DETAILED ACTIONS
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/30/2026 has been entered.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim this application being in benefit of foreign priority from Korean Patent Application No. KR10-2022-0121740 filed on September 26, 2022.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 01/30/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the
application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Claim 1 was amended to add that the electronic display is configured to be controlled by a processor to sequentially display patterned background images. Prior art of record Pinter teaches this limitation in paragraph 0122, “the controller 1071 may be configured to, for example, acquire a series of images of a target or targets (not shown in FIG . 10) using a corresponding series of varied illumination patterns from a particular illumination source/camera, and/or a corresponding series of images of a target or targets using a corresponding series of varied illumination sources and/or varied cameras (i.e., the controller 1071 may be configured to cause the multi-axis machine vision system 1000 to sequentially grasp/release a series of different illumination sources/cameras and acquire a respective series of images of a target or targets)”. As shown in paragraph 0101, the patterned area light source in Fig. 25A-H,J is an example of an illumination source, “illumination sources 2500a-h,j of FIGS. 25A-H, J”. Therefore, Pinter teaches sequentially changing displaying patterned background images. Examiner suggests further amending the claim to include that the electronic display is configured to be controlled by a processor to sequentially display a white image pattern as the first pattern and a check patterned image as the second pattern as described in the Specification [0100] to overcome the current cited prior art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 1-2, 10, 12-13, 18, and 20 are being rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pison et al., (US 2013/0293706 A1, published 11/07/2013), hereinafter referred to as Pison, in view of Bower et al., (US 2021/0056660 A1, published 02/25/2021), hereinafter referred to as Bower, in further view of Pinter et al., (US 2020/0134773 A1, published 04/30/2020), hereinafter referred to as Pinter.
Claim 1
Pison discloses an apparatus for measuring solubility (Pison, [0027], “above-described analysis device is preferably part of a metering apparatus”), the apparatus comprising:
a display configured to display at least one patterned background image (Pison, Fig. 1 and Fig. 2, the underside surface of the container displays a patterned background image, the patterned background image is a QR code, under BRI, display means to put somewhere for people to see, the QR code is displayed underneath the sample container);
a camera (Pison, [0007], “The image capture plane is preferably formed by an image sensor such as a CCD sensor or CMOS sensor, which is housed in a suitable manner in an associated analysis device, for example in a camera”) configured to obtain transmission images (Pison, Abstract, “recording an image of an identification pattern (32a-h) associated with the at least one sample container (24a-h) by means of an image recording device (22) that produces image data, wherein the optical path (OP) is selected in such a way that the sample liquid (34) contained in the at least one sample container (24a-h) lies at least partially between the image recording plane (36) of the image recording device (22) and the identification pattern (32a-h)”) formed by light from the patterned background images being transmitted through a container accommodating a target sample (Pison, [0025], “The identification pattern on the at least one sample container is preferably provided on the underside thereof, wherein the identification pattern is preferably formed by various regions with different light transmission properties. By way of example, a barcode in the form of a product code or a two-dimensional 2D barcode can be used as identification pattern.”, different barcode), of which solubility is to be measured (Pison, [0004], “It is an object of the invention to provide an optical analysis method and an associated analysis device, which enables a simplified determination of the degree of dissolution, in particular of the complete dissolution of a substance in a sample liquid”); and
the processor (Pison, [0027], “a processor, memory, etc. and communication links for transmitting commands/signals to components of the metering apparatus or the analysis device”), wherein the processor is configured to analyze a degree of dissolution of the target sample from the transmission images (Pison, [0004], “It is an object of the invention to provide an optical analysis method and an associated analysis device, which enables a simplified determination of the degree of dissolution, in particular of the complete dissolution of a substance in a sample liquid”, [0038], “In order to establish by means of an optical analysis whether a substance to be dissolved in the sample liquid has been completely dissolved, the sample containers 24a-h are illuminated from below by the respective light-emitting diode 18a-h such that the camera 22 arranged over a relevant sample container 24a-h is able to record an image of the respective identification pattern 32a-h. To this end, the identification pattern 32a-h has regions which transmit light and are opaque to light, as can be identified in an exemplary fashion in the top view in accordance with FIG. 2 for the sample containers 24a-h and the associated identification patterns 32a-h, which are embodied here in an exemplary fashion as 2D barcode but can also be any other suitable type of code, such as 1D barcodes, additional digits or the like.”) based on using at least one analysis algorithm (Pison, [0047], “An evaluation takes place in step S05, as to whether the identification pattern can be read. This step occurs within the scope of an identification algorithm. To the extent of that identification pattern being readable, an optical analysis S06 determines that the sample liquid is clear or transparent.”, Fig. 5, interpretation output).
Pison does not explicitly disclose an electronic display configured to display at least one patterned background image.
However, Bower teaches an electronic display (Bower, Fig. 1, Pattern 18, [0015], “A predetermined pattern 18 is positioned between the illumination source 14 and target object 12. For example, predetermined pattern 18 may be applied to the surface of illumination source 14 or may be applied to a separate substrate positioned against illumination source 14 or suspended between illumination source 14 and target object 12.”, the pattern could be applied to the surface of the illumination source which could be analogous to the electronic display) configured to display patterned background images (Bower, Fig. 3, there is an electronic display of patterned background image underneath the container, [0016], “pattern 18 is positioned below target object 12, which is shown as a grid positioned below the base or bottom of a vial and illuminated by LEDs positioned below the grid and oriented to illumination upwardly through the grid and then along the longitudinal axis of vial from the base through the body of the vial. When a liquid is present in target object 12, however, predetermined pattern 18 will be distorted as a result of liquid in the target object”)
Pison and Bower are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of detecting liquid using a pattern background. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus as taught by Pison to incorporate the teachings of Bower of an electronic display configured to display at least one patterned background image. Such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The motivation for the proposed modification would be to accurately differentiate vials containing liquids from vials that are empty (Chen, [0004]).
The combination of Pison and Bower does not explicitly disclose an electronic display configures to be controlled by a processor to sequentially display patterned background images.
However, Pinter teaches an electronic display configures to be controlled by a processor to sequentially (Pinter, [0122], ““the controller 1071 may be configured to, for example, acquire a series of images of a target or targets (not shown in FIG . 10) using a corresponding series of varied illumination patterns from a particular illumination source/camera, and/or a corresponding series of images of a target or targets using a corresponding series of varied illumination sources and/or varied cameras (i.e., the controller 1071 may be configured to cause the multi-axis machine vision system 1000 to sequentially grasp/release a series of different illumination sources/cameras and acquire a respective series of images of a target or targets)”, Fig. 25A-H,J is an example of an illumination source) display patterned background images (Pinter, Fig. 5, Fig. 25C-25F, same as Pison and Chen, as shown in Fig. 5, the object to be measured is in between the camera and the patterned background image, [0101], “Turning to FIG. 5, a machine vision system 500 may incorporate a backlight 506. The backlight 506 may be similar to, for example, any one of the illumination sources 2500a-h,j of FIGS. 25A-H,J. The illumination source 506 may include an illumination source optical element (e.g., a lens, a spectral filter, a polarizer, a diffuser, a spatial filter, a liquid crystal display, a switchable film, polymer dispersed liquid crystals, an electrochromic device, a photochromic device, a sub-combination thereof, a combination thereof, etc.). While not shown in FIG. 5, the illumination source optical element may be manually and/or automatically variable. While similarly not shown in FIG. 5, an illumination source 506 may include either, or both, a hardwired electrical power/control connection or a hardwired electrical power connection and a wireless control (e.g., WIFI, Bluetooth, radio frequency, a wide area wireless network, etc.).”, [0191], “The patterned area light source 2505a-h,j may include a first electrical power/control connection 2511a-h,j, a second electrical power/control connection 2516a-h,j, an electrical printed circuit board (not shown in FIGS. 25A-H,J), a controller (not shown in FIGS. 25A-H,J), and a plurality of light sources 2505g,h,j (e.g., bar lights 2205a-e of FIGS. 22A-E). The controller may be configured to receive electrical power/control signals via the first electrical power/control connection 2511a-h,j and may control, for example, an intensity of each of the plurality of light sources 2505g,h,j, the optical element 2512a,c-f, and/or a camera (not shown in FIGS. 25A-H,J). The controller may be similar to, for example, the controller 1317b of FIG. 13B and/or 4405a of FIG. 44A. The controller may implement any portion or, or all of the functionality as described, for example, with regard to FIGS. 44A-D.”, [0296], “The processor 4422a may receive signals (e.g., light intensity data, light color data, light polarization data, etc.) from the at least one illumination source input/output 4427a and may provide control signals to the at least one illumination source input/output 4427a to, for example, control at least one illumination source (e.g., light intensity, light color, individual light (or group of lights) within the illumination source, etc.) and/or at least one illumination source optical element (e.g., illumination source optical element 1312a of FIG. 13A)”, [0303], “The remote computing device 4410a may include a memory 4440a and a processor 4442a for storing and executing, respectively, a module 4441a. The module 4441a may be stored in the memory 4440a as, for example, a set of computer-readable instructions, and may facilitate applications related to collecting machine vision related data.”, the same processor can control the illumination source as well as does the image processing, [0103], “Illuminating a target 550 with a backlight 506 may produce a silhouette of the target 550 with respect to the camera 560. The machine vision system 500 may utilize the silhouette to enable, for example, high-accuracy transparent target detection. The machine vision system 500 may enable detecting a level of, for example, transparent liquid within a transparent or semi-transparent container. The backlight illuminator 506 may silhouette a shape of the target 550 using the light 551 passing through the target 550.”).
Pison, Bower, and Pinter are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of detecting liquid using a pattern background. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus as taught by Pison and Bower to incorporate the teachings of Pinter of an electronic display configures to be controlled by a processor to sequentially display patterned background images. Such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The motivation for the proposed modification would be that when used as a transmission light source, a PAL (patterned area light) source may be used as a backlight but with addition of high contrast patterns that reveal subtle variations and defects in transparent objects (Pinter, [0204]).
Claim 2
The combination of Pison in view of Bower in further view of Pinter discloses the apparatus of claim 1 (Pison, [0027], “above-described analysis device is preferably part of a metering apparatus”), wherein the processor (Pison, [0027], “a processor, memory, etc. and communication links for transmitting commands/signals to components of the metering apparatus or the analysis device”) is further configured to use the at least one analysis algorithm (Pison, [0047], “An evaluation takes place in step S05, as to whether the identification pattern can be read. This step occurs within the scope of an identification algorithm. To the extent of that identification pattern being readable, an optical analysis S06 determines that the sample liquid is clear or transparent.”, Fig. 5, interpretation output) to determine, from the transmission images (Pison, Fig. 5, image recording S04, Abstract, “recording an image of an identification pattern (32a-h) associated with the at least one sample container (24a-h) by means of an image recording device (22) that produces image data, wherein the optical path (OP) is selected in such a way that the sample liquid (34) contained in the at least one sample container (24a-h) lies at least partially between the image recording plane (36) of the image recording device (22) and the identification pattern (32a-h)”), at least one of whether the target sample is completely dissolved (Pison, Fig. 5, interpretation, “Dissolved No particles”), opacity of a solution in which the target sample is dissolved (Pison, [0044], “FIG. 4b shows the case with a clear but darker colored sample liquid 34, which covers the identification pattern 32a. In such a case, the contrast between black (light opaque) and brighter (light transmissive) regions of the identification pattern 32a is less pronounced and may lead to difficulties when identifying the identification pattern 32a”), whether undissolved particles are present in the solution in which the target sample is dissolved (Pison, Fig. 5, interpretation, “Dissolved Possibly small particles”), or whether residues are present around the container (Pison, Fig. 5, interpretation, “Undissolved particles”).
Claim 10
The combination of Pison in view of Bower in further view of Pinter discloses the apparatus of claim 1 (Pison, [0027], “above-described analysis device is preferably part of a metering apparatus”), wherein the target sample comprises at least one of a solid sample or a liquid sample (Pison, Abstract, “The invention relates to a method for optically analyzing a sample liquid (34) contained in a sample container (24a-h), wherein the sample liquid (34) contains at least one substance (40) in at least partially dissolved form”).
Claims 12-13 are rejected for similar reasons as those described in claims 1 and 2. The additional elements in Claims 12-13 (the combination of Pison in view of Bower in further view of Pinter) discloses includes: a method of measuring solubility (Pison, Fig. 5), displaying at least one patterned background image according to a control signal (Pison, In Fig. 1, the camera is movable to each testing tubes which displays different patterned background image, [0026], “It is proposed that the analysis device furthermore comprises a control device or has a communication link thereto, which control device is configured in such a way that the actuation of the relative movements between holding container, light source and image recording device can be carried out and that the method steps required for the optical analysis of the sample liquid can be carried out.”).
Claim 18
The combination of Pison in view of Bower in further view of Pinter discloses the method of claim 12 (Pison, Fig. 5) wherein the analyzing the degree of dissolution of the target sample (Pison, [0004], “It is an object of the invention to provide an optical analysis method and an associated analysis device, which enables a simplified determination of the degree of dissolution, in particular of the complete dissolution of a substance in a sample liquid”) comprises: determining the at least one patterned background image based on a result of the analyzing the degree of dissolution of the target sample (Pison, Fig. 5, Step S05); and displaying the determined at least one patterned background image (Pison, In Fig. 1, the camera is movable to each testing tubes which shows different patterned background image, [0026], “It is proposed that the analysis device furthermore comprises a control device or has a communication link thereto, which control device is configured in such a way that the actuation of the relative movements between holding container, light source and image recording device can be carried out and that the method steps required for the optical analysis of the sample liquid can be carried out.”).
Claim 20 is rejected for similar reasons as those described in claim 1. The additional elements in Claim 20 (the combination of Pison in view of Bower in further view of Pinter) discloses includes: a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (Pison, [0027], a processor, memory, etc. and communication links for transmitting commands/signals to components of the metering apparatus or the analysis device”) storing instructions that, when executed by a processor, causes the processor (Pison, [0027], a processor, memory, etc. and communication links for transmitting commands/signals to components of the metering apparatus or the analysis device”) to perform a method (Pison, Fig. 5) comprising: displaying at least one patterned background image according to a control signal (Pison, In Fig. 1, the camera is movable to each testing tubes which displays different patterned background image, [0026], “It is proposed that the analysis device furthermore comprises a control device or has a communication link thereto, which control device is configured in such a way that the actuation of the relative movements between holding container, light source and image recording device can be carried out and that the method steps required for the optical analysis of the sample liquid can be carried out.”).
Claims 3 and 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pison in view of Bower in further view of Pinter in further view of Jain (US 2022/0207696 A1, published 06/30/2022), hereinafter referred to as Jain.
Claim 3
The combination of Pison in view of Bower in further view of Pinter discloses the apparatus of claim 1 (Pison, [0027], “above-described analysis device is preferably part of a metering apparatus”), wherein the processor (Pison, [0027], “a processor, memory, etc. and communication links for transmitting commands/signals to components of the metering apparatus or the analysis device”).
The combination of Pison in view of Bower in further view of Pinter does not explicitly disclose wherein the processor is further configured to: analyze the degree of dissolution of the target sample from the at least one transmission image by using a different analysis algorithm of the at least one analysis algorithm for each patterned background image of the at least one patterned background image corresponding to the at least one transmission image.
However, Jain teaches wherein the processor (Jain, [0009], “the smartphone processor”) is further configured to: analyze the degree of dissolution of the target sample from the transmission images (Jain, [0052], “Some water impurity test reagents, such as orthotolidine, operate by causing a change in the color or fluorescence of the reacted sample of water (120) in response to a fully dissolved impurity (often ionic impurities). These can comprise any of chlorine, arsenic, heavy metal, or nitrate type impurities. Here, the light reflective background (102b) will often have at least one region with a light reflecting background (such a matte white background 110) that is selected to facilitate detection of this change in color or fluorescence”) by using a different analysis algorithm of the at least one analysis algorithm for each of the patterned background images corresponding to the transmission images (Jain, Fig. 1A, there are two patterned background, 110 is a matte background and 112 is a patterned background, [0050], “In this figure, the reflective background (102b) has both a white matte surface (110), and also a patterned surface (112) to help the system determine turbidity.”, different analysis algorithm for both 110 and 112, [0056], “This turbidity can be measured optically by looking at how much the optical targets (112) become obscured, as well as by comparing the amount of light scattering between two smartphone video cameras (for example, FIGS. 5 210-208, and 206) at different angles.”, [0052], “Here, the light reflective background (102b) will often have at least one region with a light reflecting background (such a matte white background 110) that is selected to facilitate detection of this change in color or fluorescence”).
Pison, Bower, Pinter and Jain are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of liquid detection. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus as taught by Pison to incorporate the teachings of Jain wherein the processor is further configured to: analyze the degree of dissolution of the target sample from the at least one transmission image by using a different analysis algorithm of the at least one analysis algorithm for each patterned background image of the at least one patterned background image corresponding to the at least one transmission image. Such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The motivation for the proposed modification would have to help the system determine turbidity (Jain, [0050]).
Claim 14 is rejected for similar reasons as those described in claim 3. The additional elements in Claim 14 (Pison, Bower, Pinter and Jain) discloses includes: a method of measuring solubility (Pison, Fig. 5), displaying at least one patterned background image according to a control signal (Pison, In Fig. 1, the camera is movable to each testing tubes which displays different patterned background image, [0026], “It is proposed that the analysis device furthermore comprises a control device or has a communication link thereto, which control device is configured in such a way that the actuation of the relative movements between holding container, light source and image recording device can be carried out and that the method steps required for the optical analysis of the sample liquid can be carried out.”). The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Pison, Bower, Pinter, and Jain references presented in the rejection of Claim 3, apply to Claim 14 and are incorporated herein by reference. Thus, the method recited in Claim 14 is met by Pison, Bower, Pinter, and Jain.
Claims 4 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pison in view Bower in view of Pinter in further view of Pizzuto et al., ("SOLIS: Autonomous Solubility Screening using Deep Neural Networks", published 03/18/2022), hereinafter referred to as Pizzuto.
Claim 4
The combination of Pison in view of Bower in further view of Pinter discloses the apparatus of claim 1 (Pison, [0027], “above-described analysis device is preferably part of a metering apparatus”), wherein the processor (Pison, [0027], “a processor, memory, etc. and communication links for transmitting commands/signals to components of the metering apparatus or the analysis device”).
The combination of Pison in view of Bower in further view of Pinter does not explicitly disclose wherein the processor is further configured to: analyze the degree of dissolution of the target sample from the at least one transmission image or a combination of the at least one transmission image by using a neural network trained based on the at least one analysis algorithm.
However, Pizzuto teaches wherein the processor (Pizzuto, Section IV.A, “AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3970X 32 Core CPU”) is further configured to: analyze the degree of dissolution of the target sample from the transmission images (Pizzuto, Fig. 2, captured image) or a combination of the transmission images by using a neural network trained based on the at least one analysis algorithm (Pizzuto, Fig. 2, CNN is used to determine if the target sample in the image of the vial is dissolved or undissolved).
Pison, Bower, Pinter and Pizzuto are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of liquid measurement. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus as taught by Pison to incorporate the teachings of Pizzuto wherein the processor is further configured to: analyze the degree of dissolution of the target sample from the at least one transmission image or a combination of the at least one transmission image by using a neural network trained based on the at least one analysis algorithm. Such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been to make faster, more efficient progress in materials research (Pizzuto, Section I).
Claim 15 is rejected for similar reasons as those described in claim 4. The additional elements in Claim 15 (Pison, Bower, Pinter, and Pizzuto) discloses includes: a method of measuring solubility (Pison, Fig. 5), displaying at least one patterned background image according to a control signal (Pison, In Fig. 1, the camera is movable to each testing tubes which displays different patterned background image, [0026], “It is proposed that the analysis device furthermore comprises a control device or has a communication link thereto, which control device is configured in such a way that the actuation of the relative movements between holding container, light source and image recording device can be carried out and that the method steps required for the optical analysis of the sample liquid can be carried out.”). The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Pison, Bower, Pinter, and Pizzuto references presented in the rejection of Claim 4, apply to Claim 15 and are incorporated herein by reference. Thus, the method recited in Claim 15 is met by Pison, Bower, Pinter, and Pizzuto.
Claims 5, 8-9, 11, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pison in view of Bower in view of Pinter in view of Shiri et al., ("Automated solubility screening platform using computer vision", published 03/19/2021), hereinafter referred to as Shiri.
Claim 5
The combination of Pison in view of Bower in further view of Pinter discloses the apparatus of claim 1 (Pison, [0027], “above-described analysis device is preferably part of a metering apparatus”), wherein the processor (Pison, [0027], “a processor, memory, etc. and communication links for transmitting commands/signals to components of the metering apparatus or the analysis device”).
The combination of Pison in view of Bower in further view of Pinter does not explicitly disclose wherein the processor is further configured to: extract features from the at least one transmission image; analyze the degree of dissolution of the target sample as being one of a completely dissolved state, a supersaturated state, or a turbid state based on the extracted features; and generate a control signal based on a result of the analyzing the degree of dissolution of the target sample.
However, Shiri teaches wherein the processor (Shiri, Fig. 1, computer vision) is further configured to: extract features from the transmission images (Shiri, Fig. 3, selected ROI is extracted from the recorded image, page 7, Step 3, “An algorithm checks for trends in turbidity values over time and determines if the solution is stable based on statistical features (mean, median, mode, standard deviation, and range) of the most recent turbidity measurements”); analyze the degree of dissolution of the target sample as being one of a completely dissolved state, a supersaturated state, or a turbid state based on the extracted features (Shiri, page 7, step 3 and 4, “An algorithm checks for trends in turbidity values over time and determines if the solution is stable based on statistical features (mean, median, mode, standard deviation, and range) of the most recent turbidity measurements. If the solution is determined to be stable and has not yet reached the dissolved reference or maximum volume, more solvent is added and monitoring continues.”, “If the solution is determined to be stable, the control algorithm checks for a fully dissolved state by comparing the current turbidity value to the dissolved reference”); and generate a control signal (Shiri, page 2, “Our automated platform consists of five basic modules: (1) a robotic arm, (2) liquid dosing system, (3) solid dosing unit, (4) stir plate, and (5) webcam (Figure 1A). Each module performs an essential component of solubility testing: (1) manipulating objects, (2) dosing solvents, (3) adding solid, (4) controlling reaction conditions, and (5) recording images for turbidity study, respectively”) based on a result of the analyzing the degree of dissolution of the target sample (Shiri, page 7, step 4, “If the solution is determined to be stable, the control algorithm checks for a fully dissolved state by comparing the current turbidity value to the dissolved reference. If ‘‘dissolved,’’ the algorithm triggers a stir burst to agitate any solute that may have settled at the bottom of the vial.”).
Pison, Bower, Pinter and Shiri are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of liquid measurement. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus as taught by Pison to incorporate the teachings of Shiri wherein the processor is further configured to: extract features from the at least one transmission image; analyze the degree of dissolution of the target sample as being one of a completely dissolved state, a supersaturated state, or a turbid state based on the extracted features; and generate a control signal based on a result of the analyzing the degree of dissolution of the target sample. Such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been because it is less resource consuming (Shiri, Summary).
Claim 8
The combination of Pison in view of Bower in view of Pinter in view of Shiri discloses the apparatus of claim 5 (Pison, [0027], “above-described analysis device is preferably part of a metering apparatus”), wherein the processor (Pison, [0027], “a processor, memory, etc. and communication links for transmitting commands/signals to components of the metering apparatus or the analysis device”) is further configured to: based on the result of the analyzing indicating success (Shiri, Fig. 4, if the solution is dissolved, it goes to the next step), generate a control signal for proceeding with a reaction of a next operation (Shiri, page 7, step 4, “If the solution is determined to be stable, the control algorithm checks for a fully dissolved state by comparing the current turbidity value to the dissolved reference. If ‘‘dissolved,’’ the algorithm triggers a stir burst to agitate any solute that may have settled at the bottom of the vial”); and based on the result of the analyzing indicating failure (Shiri, Fig. 4, if the solution is not dissolved, it adds dose solvent), generate a control signal for adding a solvent, adjusting a temperature, adjusting an agitation speed, or increasing reaction time (Shiri, page 2, “Our automated platform consists of five basic modules: (1) a robotic arm, (2) liquid dosing system, (3) solid dosing unit, (4) stir plate, and (5) webcam (Figure 1A). Each module performs an essential component of solubility testing: (1) manipulating objects, (2) dosing solvents, (3) adding solid, (4) controlling reaction conditions, and (5) recording images for turbidity study, Fig. 4, if the solution is not dissolved, it adds dose solvent). The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Pison and Shiri references presented in the rejection of Claim 5, apply to Claim 8 and are incorporated herein by reference. Thus, the apparatus recited in Claim 8 is met by Pison and Shiri.
Claim 9
The combination of Pison in view of Bower in view of Pinter in view of Shiri discloses the apparatus of claim 5 (Pison, [0027], “above-described analysis device is preferably part of a metering apparatus”), wherein the processor (Pison, [0027], “a processor, memory, etc. and communication links for transmitting commands/signals to components of the metering apparatus or the analysis device”) is further configured to: determine at least one patterned background image, of the patterned background images based on a result of the analyzing the degree of dissolution of the target sample (Pison, Fig. 5, Step S05); and control the display to display the determined at least one patterned background image (Pison, In Fig. 1, the camera is movable to each testing tubes which shows different patterned background image, [0026], “It is proposed that the analysis device furthermore comprises a control device or has a communication link thereto, which control device is configured in such a way that the actuation of the relative movements between holding container, light source and image recording device can be carried out and that the method steps required for the optical analysis of the sample liquid can be carried out.”).
Claim 11
The combination of Pison in view of Bower in further view of Pinter discloses the apparatus of claim 1 (Pison, [0027], “above-described analysis device is preferably part of a metering apparatus”).
The combination of Pison in view of Bower in further view of Pinter does not explicitly disclose further comprising a driver configured to fix or move the container according to a control signal from the processor, wherein the camera is further configured to repeatedly capture the at least one transmission image over a period of time.
However, Shiri teaches comprising a driver configured to fix or move the container according to a control signal from the processor (Shiri, page 2, “Our automated platform consists of five basic modules: (1) a robotic arm, (2) liquid dosing system, (3) solid dosing unit, (4) stir plate, and (5) webcam (Figure 1A). Each module performs an essential component of solubility testing: (1) manipulating objects, (2) dosing solvents, (3) adding solid, (4) controlling reaction conditions, and (5) recording images for turbidity study, respectively”, “The N9 gripper is used to transfer, uncap, and recap HPLC vials, while the probe is used to handle needles for liquid dosing”), wherein the camera is further configured to repeatedly capture transmission images over a period of time (Shiri, Fig. 3, the system is in a loop which means the camera repeatedly captures image).
Pison, Bower, Pinter, and Shiri are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of solubility measurement. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus as taught by Pison to incorporate the teachings of Shiri further comprising a driver configured to fix or move the container according to a control signal from the processor, wherein the camera is further configured to repeatedly capture the at least one transmission image over a period of time. Such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been because it is less resource consuming (Shiri, Summary).
Claims 17 and 19 are rejected for similar reasons as those described in claim 8 and 11. The additional elements in Claims 17 and 19 (Pison, Bower, Pinter, and Shiri) discloses includes: a method of measuring solubility (Pison, Fig. 5), displaying at least one patterned background image according to a control signal (Pison, In Fig. 1, the camera is movable to each testing tubes which displays different patterned background image, [0026], “It is proposed that the analysis device furthermore comprises a control device or has a communication link thereto, which control device is configured in such a way that the actuation of the relative movements between holding container, light source and image recording device can be carried out and that the method steps required for the optical analysis of the sample liquid can be carried out.”). The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Pison, Bower, Pinter, and Shiri references presented in the rejection of Claims 8 and 11, apply to Claims 17 and 19 and are incorporated herein by reference. Thus, the method recited in Claims 17 and 19 is met by Pison, Bower, and Pinter and Shiri.
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pison in view of Bower in view of Pinter in view of Shiri in further view of Jain.
Claim 6
The combination of Pison in view of Bower in view of Pinter in view of Shiri discloses the apparatus of claim 5 (Pison, [0027], “above-described analysis device is preferably part of a metering apparatus”), wherein the processor (Pison, [0027], “a processor, memory, etc. and communication links for transmitting commands/signals to components of the metering apparatus or the analysis device”) is further configured to: extract a region of interest (ROI) from the transmission images (Shiri, Fig. 3, selected ROI is extracted from the recorded image, page 7, Step 3, “An algorithm checks for trends in turbidity values over time and determines if the solution is stable based on statistical features (mean, median, mode, standard deviation, and range) of the most recent turbidity measurements”); and extract the features by applying, to the ROI, (Shiri, page 7, step 3, “An algorithm checks for trends in turbidity values over time and determines if the solution is stable based on statistical features (mean, median, mode, standard deviation, and range) of the most recent turbidity measurements.”).
The combination of Pison in view of Bower in view of Pinter in view of Shiri does not explicitly discloses a different analysis algorithm of the at least one analysis algorithm for each patterned background image of the at least one patterned background image corresponding to the at least one transmission image.
However, Jain teaches extract the features by applying, to the ROI, (Jain, in Fig. 4, 4a, 4b, the reaction zone 120 is analogous to the region of interest, [0049], “The test reagent (106r) reacts with impurities in the water, resulting in a change in the color, turbidity, fluorescence, or other type of optical characteristic (120) in the reaction zone. This is called an “optical signal”. This optical signal in this reaction zone (120) in turn is imaged by the smartphone's cameras.”) a different analysis algorithm of the at least one analysis algorithm for each of the patterned background image corresponding to the transmission images (Jain, Fig. 1A, there are two patterned background, 110 is a matte background and 112 is a patterned background, [0050], “In this figure, the reflective background (102b) has both a white matte surface (110), and also a patterned surface (112) to help the system determine turbidity. In this example, the white surface (110) is useful for clearly measuring the size and optical change of the reaction zone (120), while the patterned surface (112) is useful for estimating the turbidity in the reaction zone (120) as compared to the same water sample outside of the reaction zone.”, different analysis algorithm for both 110 and 112, [0056], “This turbidity can be measured optically by looking at how much the optical targets (112) become obscured, as well as by comparing the amount of light scattering between two smartphone video cameras (for example, FIGS. 5 210-208, and 206) at different angles.”, [0052], “Here, the light reflective background (102b) will often have at least one region with a light reflecting background (such a matte white background 110) that is selected to facilitate detection of this change in color or fluorescence”).
Pison, Bower, Pinter, Shiri, and Jain are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of turbidity measurement. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus as taught by Pison and Shiri to incorporate the teachings of Jain of a different analysis algorithm of the at least one analysis algorithm for each patterned background image of the at least one patterned background image corresponding to the at least one transmission image. Such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The motivation for the proposed modification would have to help the system determine turbidity (Jain, [0050]).
Claim 16 is rejected for similar reasons as those described in claim 6. The additional elements in Claim 16 (Pison, Bower, Pinter, Shiri and Jain) discloses includes: a method of measuring solubility (Pison, Fig. 5), displaying at least one patterned background image according to a control signal (Pison, In Fig. 1, the camera is movable to each testing tubes which displays different patterned background image, [0026], “It is proposed that the analysis device furthermore comprises a control device or has a communication link thereto, which control device is configured in such a way that the actuation of the relative movements between holding container, light source and image recording device can be carried out and that the method steps required for the optical analysis of the sample liquid can be carried out.”). The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Pison, Bower, Pinter, Shiri, and Jain references presented in the rejection of Claim 6, apply to Claim 16 and are incorporated herein by reference. Thus, the method recited in Claim 16 is met by Pison, Bower, Pinter, Shiri, and Jain.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pison in view of Bower in view of Pinter in view of Shiri in further view of Jain in further view of Chen et al (“Vision-based line detection for underwater inspection of breakwater construction using an ROV”, published 2015), hereinafter referred to as Chen.
Claim 7
The combination of Pison in view of Bower in further view of Pinter in view of Shiri in further view of Jain discloses the apparatus of claim 6 (Pison, [0027], “above-described analysis device is preferably part of a metering apparatus”), wherein at least one patterned background image, of the patterned background images, comprises at least one of a checker pattern image, a white image, or a radial pattern image (Both Pison and Jain teaches patterned background image, Pison teaches a QR code pattern image which has a checker pattern and the Jian teaches a white matte surface), and wherein the at least one analysis algorithm (Pison, [0047], “An evaluation takes place in step S05, as to whether the identification pattern can be read. This step occurs within the scope of an identification algorithm. To the extent of that identification pattern being readable, an optical analysis S06 determines that the sample liquid is clear or transparent.”, Fig. 5, interpretation output)comprises:
a first analysis algorithm corresponding to the white image (Jain, [0050], “In this example, the white surface (110) is useful for clearly measuring the size and optical change of the reaction zone (120)”), the first analysis algorithm comprising a (1-1)-th analysis algorithm configured to analyze the degree of dissolution of the target sample based on uniformity in a grid corresponding to the ROI (Jain [0041], “The light reflecting background (102b) will often comprise a white matte surface (110) selected to reflect light uniformly over a plurality of angles.”, Fig. 4a, reaction zone 121 is the ROI), a (1-2)-th analysis algorithm configured to analyze the degree of dissolution of the target sample based on a change in brightness and a change in curvature in a region corresponding to pixels of an image sensor corresponding to the ROI (Jain, [0014], “FIG. 3 shows how as more reagent is dispensed into the running water; the size of the reaction zone increases. The smartphone can use information regarding the size and intensity of the optical reaction, knowledge of the reagent type, water flow, and dimensions of the chamber to compute the approximate concentration of a given type of impurity in the water.”, [0052], “Here, the light reflective background (102b) will often have at least one region with a light reflecting background (such a matte white background 110) that is selected to facilitate detection of this change in color or fluorescence.”), and a (1-3)-th analysis algorithm configured to analyze the degree of dissolution of the target sample based on a number of particles included in the ROI (Jain, [0055], “FIG. 3 shows how as more reagent (106r) is dispensed into the running water; the size of the reaction zone increases (120). The smartphone can use information regarding the size and intensity of the optical reaction, knowledge of the reagent type, water flow, and dimensions of the chamber to compute the approximate concentration of a given type of impurity in the water.”, the size of the reaction zone implies the number of particles); and
a second analysis algorithm corresponding to the checker patterned image (Jain, [0050], “while the patterned surface (112) is useful for estimating the turbidity in the reaction zone (120) as compared to the same water sample outside of the reaction zone”, Pison already discloses that the patterned image is a checkered patterned image)).
The combination of Pison in view of Bower in further view of Pinter in view of Shiri in further view of Jain does not explicitly disclose the second analysis algorithm comprising a (2-1)-th analysis algorithm configured to analyze the degree of dissolution of the target sample by an edge detected based on a gradient obtained from the ROI, a (2-2)-th analysis algorithm configured to analyze the degree of dissolution of the target sample by an attribute value of a straight line detected from a binarized image corresponding to the ROI, and a (2-3)-th analysis algorithm configured to analyze the degree of dissolution of the target sample by narrowing an interval between the ROIs and removing a background pixel.
However, Chen teaches the second analysis algorithm comprising a (2-1)-th analysis algorithm configured to analyze the degree of dissolution of the target sample (Chen, Abstract, “paper proposes an algorithm to enhance the reliability of efforts to detect a yellow guide rope in ROV images, particularly in a turbid underwater environment”, Pison and Jain uses turbidity of the water to determine the solubility of the target sample, in Chen’s case the guide rope shown in Fig.1 is analogous to the patterned background image) by an edge detected based on a gradient obtained from the ROI (Chen, Section 2.2, Edge Detection) a (2-2)-th analysis algorithm configured to analyze the degree of dissolution of the target sample by an attribute value of a straight line detected from a binarized image corresponding to the ROI (Chen, Section 2.3, Line detection)), and a (2-3)-th analysis algorithm configured to analyze the degree of dissolution of the target sample by narrowing an interval between the ROIs and removing a background pixel (Chen, Section 2.1, “Converting RGB images into a color space with chrominance components, such as HSV, YCbCr, and YIQ, would make the algorithm resistant to variations in illumination and enhance the contrast between the rope and the background.”, Section 4, “Target enhancement aims to increase the contrast between the guide rope and the background so that the guide rope can be enhanced and the non-targets can be suppressed”)).
Pison, Bower, Pinter, Shiri, Jain, and Chen are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of turbidity measurement. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus as taught by Pison, Shiri, and Jain to incorporate the teachings of Chen of the second analysis algorithm comprising a (2-1)-th analysis algorithm configured to analyze the degree of dissolution of the target sample by an edge detected based on a gradient obtained from the ROI, a (2-2)-th analysis algorithm configured to analyze the degree of dissolution of the target sample by an attribute value of a straight line detected from a binarized image corresponding to the ROI, and a (2-3)-th analysis algorithm configured to analyze the degree of dissolution of the target sample by narrowing an interval between the ROIs and removing a background pixel. Such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The motivation for the proposed modification would have to reduce computational overhead in the detection (Chen, Section 4).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DENISE G ALFONSO whose telephone number is (571)272-1360. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 - 5:30.
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, Amandeep Saini can be reached at (571)272-3382. 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.
/DENISE G ALFONSO/Examiner, Art Unit 2662
/AMANDEEP SAINI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2662