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 .
Election/Restrictions
As indicated in the last office action, this application contains claims directed to the following patentably distinct species:
Species A including Figs. 8-9 and claims 1-12 directed to a species of foreign matter management that divides the data cube, calculates a current relationship matrix and determines whether the liquid product contains foreign matter as further set forth in those figures and classified in G01N23/18;
Species B including Fig. 11 and claims 13-24 directed to a species of foreign matter management that searches the data cube with a sliding window, allocates data to virtual nodes, calculates a graph includes the virtual nodes and edges and determines foreign matter based on the graph as further set forth in those figures and classified in G06V10/7635;
Species C including Figs. 17 and 19 and claims 25-31 directed to a species of foreign matter management that performs channel reduction, generates reconstructed data by reconstructing channel-reduced data and performing leaning on a foreign detection matter detection model based on the reconstructed data as further set forth in those figures and classified in G06V10/58.
In the Reply filed 11 May 2026, Applicant elected Species A, claims 1-12 without traverse. Therefore, examination will proceed on claims 1-12 while claims 13-31 are withdrawn as being directed to non-elected inventions Species B-C.
Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable generic claim as provided by 37 CFR 1.141.
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: Foreign Matter Detection In Liquid Product Based on Relationship Matrix Between Pixel Values in Divided Hyperspectral Data Cube
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 3 and 4 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.
Claim 3 recites “search the data cube with a sliding window of a specified size, divide each sliding window into at least one pixel unit, calculate similarities between divided pixel unit values, and calculate the current relationship matrix based on the calculated similarities”. From the instant specification, [0106], it is understood that the “divide the data cube” step of antecedent claim 1 is performed via a sliding window. As such, it is confusing an indefinite to not refer to the “divide” step when further defining the sub-steps thereof which is the subject of claim 3.
Claim 4 is rejected due to its dependency upon claim 3.
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.
Claim 1-3, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bu {CN-101794437-B} and Raytec {KR10-2388752B1}. Marked-up machine translations of Bu and Raytec have been provided with this office action, all cross-references are with respect to this translation and the mark-ups are hereby incorporated by reference to further demonstrate claim mapping.
Claim 1
In regards to claim 1, Bu discloses a foreign matter management device {see title, abstract and Figs. 1-3 for foreign matter (abnormality in image), [0002]-[0004]} comprising:
a memory storing the spectral image; and a processor functionally connected to
acquire a data cube corresponding to the spectral image captured for the
divide the data cube into windows of a predetermined size {see “window policy”, [0005]-[00014], [0019], forming a multi-layer nested window and target window, abstract},
calculate a current relationship matrix indicating a relationship between pixel values included in the divided windows {see [0020]-[0022], [0037], [0052]-[0053] in which the window is traversed or slid across the data cube to determine abnormality degrees and a covariance matrix (relationship matrix indicating relationship between pixel values included in the divided windows} and
determine whether the
Raytec is a highly analogous reference from the same field of detecting foreign matter (materials) mixed into a variety of materials including medicines, cosmetics and household goods which categories include a liquid product including a liquid substance injected therein. Raytec also teaches a spectral camera acquiring a spectral image of a liquid product including a liquid substance injected therein {see abstract, claims, hyperspectral camera, pgs. 2-3, Fig, 3}.
It 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 to have modified Bu’s foreign matter management device that already determines whether the input image contains foreign material/matter using the same process including acquiring a data cube corresponding to the spectral image captured,
dividing the data cube into windows of a predetermined size, calculating a current relationship matrix indicating a relationship between pixel values included in the divided windows, and determining whether the as taught by Rayetc because there is a reasonable expectation of success and/or because doing so merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim 2
In regards to claim 2, Bu discloses wherein the processor is configured to:
search all or part of the data cube with a sliding window of a size specified by a user input, or
search all or part of the data cube by setting the sliding window as a hyper-parameter within an algorithm stored in the memory and automatically selecting an optimal sliding window {the window size is automatically selected as a “hyper-parameter” based on the abnormal target size, [0028], [0033] which also motivates changing the window size to detect differently sized targets/abormalities}.
Claim 3
In regards to claim 3, Bu discloses wherein the processor is configured to:
search the data cube with a sliding window of a specified size, divide each sliding window into at least one pixel unit, calculate similarities between divided pixel unit values, and calculate the current relationship matrix based on the calculated similarities
{see [0020]-[0022], [0037], [0052]-[0053] in which the window is traversed or slid across the data cube to determine abnormality degrees and a covariance matrix (relationship matrix indicating relationship between pixel values included in the divided windows) that calculates similarities between divided pixel unit values and calculates the current relationship matrix based on the calculated similarities}.
Claim 5
In regards to claim 5, Bu discloses wherein the processor is configured to: when a similarity different from surrounding similarities by more than a reference value is detected from among the similarities, determine that the liquid product corresponding to the current relationship matrix contains a foreign matter {see [0057]-[0058] including a preset threshold (reference value) used to determine whether the image contains foreign matter”}.
Claim 6
In regards to claim 6, Bu discloses wherein the processor is configured to: search the data cube with a sliding window of a specified size, divide each sliding window into at least one pixel unit, calculate distance values between divided pixel unit values, and calculate the current relationship matrix based on the calculated distance values {see above cites in which the window is traversed or slid across the divided data cube to determine abnormality degrees and a covariance matrix (relationship matrix indicating relationship between pixel values included in the divided windows).
Claim 8
In regards to claim 8, Bu discloses wherein the processor is configured to: when a distance value different from surrounding distance values by more than a reference value is detected from among the distance values, determine that the liquid product corresponding to the current relationship matrix contains a foreign matter {see [0057]-[0058] including a preset threshold (reference value) used to determine whether the image contains foreign matter” when the threshold is exceeded (more than the reference value)}.
Claim 9
In regards to claim 9, Bu discloses wherein the memory stores at least one of a relationship matrix including foreign matter and a relationship matrix including no foreign matter, and wherein the processor is configured to:
compare the relationship matrix including foreign matter and the current relationship matrix, and if a comparison result has a similarity greater than or equal to a reference value, determine that the liquid product corresponding to the current relationship matrix contains a foreign matter {see [0057]-[0058] including a preset threshold (reference value) used to determine whether the image contains “foreign matter” when the threshold is exceeded (more than the reference value)}, or
compare the relationship matrix including no foreign matter with the current relationship matrix, and if a comparison result has a similarity less than a reference value, determine that the liquid product corresponding to the current relationship matrix contains a foreign matter.
Claim 12
The rejection of device claim 1 above applies mutatis mutandis to the corresponding limitations of method claim 12 while noting that the rejection above cites to both device and method disclosures.
Claims 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bu and Raytec as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Ko (KR-20230065125-A).
A Marked-up machine translation of Ko has been provided with this office action, all cross-references are with respect to this translation and the mark-ups are hereby incorporated by reference to further demonstrate claim mapping.
Claim 4
In regards to claim 4, Bu discloses wherein the processor is configured to: calculate the similarities by applying a
Ko teaches calculate the similarities by applying a cosine similarity function {see pg. 6}.
It 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 to have modified Bu’s foreign matter management device that determines whether the input image contains foreign material/matter using the same process including acquiring a data cube corresponding to the spectral image captured,
dividing the data cube into windows of a predetermined size, calculating a current relationship matrix indicating a relationship between pixel values included in the divided windows, and determining whether the liquid product contains a foreign matter, based on the current relationship matrix such that the system employs a cosine similarity function to calculate similarities instead of the Mahalanobis distance function as taught by Ko because there is a reasonable expectation of success and/or because doing so merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim 7
In regards to claim 7, Bu discloses wherein the processor is configured to: calculate the distance values by applying a
Ko teaches calculate the similarities by applying a Euclidean distance function {see pg. 10}.
It 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 to have modified Bu’s foreign matter management device that determines whether the input image contains foreign material/matter using the same process including acquiring a data cube corresponding to the spectral image captured,
dividing the data cube into windows of a predetermined size, calculating a current relationship matrix indicating a relationship between pixel values included in the divided windows, and determining whether the liquid product contains a foreign matter, based on the current relationship matrix such that the system employs a Euclidean distance function to calculate similarities instead of the Mahalanobis distance function as taught by Ko because there is a reasonable expectation of success and/or because doing so merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bu and Raytec as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Yoo (US 2025/0069361 A1).
Claim 10
In regards to claim 10, Bu is not relied upon to disclose wherein the processor is configured to: provide a machine learning or deep learning-based artificial intelligence model based on at least one of the data cube and the current relationship matrix.
Yoo is an analogous reference from the same field of anomaly detection and discloses providing a machine learning or deep learning-based artificial intelligence model based on at least one of the data cube and the current relationship matrix {See Fig. 8 receive hyperspectral image (data cube) and applying machine learning and/or deep learning based on the data cube and relationship matrix, [0003], [0027]-[0030] which also divides the data cube and employs a relationship matrix, [0043]-[0051], [0066]-[0070]}.
It 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 to have modified Bu’s foreign matter management device that determines whether the input image contains foreign material/matter using the same process including acquiring a data cube corresponding to the spectral image captured,
dividing the data cube into windows of a predetermined size, calculating a current relationship matrix indicating a relationship between pixel values included in the divided windows, and determining whether the or deep learning-based artificial intelligence model based on at least one of the data cube and the current relationship matrix as taught by Yoo because doing so increases the accuracy and robustness of the analysis, because there is a reasonable expectation of success and/or because doing so merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Although spectral cameras are known the particular arrangement of first and second spectral cameras and their functionality as recited in claim 11 including
a first spectral camera that photographs the liquid product in an upward direction; and
a second spectral camera that photographs the liquid product in a downward direction, and wherein the processor:
when detection of suspended matter of the liquid product is requested, control to collect spectral images based on the first spectral camera, and
when detection of sediment of the liquid product is requested, control to collect spectral images based on the second spectral camera
an in combination with the features of claim 1 have not been disclosed or fairly suggested by the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael R Cammarata whose telephone number is (571)272-0113. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7am-5pm EST.
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, Matthew Bella can be reached at 571-272-7778. 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.
/MICHAEL ROBERT CAMMARATA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2667
Prosecution Insights