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 .
Application has non-elected claim 11 and pending claims 1-10 and 12-15.
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 8 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 8 discloses “…reference information regarding a band…” and “…wherein the at least one band is selected…”. It is unclear if “the at least one band” refers to “a band” of claim 8 or “the at least one band” of claim 1. If it does refer to claim 8’s band, then claim 8’s “a band” should be “at least one band”. For the purposes of examination, “the at least one band” is assumed to correlate to claim 8’s “a band.”
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.
Claims 1-3, 6-7, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lars Gustav Magnus Nipe US-20210174495-A1, hereinafter Nipe, in further view of TAKAMASA ANDO US-20160138975-A1, hereinafter ANDO.
As per claim 14, Nipe discloses a processing apparatus comprising:a processor (see Nipe ¶19); anda memory in which a computer program that the processor executes is stored (see Nipe ¶19, wherein a memory is disclosed), wherein the computer program causes the processor to execute (see Nipe ¶42, wherein a program is disclosed) acquiring image data of the object including information spectral bands (see Nipe ¶28-30, wherein images of an object are taken, each image representing a spectral band. The spectral profile ranges from 400 nm to 1000 nm, which includes visible light bands and near-infrared),extracting, for an individual region of the object, partial image data corresponding to at least one band among the four or more bands from the image data (see Nipe ¶30, wherein each image in the set of images represents a spectral band. See further ¶65-66, wherein the spectral information, i.e., partial image data, from the region of interest is extracted),inspecting, for the region, the object on the basis of the partial image data (see Nipe ¶64-65, wherein after the region of interest is identified, all the spectral information, i.e., partial image data, is extracted to determine if the pixel is a foreign object), andoutputting data representing a detection result, wherein the at least one band is selected in accordance with the region (see Nipe ¶71-72 and FIG. 3, wherein the output module assigns a classification label according to a spectral value).
However, while Nipe discloses extracting partial image data corresponding to at least one band, it fails to explicitly disclose where ANDO teaches:acquiring image data of an object including information regarding four or more bands (see ANDO ¶217, wherein an image is generated in each of a plurality of wavelength bands. See further ¶221-222 and FIG. 2A-2B, wherein the target wavelength bands W1 to Wi are included in the target wavelength band W, wherein i is no less than 4);extracting, for individual regions of the object, partial image data corresponding to at least one band among the four or more bands from the image data (see ANDO ¶218-222, wherein the plurality of regions in the coding element C from the image of object O is disclosed, each region containing spectral transmittance, i.e., partial image data. These spectral transmittance in the plurality of regions show the different wavelength bands, which ranges from visible light, near-infrared, near-ultraviolet, mid-infrared, far-infrared, or radio-wave. The target wavelength band is comprised of the bands W1 to Wi, wherein i is no less than 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Nipe’s apparatus by using ANDO’s teaching by including 4 or more bands to the spectral bands in order to more accurately determine image data by using specific spectral bands.
As per claim 1, the rationale provided in claim 14 is incorporated herein. In addition, the apparatus of claim 14 corresponds to the method of claim 1.
As per claim 2, Nipe, in combination with ANDO, discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the acquiring includes acquiring hyperspectral image data representing images of the object for the four or more bands (see Nipe ¶19, wherein a hyperspectral image of the object comprising spectral information is disclosed. Additionally, see ANDO ¶253, wherein the reconstruction into a multi-spectral image (a multispectral image can be a hyperspectral image) uses the 4 or more spectral bands).
As per claim 3, Nipe, in combination with ANDO, discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the acquiring includes acquiring compressed image data obtained by compressing image information regarding the object for the four or more bands into one image (see Nipe ¶67, wherein the image data is compressed by generating a mean value of the spectral values (wherein the spectral values comprise the four or more bands). Additionally, see ANDO ¶253, wherein the reconstruction into a multi-spectral image uses the 4 or more spectral bands).
As per claim 6, Nipe, in combination with ANDO, discloses the method according to claim 1 further comprising:acquiring region classification data corresponding to a type of the object, wherein the regions are determined based on the image data and the region classification data (see Nipe ¶63-65, wherein the output module classifies the object and predicts its quality parameters. It can also identify a foreign object by the pixels on the object. See further ¶80-82, wherein the classification on the object and its contaminants are disclosed).
As per claim 7, Nipe, in combination with ANDO, discloses the method according to claim 6, wherein the at least one band is selected based on the region classification data (see Nipe ¶65, wherein a spectral value is determined in the region of interest classified to be a foreign object).
As per claim 15, Nipe, in combination with ANDO, discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the inspecting the object includes inspecting a foreign object on or in the object (see Nipe ¶18, wherein the determination of a foreign object on the object is disclosed).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nipe, in combination with ANDO, in further view of TAO ZHOU CN-110441264-A, hereinafter ZHOU.
As per claim 4, Nipe, in combination with ANDO, fails to explicitly disclose where ZHOU teaches:The method according to claim 3, wherein the extracting includes reconstructing, from the compressed image data, the partial image data corresponding to the at least one band (see ZHOU page 7/19, wherein the spectral sampling data is used to reconstruct the multi-spectral image using compressed sensing (compress sensing uses compression and sampling to reconstruct images). The image sampling unit, which is used to later acquire the spectral sampling data, sets the image resolution and sampling number Mi, which is measured at a frequency band as disclosed on page 5/19, wherein the frequency corresponds to the spectrum).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Nipe’s, in combination with ANDO, method by using ZHOU’s teaching by including reconstruction of the partial image data to the compressed image data in order to further obtain the images merged together in a multi-spectral image.
As per claim 5, Nipe, in combination with ANDO and ZHOU, discloses the method according to claim 4, wherein the compressed image data is acquired by imaging the object through a filter array, the filter array has filters arranged two-dimensionally (see ANDO ¶218 and FIG. 1A, wherein the coding element, or filter array, C includes a plurality of regions arranged two-dimensionally. The coding element C can be disposed above an image sensor, which can be a color image sensor S, having a filter and a plurality of light-sensor cells arrayed two-dimensionally as disclosed in ¶246 and FIG. 4),transmission spectra of at least two or more filters among the filters differ from each other (see ANDO ¶218, wherein each region in the plurality of regions has an individually set spectral transmittance),the reconstructing includes reconstructing the partial image data using at least one reconstruction table corresponding to the at least one band (see ANDO ¶253-255, wherein the reconstruction includes the spectrally separated images
f
1
to
f
w
, i.e., partial image data, and the matrix of the elements
f
1
to
f
w
), and the reconstruction table represents a spatial distribution of luminous transmittance of each band for the filter array in each of the regions (see ANDO ¶253-255, wherein the data of the spectrally separated images F and its spatial distribution characteristics of the transmittance are represented by f which is included in the matrix H).
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nipe, in combination with ANDO, in further view of Romuald PAWLUCZYK US-20220323997-A1, hereinafter Romuald.
As per claim 8, Nipe, in combination with ANDO, fails to explicitly disclose where Romuald teaches:The method according to claim 6, wherein the region classification data includes region information for determining the region (see Nipe ¶63-35, wherein the output module classifies the object and predicts its quality parameters. It can also identify a foreign object by the pixels on the object. See further ¶80-82, wherein the classification on the object and its contaminants are disclosed), the method further comprising:acquiring, based on the region classification data, reference data including information regarding a band corresponding to the region information, wherein the at least one band is selected based on the reference data (see Romuald ¶85, wherein each segment of the food product is classified with an associated spectra, i.e., a band. See further ¶121-125 and FIGS. 3-4, wherein each segment, according to its respective spectra, is referred to, or classified as, fat, bones, plastic (which is an impurity), etc.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Nipe’s, in combination with ANDO, method by using Romuald’s teaching by including reference data to the region classification data in order to more accurately determine which spectral information corresponds to which part of the object.
As per claim 9, Nipe, in combination with ANDO, fails to explicitly disclose where Romuald teaches:The method according to claim 6, further comprising:updating the region classification data (see Romuald ¶122-123 and FIG. 3, wherein the spectrum of the segments, or regions, are updated to classify the segment); andupdating the regions (see Romuald ¶124-125 and FIG. 4, wherein the regions are classified and outlined on the food product using the updated spectrum classification).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Nipe’s, in combination with ANDO, method by using Romuald’s teaching by updating the region classification data and regions in order to more accurately label and classify the segments of the object.
As per claim 10, Nipe, in combination with ANDO, in combination with Romauld, discloses the method according to claim 9, further comprising:updating the at least one band (see Romuald ¶122 and FIG. 3, wherein the spectrum, which contains at least one band, is updated).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nipe, in combination with ANDO, in Ajay Divakaran US-20160063734-A1, hereinafter Ajay.
As per claim 12, Nipe, in combination with ANDO, fails to explicitly disclose where Ajay teaches:The method according to claim 6, wherein the object is a processed food product, and the region classification data includes data representing a layout diagram of ingredients of the processed food product (see Ajay ¶82-83 and FIGS. 5A-5B, wherein the processed food product discloses the ingredients and nutritional facts of the food).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Nipe’s, in combination with ANDO, method by using Ajay’s teaching by including a diagram of ingredients to the region classification data in order to further determine which foods are including in the image of the object.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bradley Obas Felix whose telephone number is (703)756-1314. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 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.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Vincent Rudolph can be reached at 5712728243. 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.
/BRADLEY O FELIX/Examiner, Art Unit 2671
/VINCENT RUDOLPH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2671