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 .
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claims status: amended claim: 1, 10-11, 16; new claims: 18-19; the rest is unchanged.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. A new primary and secondary reference is currently being used in the present rejection.
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-9, 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nogami (US 2001/0006783 A1; pub. Jul. 5, 2001) in view of Yang et al. (US 2016/0062103 A1; pub. Mar. 3, 2016).
Regarding claim 1, Nogami discloses: A determination device comprising:
an irradiator (fig.8 item 61) configured to irradiate a food (fig.8 item 60, para. [0044]) with a light:
an extractor (para. [0118]) configured to extract at least one predetermined fluorescence emission having a predetermined wavelength out of fluorescence emissions generated from a surface of the food irradiated with the light (para. [0114]-[0117]);
an imager (fig.8 item 62) configured to capture at least one fluorescence image indicating the at least one predetermined fluorescence emission (para. [0114]-[0117]); and
a determiner configured to output at least one index indicating a fluorescence intensity of the at least one fluorescence image and to determine that the food is in a deteriorated state if the at least one index is greater than a threshold value (para. [0114]-[0117]).
Nogami is silent about:
the at least one index is an index value of pixel values of a plurality of pixels that constitute the fluorescence image and the index value indicates a mean value, a median value, a mode, a maximum value, or a minimum value of the pixel.
In a similar field of endeavor, Yang et al. disclose: the at least one index is an index value of pixel values of a plurality of pixels that constitute the fluorescence image and the index value indicates a mean value, a median value, a mode, a maximum value, or a minimum value of the pixel (para. [0043]) motivated by the benefits for improved detection accuracy
In light of the benefits for high signal to noise ratio, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Nogami with the teachings of Yang et al.
Regarding claim 2, Nogami discloses: the at least one fluorescence image includes a plurality of fluorescence images, and the at least one predetermined fluorescence includes a plurality of predetermined fluorescence emissions, each of the plurality of predetermined fluorescence emissions having a different wavelength, and each of the plurality of fluorescence images indicates a different one of the plurality of predetermined fluorescence emissions (para. [0124]).
Regarding claim 4, Nogami discloses: the at least one predetermined wavelength is in a range of 550 nm to 750nm (para. [0163]).
Regarding claim 5, Nogami discloses: the irradiator is configured to emit ultraviolet rays (para. [0163]).
Regarding claim 6, Nogami discloses: the ultraviolet rays have a wavelength of 200 nm to 400 nm (para. [0163]).
Regarding claim 7, Nogami discloses: the imager is configured to capture the at least one fluorescence image over time (para. [0033]).
Regarding claim 8, Nogami and Yang et al. disclose: the extractor is configured to extract the at least one predetermined fluorescence emission including as a plurality of predetermined fluorescence emissions each having a different wavelength, the imager is configured to capture the at least one fluorescence image as a plurality of fluorescence images each of the plurality of the fluorescence images being captured over time and indicating a different one pf the plurality of predetermined fluorescence emission and the determiner is configured to determine the at least one index by determining an index of each of the plurality of fluorescence images to obtain a plurality of indexes, each of the plurality of indexes indicating the fluorescent intensity of a different one the plurality of fluorescence images (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 1, additionally see para. [0033] & [0124] of Nogami).
Regarding claim 9, Nogami discloses: the extractor includes a band-pass filter (para. [0118]).
Regarding claim 12, Nogami discloses: the irradiator is configured to emit the light as a plurality of lights having different excitation wavelengths (para. [0057]-[0058]).
Yang et al. disclose: the determiner is configured to determine the at least one index to include a plurality of indexes associated with the plurality of lights and to determine whether the food is in the deteriorated state based on the plurality of indexes (para. [0043]) motivated by the benefits for improved detection accuracy.
Regarding claim 13, Nogami discloses: the determiner is configured to identify a type of a live bacterium (Abstract). Yang et al. disclose: the object based on the plurality of indexes (para. [0043]) motivated by the benefits for improved detection accuracy.
Regarding claim 14, Nogami and Yang et al. disclose: the determiner is configured to determine the at least one index as a plurality of indexes, each of the plurality of indexes indicating the fluorescence intensity of a different one of the plurality of fluorescence images, and the determiner is configured to determine that the food is in the deteriorated state upon determining that at least one of the plurality of indexes is greater than the threshold value (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 1).
Regarding claim 15, Nogami discloses: the determiner is configured to determine that the food is not in the deteriorated state upon determining that none of the plurality of indexes is greater than the threshold value (para. [0114]-[0117]).
Regarding claim 16, Nogami and Yang et al. disclose: to determine whether each of the plurality of indexes is greater than the threshold value, and the determiner is configured to determine that the food is in a deteriorated state upon determining that at least one of the plurality of indexes is greater than the threshold value (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 1).
Regarding claim 17, Nogami and Yang et al. disclose: the determiner is configured to determine that the food is not in a deteriorated state upon determining that none of the plurality of indexes is greater than the threshold value (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 1).
Regarding claim 18, Nogami and Yang et al. disclose: A determination device comprising: an irradiator configured to
PNG
media_image1.png
5
5
media_image1.png
Greyscale
irradiate a food with a light: an extractor configured to extract at least one predetermined fluorescence emission having a predetermined wavelength out of fluorescence emissions generated from a surface of the food irradiated with the light; an imager configured to capture at least one fluorescence image indicating the at least one predetermined fluorescence emission: and a determiner configured to output at least one index indicating a fluorescence intensity of the at least one fluorescence image and to determine whether the at least one index is greater than a threshold value, wherein: the at least one index is an index value of pixel values of a plurality of pixels that constitute the fluorescence image, the index value indicates a mean value, a median value, a mode, a maximum value, or a minimum value of the pixel values, the determiner determines that the food is in a deteriorated state upon determining that the at least one index is greater than the threshold value, and the at least one predetermined wavelength is in a range of 550 nm to 750 nm (the claim contains the same substantive limitations as claim 4, the claim is therefore rejected on the same basis).
Regarding claim 19, Nogami and Yang et al. disclose: A determination device comprising: an irradiator configured to
PNG
media_image1.png
5
5
media_image1.png
Greyscale
irradiate a food with a light: an extractor configured to extract at least one predetermined fluorescence emission having a predetermined wavelength out of fluorescence emissions generated from a surface of the food irradiated with the light; an imager configured to capture at least one fluorescence image indicating the at least one predetermined fluorescence emission: and a determiner configured to output at least one index indicating a fluorescence intensity of the at least one fluorescence image and to determine whether the at least one index is greater than a threshold value, wherein: the at least one index is an index value of pixel values of a plurality of pixels that constitute the fluorescence image, the index value indicates a mean value, a median value, a mode, a maximum value, or a minimum value of the pixel values, the determiner determines that the food is in a deteriorated state upon determining that the at least one index is greater than the threshold value, and the determiner determines whether or not the food is disordered due to rot, determines whether or not the food is disordered by Maillard reaction, or determines whether or not the food is disordered by chlorophyll contained in the food (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 1, additionally Nogami teaches detecting bacteria in food (para. [0114]-[0115]), bacteria are known as a sign of food deterioration).
Claims 3, 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nogami (US 2001/0006783 A1; pub. Jul. 5, 2001) in view of Yang et al. (US 2016/0062103 A1; pub. Mar. 3, 2016) and further in view of Yao et al. (US 2012/0061586 A1; pub. Mar. 15, 2012).
Regarding claim 3, the combined references are silent about: a scanning mechanism configured to change relative positions of the food and the imager relative to each other.
In a similar field of endeavor Yao et al. disclose: a scanning mechanism configured to change relative positions of the food and the imager relative to each other (para. [0040]) motivated by the benefits for a detection system that can quickly and accurately inspect food (Yao et al. para. [0026]).
In light of the benefits for a detection system that can quickly and accurately inspect food as taught by Yao et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Nogami and Yang et al. with the teachings of Yao et al.
Regarding claim 10, the combined references are silent about: the extractor includes a plurality of band-pass filters, the determination device further comprises a switching part configured to select which one of the plurality of band-pass filters that is used to extract the at least one predetermined fluorescence emission, and each of the band-pass filters extracts a different of the plurality of predetermined fluorescence
In a similar field of endeavor Yao et al. disclose: the extractor includes a plurality of band-pass filters, the determination device further comprises a switching part configured to select which one of the plurality of band-pass filters that is used to extract the at least one predetermined fluorescence emission, and each of the band-pass filters extracts a different of the plurality of predetermined fluorescence (claim 5) motivated by the benefits for a detection system that can quickly and accurately inspect food (Yao et al. para. [0026]).
In light of the benefits for a detection system that can quickly and accurately inspect food as taught by Yao et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Nogami and Yang et al. with the teachings of Yao et al.
Regarding claim 11, the combined references are silent about: the extractor includes a plurality of extractors, the imager includes a plurality of imagers each configured to capture a fluorescence image indicating one of the plurality of predetermined fluorescence emission each of the extractors extracts a different one of the plurality of predetermined fluorescence emissions, and each of the plurality of extractors is associated with one of the plurality of imagers.
In a similar field of endeavor Yao et al. disclose: the extractor includes a plurality of extractors, the imager includes a plurality of imagers each configured to capture a fluorescence image indicating one of the plurality of predetermined fluorescence emission each of the extractors extracts a different one of the plurality of predetermined fluorescence emissions, and each of the plurality of extractors is associated with one of the plurality of imagers (para. [0038], [0047]) motivated by the benefits for a detection system that can quickly and accurately inspect food (Yao et al. para. [0026]).
In light of the benefits for a detection system that can quickly and accurately inspect food as taught by Yao et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Nogami and Yang et al. with the teachings of Yao et al.
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 MAMADOU FAYE whose telephone number is (571)270-0371. The examiner can normally be reached Mon – Fri 9AM-6PM.
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, Uzma Alam can be reached at 571-272-3995. 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.
/MAMADOU FAYE/Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884