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
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
2. Claims 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 16 recites Computer readable medium, that is not limited to just statutory subject matter as outlined in the Specification. Such recitation could be reasonably understood to include computer readable media that cover signals per se (for example: paragraph 98 of US 20070124053 discloses that machine-readable medium can be carrier wave signals), which the USPTO must reject under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering both non-statutory subject matter and statutory subject matter. In an effort to assist the Applicant in overcoming a rejection or potential rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in this situation, the examiner suggests the following approach: a claim drawn to such a computer-readable media 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, i.e., reciting "non-transitory a computer-readable media".
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112:
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites the limitation " the objects" . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 to determine at least one characteristic, of each item; and evaluating said determined characteristic in relation to at least one predetermined characteristic (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.
.
Conclusion
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, Merouan, Abderrahim can be reached on (571) 270-5254. 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