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).
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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because signals per se do not fall into one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 8 recites, inter alia, “A computer readable medium having a computer program product stored on the computer readable medium…” After close inspection, the Examiner respectfully notes that the disclosure, as a whole, does not definitively describe what can and cannot be considered the “computer readable medium”. Applicant’s specification discusses the “computer readable medium” in paragraphs [0056, 0058]. Applicant describes the “computer readable medium” however, applicant fails to describe the “computer readable medium” as non-transitory and thus, the “computer readable medium” could be other forms – such as a signal.
Claim 9 recites, inter alia, “A computer readable medium having a computer program product stored on the computer readable medium…” After close inspection, the Examiner respectfully notes that the disclosure, as a whole, does not definitively describe what can and cannot be considered the “computer readable medium”. Applicant’s specification discusses the “computer readable medium” in paragraphs [0056, 0058]. Applicant describes the “computer readable medium” however, applicant fails to describe the “computer readable medium” as non-transitory and thus, the “computer readable medium” could be other forms – such as a signal.
An Examiner is obliged to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during examination. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer program product (also called a computer readable medium, machine readable medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent. See MPEP 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal, per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter.
Therefore, given the non-definitive disclosure and the broadest reasonable interpretation, the machine-readable storage medium of the claim may include transitory propagating signals. As a result, the claim pertains to non-statutory subject matter.
However, the Examiner respectfully submits a claim drawn to such a computer program product or computer readable storage medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by adding the limitation “non-transitory” to the claim. Such an amendment would typically not raise the issue of new matter, even when the specification is silent because the broadest reasonable interpretation relies on the ordinary and customary meaning that includes signals per se. For additional information, please see the Patents’ Official Gazette notice published February 23, 2010 (1351 OG 212).
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 5 uses the abbreviations “RGB” and “HSV” in the claim. Neither of these abbreviations have been explained or defined in this claim or in any previous claims. Appropriate correction via definition of the abbreviations is required. For the sake of examination the examiner notes that the abbreviation “RGB” is interpreted as Red Green Blue, and “HSV” is interpreted as Hue Saturation Value.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bravo Inaki et al. (US 20240344962 A1; hereinafter simply referred to as Bravo).
Regarding independent claim 1, Bravo teaches:
A method for determining particle content in a fluid, (See ¶ 25, and claim 11 wherein a method is disclosed for inspecting/determining particle content in a fluid);
acquiring an image of the fluid, (See ¶ 25 and 43 wherein an image of the fluid is captured using a camera or sensor);
determining a particle-related characteristic value in the image, and determining the particle content from the particle-related characteristic value. (See ¶ 25 wherein a particle characteristic value in the image is determined being the number of particles which are counted, wherein the particle content being the amount of particles in the fluid is derived from the particle characteristic value being the number of particles).
Regarding dependent claim 8, Bravo teaches:
A 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 ¶ 28, 43 wherein computer program code is stored on computer readable medium which is loaded into memory and executed by a computer processor to execute the method of claim 1, furthermore please see the discussion of claim 1 above).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bravo Inaki et al. (US 20240344962 A1; hereinafter simply referred to as Bravo) in view of Inahata Shinjiro et al. (JP 2015125013 A; translated via Espacenet; hereinafter simply referred to as Inahata).
Regarding dependent claim 2, Bravo teaches:
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).
a statistical characteristic value of the values of the pixels after removing the particles from the image (See ¶ 43, 25 wherein the statistical characteristic value of the values of the pixels (number of pixels) is determined after removing the particles from the image)
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 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 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 Bravo Inaki et al. (US 20240344962 A1; hereinafter simply referred to as Bravo) in view of Inahata Shinjiro et al. (JP 2015125013 A; translated via Espacenet; hereinafter simply referred to as Inahata) further in view of Nossek Raz et al. (US 20230114798 A1; hereinafter simply referred to as Nossek).
Regarding dependent claim 3, Bravo in view of 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 Bravo in view of 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 Bravo in view of 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 Bravo Inaki et al. (US 20240344962 A1; hereinafter simply referred to as Bravo) 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) and further in view of Ahn, Sung-Joo et al. (US 20140015850 A1; hereinafter simply referred to as Ahn)
Regarding dependent claim 4, Bravo 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 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 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.
Bravo in view of Inahata does not explicitly disclose segmenting the image to obtain a preprocessed image with a predetermined size and a predetermined position.
However, Deran teaches of segmenting the image to obtain a preprocessed image with a predetermined size and a predetermined position. (See ¶ 101, 29, 121, wherein the image is segmented to obtain an image with a predetermined size and position).
As taught by Deran, the use of a segmentation allows for a method to be performed which automatically classifies and analyzes particles suspended in a fluid. (See ¶ 7 wherein the particles suspended in fluid are automatically analyzed and classified). As both the teachings of Bravo in view of Inahata deal with the technical field of image processing on particles in fluid it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Bravo in view of Inahata and Deran to teach of segmenting an image to obtain a preprocessed image with a predetermined size and a predetermined position in order for a process to be conducted that automatically classifies and analyzes particles in fluid.
Bravo in view of Inahata and Deran 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 Bravo in view of Inahata and Deran 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 Bravo in view of Inahata and Dera with Knapp in order for equal detectability for low and high contrast particles with a single light source to be possible.
Bravo in view of Inahata, Duren, 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 Bravo in view of Inahata, Duren, 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 Bravo in view of Inahata, Duren, 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, Bravo in view of Inahata, Duren, Knapp, and Ahn teaches:
The predetermined format comprises an RGB format and an HSV format. (See ¶ 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 Bravo Inaki et al. (US 20240344962 A1; hereinafter simply referred to as Bravo) in view of Fradkin Dmitry et al. (US 20180231760 A1; hereinafter simply referred to as Fradkin).
Regarding dependent claim 6, Bravo 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 Bravo 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 Bravo 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 7 and claim 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bravo Inaki et al. (US 20240344962 A1; hereinafter simply referred to as Bravo) in view of Bennett James et al. (US 20110190689 A1; hereinafter simply referred to as Bennett).
Regarding dependent claim 7, Bravo does not explicitly disclose:
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.
However, Bennett teaches of 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. (See ¶ 79 wherein a replacement fluid being the automatically delivered fluid (creating a replacement fluid), is delivered in the event that the particulates are above a threshold, and wherein if the particulates are below the threshold no fluid replacement is given (further detection is done), wherein necessarily the threshold for the replacement liquid being delivered is greater than a second threshold being the original amount of particulates).
As taught by Bennett the use of particle threshold for content of particles allows for automatic delivery of replacement fluid to occur once thresholds are exceeded. (See ¶ 79 wherein automatic delivery of replacement fluid occurs when thresholds are exceeded). As both the teachings of Bravo and Bennett deal with the technical field of image processing of particles in liquid, 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 Bennett to teach of 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 in order to allow for automatic delivery of replacement fluid to occur once thresholds are exceeded.
Regarding dependent claim 9, Bravo in view of Bennett teaches:
A 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 7 when the computer program product is implemented in the computing unit. (See Bravo ¶ 28, 43 wherein computer program code is stored on computer readable medium which is loaded into memory and executed by a computer processor to execute the method of claim 7, furthermore please see the discussion of claim 7 above).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bravo Inaki et al. (US 20240344962 A1; hereinafter simply referred to as Bravo) 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, Bravo teaches:
An apparatus for determining particle content in a fluid, (See ¶ 25, 28, 43, 50, wherein an apparatus is disclosed for inspecting/determining particle content in a fluid);
an image acquisition unit for acquiring an image of the fluid, (See ¶ 25 and 43 wherein an image of the fluid is captured using a camera or sensor);
Bravo discloses determining a particle related characteristic value in the image (See ¶ 25 wherein a particle related characteristic value in the image is determined being the number of particles), however, using the 112(f) claim interpretation, Bravo 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 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 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.
Bravo in view of Inahata does not explicitly disclose segmenting the image to obtain a preprocessed image with a predetermined size and a predetermined position.
However, Deran teaches of segmenting the image to obtain a preprocessed image with a predetermined size and a predetermined position. (See ¶ 101, 29, 121, wherein the image is segmented to obtain an image with a predetermined size and position).
As taught by Deran, the use of a segmentation allows for a method to be performed which automatically classifies and analyzes particles suspended in a fluid. (See ¶ 7 wherein the particles suspended in fluid are automatically analyzed and classified). As both the teachings of Bravo in view of Inahata deal with the technical field of image processing on particles in fluid it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Bravo in view of Inahata and Deran to teach of segmenting an image to obtain a preprocessed image with a predetermined size and a predetermined position in order for a process to be conducted that automatically classifies and analyzes particles in fluid.
Bravo in view of Inahata and Deran 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 Bravo in view of Inahata and Deran 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 Bravo in view of Inahata and Dera with Knapp in order for equal detectability for low and high contrast particles with a single light source to be possible.
Bravo in view of Inahata, Duren, 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 Bravo in view of Inahata, Duren, 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 Bravo in view of Inahata, Duren, 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.
Bravo in view Inahata, Duren, Knapp, and Ahn, fail to teach of a particle content determination unit which under 112(f) interpretation 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
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 Bravo 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 Bravo 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892.
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
/AARON W CARTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2661