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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The following title is suggested: “Device for orthogonal discrimination of tablets aligned in a linear arrangement “.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "a direction orthogonal to an/the alignment direction of the objects" in lines 6-7 and in lines 11-12. It is unclear and confusing as to whether the limitations of lines 6-7 and of lines 11-12 refer to the same element or distinct elements.
It would appear from figures 1 and 11 that the image is obtained by a camera from an orthogonal direction that is above the objects (Fig. 1 camera) (i.e. along a z-axis) while the total pixel value array is computed from an orthogonal direction that is in the same horizontal plane as the objects' movement (Fig. 1 area 4, Fig. 11 y-axis).
If applicant intends for these claim limitations to refer to different elements (such as a z-axis and a y-axis respectively), applicant should amend the limitations for improved clarity. If applicant intends for these claim limitations to refer to the same element, the instance in lines 11-12 should be amended to recite "the direction orthogonal to the alignment direction of the objects" to explicitly refer to the element of lines 6-7. Claims 7 and 13 should be amended similarly.
Claims 2-6, 8-12, 14-16 are similarly rejected as a result of their dependence on claims 1, 7, or 13.
Additionally, dependent claims 5 and 11 recite the limitations “a direction orthogonal to the alignment direction of the objects” which may refer to either or both of the instances of the similar limitation in claim 1 or claim 7, respectively. These claims should be amended for clarity as to whether the limitations of claims 5 and 11 are intended to refer to the same elements as those of the independent claims or to distinct elements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 7, 11, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katogi (JP H0953916 A) in view of Nakayama (JP H0915159 A) and Official Notice of “a memory containing program instructions; and a processor coupled to the memory, wherein the processor is configured to execute the program instructions.”
Regarding claim 1, Katogi discloses an object discrimination device comprising: acquire an image obtained by capturing an imaging area in which a plurality of objects are aligned in an array from a direction orthogonal to an alignment direction of the objects (Fig. 1, [0008]-[0009] camera acquires images of bottles (i.e. objects) continuously supplied along a path (i.e. aligned in a linear array), the camera being positioned to the side of the supply path (i.e. a direction orthogonal to the alignment direction of the bottles));
compute a total pixel value for each of arrays of pixel values aligned in a direction orthogonal to the alignment direction of the objects in the image, and generate a total pixel value array in which the total pixel values for respective arrays are aligned in the alignment direction of the objects (Fig. 2A, 2B; [0006] scanning lines perpendicular to the direction of travel (i.e. alignment direction) are used to determine brightness values (i.e. pixel values) at each line; [0011] the sums of the pixel values are plotted as a graph as in Fig. 2B (i.e. total pixel value array)); and
on a basis of the total pixel value array, compute an object boundary in the alignment direction of the objects in the image ([0012] based on the sums of the pixel brightness values, the boundary between bottles (i.e. objects) is determined).
Katogi fails to disclose a memory containing program instructions; and a processor coupled to the memory, wherein the processor is configured to execute the program instructions; and to generate, from the image, a binarized image of an object area that is an area in which the object is present.
Nakayama, in a related system from the same field of endeavor of inspection of objects using binarized image data ([0001], [0014]), discloses generate, from the image, a binarized image of an object area that is an area in which the object is present ([0076]-[0077] the image is binarized based on threshold value; [0012]-[0014] the image being of an area in which an object is present).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Nakayama with Katogi and generate a binarized image of an object area, as disclosed by Nakayama, as part of an object discrimination device, as disclosed by Katogi, for the purpose of consistent, reliable inspection of objects to determine object quality (see Nakayama [0008]-[0009]).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the object discrimination device of Katogi in view of Nakayama with generic computer components including a memory containing program instructions and a processor coupled to the memory configured to execute the program instructions for the purpose of effectively implementing the method in an application setting such as mass manufacturing of objects in a factory.
Regarding claim 5, Katogi in view of Nakayama and Official Notice discloses the object discrimination device of claim 1 as applied above. Katogi further discloses wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to compute an object boundary in a direction orthogonal to the alignment direction of the objects (Fig. 1, 2a; [0012] based on the sums of the pixel brightness values, the boundary between bottles (i.e. objects) is determined, the boundary is determined based on scanning lines that cross the bottles i.e. orthogonal to the alignment direction of the bottles) in the binarized image.
Regarding claim 7, Katogi in view of Nakayama and Office Notice discloses everything claimed as applied above (See rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 11, Katogi in view of Nakayama and Official Notice discloses everything claimed as applied above (See rejection of claim 5).
Regarding claim 13, Katogi in view of Nakayama and Official Notice discloses everything claimed as applied above (See rejection of claim 1).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the object discrimination device of Katogi in view of Nakayama with generic computer components including a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing thereon a program comprising instructions for the purpose of effectively implementing the method in an application setting such as mass manufacturing of objects in a factory.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4, 6, 8-10, 12, 14-16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 2, Katogi in view of Nakayama and Official Notice discloses the object discrimination device of claim 1 as applied above. However, neither Katogi nor any obvious combination of the closest known prior art discloses wherein the computing the object boundary includes computing at least one of a part in which the total pixel value rises from zero, a part in which the total pixel value falls to zero, and a part in which the total pixel value becomes minimum, as the object boundary.
Similar reasoning applies to claim 8 which is directed to similar subject matter as claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, Katogi in view of Nakayama and Official Notice discloses the object discrimination device of claim 1 as applied above. However, neither Katogi nor any obvious combination of the closest known prior art discloses wherein the computing the object boundary includes computing a rising part in a differential curve obtained by performing first differentiation on the total pixel value array, as the object boundary.
Similar reasoning applies to claim 9 which is directed to similar subject matter as claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, Katogi in view of Nakayama and Official Notice discloses the object discrimination device of claim 1 as applied above. However, neither Katogi nor any obvious combination of the closest known prior art discloses wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to perform smoothing on the total pixel value array before computing the object boundary.
Similar reasoning applies to claim 10 which is directed to similar subject matter as claim 4.
Regarding claim 6, Katogi in view of Nakayama and Official Notice discloses the object discrimination device of claim 1 as applied above. However, neither Katogi nor any obvious combination of the closest known prior art discloses wherein the object is a tablet.
Similar reasoning applies to claim 12 which is directed to similar subject matter as claim 6.
Regarding claim 14, Katogi in view of Nakayama and Official Notice discloses the object discrimination device according to claim 1 as applied above. However, neither Katogi nor any obvious combination of the closest known prior art discloses wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to, for each pair of the object boundaries adjacent to each other in the alignment direction of the objects, determine whether or not an image of the object is present in a partial area on the binarized image sandwiched between the pair of the object boundaries.
Similar reasoning applies to claims 15-16 which are directed to similar subject matter as claim 14.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Adams (US 20100096299 A1) discloses sorting a stream of products by scanning with a light from an orthogonal direction.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAROLINE DEPALMA whose telephone number is (571)270-0769. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7:00am-4pm Eastern Time.
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 Moyer can be reached at 571-272-9523. 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.
/CAROLINE E. DEPALMA/Examiner, Art Unit 2675
/ANDREW M MOYER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2675