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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Response to Amendments
The amendments to the claims filed on 03/16/2026 have been acknowledged accepted and entered. Previously claims 1 – 10 were pending, claims 1 – 10 have been amended, and now claims 1 – 10 are still currently pending. Furthermore, the amendments to claims are sufficient to overcome the 101 claim rejections given to claims 8 and 9. Therefore, the 101 subject matter eligibility rejections of dependent claims 8 and 9 have herein been withdrawn. The amendments made to claim 5 are sufficient to overcome the claim objection regarding the use of abbreviations being used without explanation. Therefore, the claim objection of claim 5 has been herein withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks filed 03/16/2026, with respect to claim(s) 1, 4, and 7 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Specifically, regarding claim 1, the remarks made addressing the physical removal of the particles compared to the image processing to remove the particles has been persuasive. Regarding claim 4, the arguments directed towards the specifics of the segmentation limitation have been persuasive. Furthermore, regarding claim 7, the arguments directed towards the second threshold comparison have been persuasive. Therefore, new grounds of rejections for claims 1 and 4 have been introduced; while the 103 rejections of claim 7 (and its dependent claim 9) have herein been withdrawn.
Regarding the arguments directed towards the 112(f) claim interpretation, the applicant states that they do not agree with the terms lacking sufficient definite meaning as the name for structure. However, the examiner notes that the terms “image acquisition unit”, “characteristic value determination unit”, and “particle content determination unit”, all include a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the function, furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier; wherein the generic placeholder being the term “unit” which has no specific structural meaning. Therefore, the 112(f) claim interpretations disclosed in the precious correspondence are maintained.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“an image acquisition unit for acquiring an image of the fluid” in claim 10. As per the specification [0053] the image acquisition unit is regarded as a camera or sensor capable of acquiring an image.
“a characteristic value determination unit for determining a particle-related characteristic value in the image” in claim 10. This is regarded as a computer implemented means plus function limitation, as seen in the specification [0053 – 0056, 0058] wherein the units are software or hardware modules or a combination thereof that are executed via a computer (processor in smartphone/tablet/glasses) or other device/circuitry capable of executing computer instructions or computer code as well as containing photo functionality. The examiner notes that in accordance with the specification [0009] the claim limitation “characteristic value determination unit” is interpreted as: preprocessing the image, wherein preprocessing the image includes: segmenting the image to obtain a preprocessed image with a predetermined size and a predetermined position, normalizing the values of the pixels in the image, removing noise of the image, and converting the image into an image with a predetermined format.
“a particle content determination unit for determining the particle content from the particle-related characteristic value” in claim 10. This is regarded as a computer implemented means plus function limitation, as seen in the specification [0053 – 0056, 0058] wherein the units are software or hardware modules or a combination thereof that are executed via a computer (processor in smartphone/tablet/glasses) or other device/circuitry capable of executing computer instructions or computer code as well as containing photo functionality. The examiner notes that in accordance with the specification [0011] the claim limitation “particle content determination unit” is interpreted as: determining the particle content from the particle-related characteristic value based on a regression model, wherein the regression model describes a relationship between the particle-related characteristic value and the particle content.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 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 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.
Claims 1 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jain; Pranay et al. (US 10145776 B2; hereinafter simply referred to Jain) in view of Deindoerfer; Fred et al. (US 4612614 A; hereinafter simply referred to as Deindoerfer).
Regarding independent claim 1, Jain teaches:
A method for determining particle content in a fluid, (See Col 10 Lines 45 – 55 wherein a method/analysis is performed on fluid samples to determine their particle content/volume fraction of particles)
acquiring an image of the fluid, (See Col 5 Lines 33 – 44, wherein an image of the fluid is acquired)
determining a particle-related characteristic value in the image wherein the particle related characteristic value is a statistical value of the values of the pixels after image processing (See Col 7 Lines 44 – 67, Col 8 Lines 1 - 18 wherein the radiant energy/pixel reading (particle related characteristic value based on statistical value of pixels) is determined after image processing occurs on the image of the fluid containing the particles).
Determining the particle content from the particle related characteristic value (See Col 10 Lines 36 – 44 wherein the radiant energy (particle related characteristic value) is used to determine the particle content/volume fraction of particles in liquid).
Jain does not explicitly disclose the image processing/processing of pixels done before the determination of the particle related characteristic value being the removal of the particles from the image.
However, Deindoerfer teaches of the image processing done before the determination of the particle related characteristic value being the removal of the particles from the image. (See Col 4 Lines 22 – 37 wherein image processing/processing of pixels is performed to remove the particles from the image).
As taught by Deindoerfer the removing of the particles from an image using image processing allows for the specific removal of particles. (See Col 4 Lines 22 – 37 wherein removing particles from an image using image processing, allows for specifications to be made as to what particles are removed, such as only removing particles of a particular size or shape). As both the teachings of Jain and Deindoerfer teach of image processing regarding particles in fluid, 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 teachings of Jain with Deindoerfer to teach of the image processing done before the determination of the particle related characteristic value being the removal of the particles from the image in order to allow for specific particles to be removed during the image processing.
Regarding dependent claim 8, Jain in view of Deindoerfer teaches:
A non-transitory computer readable medium having a computer program product stored on the computer readable medium which can be directly loaded into a memory unit of a programmable computing unit, the computer program product having program code means for performing the method of claim 1 when the computer program product is implemented in the computing unit. (See Jain Col 12 Lines 12 – 42 wherein a computer program/software instructions are stored on non-transitory computer readable medium (RAM, ‘1204’ in figure 12) which is loaded into memory and executed by a computer processor, ‘126’ in figure 12, to execute the method of claim 1, furthermore please see the discussion of claim 1 above).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jain; Pranay et al. (US 10145776 B2; hereinafter simply referred to Jain) in view of Deindoerfer; Fred et al. (US 4612614 A; hereinafter simply referred to as Deindoerfer) further in view of Bravo Inaki et al. (US 20240344962 A1; hereinafter simply referred to as Bravo) and further in view of Inahata Shinjiro et al. (JP 2015125013 A; translated via Espacenet; hereinafter simply referred to as Inahata).
Regarding dependent claim 2, Jain in view of Deindoerfer does not explicitly disclose:
The particle-related characteristic value comprises: a statistical characteristic value of the values of the pixels in the image, the number, density and total area of the particles.
However, Bravo teaches of the particle-related characteristic value comprises: a statistical characteristic value of the values of the pixels in the image, the number, density and total area of the particles (See ¶ 43, 25 wherein the characteristic value of the values of the pixels in the image is the number of pixels, number of particles is determined via counting of the number of particles, the density is determined, as the area of inspection and number of particles are known which gives the density of particles, and total area is determined, as the particle pixels are compared pre and post removal of particles which gives particle regions, and the image scale is known, which together gives the total area of the particles).
As taught by Bravo the calculation of the number density and total area of particles allows for further analysis of the particles and the fluid. (See ¶ 43 wherein the calculation of the number density and total area of particles allows for further analysis of the particles and the fluid such as the viscosity of the fluid). As both the teachings of Jain in view of Deindoerfer and Bravo deal with the technical field of image processing regarding particles in fluid, 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 teachings of Jain in view of Deindoerfer with Bravo to teach of the particle-related characteristic value comprises: a statistical characteristic value of the values of the pixels in the image, the number, density and total area of the particles in order to perform further analysis on the particles and the fluid.
Jain in view of Deindoerfer and Bravo does not explicitly disclose a statistical characteristic value of the values of the pixels after removing the noise of the image.
However, Inahata teaches of a statistical characteristic value of the values of the pixels after removing the noise of the image (See ¶ 36, 39, and 50 wherein the coordinates (statistical characteristic value of the values of the pixels) are determined after the removal of noise of the image).
As taught by Inahata removing the noise from the image allows for the effects of ambient light on an image to be removed and allows for accurate gathering of statistical characteristic values of the values of the pixels in the image, (See ¶ 39 wherein the noise is removed which allows for the side of effects of ambient light to be removed). As both the teachings of Jain in view of Deindoerfer and Bravo and Inahata deal with the technical field of image processing of fluids with particles, 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 teachings of Jain in view of Deindoerfer and Bravo with Inahata to teach of a statistical characteristic value of the values of the pixels after the removing of the noise of the image in order for the side effects of ambient light to be removed.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jain; Pranay et al. (US 10145776 B2; hereinafter simply referred to Jain) in view of Deindoerfer; Fred et al. (US 4612614 A; hereinafter simply referred to as Deindoerfer) further in view of Bravo Inaki et al. (US 20240344962 A1; hereinafter simply referred to as Bravo) further in view of Inahata Shinjiro et al. (JP 2015125013 A; translated via Espacenet; hereinafter simply referred to as Inahata) and further in view of Nossek Raz et al. (US 20230114798 A1; hereinafter simply referred to as Nossek).
Regarding dependent claim 3, Jain in view of Deindoerfer, Bravo and Inahata does not explicitly disclose:
The statistical characteristic value of the values of the pixels in the image comprises: a mean, a variance, a skewness, and a kurtosis of the values of the pixels in the image.
However, Nossek teaches of the statistical characteristic value of the values of the pixels in the image comprises: a mean, a variance, a skewness, and a kurtosis of the values of the pixels in the image. (See ¶ 81 and 111 wherein values of pixels or image statistics gathered include a mean, a variance, a skewness, and a kurtosis of the values of the pixels in the image.)
As taught by Nossek these image statics that are determined are known to those skilled in the art and furthermore are used for various purposes such as histogram formation which allows for analyzing and adjusting of image quality. (See ¶ 81 and 111 wherein the image statistics are used for histogram formation). As both the teachings of Jain in view of Deindoerfer, Bravo and Inahata and Nossek deal with the technical field of image processing regarding the values of pixels 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 teachings of Jain in view of Deindoerfer, Bravo and Inahata with Nossek to teach of the statistical characteristic value of the values of the pixels in the image comprises: a mean, a variance, a skewness, and a kurtosis of the values of the pixels in the image in order for analysis of the image to become easier.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jain; Pranay et al. (US 10145776 B2; hereinafter simply referred to Jain) in view of Deindoerfer; Fred et al. (US 4612614 A; hereinafter simply referred to as Deindoerfer) in view of Inahata Shinjiro et al. (JP 2015125013 A; translated via Espacenet; hereinafter simply referred to as Inahata) further in view of Tamura; Yusuke et al. (US 10115178 B2; hereinafter simply referred to as Tamura) further in view of Knapp Julius et al. (US 6498645 B1; hereinafter simply referred to as Knapp) and further in view of Ahn, Sung-Joo et al. (US 20140015850 A1; hereinafter simply referred to as Ahn)
Regarding dependent claim 4, Jain in view of Deindoerfer does not explicitly disclose:
Preprocessing the image, wherein preprocessing the image comprises removing noise of the image.
However, Inahata teaches of preprocessing the image, wherein preprocessing the image comprises removing noise of the image (See Inahata ¶ 48 and 39 wherein noise is removed as part of preprocessing the image).
As taught by Inahata removing the noise from the image allows for the effects of ambient light on an image to be removed and allows for accurate gathering of statistical characteristic values of the values of the pixels in the image, (See ¶ 39 wherein the noise is removed which allows for the side of effects of ambient light to be removed). As both the teachings of Jain in view of Deindoerfer and Inahata deal with the technical field of image processing of fluids with particles, 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 teachings of Bravo with Inahata to teach of a statistical characteristic value of the values of the pixels after the removing of the noise of the image in order for the side effects of ambient light to be removed.
Jain in view of Deindoerfer and Inahata does not explicitly disclose segmenting the image to obtain a preprocessed image with a predetermined size and a predetermined position.
However, Tamura teaches of segmenting the image to obtain a preprocessed image with a predetermined size and a predetermined position. (See Col 5 Lines 1 – 22, Figure 2, wherein an image is segmented/cropped to obtain a preprocessed image/crop image with a predetermined size and predetermined position, being the size (number of pixels) and position, predetermined by the crop region candidate setting unit ‘113’ in figure 2)
As taught by Tamura having a crop region candidate setting unit that predetermines the crop position and size allows for multiple crop candidates to be compared to each other. (See Col 5 Lines 31 – 34 wherein multiple crop candidates are compared to each other in the case that multiple cropped images need to be obtained from a singular image). As both the teachings of Jain in view of Deindoerfer and Inahata deal with the technical field of image processing, 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 teachings of Jain in view of Deindoerfer and Inahata with Tamura to teach of segmenting the image to obtain a preprocessed image with a predetermined size and a predetermined position in order for multiple crop candidates to be compared to each other.
Jain in view of Deindoerfer, Inahata and Tamura does not explicitly disclose normalizing the values of the pixels in the image.
However, Knapp teaches of normalizing the values of the pixels in the image. (See Col 13, Lines 44 – 50 wherein the values of the pixels in the image are normalized).
As taught by Knapp the normalization of the values of the pixels in the image provides equal detectability for low and high contrast particles with a single light source. (See Col 13, Lines 44 – 50 wherein equal detectability for low and high contrast particles with a single light source is possible due to normalization of values of pixels in the image). As both the teachings of Jain in view of Deindoerfer, Inahata and Tamura and Knapp deal with the technical field of image processing of particles in fluid, 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 teachings of Jain in view of Deindoerfer, Inahata and Tamura with Knapp in order for equal detectability for low and high contrast particles with a single light source to be possible.
Jain in view of Deindoerfer, Inahata, Tamura and Knapp does not explicitly disclose converting the image in to an image with a predetermined format.
However, Ahn teaches of converting the image in to an image with a predetermined format. (See ¶ 19 wherein the image is converted into a predetermined format, being RGB (Red Green Blue) or HSV (Hue Saturation Value)).
As taught by Ahn converting an image into a predetermined format allows for images to be converted based on user preference for how they wish to see the image. (See ¶ 18 and 19 wherein the image is tailored to a specific user, being a user with a color vision defect). As both the teachings of Jain in view of Deindoerfer, Inahata, Tamura and Knapp and Ahn deal with the technical field of image processing and displaying processed 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 teachings of Jain in view of Deindoerfer, Inahata, Tamura and Knapp with Ahn to teach of converting an image in to a predetermined format in order for the image to be displayed to a user in a preferred format.
Regarding dependent claim 5, Jain in view of Deindoerfer, Inahata, Tamura, Knapp and Ahn teaches:
The predetermined format comprises an RGB format and an HSV format. (See Ahn ¶ 19 wherein the image can be converted into different predetermined formats, being RGB (Red Green Blue) and HSV (Hue Saturation Value)).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jain; Pranay et al. (US 10145776 B2; hereinafter simply referred to Jain) in view of Deindoerfer; Fred et al. (US 4612614 A; hereinafter simply referred to as Deindoerfer) in view of Fradkin Dmitry et al. (US 20180231760 A1; hereinafter simply referred to as Fradkin).
Regarding dependent claim 6, Jain in view of Deindoerfer does not explicitly disclose:
Determining the particle content from the particle related characteristic value comprises: determining the particle content from the particle-related characteristic value based on a regression model, wherein the regression model describes a relationship between the particle-related characteristic values and the particle content.
However, Fradkin teaches of determining the particle content from the particle related characteristic value comprises: determining the particle content from the particle-related characteristic value based on a regression model, wherein the regression model describes a relationship between the particle-related characteristic values and the particle content. (See ¶ 5 wherein a relationship between the particle related characteristic value (movement of particles when agitated) and the particle content being the number of particles, is described).
As taught by Fradkin the determination of the particle content from the particle related characteristic value based on a regression model that describes the relationship between the particle content and the particle related characteristic value allows for the determination of the number and size of particles that are suspended in the fluid. (See ¶ 5 wherein a relationship between the particle related characteristic value (movement of particles when agitated) and the particle content being the number of particles, is described). As both the teachings of Jain in view of Deindoerfer and Fradkin deal with the technical field of image processing of particles suspended in fluid 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 teachings of Jain in view of Deindoerfer with Fradkin to teach of the determination of the particle content from the particle related characteristic value is based on a regression model that describes the relationship between the particle content and the particle related characteristic value in order to allow for the determination of the number and size of particles that are suspended in the fluid.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jain; Pranay et al. (US 10145776 B2; hereinafter simply referred to Jain) in view of Deindoerfer; Fred et al. (US 4612614 A; hereinafter simply referred to as Deindoerfer) in view of Inahata Shinjiro et al. (JP 2015125013 A; translated via Espacenet; hereinafter simply referred to as Inahata) further in view of Deran Roger et al. (US 20200096434 A1; hereinafter simply referred to as Deran) further in view of Knapp Julius et al. (US 6498645 B1; hereinafter simply referred to as Knapp) further in view of Ahn, Sung-Joo et al. (US 20140015850 A1; hereinafter simply referred to as Ahn) and further in view of Fradkin Dmitry et al. (US 20180231760 A1; hereinafter simply referred to as Fradkin).
Regarding independent claim 10, Jain teaches:
An apparatus for determining particle content in a fluid, (See Col 10 Lines 45 – 55, Col 10 Lines 56 – 67, Col 11 Lines 1 – 18, Figure 1, wherein system ‘100’ in figure 1, is implemented by a computer apparatus, to determine the particle content/volume fraction of particles in a fluid)
an image acquisition unit for acquiring an image of the fluid, (See Col 5 Lines 33 – 44, wherein an image of the fluid is acquired via a digital camera (image acquisition unit))
determining a particle-related characteristic value in the image wherein the particle related characteristic value is a statistical value of the values of the pixels after image processing (See Col 7 Lines 44 – 67, Col 8 Lines 1 - 18 wherein the radiant energy/pixel reading (particle related characteristic value based on statistical value of pixels) is determined after image processing occurs on the image of the fluid containing the particles).
Determining the particle content from the particle related characteristic value (See Col 10 Lines 36 – 44 wherein the radiant energy (particle related characteristic value) is used to determine the particle content/volume fraction of particles in liquid).
Jain does not explicitly disclose the image processing/processing of pixels done before the determination of the particle related characteristic value being the removal of the particles from the image.
However, Deindoerfer teaches of the image processing done before the determination of the particle related characteristic value being the removal of the particles from the image. (See Col 4 Lines 22 – 37 wherein image processing/processing of pixels is performed to remove the particles from the image).
As taught by Deindoerfer the removing of the particles from an image using image processing allows for the specific removal of particles. (See Col 4 Lines 22 – 37 wherein removing particles from an image using image processing, allows for specifications to be made as to what particles are removed, such as only removing particles of a particular size or shape). As both the teachings of Jain and Deindoerfer teach of image processing regarding particles in fluid, 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 teachings of Jain with Deindoerfer to teach of the image processing done before the determination of the particle related characteristic value being the removal of the particles from the image in order to allow for specific particles to be removed during the image processing.
Using the 112(f) claim interpretation, Jain in view of Deindoerfer fails to disclose preprocessing the image, wherein preprocessing the image includes: segmenting the image to obtain a preprocessed image with a predetermined size and a predetermined position, normalizing the values of the pixels in the image, removing noise of the image, and converting the image into an image with a predetermined format.
However, Inahata teaches of preprocessing the image, wherein preprocessing the image comprises removing noise of the image (See Inahata ¶ 48 and 39 wherein noise is removed as part of preprocessing the image).
As taught by Inahata removing the noise from the image allows for the effects of ambient light on an image to be removed and allows for accurate gathering of statistical characteristic values of the values of the pixels in the image, (See ¶ 39 wherein the noise is removed which allows for the side of effects of ambient light to be removed). As both the teachings of Jain in view of Deindoerfer and Inahata deal with the technical field of image processing of fluids with particles, 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 teachings of Bravo with Inahata to teach of a statistical characteristic value of the values of the pixels after the removing of the noise of the image in order for the side effects of ambient light to be removed.
Jain in view of Deindoerfer and Inahata does not explicitly disclose segmenting the image to obtain a preprocessed image with a predetermined size and a predetermined position.
However, Tamura teaches of segmenting the image to obtain a preprocessed image with a predetermined size and a predetermined position. (See Col 5 Lines 1 – 22, Figure 2, wherein an image is segmented/cropped to obtain a preprocessed image/crop image with a predetermined size and predetermined position, being the size (number of pixels) and position, predetermined by the crop region candidate setting unit ‘113’ in figure 2)
As taught by Tamura having a crop region candidate setting unit that predetermines the crop position and size allows for multiple crop candidates to be compared to each other. (See Col 5 Lines 31 – 34 wherein multiple crop candidates are compared to each other in the case that multiple cropped images need to be obtained from a singular image). As both the teachings of Jain in view of Deindoerfer and Inahata deal with the technical field of image processing, 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 teachings of Jain in view of Deindoerfer and Inahata with Tamura to teach of segmenting the image to obtain a preprocessed image with a predetermined size and a predetermined position in order for multiple crop candidates to be compared to each other.
Jain in view of Deindoerfer, Inahata and Tamura does not explicitly disclose normalizing the values of the pixels in the image.
However, Knapp teaches of normalizing the values of the pixels in the image. (See Col 13, Lines 44 – 50 wherein the values of the pixels in the image are normalized).
As taught by Knapp the normalization of the values of the pixels in the image provides equal detectability for low and high contrast particles with a single light source. (See Col 13, Lines 44 – 50 wherein equal detectability for low and high contrast particles with a single light source is possible due to normalization of values of pixels in the image). As both the teachings of Jain in view of Deindoerfer, Inahata and Tamura and Knapp deal with the technical field of image processing of particles in fluid, 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 teachings of Jain in view of Deindoerfer, Inahata and Tamura with Knapp in order for equal detectability for low and high contrast particles with a single light source to be possible.
Jain in view of Deindoerfer, Inahata, Tamura and Knapp does not explicitly disclose converting the image in to an image with a predetermined format.
However, Ahn teaches of converting the image in to an image with a predetermined format. (See ¶ 19 wherein the image is converted into a predetermined format, being RGB (Red Green Blue) or HSV (Hue Saturation Value)).
As taught by Ahn converting an image into a predetermined format allows for images to be converted based on user preference for how they wish to see the image. (See ¶ 18 and 19 wherein the image is tailored to a specific user, being a user with a color vision defect). As both the teachings of Jain in view of Deindoerfer, Inahata, Tamura and Knapp and Ahn deal with the technical field of image processing and displaying processed 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 teachings of Jain in view of Deindoerfer, Inahata, Tamura and Knapp with Ahn to teach of converting an image in to a predetermined format in order for the image to be displayed to a user in a preferred format.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 9 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indications of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 7, the reason of allowable subject matter is that the prior art fails to teach or reasonably suggest the limitations of claims 1, further comprising determining that further detection of the fluid is required in the event that the particle content is greater than a first threshold and less than a second threshold, wherein the first threshold is less than the second threshold determining that a replacement of the fluid is required in the event that the particle content is greater than the second threshold.
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 ALEJANDRO HERNANDEZ whose telephone number is (703)756-1876. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am - 5 pm ET.
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, John M Villecco can be reached at (571) 272-7319. 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.
/ALEJANDRO HERNANDEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2661
/JOHN VILLECCO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2661
Prosecution Insights