Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments submitted on 10/21/2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues that the prior art does not disclose the feature of “determine a material of the object by performing image processing on the first-type image and the second-type image,” wherein the “‘first-type image of the object [is taken] based on light reflecting from the object after projection of the first-type light onto the object,” and the “second-type image of the object [is taken] based on fluorescent light emitted from the object after projection of the second-type light onto the object.” Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Previously cited Sharma discloses determine a material of the object by performing image processing on the first-type image and the second-type image (see Sharma Figs. 21A through 21D, and paras. 0085 and 0253-0255, where watermark data is detected in multiple image frames; see also Sharma Figs. 32A and 32B, and paras. 0071, 0186, 0284, 0328, 0390, and 0393, where images are processed to determine whether the material is coded and/or contains watermark data, and also to determine the specific material of the object); and a camera configured to take a first-type image of the object based on light reflecting from the object after projection of the first-type light onto the object, and take a second-type image of the object after projection of the second-type light onto the object (see Sharma Figs. 33A and 33B, and paras. 0390-0396, where multiple image frames are captured by cameras, each with a different light source having a different wavelength of light: blue, red, or infrared, for example; see also Sharma Fig. 29, and para. 0305, where light sources and cameras are positioned to optimize the capture of diffuse and/or specular reflections from the object).
Previously cited Mößlein discloses take an image of the object based on fluorescent light emitted from the object after projection of the second-type light onto the object (see Mößlein paras. 0013-0016, where “a fluorescence code and/or a watermark and/or a barcode and/or a QR code and/or a symbol and/or an article number” on an object is “electromagnetically excited in order to analyze its remitted spectrum”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the fluorescence detection technique of Mößlein to the existing detection techniques of Sharma, because it is predictable that doing so would improve Sharma’s sorting accuracy by detecting additional object native materials, markings, and/or codes containing useful information about the object to be sorted.
Sharma teaches and suggests determining the material of objects for sorting based on many images of those objects with varying wavelengths of light at various angles and types of reflection. In the same field of sorting the same objects, Mößlein teaches and suggests analyzing images of objects for fluorescent light emitted after excitation. Naturally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Mößlein’s teachings with the other various ways of lighting and analyzing of objects performed by Sharma.
Applicant further argues that Mößlein “merely teaches exciting a fluorescent code or luminescent marker applied to or introduced into an object for identification purposes.” However, Mößlein states at para. 0041 that “[b]y means of optical image recognition, the material properties “Contains QR code of manufacturer 4”, “Contains symbol of manufacturer 5”, “Contains watermark of manufacturer 6” and “PE bottle possesses characteristic shape of manufacturer 8” are detected” showing that optical image recognition is used to determine the material of the object. Sharma also discloses that image data is used in the determining of the material of the object (see Sharma para. 0071).
Lastly, Applicant argues that “Mößlein’s teachings are directed to identifying applied fluorescent codes or markers, not to determining the material of the object itself based on combined reflection and fluorescence image data, and Sharma is silent in this regard.” However, the broadest reasonable interpretation, in light of the Specification, by a person of ordinary skill in the art of “take a first-type image of the object based on light reflecting from the object after projection of the first-type light onto the object” does not preclude that the object comprises the bottle and its markings and/or codes. Sharma in para. 0018 states “[i]n another aspect a plastic container conveys both a plastic texture pattern and a printed label pattern” demonstrating that the marking and/or code may be a physical property of the plastic itself. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “take an image of the object based on fluorescent light emitted from the object after projection of the second-type light onto the object” also does not preclude that the object comprises both the bottle and its markings and/or codes. Mößlein at para. 0013 renders obvious the detection of “a native material property of the object, for example a chemical material composition of the object and/or a colour and/or a shape of the object” and at para. 0016 further states that the material property may include “e.g. a fluorescent material.” Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “determine a material of the object by performing image processing on the first-type image and the second-type image” includes the combination of the image processing of both Sharma and Mößlein on the objects with physical and/or chemical markings and/or codes.
Luttermann et al., US 5,201,921, is cited as extrinsic evidence, and at col. 2, lls. 10-39, establishes that for decades those of ordinary skill in the art have known that fluorescence emitting dyes can be added to plastics and polymers to differentiate the material when illuminated for the purpose of sorting.
Specification
The objection to the title is withdrawn in response to Applicant’s amendment.
Claim Interpretation
The claim interpretations are hereby withdrawn in response to Applicant’s amendments and arguments.
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.
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.
Claim 4 is/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.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "under the first illumination condition" in lines 2 and 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The rejections under this statute are hereby withdrawn in response to Applicant’s amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The rejections under this statute are hereby withdrawn in response to Applicant’s amendments.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma et al., US 2022/0055071 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Sharma”) in view of Mößlein, US 2022/0339673 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Mößlein”).
Regarding claim 1, Sharma discloses an object recognition device (see Sharma paras. 0501-0522, where the system comprises circuitry, hardware, and/or software) comprising: an illuminator including a first-type light source and a second type-light source configured to illuminate an object with a first-type light and a second-type light, respectively (see Sharma Fig. 25, and paras. 0286 and 0290-0293, where the illuminator is one or more arrays of LEDs); a camera configured to take a first-type image of the object based on light reflecting from the object after projection of the first-type light onto the object, and take a second-type image of the object after projection of the second-type light onto the object (see Sharma Figs. 33A and 33B, and paras. 0390-0396, where multiple image frames are captured by cameras, each with a different light source having a different wavelength of light: blue, red, or infrared, for example; see also Sharma Fig. 29, and para. 0305, where light sources and cameras are positioned to optimize the capture of diffuse and/or specular reflections from the object); and circuitry configured to calculate a position of the object based on the first-type image and the second-type image (see Sharma Figs. 21A through 21D, and paras. 0085 and 0253-0255, where the position of the object and its watermark are tracked across multiple image frames; see also Sharma paras. 0181, 0186, and 0407, where the position of the object identified in those images is used for sorting the object into a bin), and determine a material of the object by performing image processing on the first-type image and the second-type image (see Sharma Figs. 21A through 21D, and paras. 0085 and 0253-0255, where watermark data is detected in multiple image frames; see also Sharma Figs. 32A and 32B, and paras. 0071, 0186, 0284, 0328, 0390, and 0393, where images are processed to determine whether the material is coded and/or contains watermark data, and also to determine the specific material of the object).
Sharma does not explicitly disclose based on fluorescent light emitted from the object.
However, Mößlein discloses take an image of the object based on fluorescent light emitted from the object after projection of the second-type light onto the object (see Mößlein paras. 0013-0016, where “a fluorescence code and/or a watermark and/or a barcode and/or a QR code and/or a symbol and/or an article number” on an object is “electromagnetically excited in order to analyze its remitted spectrum”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the fluorescence detection technique of Mößlein to the existing detection techniques of Sharma, because it is predictable that doing so would improve Sharma’s sorting accuracy by detecting additional object native materials, markings, and/or codes containing useful information about the object to be sorted.
Regarding claim 2, Sharma discloses wherein the object is light transmittable (see Sharma para. 0279, where “. . . captured imagery is a function of light transmission through the item . . .”).
Regarding claim 3, Sharma discloses wherein, light intensity of the second-type light projected onto the object is greater than light intensity of the first-type light projected onto the object such that a portion of overexposure occurring in the second-type image is larger than a portion of overexposure occurring in the first-type image (see Sharma paras. 0171-0173, where “[i]n a first single frame, a bright area on an item will be over-exposed, while a dark area will be contrast-enhanced” and “[i]n another single frame, the bright area will be properly-exposed, while a dark area will be relatively under-exposed”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use Sharma’s technique of increased lighting on the lighting of Mößlein, because it is predictable that increasing the light intensity will increase the emitted fluorescence, predictably resulting in increased fluorescence detection and increased accuracy of material determination.
Regarding claim 4, Sharma discloses wherein wavelength of the first-type light projected onto the object under the first illumination condition is different than wavelength of the second-type light projected onto the object (see Sharma Figs. 33A and 33B, and paras. 0390-0396, where multiple image frames are captured, each with a different light source having a different wavelength of light: blue, red, or infrared, for example).
Mößlein also discloses wherein wavelength of the first-type light projected onto the object under the first illumination condition is different than wavelength of the second-type light projected onto the object (see Mößlein paras. 0015, 0028, and 0038, where “. . . mixtures of different luminescence markers can also be used, wherein the mixtures can contain different quantitative ratios of the individual luminescence materials, so that a further distinguishing feature that can be metrologically analyzed is created via the intensity distribution of the emitted spectrum” along with “[t]he objects are singulated and analyzed by a detection module by means of wavelength-specific photodiodes” showing that multiple markers and/or multiple wavelength-specific photodiodes may be employed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the additional “wavelength-specific photodiodes” of Mößlein to the light sources and/or arrays of Sharma, because it is predictable that including the additional wavelengths would detect additional types and/or mixtures of watermarks, markers, and/or codes, thereby increasing material determination accuracy.
Regarding claim 6, Sharma discloses wherein when the object is illuminated by a third-type light that is different than the first-type light and the second-type light, the camera takes a third-type image of the object (see Sharma Figs. 33A and 33B, and paras. 0390-0396, where multiple image frames are captured, each with a different light source having a different wavelength of light: blue, red, or infrared, for example), and the circuitry calculates the position of the object based on the first-type image, the second-type image, and the third-type image (see Sharma Figs. 21A through 21D, and paras. 0085 and 0253-0255, where the position of the object and its watermark are tracked across multiple image frames; see also Sharma paras. 0181, 0186, and 0407, where the position of the object identified in the images is used for sorting the object into a bin).
Regarding claim 7, Sharma discloses further comprising a conveyor (see Sharma Figs. 32 and 38, and paras. 0181 and 0407, where the object is on a moving “conveyor”), wherein the object is carried by the conveyor such that a first position of the object at a first timing of taking the first-type image is different than a second position of the object at a second timing of taking the second-type image, and the circuitry clips a first-type image portion from the first-type image, clips a second-type image portion from the second-type image such that position in which the object is appeared in the first-type image portion is identical to position in which the object is appeared in the second-type image portion, and calculates the position of the object based on the first-type image portion and the second-type image portion (see Sharma Figs. 21A through 21D, and paras. 0085 and 0253-0255, where the position of the object and its watermark are tracked across multiple image frames; see also Sharma paras. 0181, 0186, 0390, 0393, 0404, and 0407, where the position of the object identified in those images is used for sorting the object into a bin).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma in view of Mößlein as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Sukeyasu et al., US 5,179,819 A (hereinafter referred to as “Sukeyasu”).
Regarding claim 8, Sharma discloses further comprising a conveyor configured to carry the object (see Sharma Figs. 32 and 38, and paras. 0181 and 0407, where the object is on a moving “conveyor”), wherein, when the object is carried by the conveyor, the circuitry is further configured to control an actuator and a remover to remove the object from the conveyor based on the calculated position of the object on the conveyor and the determined material of the object (see Sharma Figs. 21A through 21D, and paras. 0085 and 0253-0255, where the position of the object and its watermark are tracked across multiple image frames; see also Sharma paras. 0181, 0186, 0390, 0393, 0404, and 0407, where “solenoid-operated plungers, stepper motor-controlled arms, forced air jets, etc.” are used to sort an object into a bin based on its determined material, its determined position, and “additional information, e.g., corresponding bin location, distance to sorting bin, timing to activate a sorting diverter, etc.”).
Sharma does not explicitly disclose a suction pad.
However, Sukeyasu discloses further configured to control an actuator and a suction pad to remove the object (see Sukeyasu Figs. 8, 11a, 12, and 13a, and col. 17, lls. 28-34, and col. 18, lls. 12-25, where a vacuum pad attached to a rod are actuated to move a bottle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to simply substitute the removers of Sharma with the vacuum pads of Sukeyasu, because it is predictable that vacuum pads would succeed at removing bottles for sorting into bins, and Sukeyasu further teaches and suggests that vacuum pads are effective at moving bottles (see Sukeyasu col. 17, lls. 35-40, where “[h]owever, the vacuum pad 34 is effective for fixing the rod firmly to the bottle and the utilization of the vacuum pad is preferable”).
Claim(s) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma in view of Mößlein and Sukeyasu.
Regarding claim 9, Sharma discloses an object processing apparatus (see Sharma paras. 0501-0522, where the system comprises circuitry, hardware, and/or software) comprising: a remover configured to remove an object (see Sharma paras. 0181, 0186, 0393, and 0407, where “solenoid-operated plungers, stepper motor-controlled arms, forced air jets, etc.” are used to sort an object into a bin); a driver including an actuator configured to move the remover (see Sharma paras. 0181, 0186, 0393, and 0407, where the sorters are controlled by combinations of “control logic” and the solenoid, stepper motor, and/or forced air); an illuminator including a first-type light source and a second type-light source configured to illuminate the object with a first-type light and a second-type light, respectively (see Sharma Fig. 25, and paras. 0286 and 0290-0293, where the illuminator is one or more arrays of LEDs); a camera configured to take a first-type image of the object based on light reflecting from the object after projection of the first-type light onto the object, and take a second-type image of the object after projection of the second-type light onto the object (see Sharma Figs. 33A and 33B, and paras. 0390-0396, where multiple image frames are captured, each with a different light source having a different wavelength of light: blue, red, or infrared, for example; see also Sharma Fig. 29, and para. 0305, where light sources and cameras are positioned to optimize the capture of diffuse and/or specular reflections from the object); and circuitry configured to calculate a position of the object based on the first-type image and the second-type image (see Sharma Figs. 21A through 21D, and paras. 0085 and 0253-0255, where the position of the object and its watermark are tracked across multiple image frames; see also Sharma paras. 0181, 0186, and 0407, where the position of the object identified in those images is used for sorting the object into a bin), determine a material of the object by performing image processing on the first- type image and the second-type image (see Sharma Figs. 21A through 21D, and paras. 0085 and 0253-0255, where watermark data is detected in multiple image frames; see also Sharma Figs. 32A and 32B, and paras. 0071, 0186, 0284, 0328, 0390, and 0393, where images are processed to determine whether the material is coded and/or contains watermark data, and also to determine the specific material of the object), and control the driver to move the remover to remove the object (see Sharma paras. 0181, 0186, 0390, 0393, 0404, and 0407, where “solenoid-operated plungers, stepper motor-controlled arms, forced air jets, etc.” are used to sort an object into a bin based on its determined position and “additional information, e.g., corresponding bin location, distance to sorting bin, timing to activate a sorting diverter, etc.”).
Sharma does not explicitly disclose a suction pad; and based on fluorescent light emitted from the object.
Mößlein discloses take an image of the object based on fluorescent light emitted from the object after projection of the second-type light onto the object (see Mößlein paras. 0013-0016, where “a fluorescence code and/or a watermark and/or a barcode and/or a QR code and/or a symbol and/or an article number” on an object is “electromagnetically excited in order to analyze its remitted spectrum”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the fluorescence detection technique of Mößlein to the existing detection techniques of Sharma, because it is predictable that doing so would improve Sharma’s sorting accuracy by detecting additional object native materials, markings, and/or codes containing useful information about the object to be sorted.
Sukeyasu discloses a driver including an actuator configured to move the suction pad; and control the driver to move the suction pad to remove the object (see Sukeyasu Figs. 8, 11a, 12, and 13a, and col. 17, lls. 28-34, and col. 18, lls. 12-25, where a vacuum pad attached to a rod are actuated to move a bottle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to simply substitute the removers of Sharma with the vacuum pads of Sukeyasu, because it is predictable that vacuum pads would succeed at removing bottles for sorting into bins, and Sukeyasu further teaches and suggests that vacuum pads are effective at moving bottles (see Sukeyasu col. 17, lls. 35-40, where “[h]owever, the vacuum pad 34 is effective for fixing the rod firmly to the bottle and the utilization of the vacuum pad is preferable”).
Regarding claim 10, Sharma discloses further comprising a conveyor configured to carry the object (see Sharma Figs. 32 and 38, and paras. 0181 and 0407, where the object is on a moving “conveyor”), wherein when the object is carried by the conveyor, the circuitry controls the driver to move the remover to remove the object from the conveyor at a timing that is calculated based on a timing at which the first-type image was taken (see Sharma Figs. 21A through 21D, and paras. 0085 and 0253-0255, where the position of the object and its watermark are tracked across multiple image frames; see also Sharma paras. 0181, 0186, 0390, 0393, 0404, and 0407, where “solenoid-operated plungers, stepper motor-controlled arms, forced air jets, etc.” are used to sort an object into a bin based on its determined position and “additional information, e.g., corresponding bin location, distance to sorting bin, timing to activate a sorting diverter, etc.”).
Sharma does not explicitly disclose suction pad.
However, Sukeyasu discloses the driver to move the suction pad to remove the object (see Sukeyasu Figs. 8, 11a, 12, and 13a, and col. 17, lls. 28-34, and col. 18, lls. 12-25, where a vacuum pad attached to a rod are actuated to move a bottle).
Regarding claim 11, Sharma discloses further comprising a conveyor configured to carry the object (see Sharma Figs. 32 and 38, and paras. 0181 and 0407, where the object is on a moving “conveyor”), wherein when the object is carried by the conveyor, the circuitry controls the driver to move the remover to remove the object from the conveyor based on the calculated position of the object on the conveyor and the determined material of the object (see Sharma Figs. 21A through 21D, and paras. 0085 and 0253-0255, where the position of the object and its watermark are tracked across multiple image frames; see also Sharma paras. 0181, 0186, 0390, 0393, 0404, and 0407, where “solenoid-operated plungers, stepper motor-controlled arms, forced air jets, etc.” are used to sort an object into a bin based on its determined material, its determined position, and “additional information, e.g., corresponding bin location, distance to sorting bin, timing to activate a sorting diverter, etc.”).
Sharma does not explicitly disclose a suction pad.
However, Sukeyasu discloses controls the driver to move the suction pad to remove the object (see Sukeyasu Figs. 8, 11a, 12, and 13a, and col. 17, lls. 28-34, and col. 18, lls. 12-25, where a vacuum pad attached to a rod are actuated to move a bottle).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ANDREW M MOYER whose telephone number is (571)272-9523. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
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.
/ANDREW M MOYER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2675
Prosecution Insights