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 .
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because is amounts to a program per se.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the claim purports to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, but fails to recite a combination of elements as required by that statutory provision and thus cannot rely on the specification to provide the structure, material or acts to support the claimed function. As such, the claim recites a function that has no limits and covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated function, while the specification discloses at most only those means known to the inventor. Accordingly, the disclosure is not commensurate with the scope of the claim. Claim 1 is on its face a single step method; claim 2 adds no additional steps.
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim 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. Independent claims 1 and 8 recite the limitation of a “topography with low time variation”. This is indefinite as the term “topography with low time variation” is not a term of art with a meaning well-understood by an ordinarily skilled artisan, and does not point out and distinctly claim what a topography of low time variation might constitute (might reasonably be interpreted in a variety of manners, including but not limited to a topography which takes a small amount of time to traverse, a topography whose contents do not change much over time, or a topography that does not change its shape or composition over time). Examiner is interpreting this as a topography whose shape and composition do not change drastically over time.
Claim 1 is also a method that is not clearly directed to a series of steps; it is unclear which steps are required other than the step of counting. The following are colorable steps of the method but they are not clearly recited as such:
Capturing an image
Using image recognition techniques
Keeping birds on a substrate
Varying topography of the substrate over time
Claims 7 and 8 share similar defects; it must be clear what steps are required by Claim 1 and which processing steps are required by the software/system of Claims 7 and 8.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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, 2, and 5-9, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamauchi et al. (US Pat. No. 9,510,583, hereafter referred to as Yamauchi).
Regarding claim 1, Yamauchi describes a method for counting bird parasites (Col. 8, lines 34-51, directed to image-based identification of chicken mites within a pest observation and capture method and system) by capturing an image of a target area that the parasites are expected to cross (Col. 22, lines 40-46, wherein an image of the colony of chicken mites is captured by an image capture apparatus within the accumulation system), and using image recognition techniques for discerning the parasites (Col. 22 line 55 – Col. 23 line 13, wherein image recognition strategies such as thresholding and disturbance observation directed to color and brightness differences within an image may be indicative of the presence of chicken mites), characterized in that the target area is a portion of a substrate on which birds are kept and which has a topography with low time variation (Col. 6, lines 50-58 and col. 24, lines 50-63, wherein the composition of the “floor” of the pest detection device within the chicken enclosure is textured and unchanging.; and wherein the aforementioned enclosure is a poultry house where chickens are kept and produce eggs), and the method comprises a step of counting incidents of temporary local disturbance of the topography of the target area (Col. 22 line 55 – Col. 23 line 13, wherein local disturbances (image analysis-based detection of disturbances within the detection area) are counted as mites; and col. 6, lines 50-58, wherein the composition of the “floor” of the pest detection device within the chicken coop is textured and unchanging, according to an aspect of the invention).
Claim 8 is rejected, mutatis mutandis, for reasons similar to claim 1. Yamauchi further discloses a camera (Col. 22, lines 48-53) and a processing device (Col. 25, lines 14-22).
Regarding claims 2 and 9, Yamauchi discloses all limitations of claim 1 and 8, respectively. Yamauchi further discloses wherein the target area is a portion of a surface of a perch (Col. 6, lines 50-58 and col. 24, lines 50-63 and Figs. 2A and 2B, wherein the poultry enclosure comprises a windowless house with multiple levels with perches containing the pest accumulation device, and wherein the target area includes a portion of a textured surface within the enclosure’s levels).
Regarding claim 5, Yamauchi discloses all limitations of the method of claim 1. Yamauchi further discloses a camera (Col. 22, lines 48-53) and a processing device (Col. 25, lines 14-22) arranged and configured out the method of claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, Yamauchi discloses all limitations of claim 5. Yamauchi further discloses both a temperature sensor (Col. 11 lines 17-26 and col. 19 line 52-col. 20 line 22, disclosing a temperature control system and heater with a temperature sensor) and a humidity sensor (Col. 11, lines 17-26), wherein the processing device is configured to correlate the counts of the parasites to the data provided by said sensors (Col. 26 lines 30-54).
Regarding claim 7, Yamauchi discloses all limitations of claim 1. Yamauchi further discloses a software product comprising program code (Col. 25, lines 14-22) that, when run on a processing device (Col. 25, lines 14-22), causes the processing device to perform the method according to claim 1 (Col. 25, lines 14-22).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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 3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamauchi in view of Mahamuni et al. (“MOVING OBJECT DETECTION USING BACKGROUND SUBTRACTION ALGORITHM USING SIMULINK”, International Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology, June 2014, 2014, hereafter referred to as Mahamuni).
Regarding claims 3 and 10, Yamauchi discloses all limitations of claims 1 and 8, respectively. Yamauchi further discloses wherein a captured image by the image capture sensor includes a texture of the substrate (Col. 6, lines 50-58 and col. 24, lines 50-63, wherein the composition of the “floor” of the pest detection device within the chicken enclosure is textured and unchanging.; and wherein the aforementioned enclosure is a poultry house where chickens are kept and produce eggs. Captured images would necessarily be of the substrate texture).
Yamauchi does not disclose a step of generating a reference image which shows a background in the form of a texture of the substrate, whereas other image features are suppressed, and a step of subtracting the reference image from a captured image, thereby to suppress the background.
However, Mahamuni discloses a step of generating a reference image which shows a background whereas other image features are suppressed (pg. 596 section 3.1, directed to the collection of the reference image as the first image of purely the background; further visual proof of only the background being present is given in Fig. 5(a)), and a step of subtracting the reference image from a captured image thereby to suppress the background (pg. 597, section 4, paras. 2-4 and Figs. 5(b) and 5(c), wherein the subject’s face and motion are detected as non-background image features and thus, upon subtraction, remain within the image as a “difference mask”; Mahamuni further identifies that this can be used for motion detection within an extended series of image frames (pgs. 597-598)).
Specifically, Mahamuni discloses a method and system of background subtraction-based object detection within image frames.. Therefore, both Yamauchi and disclose a method and system of object detection and tracking within image frames.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the reference image generation and background suppression disclosed by Mahamuni within the method and system of Yamauchi as the application of a known method to a known device ready for improvement to yield the predictable result of a more accurate, robust pest identification method and system due to the removal of background noise and confounding textures which might limit the ability of the image processing algorithm to accurately identify mites.
Claims 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamauchi in view of Inoue et al. (“Adaptive Frame-Rate Optimization for Energy-Efficient Object Tracking”, In Proceedings of the International Conference on Image Processing, Computer Vision, and Pattern Recognition (2016), hereafter referred to as Inoue).
Regarding claims 4 and 11, Yamauchi discloses all limitations of claim 3. Yamauchi further discloses counting parasites by identifying disturbances present within an image (Col. 24, lines 27-40, detailing the process of identifying mites as disturbances based on color and image processing techniques).
Yamauchi does not disclose wherein a capture rate with which the images are captured, is adapted to an average crawling speed of the parasites such that each parasite crossing the target area is photographed several times.
However, Inoue discloses wherein the capture rate with which the images are capture is adapted to an average moving speed of a subject in frame, such that each subject crossing a region is photographed multiple times (pg. 159, section 2.2 for energy modeling as a determinant of efficiency; pg. 160 section 3.2 and fig. 3 for the description of the adaptive frame rate and tracking itself, and section 3.3 for the implementation; wherein the image objects being tracked in a first frame have a defined search area and estimated speed, allowing for an extended/modified search area in a future frame without necessitating the capture of intermediate frames for object tracking).
Specifically, Inoue discloses a method and system of adaptive frame-rate optimization for energy efficient object tracking within a scene. The method and system of Inoue utilizes redefined search areas and an energy modeling metric to determine potential locations for an object in a given frame.
Thus, it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the adaptive framerate object detection method and system of Inoue within the method and system of Yamauchi as the application of a known method to a known system ready for improvement to yield the predictable improvement of a more computationally-efficient, energy-efficient parasite detection method which would allow for less frequent captured images with predicted mite movement.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROHAN TEJAS MUKUNDHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2368. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9AM - 6PM.
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, Gregory Morse can be reached at 5712723838. 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.
/ROHAN TEJAS MUKUNDHAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2663
/GREGORY A MORSE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2698