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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 2/16/2024. These drawings are accepted.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-10, in the reply filed on August 19, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 11 and 12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on August 19, 2026.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“image capture control unit” in claim 1;
“image capture unit” in claim 1;
“carbon amount estimation unit” in claim 1;
“measurement unit” in claim 6;
“class identification unit” in claim 7;
“direction measurement unit” in claim 9;
“velocity measurement unit” in claim 10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification (US 2024/0353386 A1) as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof:
image capture control unit: Para. 0051 describes a control unit (10) that functions as an image capture control unit (21), a class identification unit (2), a distance-velocity measurement unit (23), and a carbon amount estimation unit (24). The control unit is configured as a microcomputer having, for example, a CPU, ROM, and RAM, and controls the measurement device (1) as a whole;
image capture unit: Para. 0054 describes that the image capture unit (14) includes a vision sensor (14a), an image sensor (14b), or both. The vision sensor is a sensor called a Dynamic Vision Sensor (DVS) or an Event-Based Vision Sensor (EVS). The vision sensor captures a predetermined image capture range (30) in water through the lens (15). The image sensor is, for example, a CCD (Charge Coupled Device) or a CMOS (Complementary Metal-Oxide-Semiconductor) image sensor, and a plurality of pixels each having a photoelectric conversion element are arranged two-dimensionally (See Para. 0059);
carbon amount estimation unit: Para. 0051 describes a control unit (10) that functions as an image capture control unit (21), a class identification unit (2), a distance-velocity measurement unit (23), and a carbon amount estimation unit (24). The control unit is configured as a microcomputer having, for example, a CPU, ROM, and RAM, and controls the measurement device (1) as a whole. The carbon amount estimation unit 24 estimates the amount of carbon in each target object using the carbon amount estimation model, taking the size of the target object as input information. Then, by adding the estimated amounts of carbon of the target objects, the carbon amount estimation unit 24 calculates a total amount of carbon for all the target objects identified in a single instance of image capturing (See para. 0176);
measurement unit: Para. 0051 describes a control unit (10) that functions as an image capture control unit (21), a class identification unit (2), a distance-velocity measurement unit (23), and a carbon amount estimation unit (24). The control unit is configured as a microcomputer having, for example, a CPU, ROM, and RAM, and controls the measurement device (1) as a whole. The distance-velocity measurement unit 23 performs the distance-velocity measurement processing based on a rule-based or a machine learning-based distance-velocity measurement program in step S5 (See Para. 0100);
class identification unit: Para. 0051 describes a control unit (10) that functions as an image capture control unit (21), a class identification unit (2), a distance-velocity measurement unit (23), and a carbon amount estimation unit (24). The control unit is configured as a microcomputer having, for example, a CPU, ROM, and RAM, and controls the measurement device (1) as a whole. The class identification unit 22 detects an object present in the image capture range 30 based on the image (pixel data) captured by the vision sensor 14a. For example, the class identification unit 22 creates an image (frame data) based on the pixel data input within a predetermined period, and detects a pixel group within a predetermined range in which motion is detected in that image as a single object (See Para. 0090);
direction measurement unit: Para. 0209 describes a direction measurement unit (the class identification unit 22) that measures a movement direction of the target object captured by the image capture unit 14; and
velocity measurement unit: Para. 0211 discusses how the measurement device (1) may include a velocity measurement unit (the distance-velocity measurement unit 23) that measures a movement velocity of the target object captured by the image capture unit 14.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 9 and 10 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.
With respect to claim 9, it is unclear if the direction measurement unit is intended to be a separate feature from the claimed class identification unit, or if these claimed embodiments are the same feature. Para. 0209 of applicant’s specification describes a direction measurement unit (the class identification unit 22) that measures a movement direction of the target object captured by the image capture unit 14, and this seems to imply that the direction measurement unit is the same embodiment as the class identification unit, but the two recited features are described as performing different functions. Prior art that teaches a single feature or multiple features that are capable of performing the recited function will suffice to read upon the claim. However, clarification is requested.
With respect to claim 10 it is unclear if the velocity measurement unit is intended to be a separate feature from the claimed the distance-velocity measurement unit, or if these claimed embodiments are the same feature. Para. 0211 discusses how the measurement device (1) may include a velocity measurement unit (the distance-velocity measurement unit 23) that measures a movement velocity of the target object captured by the image capture unit 14, and this seems to imply that the velocity measurement unit is the same embodiment as the distance-velocity measurement unit, but the two recited features are described as performing different functions. Prior art that teaches a single feature or multiple features that are capable of performing the recited function will suffice to read upon the claim. However, clarification is requested.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, and 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Giering et al (2020), “The Interpretation of Particle Size, Shape, and Carbon Flux of Marine Particle Images Is Strongly Affected by the Choice of Particle Detection Algorithm”. Front. Mar. Sci. 7:564. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2020.00564 (provided by applicant in IDS dated 12/5/2024).
With respect to claim 1 Giering discloses a measurement device comprising:
an image capture control unit (LISST-Holo) that causes an image capture unit (Red Camera Frame is deployed to approximately 230 meteres take a holographic image) to capture an image of a predetermined image capture range in water (See “Particle Imaging” section on pgs. 2-3); and
a carbon amount estimation unit that estimates an amount of carbon based on the image captured by the image capture unit (threshold or edge detection algorithm affects the final estimate of particle size and, further down the line, carbon content and flux using vertical particle profiles collected by the LISST-Holo deployed during the UK COMICS (Controls over Ocean Mesopelagic Interior Carbon Storage); See Pg. 2, second column under “Introduction”).
With respect to claim 3 Giering discloses that the carbon amount estimation unit estimates an amount of carbon present in the image capture range (See Table 5 on Pg. 11 for depiction of the large effect of algorithm choice on median particle size (ESD), POC concentrations, flux estimates, and flux attenuation rate (“b parameter”) at various sites).
With respect to claim 6 Giering discloses a measurement unit that measures a size of a target object captured by the image capture unit, wherein the carbon amount estimation unit estimates the amount of carbon based on the size of the target object (See Pg. 9, second column for discussion of how four edge detection algorithms all calculated larger particles with higher carbon content; See “Introduction” for discussion on how Vertical profiles of particle images can elucidate the processes that determine particle size, type and distribution. Combined with information on carbon content and sinking velocity, particle profiles can provide high-resolution information on carbon fluxes and hence ocean carbon storage).
With respect to claim 7 Giering discloses a class identification unit that identifies a type of the target object captured by the image capture unit, wherein the carbon amount estimation unit estimates the amount of carbon based on the type and the size of the target object (See Pg. 9, second column for discussion of how four edge detection algorithms all calculated larger particles with higher carbon content; See “Introduction” for discussion on how Vertical profiles of particle images can elucidate the processes that determine particle size, type and distribution. Combined with information on carbon content and sinking velocity, particle profiles can provide high-resolution information on carbon fluxes and hence ocean carbon storage).
With respect to claim 8 Giering discloses that the class identification unit extracts an image part of the target object captured by the image capture unit, and the carbon amount estimation unit estimates the amount of carbon based on the image part, the type, and the size of the target object (See “Introduction” for discussion on how Vertical profiles of particle images can elucidate the processes that determine particle size, type and distribution. Combined with information on carbon content and sinking velocity, particle profiles can provide high-resolution information on carbon fluxes and hence ocean carbon storage).
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giering et al, (2020), “The Interpretation of Particle Size, Shape, and Carbon Flux of Marine Particle Images Is Strongly Affected by the Choice of Particle Detection Algorithm”. Front. Mar. Sci. 7:564. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2020.00564 (provided by applicant in IDS dated 12/5/2024) in view of Castillón et al. State of the Art of Underwater Active Optical 3D Scanners. Sensors. 2019; 19(23):5161. https://doi.org/10.3390/s19235161 (provided by applicant in IDS dated 12/5/2024).
Refer above for the disclosure of Giering.
With respect to claim 2, Giering fails to disclose that the image capture unit includes a vision sensor that obtains pixel data asynchronously according to an amount of light incident on each of a plurality of pixels arranged two-dimensionally.
Castillón teaches the use of robotic systems that rely on vision sensors to perform fundamental tasks, such as navigation and object recognition and manipulation. Especially, active optical 3D scanners are commonly used due to the domain-specific challenges of underwater imaging (See abstract). A new type of sensors called event cameras are being gradually used in in-air 3D robotic vision systems for scene reconstruction and tracking. Instead of storing a full image frame at defined intervals, event cameras record an asynchronous sequence of per-pixel intensity changes, each with a precise time stamp. Their low power consumption, high frame rate and absence of motion blur postulate them as appropriate sensors for very agile robots (See section 3.2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the event camera taught by Castillon into the image capture unit of Giering for scene reconstruction and tracking of particulate matter in water to take advantage of the cameras lower power consumption, high frame rate, and absence of motion blur (See Section 3.2 of Castillon).
Claim(s) 4, 5, 9, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giering et al, (2020), “The Interpretation of Particle Size, Shape, and Carbon Flux of Marine Particle Images Is Strongly Affected by the Choice of Particle Detection Algorithm”. Front. Mar. Sci. 7:564. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2020.00564 (provided by applicant in IDS dated 12/5/2024) in view of Huffard et al. (2020). Temporally-resolved mechanisms of deep-ocean particle flux and impact on the seafloor carbon cycle in the northeast Pacific. Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography. 173. 104763. 10.1016/j.dsr2.2020.104763 (provided by applicant in IDS filed 12/5/2024).
Refer above for the disclosure of Giering.
With respect to claims 4 and 5, although Giering discloses sampling water at various depths (See “Results” and Table 4), Giering fails to disclose that the carbon amount estimation unit estimates the amount of carbon that has accumulated at a bottom of the water per predetermined length of time.
Huffard teaches monitoring of particulate organic carbon (POC) over an 8 month period of time at a long-term monitoring site (See abstract), wherein contributions of fecal pellets and aggregates to particulate organic carbon (POC) flux at 3900 m depth were estimated based on optical sediment trap (Sedimentation Event Sensor) images captured as a time-series of 2 h collections. POC flux estimated from Sedimentation Event Sensor (SES) images explained variation in carbon consumption and the carbon budget balance (supply – demand) with finer resolution than POC flux measurements from bulk collections by a concurrently deployed conventional sediment trap (See abstract). The quantity, type, and quality of sinking particulate matter were assessed using the SES and a conventional sequencing sediment trap (McLane Parflux Mark 78H2) deployed 50m above bottom (bottom depth 3955 m and 3964 m at SES and conventional sediment trap mooring locations respectively; Fig. 1) (See Section 2.2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Huffard’s water sampling methodology, taken at 50m above the seafloor and at 2 hour increments over 8 months, such that biogeochemical models can be improved by the study of the various particles responsible for carbon flux to the deep sea (See Section 1, “Introduction”).
With respect to claim 9 the combination of Giering and Huffard teaches a direction measurement unit that measures a movement direction of a target object captured by the image capture unit, wherein the carbon amount estimation unit specifies a target object that accumulates at the bottom of the water based on the movement direction of the target object (Giering, See Pg. 6, “POC Content, Sinking Velocities, and Fluxes for discussion of how an underwater camera was fitted onto a neutrally buoyant sediment trap and programmed to take a fast sequence of images (deployment depth 500 m). Individual sinking particles (n = 244) were tracked through the images and a downward sinking velocity calculated).
With respect to claim 10 the combination of Giering and Huffard teaches a velocity measurement unit that measures a movement velocity of the target object captured by the image capture unit, wherein the carbon amount estimation unit specifies a target object that accumulates at the bottom of the water per predetermined length of time based on the movement direction and the movement velocity of the target object (Giering, See Pg. 6, “POC Content, Sinking Velocities, and Fluxes for discussion of how an underwater camera was fitted onto a neutrally buoyant sediment trap and programmed to take a fast sequence of images (deployment depth 500 m). Individual sinking particles (n = 244) were tracked through the images and a downward sinking velocity calculated; Huffard teaches that images are captured as a time-series of 2hr collections, See abstract).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRITTANY I FISHER whose telephone number is (469)295-9182. The examiner can normally be reached IFP.
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, James Lin can be reached at (571) 272-8902. 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.
/BRITTANY I FISHER/Examiner, Art Unit 1796
Prosecution Insights