DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-15 in the reply filed on April 23, 2026 is acknowledged.
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an illumination device” in claim 1; “a data processing device” in claim 1; “a data storage device” in claim 1; “a temperature control device” in claim 10; “a control device” in claim 10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "an image analysis program," however, said limitation fails to comply with written description requirement. The instant specification, as originally filed, discloses “the first image is acquired in the first illumination mode and the second image is acquired in the second illumination mode, and the first image is provided in the form of first image data and the second image is provided in the form of second image data, wherein in particular the data processing device and/or the image analysis program are programmed in such a way that [0086] the first image data and the second image data are combined to obtain combined image data, which in particular results from an addition and/or averaging of first and second image data, and [0087] the combined information is obtained from the combined image data.” However, while the instant disclosure discloses an image analysis program, the disclosure is silent to any specific programming language or processes required to perform the image analysis. Claim 10 recites the limitation "control means," however, said limitation fails to comply with written description requirement.
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. Claim limitation “a temperature control device” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because 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. The instant specification, as originally filed, discloses a control means coupled to an incubator (see claim 10 of the application publication). However, Applicant’s disclosure is silent as to the structure that comprise the claimed control means (i.e., what structure does the control means comprise?). As such, said limitation fails to comply with the written description requirement. Claim 10 recites the limitation "a temperature control device," however, said limitation fails to comply with written description requirement.
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. Claim limitation “a temperature control device” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses a generic placeholder “device” coupled with functional language “temperature control” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. The term "device" is not limited to a specific structure for performing the recited function(s). The term "device" is considered to be non-structure modifier that fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform the claimed function. The instant specification, as originally filed, discloses temperature control device coupled to an incubator (see paragraph 108 of the application publication). However, Applicant’s disclosure is silent as to the structure that comprise the claimed temperature control device (i.e., what structure does the temperature control device comprise?). As such, said limitation fails to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "control device," however, said limitation fails to comply with written description requirement.
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. Claim limitation “control device” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses a generic placeholder “device” coupled with functional language “control device” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. The term "device" is not limited to a specific structure for performing the recited function(s). The term "device" is considered to be non-structure modifier that fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform the claimed function. The instant specification, as originally filed, discloses a control device coupled to an incubator (see paragraph 108 of the application publication). However, Applicant’s disclosure is silent as to the structure that comprise the claimed control device (i.e., what structure does the control device comprise?). As such, said limitation fails to comply with the written description requirement. Claim 10 recites the limitation "temperature control means," however, said limitation fails to comply with written description requirement.
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. Claim limitation “temperature control means” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because 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. The instant specification, as originally filed, discloses a temperature control means coupled to an incubator (see claim 10 of the application publication). However, Applicant’s disclosure is silent as to the structure that comprise the claimed temperature control means (i.e., what structure does the temperature control means comprise?). As such, said limitation fails to comply with the written description requirement. Claim 14 recites the limitation "the data processing device is programmed to assign user identification data to the ID position data in each case and to store them as user-related ID position data in the data memory, and in particular subsequently, starting from predetermined user identification data, to carry out a comparison with user-related ID position data stored in the data memory in order to determine where the objects assigned to these predetermined user identification data by means of the user-related ID position data are currently positioned in the storage area or in the interior space and, in particular, to mark these objects graphically on the screen," however, said limitation fails to comply with written description requirement. The instant specification, as originally filed, is silent to any specific programming language or processes required to perform the functions in said limitation.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1, 3, 5, 7-10, 13 and 15, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claims 2, 4, 6, 11-12 and 14 are included in this rejection by virtue of their dependency upon a rejected base claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "box(es)" in line 7. It is unclear whether a single box or a plurality of boxes are required by said limitation.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the bearing area" in lines 6 and 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 8, the term "especially" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the term are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 8 recites the limitation "a planar bearing surface" in line 11. However, it is unclear if the planar bearing surface is referring to the one recited earlier in the claim or is an additional planar bearing surface.
Regarding claim 8, the phrase "spiral-like" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "spiral-like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 8 recites the limitation "wherein in particular the image acquisition system comprises a, in particular programmable, electronic control device which is configured or programmed" in lines 20-21. It is unclear if the claim requires the electronic device to be programmable or programmed electronic device.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the bearing area" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 10, the term "namely" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the term are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 10 recites the limitation "wherein the image acquisition system comprises other control means configured to control the image acquisition system, in particular by said other control means including the data processing device of the image acquisition system" in lines 7-10. It is unclear how the “data processing device” which is already defined earlier in the claim is also defined as being “other control means.”
Claim 10 recites the limitation "control means and temperature control means or controlling the temperature in the interior space of the incubator chamber" in lines 5-7. The claim further recites the limitation “a control device and a temperature control device for controlling the temperature in the interior space of the incubator chamber” in lines 12-14. Applicant’s specification discloses a single temperature control device coupled to the incubator. Therefore, it is unclear how the temperature control means with the control means and temperature control device with the control device are structurally related to one another.
Regarding claim 11, the term "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the term are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the at least one object" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the data memory" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the position change" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-7, 10-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allano et al (US 2015/0278575; hereinafter “Allano”).
Regarding claim 1, incubator for incubating live cell cultures, comprising an incubator chamber for receiving objects, in particular cell culture containers, which comprise opposing inner walls and a chamber opening for the feeding and removal of the objects by a user, and which comprise at least one storage area for storing the objects extending between the opposing inner walls (see, e.g., FIG. 1: incubator system (106) adapted to receive samples in a sample vessel; [0099]-]0100], [0103], [0109]), an image acquisition system comprising • an illumination device (FIGS. 2a-2b; [0109]-[0110], [0116]-[0118]), • at least one camera device (FIGS. 2a, 2c; [0119]) and • a data processing device with a data storage device (a control system including a computer, a display unit, processing modules and image enhancing algorithms, image processing; [0035], [0120]-[0122]),wherein the image acquisition system is configured to • illuminate the storage area extending between the inner walls by means of the illumination device (FIGS. 2a-2b and 3; [0109]-[0110], [0116]-[0118], [0136]), • capture by means of the camera device at least one image of the storage area extending between the inner walls (FIGS. 2a, 2c; [0119]), and • store the at least one image by means of the data processing device in the form of image data in the data storage device (a control system including a computer, a display unit, processing modules and image enhancing algorithms, image processing; [0035], [0060], [0120]-[0122]). Allano does not explicitly disclose an incubator door to close the chamber opening. However, Allano does disclose wherein the sample vessels are introduced and removed from the incubator, and the sample vessels are incubated in the incubator for predetermined time at a predetermined temperature (see [0102]-[0103]). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have employed a door to be opened and closed with the incubator of Allano in order to maintain the incubator at the desired temperature.
Regarding claim 2, modified Allano wherein the image acquisition system is configured to • illuminate at least two objects arranged on this storage area by means of the illumination device (sample vessels are illuminated with the illumination devices; FIGS. 2a-2b and 3; [0109]-[0110], [0116]-[0118], [0136]), • capture an image of the at least two objects on this storage area by means of the camera device (images of samples in the vessel and sample vessels are illuminated with different illumination devices, and images are captured by a camera; [0119], [0156]-[0159], [01587]), and • store the image of the at least two objects by means of the data processing device in the form of image data in the data storage device (a control system including a computer, a display unit, processing modules and image enhancing algorithms, image processing; [0035], [0060], [0120]-[0122]).
Regarding claim 3, modified Allano wherein said data processing device is programmed to • distinguish the first object and second object represented in the image by means of evaluation of the image data, to assign different identification data to the first and second object (e.g., images of medium, sample and sample vessels are imaged and the images is processed by the data processing device; therefore, the data processing device of Allano is considered to be capable to distinguish between the images; [0119], [0156]-[0159], [0154], [0157]); and • store in particular information about the first and second objects, in particular the bounding box(es) and/or outlines of the first and second objects, in the form of object data in the data storage device (a control system including a computer, a display unit, processing modules and image enhancing algorithms, image processing; [0035], [0060], [0120]-[0122]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Allano wherein the illumination device is adapted to be operated in at least two different illumination modes, and the image acquisition system is configured to • illuminate the storage area of the incubator chamber by means of the illumination device, o first in a first illumination mode ([0150], [0153]-[0154]) and o afterwards in a second illumination mode different from the first one ([0150], [0153]-[0154]), • capture at least one image of the storage area during illumination by means of both the first and the second illumination mode by means of the camera device (image acquisition system of Allano is configured to create images from a combination of illumination sources; [0046], [0150], [0165]), and • provide the at least one image in the form of image data containing combined image information acquired during both the first and second illumination modes (image acquisition system of Allano is configured to create images from a combination of illumination sources; [0046], [0150], [0165]), wherein the data processing device is programmed to execute an image analysis program that obtains the combined image information from the image data (image acquisition system of Allano is configured to create images from a combination of illumination sources; [0046], [0150], [0165]).
Regarding claim 5, modified Allano wherein the at least one image of the storage area includes at least a first image of the storage area and a different second image of the storage area, wherein the first image is acquired in the first illumination mode (image acquisition system of Allano is configured to create images from a combination of illumination sources; [0150], [0153]-[0154]) and the second image is acquired in the second illumination mode ([0150], [0153]-[0154]), and the first image is provided in the form of first image data and the second image is provided in the form of second image data ([0150], [0153]-[0154]),wherein the data processing device and the image analysis program are programmed, such that • the first image data and the second image data are combined to obtain combined image data, which in particular results from an addition and/or averaging of first and second image data (image acquisition system of Allano is configured to create images from a combination of illumination sources; [0046], [0150], [0165]), and • the combined information is obtained from the combined image data ([0046], [0150], [0165]).
Regarding claim 6, modified Allano wherein the at least one image of the storage area includes a multiple exposure image of the storage area, the image acquisition system is configured to, • expose and capture the image of the storage area during illumination by means of both the first and second illumination modes by means of the camera device (image acquisition system of Allano is configured to create images from a combination of illumination sources; [0150], [0153]-[0154]), and • provide the multiple exposed image in the form of the image data ([0046], [0150], [0165]).
Regarding claim 7, modified Allano wherein the at least one image contains information about objects arranged in the storage area (FIGS. 2a, 2c; [0119]), in particular information, optionally, * about the positions of the objects * about the outer contours of the objects,* over the area of the objects measured in a plane parallel to a planar surface of the storage area,* the area of the storage area not occupied by the objects, measured in a plane parallel to a planar surface of the storage area.
Regarding claim 10, modified Allano wherein in particular, the image acquisition system is a modular component of the incubator, namely one that can be optionally used by the user (camera (254) can be used by a user), wherein in particular the incubator comprises control means and temperature control means for controlling the temperature in the interior space of the incubator chamber (temperature within the incubator is maintained at a predetermined temperature and therefore intrinsically includes control means; see [0103], [0143]), wherein the image acquisition system comprises other control means configured to control the image acquisition system, in particular by said other control means including the data processing device of the image acquisition system (a control system including a computer, a display unit, processing modules and image enhancing algorithms, image processing; [0035], [0120]-[0122]), wherein in particular the incubator comprises a control device and a temperature control device for controlling the temperature in the interior space of the incubator chamber (temperature within the incubator is maintained at a predetermined temperature and therefore intrinsically includes control means; see [0103], [0143]), wherein in particular this control device is adapted to control the image acquisition system, in particular by this control device including the data processing device of the image acquisition system (a control system including a computer, a display unit, processing modules and image enhancing algorithms, image processing; [0035], [0120]-[0122]).
Regarding claim 11, modified Allano wherein the incubator comprises a display and is configured or programmed to display on the display preferably the image, and/or preferably image information taken from the at least one image, and/or preferably display an image of the storage area containing the combined image information (display unit; [0120]).
Regarding claim 12, modified Allano wherein the image acquisition system is an object detection system in that the data processing device is programmed to detect the at least one object located in the storage area during image capture of the at least one image by means of the image analysis program (image acquisition unit includes a camera that is capable to detect the at least one object located in the storage area during image capture; FIGS. 2a, 2c; [0119]).
Regarding claim 13, modified Allano wherein the data processing device is programmed to recognize at least one object stored in the storage area by image processing of the image data, to assign identification data to the at least one object in the storage area in each case, and in particular to determine the position of the at least one object in each case as ID position data and to store it in the data memory (data processing device of modified Allano is structurally the same as the instant data processing device and thus consider to be fully capable to perform the recited function; further, the data processing device of modified Allano is configured to capture image of the sample vessel contours and samples within the sample vessel, and can determine their specific location within the incubator; also see [0046], [0150], [0163], [0194], [0196], [0199]-[0200]), wherein the incubator in particular comprises a display screen and the data processing device is programmed to display a graphical representation of the storage area on the display screen, and in particular to graphically display where the object identified by the ID position data is positioned, respectively to graphically display where all objects located in the storage area or interior space are located (control system includes a display unit adapted to interact with a user; [0163], [0194], [0196], [0199]-[0200]).
Regarding claim 15, modified Allano wherein the data processing device is programmed to display on the screen free storage space (display unit of the control system intrinsically capable of displaying free storage space).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allano as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Komori (JP 2006-141326-A; with English machine translation).
Regarding claim 9, modified Allano wherein in particular the at least one camera is arranged at a distance vertically above a bearing surface of the bearing area, in particular exactly one camera is provided, which is arranged at a distance vertically above a center of the bearing surface of the bearing area (see FIG. 3: camera (254); [0119]). Modified Allano does not explicitly disclose the at least one camera has wide-angle optics, in particular a fisheye lens. Komori discloses an incubator comprising a chamber having a camera using a wide-angle lens (see [0065] of the English machine translation). In view of Komori, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the camera of modified Allano with a camera having wide-angle optics such as fisheye lens to arrive at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have made said modification because Komori discloses that using cameras with wide-angle lenses allow quick determination of presence or absence of imaging objects (see [0065]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIBAN M HASSAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7636. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Marcheschi can be reached on 5712721374. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LIBAN M HASSAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights