/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884 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, 3-4, 10-12, 14-19; canceled claims: 2, 7-8; 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 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, 5-6, 9, 12-13, 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ludeker et al. (US 6,563,122 B1; pub. May 13, 2003) in view of Yang et al. (US 2016/0062103 A1; pub. Mar. 3, 2016).
Regarding claim 1, Ludeker et al. disclose: an irradiator configured to irradiate a fruit or a vegetable with a light (col.3 L20-30, col.12 L24-34, claim 18);an extractor configured to extract a plurality of predetermined fluorescence emissions out of fluorescence emissions generated from a surface of the fruit or vegetable irradiated with the light, each of the plurality of predetermined fluorescence emissions having a different wavelength (col.11 L33-39, col.14 L27-34 teaches blue & green fluorescence which means a plurality of predetermined fluorescence emissions, col.16 L7-15), an imager configured to repeatedly perform, over time, an imaging process of capturing a plurality of fluorescence images, each of the plurality of fluorescence images indicating a different one of the plurality of predetermined fluorescence emissions (col.5 L19-34, col.12 L24-34 teaches “Also monitoring chlorophyll concentration by fluorescence allows monitoring the decay of fresh fruits” this means that the process is time dependent, col.14 L27-34 teaches blue & green fluorescence which means a plurality of predetermined fluorescence emissions); and a determiner configured to output a plurality of indexes based on the plurality of fluorescence images, each of the plurality of indexes indicating a fluorescence intensity of a different one of the plurality of fluorescence images, and to determine whether or not there is a sign of deterioration in quality of the fruit or vegetable based on changes in the plurality of indexes over time (col.14 L53-57), each of the plurality of indexes determining a different type of disorder of the fruit or vegetable in accordance with the wavelength of the corresponding one of the plurality of predetermined fluorescence emissions indicated by the plurality of fluorescence images (col.12 L21-34, claim 18)
Ludeker et al. are silent about: each of the plurality of indexes being an index value of pixel values of a plurality of pixels that constitute the corresponding one of the plurality of fluorescence images, the index value indicating a mean value, a median value, a mode, a maximum value, or a minimum value of the pixel values.
In a similar field of endeavor Yang et al. disclose: each of the plurality of indexes being an index value of pixel values of a plurality of pixels that constitute the corresponding one of the plurality of fluorescence images, the index value indicating a mean value, a median value, a mode, a maximum value, or a minimum value of the pixel values (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 Ludeker et al. with the teachings of Yang et al.
Regarding claim 4, Ludeker et al. disclose: the plurality of predetermined fluorescence emissions have wavelengths in a range of 550 nm to 750 nm. (claim 11).
Regarding claim 5, Ludeker et al. disclose: the irradiator is configured to emit ultraviolet rays col.3 L20-30, col.13 L35-67).
Regarding claim 6, Ludeker et al. disclose: the ultraviolet rays have a wavelength of 200 nm to 400 nm (col.10 L1-5).
Regarding claim 9, Ludeker et al. disclose: the extractor includes a band-pass filter (col.8 L56-60).
Regarding claim 12, Ludeker et al. and Yang et al. disclose: the irradiator is configured to emit the light as a plurality of lights having different excitation wavelengths, and the determiner is configured to determine the plurality of indexes in association with the plurality of lights and to determine whether or not there is a sign of deterioration in the quality of the fruit or vegetable based on the plurality of indexes (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 1).
Regarding claim 13, Ludeker et al. and Yang et al. disclose: the determiner is configured to identify a type of a live bacterium or a microorganism that is parasitic on the fruit or vegetable based on the plurality of indexes (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 1 because the apparatus of Ludeker et al. is directed to detecting fungal infection detection as described in col.14 L42-46).
Regarding claim 18, Ludeker et al. and Yang et al. disclose: A determination device comprising: an irradiator configured to irradiate a fruit or vegetable with a light; an extractor configured to extract a plurality of predetermined fluorescence emissions out of fluorescence emissions generated from a surface of the fruit or vegetable irradiated with the light, each of the plurality of predetermined fluorescence emissions having a different wavelength; an imager configured to repeatedly perform, over time, an imaging process of capturing a plurality of fluorescence images, each of the plurality of fluorescence images indicating a different one of the at least one plurality of predetermined fluorescence emissions; and a determiner configured to output a plurality of indexes based on the plurality of fluorescence images, each of the plurality of indexes indicating a fluorescence intensity of a different one of the plurality of fluorescence images and to determine whether or not there is a sign of deterioration in quality of the fruit or vegetable based on changes in the plurality of indexes over time each of the plurality of indexes determining a different type of disorder of the fruit or vegetable in accordance with the wavelength of the corresponding one of the plurality of predetermined fluorescence emissions indicated by the plurality of fluorescence images, each of the plurality of indexes being an index value of pixel values of a plurality of pixels that constitute the corresponding one of the plurality of fluorescence images, the index value indicating a mean value, a median value, a mode, a maximum value, or a minimum value of the pixel values, the at least one predetermined wavelength is in a range of 450 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, Ludeker et al. and Yang et al. disclose: A determination device comprising: an irradiator configured to irradiate a food with a light; an extractor configured to extract a plurality of predetermined fluorescence emissions out of fluorescence emissions generated from a surface of the food irradiated with the light, each of the plurality of predetermined fluorescence emissions having a different wavelength; an imager configured to repeatedly perform, over time, an imaging process of capturing a plurality of fluorescence images, each of the plurality of fluorescence images indicating a different one of the predetermined fluorescence emissions; and a determiner configured to output a plurality of indexes based on the plurality of fluorescence images, each of the plurality of indexes indicating a fluorescence intensity of a different one of the plurality of fluorescence images, and to determine whether or not there is a sign of deterioration in quality of the food based on changes in the plurality of indexes over time each of the plurality of indexes determining a different type of disorder of the food in accordance with the wavelength of the corresponding one of the plurality of predetermined fluorescence emissions indicated by the plurality of fluorescence images, the different types of disorder including the food being discolored by sinensetin and nobiletin contained in the food, the food being disordered due to rot, the food being disordered by a Maillard reaction, and the food being disordered by chlorophyll contained in the food, is each of the plurality of indexes being an index value of pixel values of a plurality of pixels that constitute the corresponding one of the plurality of fluorescence images, the index value indicating a mean value, a median value, a mode, a maximum value, or a minimum value of the pixel values (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 1).
Claims 3, 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ludeker et al. (US 6,563,122 B1; pub. May 13, 2003) in view of Yang et al. (US 2016/0062103 A1; pub. Mar. 3, 2016) and further in view of Lefcourt et al. (US 7,547,508 B1; pub. Jun. 16, 2009).
Regarding claim 3, the combined references are silent about: a scanning mechanism configured to change relative positions of the fruit or vegetable and the imager relative to each other
In a similar field of endeavor Lefcourt et al. disclose: a scanning mechanism configured to change relative positions of the fruit or vegetable and the imager relative to each other (col.6 L22-27 conveyor) motivated by the benefits for a thorough and fast inspection.
In light of the benefits for a thorough and fast inspection, 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 Ludeker et al. and Yang et al. with the teachings of Lefcourt et al.
Regarding claim 14, the combined references are silent about: the determiner is configured to determine that the fruit or vegetable is in the deteriorated state in which the fruit or vegetable is not fresh upon determining that at least one of the plurality of indexes is greater than a predetermined threshold value.
In a similar field of endeavor Lefcourt et al. disclose: the determiner is configured to determine that the fruit or vegetable is in the deteriorated state in which the fruit or vegetable is not fresh upon determining that at least one of the plurality of indexes is greater than a predetermined threshold value (col.4 L49-67, claim 1) motivated by the benefits for improving the safety of the food supply (Lefcourt et al. col.2 L29-32).
In light of the benefits for improving the safety of the food supply as taught by Lefcourt 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 Ludeker et al. and Yang et al. with the teachings of Lefcourt et al.
Regarding claim 15, Lefcourt et al. disclose: the determiner is configured to determine that the fruit or vegetable is not in the deteriorated state in which the fruit or vegetable is not fresh upon determining that none of the plurality of indexes is greater than the predetermined threshold value (col.4 L49-67, claim 1) motivated by the benefits for improving the safety of the food supply (Lefcourt et al. col.2 L29-32).
Regarding claim 16, the combined references are silent about: the determiner is configured to determine whether each of the plurality of indexes is greater than a predetermined threshold value, and the determiner is configured to determine that the fruit or vegetable is in a deteriorated state in which the fruit or vegetable is not fresh upon determining that at least one of the plurality of indexes is greater than the predetermined threshold value
In a similar field of endeavor Lefcourt et al. disclose: the determiner is configured to determine whether each of the plurality of indexes is greater than a predetermined threshold value, and the determiner is configured to determine that the fruit or vegetable is in a deteriorated state in which the fruit or vegetable is not fresh upon determining that at least one of the plurality of indexes is greater than the predetermined threshold value (col.4 L49-67, claim 1) motivated by the benefits for improving the safety of the food supply (Lefcourt et al. col.2 L29-32).
In light of the benefits for improving the safety of the food supply as taught by Lefcourt 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 Ludeker et al. and Yang et al. with the teachings of Lefcourt et al.
Regarding claim 17, Lefcourt et al. disclose: the determiner is configured to determine that the fruit or vegetable is not in a deteriorated state in which the fruit or vegetable is not fresh upon determining that none of the plurality of indexes is greater than the predetermined threshold value (col.4 L49-67, claim 1) motivated by the benefits for improving the safety of the food supply (Lefcourt et al. col.2 L29-32).
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ludeker et al. (US 6,563,122 B1; pub. May 13, 2003) 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 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 plurality of predetermined fluorescence emission, and each of the band-pass filters extracts a different of the plurality of predetermined fluorescence emissions.
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 plurality of predetermined fluorescence emission, and each of the band-pass filters extracts a different of the plurality of predetermined fluorescence emissions (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 Ludeker et al. 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 Ludeker et al. 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
Prosecution Insights