DETAILED ACTION
Notice of AIA Status
The present application, filed on March 28, 2023, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Claims 1-20 are objected to.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “A system for automatically measuring trichomes on a plant material without chemically or physically altering the plant material comprising:”. For the sake of clarity, consider rephrasing to ‘A system for automatically measuring trichomes on plant material without chemically or physically altering the plant material, the system comprising:’.
Claim 1 recites “a movable platform for disposing plant material to be measured”. For the sake of clarity, consider rephrasing to ‘a movable platform on which to dispose a plant material to be measured’ or ‘a movable platform for disposing a plant material to be measured on’.
Claim 1 recites “a first camera … a second camera … said cameras”. For the sake uniformity in terminology consider rephrasing to ‘a first camera … a second camera … the first camera and the second camera…’.
Claim 1 recites “displaying output”. For the sake of clarity, consider rephrasing to ‘displaying an output’.
Claim 5 recites “A system for automatically measuring trichomes on a plant material without chemically or physically altering the plant material, comprising:”. For the sake of clarity, consider rephrasing to ‘A system for automatically measuring trichomes on plant material without chemically or physically altering the plant material, the system comprising:’.
Claim 5 recites “a table platform for disposing plant material to be measured”. For the sake of clarity, consider rephrasing to ‘a table on which to dispose a plant material to be measured’ or ‘a table for disposing a plant material to be measured on’.
Claim 5 recites “displaying output”. For the sake of clarity, consider rephrasing to ‘displaying an output’.
Claim 10 recites “A system for automatically measuring trichomes on plant material without chemically or physically altering the plant material comprising:”. For the sake of clarity, consider rephrasing to ‘A system for automatically measuring trichomes on a plant material without chemically or physically altering the plant material, the system comprising:’.
Claim 10 recites “… means for disposing plant material to be measured … means for changing … means for displaying …”. For the sake of clarity, consider rephrasing to ‘“… a means for holding a plant material to be measured … a means for changing … a means for displaying …”
Claim 10 recites “displaying output”. For the sake of clarity, consider rephrasing to ‘displaying an output’.
Claim 11 recites “the algorithm includes computer code”. For the sake of clarity consider rephrasing to ‘the algorithm includes a computer code’.
Claim 11 recites “trichome density, average trichome cap diameter, and average trichome stalk height”. For the sake of clarity, consider rephrasing to ‘a trichome density, an average trichome cap diameter, and an average trichome stalk height’.
Claim 12 recites “comprises means for moving”. For the sake of clarity, consider rephrasing to ‘comprises a means for moving’.
Claim 13 recites “a turntable on which the plant material is disposed”. For the sake of clarity consider rephrasing to ‘a turntable on which the plant material can be disposed’ or to ‘a turntable for disposing the plant material on’ or to ‘a turntable for holding the plant material’.
Claim 19 recites ‘or a local or wide area network”. For the sake of clarity, consider rephrasing to ‘or a local area network or a wide area network’.
Claim 20 recites “the Internet”. For the sake of clarity, consider rephrasing to ‘a global system of interconnected computer networks’ or to ‘internet connectable’.
Claims dependent on an objected base claim are objected to because any claim in dependent form is construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. Appropriate correction is required.
Warning of Duplicate Claims
Applicant is advised that should claim 4 be found allowable, claim 8 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The means for disposing plant material to be measured is limited to the disk or the platform as recited e.g. in [0009] of the instant specification and equivalents of the disk or equivalents of the platform.
The means for producing digital images of said plant material is limited to the first camera or the second camera as recited e.g. in [0034] of the instant specification and equivalents of the first camera or equivalents of the second camera.
The means for changing a relative position between said plant material and said means for producing digital images is limited to the motor as recited e.g. in [0046] of the instant specification and equivalents of the motor.
The means for displaying output of said algorithm is limited to the liquid crystal display screen as recited e.g. in [0042] of the instant specification and equivalents of the liquid crystal display screen.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. §112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “a first camera for producing digital images of said plant material … a second camera disposed to produce digital images of a side view of the plant material …. analyzing said digital images”. It isn’t clear whether the digital images in analyzing said digital images corresponds to the first camera’s digital images or the second camera’s digital images or both or something else.
Claim 2 recites “the computing device is physically external to the system”. However claim 1 states that the system comprises, inter alia, the computing system. As a result, it isn’t clear how to computing device is external to the system the computing device is a part of. It’s a contradiction to state the computing system is part of the system and external to the system because a part of a system can’t be external to the system because the system as a whole defines what is external and internal to the system.
Claim 3 recites “the computing device is connected to the system”. It isn’t clear how the computing system is connected to the system given that the system comprises the computing device. It’s a contradiction to state the computing system is connected to the system because a part of a system can’t be connected to the system through a short-range networking technology, or a local or wide area network because the system as a whole defines what is connected and not connected to the system.
Claim 3 recites “a short-range” which is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term isn’t defined by the claim, the specification doesn’t provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 4 recites “wherein the first camera is vertically oriented relative to the plant material and the second camera is horizontally oriented relative to the plant material”. It isn’t clear what is meant by the recited vertically oriented and horizontally oriented positions of the camera relative to the plant material. In light of the specification as shown in Figure 3, both cameras 4 and 5 include horizontal and vertical sides. Accordingly, it isn’t clear what physical axis is intended to define the vertical or the horizontal orientation. In addition, the limitation states that the horizontal and vertical orientations are relative to the plant material but the plant material itself may have vertical and horizontal sides. Are the vertical orientation relative to a first optical axis of the first camera and the horizontal orientation a second optical axis of the second camera or something else?
Claim 6 recites “the computing device is physically external to the system”. However claim 1 states that the system comprises, inter alia, the computing system. As a result, it isn’t clear how to computing device is external to the system the computing device is a part of. It’s a contradiction to state the computing system is part of the system and external to the system because a part of a system can’t be external to the system because the system as a whole defines what is external and internal to the system.
Claim 7 recites “the computing device is connected to the system”. It isn’t clear how the computing system is connected to the system given that the system comprises the computing device. It’s a contradiction to state the computing system is connected to the system because a part of a system can’t be connected to the system through a short-range networking technology, or a local or wide area network because the system as a whole defines what is connected and not connected to the system.
Claim 7 recites “a short-range” which is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term isn’t defined by the claim, the specification doesn’t provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 9 recites “the motor”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. In addition, it isn’t clear whether the motor is part of the motor and drive system or a separate structure.
Claim 9 recites “to allow it to move”. It isn’t clear what noun the pronoun it refers back to.
Claim 10 recites “a means for disposing plant material to be measured’. It isn’t clear whether the function of disposing the plant material to be measured is of holding or placing. In addition, it isn’t clear where the plant material to be measure is disposed on. For purposes of claim interpretation for application of prior art, the means for disposing plant material to be measured is a means for holding the plant material to be measured.
Claim 10 recites “means for changing a relative position between said plant material and said means for producing digital image”. A position is a place where something is located of has been put (as defined by the Oxford dictionary). It isn’t clear what the relative position is limited to. In addition it isn’t clear what is located at the relative position between said plant material and said means for producing digital image.
Claims 11 recites “the inflorescence”. There isn’t sufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. Consider rephrasing to ‘an inflorescence’.
Claim 12 recites “the means for changing position of the plant material”. It isn’t clear whether “the means for changing position of the plant material” corresponds to “the means for changing a relative position between said plant material and said means for producing digital images” introduced in claim 10 or is a distinct structure. In the case the means for changing position of the plant material is a distinct structure, there isn’t sufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. In the case the means are the same consider a uniform terminology.
Claim 13 recites “the means for moving plant material”. It isn’t clear whether “the means for moving plant material” corresponds to “the means for changing a relative position between said plant material and said means for producing digital images” introduced in claim 10 or is a distinct structure. In the case the means for moving plant material is a distinct structure, there isn’t sufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. In the case the means are the same consider a uniform terminology.
Claim 15 recites “the camera”. There isn’t sufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites “the means for changing position of plant material”. It isn’t clear whether “the means for changing position of plant material” corresponds to “the means for changing a relative position between said plant material and said means for producing digital images” introduced in claim 10 or is a distinct structure. In the case the means for changing position of plant material is a distinct structure, there isn’t sufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. In the case the means are the same consider a uniform terminology.
Claim 18 recites “the computer”. There isn’t insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites “a short-range” which is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term isn’t defined by the claim, the specification doesn’t provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claims dependent on an indefinite base claim are indefinite because any claim in dependent form is construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
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 5-7, 10-13, 15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lazcano-Ramirez (“Non-destructive Plant Morphometric and Color Analyses Using an Optoelectronic 3D Color Microscope”)
As to claim 5, Lazcano-Ramirez teaches a system (optoelectronic microscope on the legend of Figure 1 on page 5) for automatically measuring trichomes on plant material without chemically or physically altering the plant material (the system of Lazcano-Ramirez is capable of automatically measuring trichomes on plant material without chemically or physically altering the plant material), (the system) comprising:
a table (motorized stage in the first column on page 4, which recites “motorized stage that allows XYZ movement”) for disposing plant material to be measured (the table of Lazcano-Ramirez is capable of disposing plant material to be measured);
a camera (camera 3 on the legend of Figure 1 on page 5) for producing digital images of said plant material (the camera of Lazcano-Ramirez is capable of producing digital images of said plant material), wherein said camera (camera 3) includes at least one microscope objective lens (lens 2 on the legend of Figure 1 on page 5);
a track (see Figure 1) on which the camera (camera 3) is disposed (see Figure 1);
a motor and drive system (a five-phase stepping motor in the second column on page 2) for changing a relative position between said plant material and said camera (camera 3) (the motor and drive system of Lazcano-Ramirez is capable of changing a relative position between said plant material and said camera) (see the legend of Figure 1, which recites “(C,D) Examples of observation positions at different angles”);
a computing device (controller unit 1 on the legend of Figure 1 on page 5) for controlling said motor and said camera for receiving said digital images and for executing an algorithm for analyzing said digital images to produce a trichome count (the computing device of Lazcano-Ramirez is capable of controlling said motor and said camera for receiving said digital images and of executing an algorithm for analyzing said digital images to produce a trichome count”); and
a screen (a CPU-LCD screen 2 on the legend of Figure 1 on page 5) for displaying output of said algorithm (the screen of Lazcano-Ramirez is capable of displaying output of said algorithm).
As to claim 6, Lazcano-Ramirez teaches the system of claim 5 wherein the computing device is physically external to the system (see the second column on page 1 of Lazcano-Ramirez, which recites “images and statistic reports may be exported via USB, or the microscope can be connected via Ethernet to a network to have remote access through another computer”).
As to claim 7, Lazcano-Ramirez teaches the system of claim 6, wherein the computing device is connected to the system through a short-range networking technology or a local or wide area network (see the second column on page 1 of Lazcano-Ramirez, which recites “images and statistic reports may be exported via USB, or the microscope can be connected via Ethernet to a network to have remote access through another computer”).
As to claim 10, Lazcano-Ramirez teaches a system (optoelectronic microscope on the legend of Figure 1 on page 5) for automatically measuring trichomes on plant material without chemically or physically altering the plant material (the system of Lazcano-Ramirez is capable of automatically measuring trichomes on plant material without chemically or physically altering the plant material) comprising:
means for disposing plant material to be measured (motorized stage in the first column on page 4, which recites “motorized stage that allows XYZ movement”) (the means for disposing plant material to be measured of Lazcano-Ramirez is capable of disposing plant material to be measured);
means for producing digital images of said plant material (camera 3 on the legend of Figure 1 on page 5) (the means for producing digital images of said plant material of Lazcano-Ramirez is capable of producing digital images of said plant material), wherein said means for producing digital images includes at least one microscope objective lens (lens 2 on the legend of Figure 1 on page 5);
means for changing a relative position between said plant material and said means for producing digital images (a five-phase stepping motor in the second column on page 2) (the means for changing a relative position between said plant material and said means for producing digital images of Lazcano-Ramirez is capable of changing a relative position between said plant material and said means for producing digital images);
a computing device (controller unit 1) for controlling said means for changing a relative position of said plant material and for executing an algorithm for analyzing said digital images to produce a trichome count (the computing device of Lazcano-Ramirez is capable of controlling said means for changing a relative position of said plant material and of executing an algorithm for analyzing said digital images to produce a trichome count); and
means for displaying output of said algorithm (a CPU-LCD screen 2 on the legend of Figure 1 on page 5).
As to claim 11, Lazcano-Ramirez teaches the system of claim 10, wherein the algorithm includes computer code that recognizes, counts and sizes each trichome present in each digital image and measures internodal distances within the inflorescence; that calculates an average internodal distance within the inflorescence, trichome density, average trichome cap diameter, and average trichome stalk height of the trichomes (the computing device of Lazcano-Ramirez is capable of executing an algorithm for analyzing said digital images to produce a trichome count wherein the algorithm includes computer code that recognizes, counts and sizes each trichome present in each digital image and measures internodal distances within the inflorescence; that calculates an average internodal distance within the inflorescence, trichome density, average trichome cap diameter, and average trichome stalk height of the trichomes) (see the first column on page 13, which “measurements made using the software of the microscope ….post-imaging analyses using different software”).
As to claim 12, Lazcano-Ramirez teaches the system of claim 10, wherein the means for changing position of the plant material (fivephase stepping motor) comprises means for moving said plant material relative to the means for producing digital images (fivephase stepping motor).
As to claim 13, Lazcano-Ramirez teaches the system of claim 12, wherein the means for moving plant material (fivephase stepping motor) comprises a turntable on which the plant material is disposed stage on page 2, which recites “the stage is moved in the Z axis by a fivephase stepping motor with a movement range”).
As to claim 15, Lazcano-Ramirez teaches the system of claim 10, wherein the means for changing position of plant material (fivephase stepping motor) comprises means for moving the camera relative to the plant material (fivephase stepping motor).
As to claim 17, Lazcano-Ramirez teaches the system of claim 15, wherein the means for producing digital images (camera 3) comprises a camera (camera 3) with a microscope objective lens (lens 2 on the legend of Figure 1 on page 5).
As to claim 18, Lazcano-Ramirez teaches the system of claim 10, wherein the computer is external to the system (see the second column on page 1 of Lazcano-Ramirez , which recites “images and statistic reports may be exported via USB, or the microscope can be connected via Ethernet to a network to have remote access through another computer”).
As to claim 19, Lazcano-Ramirez teaches the system of claim 18, wherein the computer is connected to the system through a short-range networking technology or a local or wide area network (see the second column on page 1 of Lazcano-Ramirez , which recites “images and statistic reports may be exported via USB, or the microscope can be connected via Ethernet to a network to have remote access through another computer”).
As to claim 20, Lazcano-Ramirez teaches the system system of claim 19, wherein the wide area network is the Internet (the computer is connected to the system through a short-range networking technology or a local or wide area network wherein the wide area network is internet connected).
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.
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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lazcano-Ramirez (Non-destructive Plant Morphometric and Color Analyses Using an Optoelectronic 3D Color Microscope”) in view of Gavish (US20200327326).
As to claim 1, Lazcano-Ramirez teaches a system (optoelectronic microscope in the legend of Figure 1 on page 5) for automatically measuring trichomes on plant material (plant material in the first column of page 3) without chemically or physically altering the plant material (the system of Guzha is capable of automatically measuring trichomes on plant material without chemically or physically altering the plant material, see column 2 on page 7, which recites “Optodigital microscopes can perform automatic, direct measurements of distance, area, and depth of manufactured objects in a live fashion”) (see also page 2, which recites “an optoelectronic or optodigital 3D color microscope that allows non-destructive observation in nontreated, non-dissected specimens”) comprising:
a movable platform (stage on page 2, which recites “the stage is moved in the Z axis by a fivephase stepping motor”) for disposing plant material to be measured (the movable platform of Lazcano-Ramirez is capable of disposing plant material to be measured);
a motor (fivephase stepping motor on page 2) for rotating the movable platform (the motor of Lazcano-Ramirez is capable of rotating the movable platform);
a camera (camera 3 on the legend of Figure 1 on page 5) disposed to produce digital images of a side view (including the top side view) of the plant material (the camera of Lazcano-Ramirez is capable of producing digital images of a side view of the plant material) (see Figure 1 legend, which recites “(C, D) Examples of observation positions at different angles”) wherein the camera (camera 3) includes at least one microscope objective lens (lens 2 on the legend of the Figured 1 on page 5);
a computing device (controller unit 1 on Figure 1) for controlling said motor (fivephase stepping motor) and said cameras (camera 3 and another camera), for receiving said digital images and for executing an algorithm (software) for analyzing said digital images to produce a trichome count (the computing device of Lazcano-Ramirez is capable of controlling said motor and the first camera and a second camera, of receiving said digital images and for executing an algorithm for analyzing said digital images to produce a trichome count); and
a screen (CPU-LCD screen 2 on Figure 1) for displaying output of said algorithm (the screen of Lazcano-Ramirez is capable of displaying output of said algorithm).
Lazcano-Ramirez doesn’t explicitly teach another camera for producing digital images including at least one microscope objective lens.
In the analogous art of providing analytical systems, Gavish (US20200327326) teaches a camera (camera 2 in [0204]) for producing digital images including at least one microscope objective lens (an optional magnifying lens 3 attached to the camera 2 in [0204], which recites “a camera 2 comprising memory space to store images taken by the user, an optional magnifying lens 3 attached to the camera 2”) (see [0209], which recites “a camera is connected to or integrated into, a microscope”) (see also [0262], which recites “said device is equipped with multiple cameras able to image the sample from several angles, …. The said device can capture the sampled plant from many angles in a short time and controlled conditions, easing the process of sampling, and can be applied to testing pre-harvest or post-harvest flowers”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention modify the system disclosed by Lazcano-Ramirez by duplicating the camera disposed to produce digital images of a side view of the plant material by incorporating the camera producing digital images including at least one microscope objective lens as disclosed by Gavish such that the system includes a first camera for producing digital images of said plant material, wherein said first camera for producing digital images includes at least one microscope objective lens and a second camera disposed to produce digital images of a side view of the plant material with a reasonable expectation of success because such modification would have been a mere duplication of parts without any new or unexpected result (see MPEP 2144.04 VI B) as well as for the benefit of capturing the sampled plant from many angles in a short time and controlled conditions, easing the process of sampling (see also [0262] of Gavish, which recites “said device is equipped with multiple cameras able to image the sample from several angles, …. The said device can capture the sampled plant from many angles in a short time and controlled conditions, easing the process of sampling, and can be applied to testing pre-harvest or post-harvest flowers”).
As to claim 2, Lazcano-Ramirez in view of Gavish teaches the system of claim 1 wherein the computing device is physically external to the system (see the second column on page 1 of Lazcano-Ramirez , which recites “images and statistic reports may be exported via USB, or the microscope can be connected via Ethernet to a network to have remote access through another computer”).
As to claim 3, Lazcano-Ramirez in view of Gavish teaches the system of claim 2, wherein the computing device is connected to the system through a short-range networking technology, or a local or wide area network (see the second column on page 1 of Lazcano-Ramirez , which recites “images and statistic reports may be exported via USB, or the microscope can be connected via Ethernet to a network to have remote access through another computer”).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lazcano-Ramirez (Non-destructive Plant Morphometric and Color Analyses Using an Optoelectronic 3D Color Microscope”) in view of Vander Velden (US20180276818).
As to claim 9, Lazcano-Ramirez teaches the system of claim 5.
Lazcano-Ramirez doesn’t teach that the track remains static, and the motor is mounted onto the camera to allow it to move along the track.
In the analogous art of providing analytical systems, Vander Velden (US20180276818) teaches a track remaining static and a motor mounted onto a camera to allow it to move along the track (see [0051], which recites “s shown in FIG. 3, an overhead view camera subassembly 300 is securely mounted to frame 10 on or near the top of frame 10. The overhead view camera subassembly 300 allows images of the top of the plant to be captured, which enables measurement of the width of the plant as well as measurement of other properties of the plant. Overhead view camera subassembly 300 comprises a vertical rail 305 and a vertical lead screw 310. Vertical lead screw 310 is situated adjacent to and generally parallel to vertical rail 305. One end of vertical lead screw 310 engages a motor 315 that is controlled by computer 600. Vertical rail 305, vertical lead screw 310, and motor 315 provide for vertical motion for overhead view camera subassembly 300. A camera mount 320 provides a stable base for mounting overhead view camera 325. Camera mount 320 comprises a first surface that engages vertical rail 305 and vertical lead screw 310, and a second surface upon which overhead view camera 325 is securely connected. Camera mount 320 is movable along the lengths of vertical rail 305 and vertical lead screw 310. Rotation of the shaft of motor 315 in a first direction causes camera mount 320 to move vertically along the lengths of vertical rail 305 and vertical lead screw 310 toward the plant. Rotation of the shaft of motor 315 in a second direction that is opposite from the first direction causes camera mount 320 to move vertically along the lengths of vertical rail 305 and vertical lead screw 310 away from the plant”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention modify the system disclosed by Lazcano-Ramirez by incorporating the motor disclosed by Vander Velden such the track remains static, and the motor is mounted onto the camera to allow it to move along the track with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of capturing images of plant material using a camera from different distances between the camera and the plant material. Moving a camera in relation to an object provides crucial information and capabilities for 3D reconstruction.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lazcano-Ramirez (Non-destructive Plant Morphometric and Color Analyses Using an Optoelectronic 3D Color Microscope”) in view of Jin (US20220357634).
As to claim 14, Lazcano-Ramirez teaches the system of claim 12, wherein the means for producing digital images (camera 3) comprises a camera (camera 3) vertically oriented relative to the plant material (see Figure 1 of Lazcano-Ramirez ).
Lazcano-Ramirez doesn’t teach a second camera horizontally oriented relative to the plant material.
In the analogous art of providing analytical systems, Jin (US20220357634) teaches a camera horizontally oriented plant material (see [0028], which recites “the light box 256 and the camera 202 to move in concert with one-another, horizontally. Thus, the light box 256 is adapted to horizontally move in concert with the camera 202 in order to enhance illumination of the leaf 150 as the camera 202 moves within the upper case 202. These glass plates are adapted to provide a consistent imaging environment for the hyperspectral or multispectral imaging while allowing light to travel from the light box 256 through the leaf 150 and to the mirror 252”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention modify the system disclosed by Lazcano-Ramirez by including the camera disclosed by Jin for the benefit of gathering data from a predetermined plane.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lazcano-Ramirez (Non-destructive Plant Morphometric and Color Analyses Using an Optoelectronic 3D Color Microscope”) in view of Kaye (US5497188A).
As to claim 16, Lazcano-Ramirez teaches system of claim 15.
Lazcano-Ramirez doesn’t teach that the means for changing position of the plant material comprises a track encircling the plant material.
In the analogous art of providing analytical system, Kaye (US5497188A) teaches a track (camera path in Fig. 15) encircling an object to digitize (see Fig. 15) (see also column 7 which recites “The operation of motor assembly 52 is controlled by computer 50. Shaft 24 is attached to the circumference of ring gear 48 and extends vertically upward. A horizontal mounting hoop 54 is attached to the top of shaft 24 and camera 12 is connected to hoop 54. See FIG. 2. Rotating ring gear 48 in turn rotates camera 12 to gather 360 degrees of video images
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention modify the system disclosed by Lazcano-Ramirez by incorporating the track encircling the object to digitize as disclosed by Keye such that the system includes the means for changing position of the plant material comprising a track encircling the plant material with a reasonable expectation for the benefit of effectively gathering 360 degree of video images of the plant material.
Claims 4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lazcano-Ramirez (Non-destructive Plant Morphometric and Color Analyses Using an Optoelectronic 3D Color Microscope”) in view of Gavish (US20200327326) and further in Jin (US20220357634).
As to claims 4 and 8, Lazcano-Ramirez in view of Gavish teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the first camera is vertically oriented relative to the plant material (see Figure 1 of Lazcano-Ramirez ).
Lazcano-Ramirez in view of Gavish doesn’t teach that the second camera is horizontally oriented relative to the plant material.
In the analogous art of providing analytical system, Jin (US20220357634) teaches a camera (camera 202) horizontally oriented relative to the plant material (see [0028], which recites “the light box 256 and the camera 202 to move in concert with one-another, horizontally. Thus, the light box 256 is adapted to horizontally move in concert with the camera 202 in order to enhance illumination of the leaf 150 as the camera 202 moves within the upper case 202. These glass plates are adapted to provide a consistent imaging environment for the hyperspectral or multispectral imaging while allowing light to travel from the light box 256 through the leaf 150 and to the mirror 252”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention modify the system disclosed by Lazcano-Ramirez by rearranging the second camera such that the second camera horizontally oriented plant material as disclose by Jin because such modification is a mere rearrangement of parts not modifying the operation of the device (see MPEP 2144.04 VI C) as well as for the benefit of gathering data from a predetermined plane.
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Sakamoto (US20170329123) teaches that a ΔΘ stage 600 can slidably rotate around the rotation center 601 that serves as a rotation axis and is fixed to the position management plane stage 220. For example, in the position management plane stage 220, a ΔΘ driving motor 611, a screw shaft 612 of a ball screw, and a nut part 613 of a ball screw are implemented. The screw shaft 612 is a member disposed at the distal end of the rotating shaft of the ΔΘ driving motor 611, and the nut part 613 is a member that moves in the screw shaft direction in accordance with rotation of the screw shaft 612 of the ball screw. When the ΔΘ driving motor 611 is rotated, the screw shaft 612 rotates, and a driving linear gear 614 attached to the nut part 613 moves. For this reason, a driven arc gear 615 as the counterpart of fitting attached to an end of the ΔΘ stage 600 moves. As a result, the ΔΘ stage 600 rotates around the rotation center 601 together with the placed slide, and the rotational error of the slide is corrected” (see [0097]).
Yarden (US20190033210) teaches “system and methods may qualify plant material. A system for qualifying plant material may include an inspection zone, a support stage configured to support the plant material in the inspection zone, at least one camera configured to acquire at least one image of the plant material in the inspection zone, at least one processor configured to receive and analyze the camera image to identify a region of interest containing specific plant structures possessing active component, … The at least one processor may be further configured to facilitate a spectrometric measurement of the specific plant structures identified in the camera image, and to enable output of an indicator of a quality measure of the plant material based on the spectrometric measurement of the specific plant structures identified in the camera image” (see the abstract) wherein the analyzer/processor utility 140 of the control unit 14 includes an image processing module/utility 142 configured and operable for processing the received image data for automatically detecting presence and location of one or more regions of interest, i.e. selected specific structures (e.g. trichomes) in the image, and for determining one or more structural parameters of the plant material in the region of interest. Such structural parameter(s) may include number or density of the selected specific structures.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN BORTOLI whose telephone number is (571)270-3179. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM till 6 PM EST Monday through Thursday.
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, Lyle Alexander can be reached at (571)272-1254. 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.
/JONATHAN BORTOLI/Examiner, Art Unit 1797