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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
1. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1,4,18-19 and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
The phrase “wherein creating the transformed set of images comprises transforming at least one of: (1) the initial image to the first initial image or (2) the subsequent image to the first subsequent image according to a motion profile of the load carrier from the initial time to the subsequent time”, the specification does not describe the above cited phrase in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1,4,18-19 and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Since the phrase “wherein creating the transformed set of images comprises transforming at least one of: (1) the initial image to the first initial image or (2) the subsequent image to the first subsequent image according to a motion profile of the load carrier from the initial time to the subsequent time”, was not describe in specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention, the phrase is not clear to the Examiner .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
Claims 1-4,18-19 and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goussies et al. US 20240144494 (hereinafter Goussies )in view of Barman et al. US 6795200(hereinafter Barman).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood Goussies provide for, accessing an initial image of a load on a moving load carrier, the initial image of the load having been captured at an initial time ( see [0022], see “at a first time, sampling a first image frame of a conveyor region with a set of cameras”); accessing a subsequent image of the load on the moving load carrier, the subsequent image having been captured at a subsequent time ( see [0022], see “ at a second time, sampling a second image frame with the set of cameras”); generating a transformed set of images comprising a first initial image and a first subsequent image (see [0022], see “determining a plurality of image patches within the first image frame; estimating a respective displacement for each image patch between the first and second image frames”),wherein creating the transformed set of images comprises transforming at least one of: (1) the initial image to the first initial image or (2) the subsequent image to the first subsequent image according to a motion profile of the load carrier from the initial time to the subsequent time ( see [0052], see “For example, the displacement of each patch can be determined by optical flow between consecutive frames. Alternatively, the displacement can be estimated without feature extraction and/or object detection within an image frame or a patch thereof (e.g., via pixel transforms)”) ; and estimating a motion of the load carrier from the initial time to the subsequent time based on minimizing a difference between the first subsequent image of the load and the first initial image of the load ( see “[0032] Sampling images of a conveyor region S110 functions to sample images of the conveyor which can be used for conveyor motion estimation”). Goussies does not provide for minimizing a difference between the first subsequent image of the load and the first initial image of the load. Barman teaches the above missing limitation of Goussies, seecol.6 lines 40-45, see “assuming that the displacement between the second image and the first image is equal to and opposite in direction to the displacement between the second image and the third image”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of Barman with the method and system of Goussies, in order to obtain the claimed invention, via a techniques for measuring the correlation between images and techniques for determining the vector displacement required to maximize the correlation between two images, a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable ,see MPEP 2143.
Regarding claim 2, Goussies provide for, wherein estimating the motion of a load carrier comprises estimating one or more of (1) a rotation of the load carrier or (2) a motion of at least a portion of the load carrier along one or more predetermined trajectories ( see [0065], see “For example, S150 can facilitate container tracking, insertion target planning (e.g., insertion scheduling), trajectory estimation, and/or execution of robotic control (e.g., ingredient insertion) based on the conveyor motion parameters”).
Regarding claim 3, Goussies provide for, wherein estimating the rotation of a load carrier comprises estimating one or more of (1) a periodic motion of at least a portion of the load carrier or (2) a translation of at least a portion of the load carrier ( see “[0070] The method can be performed contemporaneously and/or concurrently with robot and/or conveyor operation (e.g., for a continuous translating line, for a stepwise/piecewise operating line, etc.), such as to facilitate insertion scheduling, insertion target selection, and/or insertion control (e.g., in accordance with S150)”).
Regarding claims 4,19 and 23, see the rejection of claim 1. They recite similar limitations as claim 1. Hence are similarly analyzed and rejected.
Regarding claims 18 and 22, see the rejection of claim 1. They recite similar limitations as claim 1. Except for one or more non-transitory computer readable storage media storing instructions (see [0073] of Goussies, see “Alternative embodiments implement the above methods and/or processing modules in non-transitory computer-readable media, storing computer-readable instructions”). Hence are similarly analyzed and rejected.
Claims 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goussies et al. US 20240144494 (hereinafter Goussies) in view of Barman et al. US 6795200(hereinafter Barman), further in view of Stoppa et al. US 20180211373 (hereinafter Stoppa).
Regarding claim 12, Goussies as modified by Barman does not provide for, wherein the initial image and the subsequent image are captured by an imaging apparatus comprising one or more of: one or more RBG cameras; or one or more thermal cameras. Stoppa teaches the above missing limitation of Goussies as modified by Barman (see [0078] of Stoppa, see “For example, a depth camera system may include three cameras. In such systems, two of the cameras may be invisible light (infrared) cameras and the third camera may be a visible light (e.g., a red/blue/green color camera) camera. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of Stoppa with the method and system of Goussies as modified by Barman , in order to obtain the claimed invention, via camera may be a visible light (e.g., a red/blue/green color camera) camera, a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable ,see MPEP 2143.
Claims 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goussies et al. US 20240144494 (hereinafter Goussies) in view of Barman et al. US 6795200(hereinafter Barman), further in view of BINDER et al. US 20170331899 (hereinafter BINDER).
Regarding claim 17, Goussies as modified by Barman does not provide for, wherein the load comprises a food item in a microwaye. Binder teaches the above missing limitation of Goussies as modified by Barman, see claim 19 of Binder, see “19. The method according to claim 18, wherein the primary function of the appliance is heating food, and wherein the appliance is a microwave oven, an electric mixer, a stove, an oven, or an induction cooker”. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of Binder with the method and system of Goussies as modified by Barman , in order to obtain the claimed invention, by providing a microwave oven, a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable ,see MPEP 2143.
Allowable Subject Matter
4. Claims 5-11,13-16,20-21 and 24-25 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Reasons for Allowance
5. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior arts of Goussies et al. US 20240144494 ( hereinafter Goussies )in view of Barman et al. US 6795200(hereinafter Barman), further in view of Stoppa et al. US 20180211373 (hereinafter Stoppa), or BINDER et al. US 20170331899, either alone or combined, failed to teach or suggest for features/limitations of claims 5-11,13-16, 20-21 and 24-25.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Omari et al. US 20200349721 is cited because the reference teaches “[0105] The operation for the determining 620 of the visual motion estimate is, for example, performed by the visual motion estimation module 312 according to a motion model. The visual motion estimate is an estimate of a change of position of the subject S in the image frame (e.g., a change in X, Y coordinates or predicted X, Y coordinates)”.
IMAI et al. US 20160283822 is cited because the reference teaches “[0040] The convection microwave oven 1 includes a light bulb (illumination unit) 20 provided to the side surface within the heating chamber 11 and an imaging unit (image data acquisition unit) 21 provided to the same side surface as for the light bulb 20. The imaging unit 21 is configured of, for example, a camera and takes an image of food within the heating chamber 11”.
de Menezes Pereira et al. US 11632826, is cited because the reference teaches “Electronic ovens heat items within a chamber by bombarding them with electromagnetic radiation. In the case of microwave ovens, the radiation most often takes the form of microwaves at a frequency of either 2.45 GHz or 915 MHz. The wavelength of these forms of radiation are 12 cm and 32.8 cm respectively. See background of the invention.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALI BAYAT whose telephone number is (571)272-7444. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:00 M-F. 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, Andrew Bee can be reached at 571-2705183. 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.
/ALI BAYAT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2677
Prosecution Insights