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 .
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by United States Patent No. 6,859,271, hereinafter Carney.
Regarding claim 1, Carney teaches a thermoanalytical instrument (item 90) comprising: a thermoanalytical sensor (item 120) for receiving a sample object in thermal contact therewith (column 8, lines 53-57); a tray (sample tray, column 9, lines 19-21) having at least one storage location for holding the sample object (column 9, lines 19-21); and a sample changer (items 125 and 810) wherein a releasing sample support (not positively recited, MPEP § 2115) is any one of said storage locations of said tray (column 9, lines 18-29), and a receiving sample support (not positively claimed, MPEP § 2115) is said thermoanalytical sensor (column 9, lines 18-29), and wherein the sample object (not positively recited, MPEP § 2115) is an empty crucible or a crucible accommodating a specimen of a substance to be analyzed (pan, column 9, lines 18-29), said sample changer comprising: a moveable member (item 125) driven for movement between at least a receiving position to pick up the sample object at the releasing sample support and the releasing position to deposit said sample object at a receiving sample support (column 9, lines 18-29); and a camera (item 810) mounted to said moveable member for movement therewith (figure 19), said camera having a field of view and a depth of focus adapted to capture an at least partial image of at least one of said sample object, said releasing or receiving sample support (column 20, lines 19-23).
Regarding claim 2, Carney teaches a light source (item 850) mounted to said moveable member for movement therewith to illuminate said field of view of said camera (column 16, lines 48-57).
Regarding claim 14, Carney teaches a cover (item 152) configured to shield said sample changer from the ambient atmosphere all the way along its path of movement (figure 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carney in view of United States Application Publication No. 2015/0245009, hereinafter Tozuka.
Regarding claim 3, Carney teaches all limitaitons of claim 1; however, Carney fails to teach the light source is a ring light surround the camera.
Tozuka teaches a camera system in which the light source utilizes a ring light for shadowless photographing over the entire circumference of a lens of the digital camera (Tozuka, paragraph [0059]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized a ring light which surrounds the camera because it would provide a shadowless photographing over the entire circumference of a lens of the digital camera (Tozuka, paragraph [0059]).
Claim(s) 4-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carney in view of EP 2776844, hereinafter Muller.
Regarding claim 4-8, Carney teaches all limitations of claim 1; however, Carney fails to teach an image processing means for analyzing at least one of the images captured by said camera, wherein: said image processing means operates to analyze said at least one image for a positional relationship between said sample object and at least one of said releasing or receiving sample support, a signal indicative of said positional relationship is used for controlling said movement of said moveable member, said image processing means operates to analyze said at least one image for at least one visually distinguishable feature of said sample object and said image processing means operates to analyze said at least one image for at least one dimensional feature of said sample object.
Muller teaches a device for processing specimen containers which has a camera (Muller, item 1816) with an image processing means (Muller, paragraph [0067]) for analyzing at least one of the images captured by said camera (Muller, paragraph [0067]), wherein: said image processing means operates to analyze said at least one image for a positional relationship between said sample object and at least one of said releasing or receiving sample support (Muller, paragraph [0067]), a signal indicative of said positional relationship is used for controlling said movement of said moveable member (Muller, paragraph [0069]), said image processing means operates to analyze said at least one image for at least one visually distinguishable feature of said sample object (Muller, paragraph [0067]) and said image processing means operates to analyze said at least one image for at least one dimensional feature of said sample object (Muller, paragraph [0067]) as this provides a system which can process images while the gripper and the robotic arm is moving thereby resulting in a very efficient process (Muller, paragraph [0069]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the image processing means and functions of Muller because it would provide a system which can process images while the gripper and the robotic arm is moving thereby resulting in a very efficient process (Muller, paragraph [0069]).
Claim(s) 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carney in view of United States Application Publication No. 2015/0258694, hereinafter Hand.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Carney teaches all limitations of claim 1; however, Carney fails to teach a line or crosshair laser having a laser's optical axis oriented so as to cause an observable shadow of said sample object on one of said releasing or receiving sample supports and said line or crosshair laser is mounted for movement with said moveable member.
Hand teaches a robotic arm which utilizes line lasers to create cross-hair which would provide for automated or manual centering of the robotic arm (Hand, paragraph [0076]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added line lasers to create cross-hair because it would provide for automated or manual centering of the robotic arm (Hand, paragraph [0076]).
Claim(s) 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carney in view of United States Application Publication No. 2003/0228697, hereinafter Kocher.
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Carney teaches all limitations of claim 1; however, Carney fails to teach the thermoanalytical sensor comprises a color-calibration area for performing a white balance operation for an image captured by said camera being a color camera and said color-calibration area is arranged at an outer peripheral portion of said sensor.
Kocher teahces an analysis device which has a calibration color region on the receiver so that the reader can read the color areas and match the known colors compared to the read colors (Kocher, paragraphs [0011] and [0028]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added a color-calibration area on the outer peripheral portion of the sensor because it would allow for the reader can read the color areas and match the known colors compared to the read colors (Kocher, paragraphs [0011] and [0028]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., that the camera captures an image e.g, with spatial resolution) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In this case the claim only states that the camera is adapted to capture an at least partial image of at least one of said sample object. The claim is only stating that there is a partial image and as the claim has not provided detail as to what is considered to be a partial image, as the sensor assembly and optical fiber would be capture some amount of an image, thereby reading on the claim.
Regarding applicant’s argument that the term camera, image, field of view and depth of focus do not appear anywhere in Carney and therefore does not teach the specified limitations is not found persuasive. The examiner acknowledges that Carney does not specifically state the terms the applicant’s argue, however, as the sensor assembly and optical fiber of Carney is capturing some amount of light from the device, which is considered to be the at least partial image, the sensor assembly and optical fiber would also have a field of view and depth of focus which allows the light to be seen by the sensor assembly and the optical fiber, thereby reading on the instant limitations.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., an image sensor that is capable of converting a captured image into a two-dimensional pixel representation suitable for further processing and/or evaluation) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The scalar reflectivity measurement is considered to a partial image as a partial image could be a single pixel (the scalar reflectivity measurement) and the amount of light would be considered to be grayscale amount of light which a single pixel made up of a specified amount of light is the same thing as a singular pixel of a partial image.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW D KRCHA whose telephone number is (571)270-0386. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7am-5pm.
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, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571)270-7698. 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.
/MATTHEW D KRCHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1796
Prosecution Insights