Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on 06/04/2026 has been entered. added. Claims 1-17 are still pending in this application.
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.
Claims 1-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tidhar et al. (US 20150175287) in view of Shail (US 20120096816).
Regarding claim 1, Tidhar teaches a method comprising:
allowing items to fall into a volume (p0122: items falling due to activation approaches, but doesn't reach, the number of items it is required to dispense in each container);
employing a digital imaging device to acquire images of the items while said items are falling (p0089:The falling items are imaged by capture device 135 as they travel along a virtual "counting area" 129 extending from conveyor end 128 ); processing the images to count each item (p0089:The images may then be analyzed by counting device 136);
Tidhar does not teach processing the images to determine at least one characteristic, of each item; and evaluating said determined characteristic in relation to at least one predetermined characteristic.
Shail teaches processing the images (p0033: The light thus emitted falls upon the tablet 25 and is reflected to fall upon a broad spectrum receiver 27, which detects the sequentially reflected red, green and blue light, and the output of the receiver 27 is fed to a signal processor 26) to determine at least one characteristic, of each item; and evaluating said determined characteristic in relation to at least one predetermined characteristic (p0033: The emitter/receivers will be positioned to detect either two sides of the product and p0015:tablet-colour identifier, a tablet remover whereby a rogue tablet is removable once identified by the tablet-colour identifier).
Tidhar and Shail are combinable because they both deal with separating tablets apparatus. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Tidhar with the teaching of Shail for identifying tablet colour (p0002).
Regarding claim 2, Tidhar teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the acquired camera images are acquired with a high-speed camera arranged to acquire at least 150 images per second (p0140: typical capturing rate may be between 201-400 frames per second).
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 is the system claim corresponding to method claim of claim 2, therefore it is rejected for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, Tidhar in view of Shail teaches the method according to claim 1 wherein the method dispenses batches of predetermined numbers of items (Shail: p0004:When the required number of tablets has entered the container), and batches are rejected from further processing if one or more inspected free-falling items in a batch has a characteristic deviant from a required characteristic (Shail: p0041:the net result would be a "mismatch" and the tablets would be rejected).
The rational applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 4, Tidhar in view of Shail teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein acquired images are color images (Shail: p0006: Conventional colour-sensing cameras are often mounted above the singulating device), and wherein the determined characteristic is a visible color of the items and the predetermined characteristic is a visible color (Shail: p0015).
The rational applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 5, Tidhar teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the items fall in free-fall (fig. 1b).
Regarding claim 6, Tidhar does not explicitly disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein the items fall in front of a colorless, black or grey background, but fig, 1B showing colorless background).
Regarding claim 7, Tidhar in view of Shail teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the objects are medicinal tablets, pills or capsules (Shail:p0015).
Regarding claim 8, Tidhar teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the items are arranged in a single layer upon a conveyor and at least some of the items are transported in parallel upon the conveyor (fig. 1A).
Regarding claim 9, Tidhar teaches the method according to claim 1 wherein the images are processed in real-time, to continuously determine the number of falling items (p0022:processing the images in real time ).
Regarding claim 10, Tidhar teaches the method according to claim 1, further comprising the steps of: providing a conveyor with an open dispensing end; and transporting the items in bulk on the conveyor to the open dispensing end of the conveyor (fig.1A).
Regarding claim 11, claim 1 recite similar limitations as claim 1, therefore it is rejected for the same reason as claim 1. In addition that Tidhar teaches an apparatus comprising: a dispenser comprising an open dispensing end (100 in fig. 1), configured to dispense a plurality of items (fig. 1); a volume below the open dispensing end (fig. 1); at least one digital imaging device positioned to capture images of items falling from the open dispensing end (135 in fig. b).
Regarding claim 12, Tidhar in view of Shail teaches the apparatus according to claim 11, wherein the digital imaging device is configured to acquire color images and the processor is configured to determine a color of each imaged falling item and to evaluate said color in relation to at least one predetermined color (Shail: p0015).
The rational applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 14, Tidhar teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising one or more light sources to illuminate falling items (p0017:By monitoring objects interrupting the illumination of a light source).
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 is the system claim corresponding to method claim 3, therefore it is rejected for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 3.
Regarding claim 16, Tidhar teaches Computer readable medium having a computer readable instructions stored thereon for performing, when executed by a processor of an apparatus according to the claim 11, the steps of analysing images captured by the at least one digital imaging device and determining at least one characteristic of each imaged item(p0092:program)
Regarding claim 17, Tidhar in view of Shail teaches the method according to claim 1, further comprising the step of ejecting, via an rejection conduit, batches of items that contain items identified as deviating from a required characteristic (Shail: p0041:the net result would be a "mismatch" and the tablets would be rejected).
The rational applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein.
.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims have been considered.
Regarding to claim rejections for 35 USC § 101 and 35 USC § 112
The claim rejections are removed because of the claim amendment.
Regarding to claim rejections for 35 USC § 103:
The applicant alleges: “Shail's teaching is exactly a non-image color system. Shail discloses that the tablet- colour identifier uses tablet-colour recognition means comprising an RGB system with light- emitting diodes for illuminating tablets from at least two sides while the tablets are in free fall along a vertical portion of the tablet flow path (Shail [0026]). A corresponding set of color sensors, such as color-sensing semiconductors or photoreceptors, measures reflected light (Shail [0026]). Thus, Shail's is a reflected-light sensor arrangement, not image-acquisition and image-processing arrangement.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Shail teaches processing the images (p0033: The light thus emitted falls upon the tablet 25 and is reflected to fall upon a broad spectrum receiver 27- “image-acquisition” ) to determine at least one characteristic, of each item; and evaluating said determined characteristic in relation to at least one predetermined characteristic (p0033: which detects (“image-processing”, the sequentially reflected red, green and blue light, and the output of the receiver 27 is fed to a signal processor 26..The emitter/receivers will be positioned to detect either two sides of the product and p0015:tablet-colour identifier, a tablet remover whereby a rogue tablet is removable once identified by the tablet-colour identifier).
Applicant arguments for Shail [p0006-0008], [0009-0013] and [0042) are not relevant to the rejection of the claim. Shail reference is only used for above cited limitations.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Tidhar and Shail both deal with separating tablets. Therefore, Tidhar can be modified with teaching of Shail for identifying tablet colour (p0002) in addition to count medicinal tablets taught by Tidhar.
Therefore, Tidhar in view of Shail still disclosed claimed limitations of claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 HELEN Q ZONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1600. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-6.
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, Abderrahim Merouan can be reached at 5712705254. 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.
HELEN ZONG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2683
/HELEN ZONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2683
Prosecution Insights