takashima and Neumann teach all of the limitations of claims 6-8 as discussed above. In addition, Takashima teaches wherein transmittances of…and the one or more special purpose filters (i.e., red light R, infrared IR used for determining a good/degraded vegetation state; normalized difference vegetation index NDVI is calculated from Equation (1) by using the pixel value of red light R and the pixel value of infrared light IR (near-infrared region component)) (Fig. 3; para[0041], [0051], [0058]) are determined on a basis of output sensitivities of the first detection circuitry and the second detection circuitry, respectively (i.e., respective optical filters are disposed on the respective pixels of the sensing element 32 to disperse the light incident on the detection plan of the sensing element 32) (Fig. 1; para[0046]).
In the same field of endeavor, Neumann teaches the one or more wideband filters (i.e., a band pass filter to allow visible light to pass in approximate wavelengths between 400nm and 700nm) (para[0224]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of Takashima with those of Neumann for the same reasons as those discussed above for claim 1.
In regard to claim 10, Takashima and Neumann teach all of the limitations of claims 6-8 as discussed above. In addition, Takashima teaches wherein a number of the first portion of the pixels (i.e., a set of eight pixels are, in order from the shortest wavelength to the longest) (Fig. 1; para[0047]-[0049]) and a number of the second portion of the pixels are determined on a basis of output sensitivities of the first detection circuitry and the second detection circuitry, respectively (i.e., one set is formed of 8-pixel optical filters, and the n sets of such optical filters (where n is a natural number of 1 or greater) are successively disposed on the whole detection plan of the sensing element 32, and sensing element 32 detects the brightness of spectroscopic components dispersed by each optical filter of the spectroscope 31 on an individual pixel basis and outputs a detection signal based on the brightness of each spectroscopic component) (Fig. 1; para[0048]-[0049]).
In regard to claim 11, Takashima and Neumann teach of the limitations of claims 6-8 as discussed above. In addition, Takashima teaches further comprising: an exposure control circuitry (i.e., control block 25) (Fig. 1) configured to control exposure on a basis of output sensitivity of each of the first detection circuitry and the second detection circuitry (i.e., an exposure time based on the sensitivity setting) (para[0051]).
In regard to claim 13, Takashima and Neumann teach all of the limitations of claims 6-8 as discussed above. In addition, Takashima teaches wherein the filter included in the second detection circuitry includes an RGB sensor (i.e., Fig. 1).
However, Takashima does not teach a dual bandpass filter.
In the same field of endeavor, Neumann teaches a dual bandpass filter (i.e., dual band pass filter) (para[0024]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of Takashima and Neumann for the same reasons as those stated above for claim 1.
In regard to claim 14, Takashima and Neumann teach all of the limitations of claim 6 as discussed above. In addition, Takashima teaches wherein the first detection circuitry and the second detection circuitry are provided in different cameras or image capture mechanisms (i.e., sensing elements 31a, 31b) (Fig. 18).
In regard to claim 15, Takashima and Neumann teach all of the limitations of claims 6 and 14 as discussed above. In addition, Takashima teaches further comprising: a dichroic filter (i.e., beam splitter 71) (Fig. 18) that separates light entering…and the one or more special purpose filters (i.e., red light R, infrared IR used for determining a good/degraded vegetation state; normalized difference vegetation index NDVI is calculated from Equation (1) by using the pixel value of red light R and the pixel value of infrared light IR (near-infrared region component)) (Fig. 3; para[0041], [0051], [0058]).
However, Takashima does not explicitly teach the one or more wideband filters.
In the same field of endeavor, Neumann teaches the one or more wideband filters (i.e., visible light to pass in approximate wavelengths between 400nm and 700nm) (para[0224]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of Takashima and Neumann for the same reasons as those stated above for claim 1.
In regard to claim 17, Takashima and Neumann teach all of the limitations of claim 6 as discussed above. In addition, Takashima teaches wherein the second wavelength band is one of a wide band or a narrow band (i.e., a wavelength region of approximately 600-700nm) (Figs. 2, 3; para[0056]).
In regard to claim 19, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 1 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
In regard to claim 20, Takashima and Neumann teach all of the limitations of claim 19 above. In addition, Takashima teaches further comprising: a focusing circuitry (i.e., optical system 21) (Fig. 1) configured to perform a focusing operation based on the second detection signal (i.e., optical system 21 includes one or more lenses and collects light reflected from the inspection target 12 and the reference reflective plate 13) (para[0043]).
Claims 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takashima et al. (PCT/JP2016/067321 – PUB as U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0136116 cited as art of record and used for the translation; cited in the IDS filed 3/14/22) in view of Neumann (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0006914; cited in the IDS filed 3/14/22), and further in view of Kawabata et al. (U.S. 2016/0170108).
In regard to claim 12, Takashima and Neumann teach all of the limitations of claims 6-8 as discussed above. However, Takashima does not explicitly teach wherein one of the one or more wideband filters is a plasmon resonance filter.
In the same field of endeavor, Kawabata teaches wherein one of the one or more wideband filters is a plasmon resonance filter (i.e., an optical filter utilizing plasmon resonance at the boundary between the dielectric body layer and the metal layer (plasmonic filter), any wavelength may be selected) (para[0075]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of Takashima and Neumann with those of Kawabata because Kawabata teaches the use of a plasmonic filter so that any wavelength may be selected without significantly changing the materials forming the metal layer and dielectric layer or the manufacturing method, and producing an optical filter with an even higher performance (See, for example, Kawabata, para[0075]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Takashima and Neumann with those of Kawabata.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takashima et al. (PCT/JP2016/067321 – PUB as U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0136116 cited as art of record and used for the translation; cited in the IDS filed 3/14/22) in view of Neumann (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0006914; cited in the IDS filed 3/14/22), and further in view of Sugie et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0067296; cited in the IDS filed 3/14/22).
In regard to claim 18, Takashima and Neumann teach all of the limitations of claim 6 as discussed above. In addition, Takashima teaches further comprising:
a display control circuitry (i.e., display section 14) configured to
generate (Fig. 1) a first image (i.e., display section 14) (Fig. 1) on a basis of the first detection signal (i.e., processes the detection signal outputted from the spectral sensor 23 to build an image) (Fig. 1; para[0051]),
generate second image on a basis of the second detection signal (i.e., processes the detection signal outputted from the spectral sensor 23 to build and image) (Fig. 1; para[0051]), and
display the first image…on a second image (i.e., outputs the image to the display section 14 as the sensing result) (Fig. 1; para[0051]).
However, Takashima and Neumann do not teach overlaid.
In the same field of endeavor, Sugie teaches overlaid (i.e., alignment of photographed images overlap each other) (para[0107]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of Takashima and Neumann with those of Sugie because Sugie teaches overlapping images for the benefit of a medical observation system to obtain a deep focus image (See, for example, Sugie, para[0001]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Takashima and Neumann with those of Sugie.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kristin Dobbs whose telephone number is (571)270-7936. The examiner can normally be reached Monday and Thursday 9:30am-5:30pm EST.
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, Sathyanarayanan Perungavoor can be reached at (571)272-7455. 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.
KRISTIN DOBBS
Examiner
Art Unit 2488
/KRISTIN DOBBS/Examiner, Art Unit 2488