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 .
DETAILED ACTION
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: rect][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (A1-A4)][AltContent: textbox (O)][AltContent: textbox (ZZ)][AltContent: textbox (16)]
PNG
media_image1.png
212
182
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1a
[AltContent: textbox (C)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (C1)][AltContent: textbox (C2)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (B1-B4)]
PNG
media_image2.png
160
250
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 8
Response to Arguments
1. 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).
2. With respect to applicant’s remarks filed on 05/08/26 regarding rejected claims 1-3, 7, 10, 12-13, 19, 21-26, pages 8-9, the new added limitation “in an arcuate motion while counter-rotating the container in a direction opposite the arcuate motion such that a face of the container remains facing the imaging system while moving through the field of view in the arcuate motion” has been found in reference of Voigt, ([0009, 0021, 0059, 0129, 0130, 0183, 0190]). Container 16 is rotated in either clockwise or counter-clockwise direction relative to the longitudinal axis of the container. Figure 1a further discloses the container 16 is moving by carrousel 12 in a clockwise arcuate motion. In the other words, Voigt has disclosed the container 16 being moving by carrousel 12 in a clockwise arcuate motion, and counter-rotating the container 16 is in a direction opposite the arcuate motion of the carrousel 12 while moving through the field of view of the cameras 36, 38, in the arcuate motion.
3. Grounds for the rejection of claims are provided below as necessitated by amendment.
Election/Restrictions
4. Applicant’s election of Group 1, Claims 1-3, 5, 7-13, 15-26, in the reply filed on 07/27/26 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.03(a)). Therefore, claims 14, 27, have been withdrawn acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-3, 7, 10, 12-13, 15, 16, 19, 21-26, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Voigt et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0001104). Hereafter “Voigt”.
Regarding Claim 1, Voigt teaches a particle inspection method for detecting particles within a liquid [0003, 0004, 0020], the method comprising:
rotating a container being inspected about a longitudinal axis of the container for a time sufficient to cause the liquid within the container to rotate ([0009, 0020, 0021, 0098]; Figures 1, 1a, 2, 5, container 16);
stopping rotation of the container about the longitudinal axis ([0010-0011, 0025]; Figures 1, 1a, 2, 5, container 16);
while the liquid remains rotating within the container, moving the container through a field of view of a stationary imaging system (figure 1, cameras 36, 38 is not different from a stationary imaging system; [0010-0011, 0130]);
in an arcuate motion while counter-rotating the container in a direction opposite the arcuate motion ([0009, 0021, 0059, 0129, 0130, 0183, 0190]. Container 16 is rotated in either clockwise or counter-clockwise direction relative to the longitudinal axis of the container. Figure 1a further discloses the container 16 is moving by carrousel 12 in a clockwise arcuate motion. Please see the explanation in paragraph 2 above) such that a face of the container remains facing the imaging system while moving through the field of view in the arcuate motion (the above figure 1a, Voigt discloses that a face A1-A4 of the container 16 remains facing the imaging system camera 38 while moving through the field of view in the arcuate motion. Please see the explanation in paragraphs 2 above);
capturing a plurality of images from the stationary imaging system as the container moves past the imaging system (abstract, lines 8-11; [0006-0008, 0010-0011, 0017]; Figure 1, cameras 38, 36);
registering the plurality of images to each other (abstract, lines 11-15; [0013-0015]. Transmitting each of the parts to a digital image and processing the sequence of parts of digital images is not different from registering the plurality of images);
combining the registered plurality of images (Abstract lines 13-15; [0015, 0031]. Note plurality of images transmitted to an image processing unit for detecting, this means that the plurality of images is linked, connected, or joined for detecting. Please see the explanation in paragraph 2 above);
detecting one or more particles in the combined registered plurality of images (Abstract lines 13-15, [0004, 0164, 0165]); and
failing the particle inspection for the container when one or more particles are detected in the combined registered plurality of images ([0025, 0164, 0165]. Note: if the threshold max_no_of_particles_per_image is set to zero, then the failing is when one or more particles being detected. In the other words, failing the particle inspection for the container is when one or more particles being detected).
Regarding Claim 2, Voigt teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above except for the plurality of images each capture an image of the container at a different location within a field of view of the imaging system. Voigt further teaches the plurality of images each capture an image of the container at a different location within a field of view of the imaging system ([0012, 0049]; Figures 1a, 2, it is inherent that two cameras 36, 38, capture an image of the container 16 at a different location within a field of view of the imaging system).
Regarding Claim 3, Voigt teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above except for the plurality of images each capture an image of a plurality of containers, including the container, at different locations within a field of view of the imaging system. Voigt further teaches the plurality of images each capture an image of a plurality of containers, including the container, at different locations within a field of view of the imaging system ([0012, 0049]; Figures 1a, 2, it is inherent that two cameras 36, 38, capture the plurality of images each capture an image of a plurality of containers, including the container, at different locations within a field of view of the imaging system).
Regarding Claim 7, Voigt teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above except for registering the plurality of images to each other is based on the container within each image. Voigt further teaches registering the plurality of images to each other is based on the container within each image (abstract, lines 8-11; [0012, 0015]).
Regarding Claim 10, Voigt teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above except for combining the registered plurality of images comprises subtracting the images pixel-by-pixel, or adding the images pixel-by-pixel. Voigt further teaches combining the registered plurality of images comprises subtracting the images pixel-by-pixel, or adding the images pixel-by-pixel ([0008]. It is inherent that a digital image comprising a specific number of pixels must comprise subtracting or adding the images pixel-by-pixel).
Regarding Claims 12, 13, Voigt teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above except for capturing one or more additional images of a masked region for further image processing; determining if there is at least one additional particle in the one or more additional images; and failing the container inspection when there are at least one additional particle, and determining if the particle feature is within a masked region; and when the particle feature is within the masked region, capturing the additional particle features. Voigt further teaches capturing one or more additional images of a masked region for further image processing; determining if there is at least one additional particle in the one or more additional images; and failing the container inspection when there are at least one additional particle, and determining if the particle feature is within a masked region; and when the particle feature is within the masked region, capturing the additional particle features, ([0012, 0049]; Figures 1a, 2, it is inherent that two cameras 36, 38, capture an image of the container 16 at a different location and different particle. Imaging region of the container is not different from a masked region; ([0025, 0164, 0165]. Note: if the threshold max_no_of_particles_per_image is set to zero, then the failing is when one or more particles being detected. In the other words, failing the particle inspection for the container is when one or more particles being detected).
Regarding Claim 15, Voigt teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as stated above except for rotating the container; capturing a further plurality of images as the container moves while spinning; registering the further plurality of images to each other; combining the registered further plurality of images; detecting one or more further particles located on an inside surface of the container in the combined registered further plurality of images; and failing the particle inspection for the container when one or more further particles are detected.
Voigt further teaches
rotating the container ([0009, 0020, 0021, 0098]);
capturing a further plurality of images as the container moves while spinning ([0012, 0049]; Figures 1a, 2, it is inherent that two cameras 36, 38, capture the first and second plurality of images of the container 16 while the container 16 moves around with holder 14);
registering the further plurality of images to each other; combining the registered further plurality of images ([0048-0049]);
detecting one or more further particles located on an inside surface of the container in the combined registered further plurality of images ([0052]); and
failing the particle inspection for the container when one or more further particles are detected ([0025, 0164, 0165]. Note: if the threshold max_no_of_particles_per_image is set to zero, then the failing is when one or more particles being detected. In the other words, failing the particle inspection for the container is when one or more particles being detected).
Regarding Claim 16, Voigt teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as stated above except for the container comprises one or more of vials and syringes. Voigt teaches the container comprises one or more of vials and syringes (figure 1, element 16 is not different from vials and syringes).
Regarding Claim 19, Voigt teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above except for a particle inspection system for detecting particles within a liquid, the system comprising: a container movement assembly for rotating a container and moving the container through an inspection line; an imaging system in a fixed position along the inspection line; and a processing device. Voigt further teaches a container movement assembly for rotating a container and moving the container through an inspection line (figure 1, elements 22, 20, 26, 34, 30, 12, 28, 44, 46, 26, 24, is not different from a container movement assembly); an imaging system in a fixed position along the inspection line (figure 1, cameras 36, 38); and a processing device (figure 1, computer 56).
Regarding Claim 21, Voigt teaches all the limitations of claims 1, 19, as stated above except for the container movement assembly comprises a rotary dial based assembly or a track based assembly, with a rotation mechanism arranged in each container holder. Voigt further teaches a rotary dial based assembly or a track based assembly, with a rotation mechanism arranged in each container holder (figure 1, wheels 24, 26, 46, and carrousel 12 are rotated with holder 14).
Regarding Claim 22, Voigt teaches all the limitations of claims 1, 19, as stated above except for a light source for illuminating the container. Voigt further teaches a light source for illuminating the container (figure 1, light sources 40, 42).
Regarding Claim 23, Voigt teaches all the limitations of claims 1, 19, 22, as stated above except for the light source is larger than a field of view of the imaging system. Voigt further teaches the light source is larger than a field of view of the imaging system (figure 1, it is inherent that light sources 40, 42 is larger than a field of view cameras 36, 38).
Regarding Claim 24, Voigt teaches all the limitations of claims 1, 19, 22, 23, as stated above except for the light source is a back light or front light. Voigt further teaches the light source is a back light or front light (figure 1, light sources 40, 42).
Regarding Claim 25, Voigt teaches all the limitations of claims 1, 19, as stated above except for the imaging system comprises light control film to control light distribution. Voigt further teaches light control film to control light distribution ([0026], lines 7-9. Note: prisms and/or filters and/or mirrors and/or wave guides is not different from a light control film).
Regarding Claim 26, Voigt teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as stated above except for combining the registered plurality of images generates a composite image; and detecting the one or more particles in the combined registered plurality of images comprises detecting the one or more particles in the composite image. Voigt further teaches combining the registered plurality of images generates a composite image (abstract, lines 11-15; [0013-0015]. Transmitting each of the parts to a digital image and processing the sequence of parts of digital images is not different from combining the registered plurality of images); and detecting the one or more particles in the combined registered plurality of images comprises detecting the one or more particles in the composite image ([0015-0016], [0017], lines 11-13. Establishment of an objects or fault present and to detect unwanted objects or faults in the image is not different from detecting the one or more particles in the composite image).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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 of this title, 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.
8. Claim(s) 5, 11, 20, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Voigt et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0001104), in view of Person et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 11,592,403). Hereafter “Voigt”, “Pearson”.
Regarding Claim(s) 5, Voigt teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above except for a telecentric lens. Pearson teaches a telecentric lens, (column 5, lines 61-62). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Voigt by having a telecentric lens in order to have better image due to no angular component to the FOV.
Regarding Claim(s) 11, Voigt teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above except for detecting one or more particles comprises detecting particle features based on one or more of feature intensity levels in the images; feature shape; and feature size. Pearson teaches this limitation (column 1, lines 60-65; Column 2, lines 62-64; Column 11, lines 61-67; Column 12, lines 1-6). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Voigt by detecting one or more particles comprises intensity levels in the images; feature shape; and feature size in order to determine whether the sample is acceptable or should be discarded (Pearson, Column 11, lines 61-67; Column 12, lines 1-6).
Regarding Claim(s) 20, Voigt teaches all the limitations of claims 1, 19, as stated above except for a telecentric lens. Pearson teaches a telecentric lens, (column 5, lines 61-62). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Voigt by having a telecentric lens in order to have better image due to no angular component to the FOV.
9. Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Voigt et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0001104), in view of Edens et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0112845). Hereafter “Voigt”, “Edens”.
Regarding Claim(s) 8-9, Voigt teaches all the limitations of claims 1, 7, as stated above except for identifying in each of the plurality of images a region of interest (ROI) based on the container; identifying common features within the ROIs in each of the plurality of images; and registering each of the images to each other based on positions of common features within the ROIs, and cropping each of the plurality of images based on the ROI within the registered images. Edens teaches identifying in each of the plurality of images a region of interest (ROI) based on the container; identifying common features within the ROIs in each of the plurality of images; and registering each of the images to each other based on positions of common features within the ROIs, and cropping each of the plurality of images based on the ROI within the registered images ([0273-0275). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Voigt by having identifying in each of the plurality of images a region of interest in order to determine to have a qualifying tube images (Edens, [0273-0275).
10. Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Voigt et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0001104), in view of Cordovez et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0360413). Hereafter “Voigt”, “Cordovez”.
Regarding Claim(s) 17, 18, Voigt teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above except for machine learning (ML) algorithm comprising at least one of: support vector machines; linear regression; logistic regression; naive Bayes; linear discriminant analysis; decision trees; k-nearest neighbor algorithms; neural networks; similarity learning; polynomials with ridge estimators; and polynomials with linear estimators. Cordovez teaches this limitation ([0105]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Voigt by machine learning (ML) algorithm in order to to produce a continuous output instead of or in addition to classification (Cordovez, [0105]).
Conclusion
11. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Fax/Telephone Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRI T TON whose telephone number is (571)272-9064. The examiner can normally be reached on 8am-4pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached on (571)270-5789. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
February 6, 2026
/Tri T Ton/
Primary Examiner Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights