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
1. With respect to applicant’s remarks filed on 01/09/26 regarding rejected claims on pages 7-9, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicants argues “Voigt fails to disclose, teach, or suggest a particle inspection method where “a face of the container is maintained in a fixed orientation relative to the imaging system while moving through the field of view”… “Figs 1a and 2 of Voigt do not show a face of a container maintaining a fixed orientation relative to the camera while moving through a field of view of the camera”… “camera 38 while traveling along the path of carousel 12, the face of the container 16 would rotate relative to camera 38 and would not be in a fixed orientation relative to the camera 38”.
2. First: The following dictionaries have the definitions of wording relative:
(adj) true to a particular degree when compared with other things
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/relative
(adj) Considered in comparison or relation to something else
https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=relative
(adj) something is true to a certain degree, especially when compared with other things of the same kind.
(adj) to be considered and judged in relation to other things.
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/relative
According to the above definitions of the wording relative, the following figure 1a shows that a face A1-A4 of the container 16 is maintained in a fixed orientation considered and judged in relation to, OR considered in comparison or relation to, OR true to a particular degree when compared with, the imaging system 38 while moving through the field of view. In the other words, according to the following figure 1a, Voigt discloses that a face A1-A4 of the container 16 is maintained in a fixed orientation relative to the imaging system camera 38 while moving through the field of view.
3. Second: According to the following figure 8 of current application, a face B1-B4 of the container 810 is moving along the circle arrow 812 around the center 804, and container 810 would rotate relative to imager 814. This is similar to the following Voigt’s figure 1a, the surface A1-A4 of container 16 is moving along the circle arrow ZZ around the center O, and container 16 would rotate relative to camera 38. In the other words, if the face B1-B4 of the container 810 is maintained in a fixed orientation relative to the imaging system 814 while moving through the field of view in the following figure 8 of current application, then a face A1-A4 of the container 16 is also maintained in a fixed orientation relative to the imaging system 38 while moving through the field of view in the following Voigt’s figure 1a.
4. Third: Any imaging system, i.e. camera, must have a cone shape field of view as in the following Applicant’s figure 8, cone shape field of view C-C1-C2. In the other words, there is no imaging system that has rectangular shape field of view. Therefore, the face B1-B4 of the container 810, can only be maintained in a fixed orientation relative to the imaging system 814 while moving along the arrow 812 through the cone shape field of view C-C1-C2 of imager 814. Similarly, the following Voigt’s figure 1a discloses the face A1-A4 of the container 16, is maintained in a fixed orientation relative to the imaging system 38 while moving along the arrow ZZ through the cone shape field of view of imager 38.
[AltContent: textbox (O)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: rect][AltContent: textbox (ZZ)][AltContent: textbox (16)][AltContent: textbox (A1-A4)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
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
5. Grounds for the rejection of claims are provided below as necessitated by amendment.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
6. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/09/26 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
7. 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.
8. Claims 1-3, 7, 10, 12-13, 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 for a time sufficient to cause the liquid within the container to rotate ([0009, 0020, 0021, 0098]);
stopping rotation of the container ([0010-0011, 0025]);
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; [0010-0011, 0130]); wherein a face of the container is maintained in a fixed orientation relative to the imaging system while moving through the field of view (the above figure 1a, Voigt discloses that a face A1-A4 of the container 16 is maintained in a fixed orientation relative to the imaging system camera 38 while moving through the field of view. Please see the explanation in paragraphs 1-4 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 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 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 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 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 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 19, Voigt 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 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 a light source for illuminating the container (figure 1, light sources 40, 42).
Regarding Claim 23, Voigt 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 the light source is a back light or front light (figure 1, light sources 40, 42).
Regarding Claim 25, Voigt 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 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
9. 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.
10. Claim(s) 4, 14-16, 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 Akkerman et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0291438). Hereafter “Voigt”, “Akkerman”.
Regarding Claim(s) 4, Voigt teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above except for the container moves through the field of view of the stationary imaging system in a linear path. Akkerman teaches the container moves through the field of view of the stationary imaging system in a linear path, ([0005]; Figures 2, 7A-B, 8A, container A). 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 the container moving through the field of view of the stationary imaging system in a linear path in order to implement inspection system more easily (Akkerman, abstract, [0005]).
Regarding Claim 14, Voigt teaches the container is held at a first position when rotating the container, the method further comprising:
adjusting a holding position of the container ([0127-0129]);
rotating the container ([0009, 0020, 0021, 0098]);
stopping rotation of the container ([0010-0011, 0025]);
while the liquid remains rotating within the container, moving the container along a second path through a second stationary imaging system (figure 1, second path of holder 14);
capturing a second plurality of images from the second stationary imaging system as the container moves past the second imaging system ([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 at a different location and different particle);
registering the second plurality of images to each other ([0048-0049]);
combining the registered second plurality of images ([0050]);
detecting one or more second particles in the combined registered second plurality of images ([0052]); and
failing the particle inspection for the container when one or more second 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).
However, Voigt does not teach moving the container along a second linear path. Akkerman teaches the container moves through the field of view of the stationary imaging system in a linear path, ([0005]; Figures 2, 7A-B, 8A, container A). 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 the container moving through the field of view of the stationary imaging system in a linear path in order to implement inspection system more easily (Akkerman, abstract, [0005]).
Regarding Claim 15, Voigt 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 ([0048-0049]);
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 ([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 the container comprises one or more of vials and syringes (figure 1, element 16 is not different from vials and syringes).
11. 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, 20, 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).
12. 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 claim 1 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).
13. 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]).
Fax/Telephone Information
14. 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