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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 12/15/2025 is acknowledged and entered. Claims 1-3, 5, 11-13, and 15 are pending.
Claims 6-10 have been cancelled, therefore, the claim objections of claims 6-10 are moot.
Claims 6-7 have been cancelled, therefore, the previous 112(b) rejections of claims 6-7 are moot.
Claims 1-2 and 11-12 have been amended to overcome the previous 112(b) rejections, therefore, the previous 112(b) rejections of claims 1-2 and 11-12 are withdrawn.
Claim 14 has been cancelled therefore the previous 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 14 is moot.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-8, filed 12/15/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Cantin (US 20200256779 A1). Please see the detailed rejection below.
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 1, 5, 11, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakai (US 20170038290 A1) in view of Cantin (US 20200256779 A1).
As to claims 1 and 11, Nakai teaches a material estimation device and method (described in [0001] and shown in Fig. 1), comprising:
a memory ([0061] teaches memory for storing) configured to store instructions; and
at least one processor ([0035] teaches identification processor 30, Fig. 1) configured to execute the instructions to perform:
acquiring information to be used for estimating a size of a particle in a particulate body constituting a target object ([0045] teaches a first identification unit that receives signals and determines size of particle 50 based on signals; see Fig. 1), based on laser light with which the target object is irradiated and reflected light reflected by the target object ([0044] teaches emission of laser light. Fig. 1 shows laser light irradiating particles 50 of target region 51, furthermore Lbs is shown as the backscattered light);
estimating the size of the particle ([0045] teaches detecting size of floating particle 50) in the particulate body (Fig. 1: 50 is shown in target area 51) by using the information to be used for estimating the size of the particle ([0045-0047]), wherein the information to used for estimating the size of the particle includes information indicating intensity of the reflected light being received ([0041] and [0045]: Backscattered light intensity Lbs is detected by the light receiving element 12 and this information is sent to the first identification unit 34 to be used to calculate the size of the floating particles.); and
estimating a material of the target object ([0047] teaches third identification unit 36 identifies type of particle), based on a result of the estimation of the size of the particle ([0047]: Third identification unit estimates type of particle using size information of the particle (S34).).
Nakai appears to be silent to the information to be used for estimating the size of the particle includes information indicating polarization of the reflected light being received.
Cantin, related to a system and method for measuring particle sizes, does teach that the information to be used for estimating the size of the particle includes information indicating polarization of the reflected light being received ([0130]: “…the polarization of the collected scattered light may be measured in order to yield information about the size of smaller particles (e.g., less than 200 nm in diameter), the shape, the phase (e.g., solid or liquid) and/or the composition of the particles.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Nakai so that the information to be used for estimating the size of the particle includes information indicating polarization of the reflected light being received, as disclosed by Cantin. It is known in the field of endeavor that detecting polarization of collected scattered light may provide information about the size, shape, shape, and/or composition of particles ([0130] from Cantin). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods (detecting polarization of scattered light) to yield predictable results (for determining particle size) (MPEP 2143 (I)(A)).
As to claim 5, Nakai modified by Cantin teaches the material estimation device according to claim 1.
Nakai modified by Cantin further teaches that information indicating the result of the estimating of the size of the particle is output (Nakai, Fig. 1 shows that size information of the particle (S34) is output to the third identification unit 36).
As to claim 15, Nakai modified by Cantin teaches the material estimation method according to claim 11.
Nakai modified by Cantin further teaches that information indicating the result of estimating of the material of the target object is output (Nakai, [0047] teaches third identification unit 36 outputs information S36 which is a result of identification of the type of particle).
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakai (US 20170038290 A1) in view of Cantin (US 20200256779 A1) and further in view of Domae (WO 2020008538 A1, English machine translation submitted herewith).
As to claims 2 and 12, Nakai modified by Cantin teaches the material estimation device and method according to claims 1 and 11, respectively.
Nakai modified by Cantin further teaches that the at least one processor (Nakai, [0035] teaches identification processor 30, Fig. 1) is configured to execute the instructions to perform:
estimating a material of the target object (Nakai, [0047] teaches third identification unit 36 identifies type of particle), based on a result of the estimating of the shape and a result of the estimating of the size of the particle (Nakai, [0047] teaches the identification unit 36 identifies the type based off information S34, which is the particle size, and information S35 which is information on the shape of the particle.).
Nakai modified by Cantin appears to be silent to acquiring information relating to a distance to the target object based on the laser light and the reflected light;
estimating a shape of the target object by using the information relating to the distance to the target object.
Domae, related to a material estimation device and method, does teach a material estimation device ([0001]), wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to perform ([0045] teaches processing circuit of processing unit 3 executes program 29b):
acquiring information relating to a distance to the target object ([0013] teaches obtaining distance by triangulation, also see [0017]) based on the laser light and the reflected light ([0013] teaches light projecting unit 21 may be laser slit light projecting device, [0013] teaches light receiving unit 22 receives light reflected by object 5),
estimating a shape of the target object ([0017] teaches shape measurement unit 32) by using the information relating to the distance to the target object ([0017] teaches that the shape measurement unit 32 creates shape measurement based on the position and orientation information which was determined by triangulation.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Nakai combined with Cantin to incorporate acquiring information relating to a distance to the target object based on the laser light and the reflected light;
estimating a shape of the target object by using the information relating to the distance to the target object, as disclosed by Domae. The advantage of the above-mentioned process is that the material of an object can be estimated without using an analysis device ([0008] from Domae).
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakai (US 20170038290 A1) in view of Cantin (US 20200256779 A1) and further in view of Schultz (US 20160061795 A1).
As to claims 3 and 13, Nakai modified by Cantin teaches the material estimation device and method according to claims 1 and 11, respectively.
Nakai modified by Cantin further teaches that the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to perform (Nakai, [0035] teaches identification processor 30, Fig. 1):
estimating a material of the target object by using a predetermined database (Nakai, [0061]: “In this case, reference data obtained by measuring in advance a relationship between the particle shapes and the signal S24 is stored in a memory or the like. Alternatively, reference data obtained by calculating in advance the relationship between the particle shapes and the signal S24 is stored in a memory or the like. Then, by using the value Sp of the signal S24 and the reference data, it is possible to identify whether it is an irregular-shaped particle or a spherical-shaped particle.”).
Nakai modified by Cantin appears to be silent to updating the database based on a result of the estimating of the material of the target object.
Schultz, related to a device and method for particle analysis, does teach updating the database based on a result of previous information ([0073]: “A general-purpose DBMS is a software system designed to allow the definition, creation, querying, update, and administration of databases.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Nakai combined with Cantin to incorporate updating the database based on a result of the estimating of the material of the target object, as disclosed by Schultz. Management of databases is well-known and routine in the field of endeavor ([0073] of Schultz). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods (management of database including updating the database based on previous results) to yield predictable results (for future data analysis of particle characteristics) (MPEP 2143 (I)(A)).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JUDY DAO TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0085. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 9:30am-5:00pm 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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at (571) 270-5789. 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.
/JUDY DAO TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/MICHELLE M IACOLETTI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights