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 .
Priority
The current application claims foreign priority from the Japanese application (JP2021-203356). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 05/29/2024 and 03/13/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 3 lines 2-3, “the single cluster” should read “a single cluster”
In claim 20 line 5, “calculate” should read “calculates”
In claim 20 line 6, “classify” should read “classifies”
Appropriate correction is required.
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) are: “cluster forming unit”, “feature amount calculating unit” and “cluster classifying unit” first claimed in claim 1; “cluster tracking unit” first claimed in claim 2; “power supply control unit” first claimed in claim 8; “illumination unit” and “illumination control unit” in claims 10 and 13; “control unit” in claim 12; “particle determination unit” in claim 15; “particle count unit” in claim 16; and “carbon content estimation unit” in claim 18.
The corresponding structures in the disclosure for “cluster forming unit”, “feature amount calculating unit”, “cluster classifying unit”, “cluster tracking unit”, “power supply control unit”, “illumination control unit”, “control unit”, “particle determination unit”, “particle count unit” and “carbon content estimation unit” are encompassed in a computer including, for example, a CPU (Central Processing Unit), a ROM (Read Only Memory), and a RAM (Random Access Memory) (paragraphs 0025, 0027, 0097, 0107, 0122 and 0129).
The corresponding structures in the disclosure for “illumination unit” are encompassed in a plurality of light sources (paragraph 0113).
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have 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 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 them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim is directed towards a “program", which broadly encompasses a computer program per se. Such computer programs, per se, are not, in and of themselves, methods or machines, nor are they physical products of manufacture or compositions of matter. Therefore, such programs do not fall into any of the categories of eligible subject matter defined in 35 U.S.C. § 101 and are not, by themselves, eligible for patent protection. Such programs can be eligible for patent protection if claimed as embodied on or in a computer readable storage device or medium, but only if the claim clearly and unambiguously excludes transitory, propagating signals from the full scope of the claimed subject matter, as such signals are also not eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
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) 1-6 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cohen (NPL "Event-Based Feature Detection, Recognition and Classification").
Regarding claim 1, Cohen discloses a measurement device comprising: a vision sensor that has a plurality of pixels (page 13, third full paragraph: “The ATIS sensor offers a QVGA resolution with a 304 x 240 array of autonomously operating pixels”), each outputting an event signal in an asynchronous manner (page 13, third full paragraph: “These pixels…encode their output in the form of asynchronous spikes in the address-event representation (AER)”) according to a luminance change of an incident light (Figure 2.2; page 13, fourth full paragraph: “The change detection circuit outputs events in response to a change in illumination of a certain magnitude”); a cluster forming unit that forms, as a cluster, a point group of events generated by identical target particles (Figures 3.1 and 5.9; page 133, first and second paragraphs: “a means of performing the clustering online using a method of clustering with an adaptive threshold for each cluster…their interpretation in the larger system (which in the case of this application are 2D patches from time surfaces)”) on a basis of the event signal input in a predetermined period (Figure 3.2; page 33, last paragraph: for each time surface, “If a pixel receives another event whilst the corresponding value for that pixel on either the linear or exponential surfaces is still decaying”); a feature amount calculating unit that calculates a feature amount of the cluster (Figure 5.8; page 131, third full paragraph; page 132, first paragraph: “Time-surface features are then extracted from the incoming AER stream and sent to the adaptive threshold clustering algorithm, which identifies and learns features in an unsupervised manner...The output of the online clustering component is in the form of eθ = [F, t]T where F Є [F0…FN, N < b] corresponds to the feature (out of b features) matched to the current event…The conversion from a 2D patch to a feature vector is equivalent to the calculation of a descriptor presented in Section 3.3.3”), and a cluster classifying unit that classifies the cluster on a basis of the feature amount calculated by the feature amount calculating unit (Figure 5.8: “The output of the clustering algorithm represents AER events in feature space and are then used for classification”).
Regarding claim 2, Cohen discloses the measurement device according to claim 1, further comprising a cluster tracking unit that tracks the cluster, wherein the feature amount calculating unit calculates the feature amount of the cluster tracked by the cluster tracking unit (page 150, second paragraph: “An important future direction for this work is the extension of the principles to the realm of tracking in event-based data”).
Regarding claim 3, Cohen discloses the measurement device according to claim 2, wherein the cluster tracking unit aggregates a plurality of the clusters based on identical target particles into a single cluster on a basis of the feature amount (Figure 5.9: “If the next feature to arrive falls within the threshold distance of an existing cluster, as shown in (b), then it is said to have matched and is assigned to the that cluster”).
Regarding claim 4, Cohen discloses the measurement device according to claim 3, wherein when the clusters are aggregated, the feature amount calculating unit recalculates the feature amount on a basis of information about a plurality of the aggregated clusters (page 133, first paragraph: “If an incoming feature matches the cluster, then decrease the threshold ti for cluster i by a fixed amount ΔI”).
Regarding claim 5, Cohen discloses the measurement device according to claim 1, wherein the feature amount calculating unit calculates one or more of the feature amounts classified as a movement-related feature amount (page 117, first paragraph: “Combined with the saccade motion, this serves to generate direction-specific features during the three saccades”), a frequency-related feature amount, an event-related feature amount (Equation 3.9; page 36, third paragraph: “it is desirable to limit the information to spatially local areas around the event. Therefore, we can define a spatio-temporal feature on a time surface Ωe of size w x w pixels centred on position u = (x, y)T and occurring at time t”), and a shape-related feature amount of the cluster (page 38, third paragraph: “The corner metric is calculated for the point on the time surface corresponding to the current event”).
Regarding claim 6, Cohen discloses the measurement device according to claim 1, wherein the feature amount calculating unit calculates, as the feature amount, one or more of a mean velocity (page 39, fourth full paragraph: “the relative difference between pixels in I is a measure of velocity”), a body length, a body width, a frequency of an angular change of the cluster (page 39, sixth full paragraph: “a histogram of orientations for the given image patch can be calculated”), and a change frequency of the number of events constituting the cluster.
Regarding claim 19, it is the corresponding method executed by the device claimed in claim 1. Therefore, Cohen discloses the limitations of claim 19 as it does the limitations of claim 1.
Regarding claim 20, it is the corresponding program executed by the device claimed in claim 1. Therefore, Cohen discloses the limitations of claim 20 as it does the limitations of claim 1.
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.
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) 7-11 and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen in view of Takatsuka et al. (US 2023/0102792 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Cohen discloses the measurement device according to claim 6, wherein the feature amount calculating unit calculates, as the feature amount, all of the mean velocity (Cohen page 39, fourth full paragraph: “the relative difference between pixels in I is a measure of velocity”) and the frequency of the angular change of the cluster (Cohen page 39, sixth full paragraph: “a histogram of orientations for the given image patch can be calculated”). However, Cohen fails to disclose calculating, as the feature amount, all of the body length, the body width, and the change frequency of the number of events constituting the cluster. In the related art of measuring a target object, Takatsuka discloses calculating, as the feature amount, all of the body length, the body width (Takatsuka paragraph 0159: “the light receiving reaction region of the C pixels is a region of 3x3=9 pixels. Here, for the sake of description, the region for 3x3=9 pixels is assumed to be a region having a size from 20 to 40 μm, both inclusive, in actual object size conversion”), and the change frequency of the number of events constituting the cluster (Takatsuka paragraph 0226: “counting the number of target objects in the flow cell 5 as the measurement of the target object”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cohen to incorporate the teachings of Takatsuka to improve the detection accuracy of the presence or absence of the target object and to achieve the power saving of the measuring device (Takatsuka paragraphs 0378 and 0384-0388).
Regarding claim 8, Cohen discloses the measurement device according to claim 1. However, Cohen fails to disclose a power supply control unit that controls supply of power from a power supply, wherein the power supply control unit switches a power saving mode for stopping or reducing supply of power to units of the measurement device and a normal processing mode for supplying power to the units of the measurement device. In related art, Takatsuka discloses a power supply control unit that controls supply of power from a power supply, wherein the power supply control unit switches a power saving mode for stopping or reducing supply of power to units of the measurement device (Takatsuka paragraph 0019: “the control unit performs control such that, in an imaging sensor that images the target object, the imaging operation is performed only for a partial pixel range in which the target object is captured”) and a normal processing mode for supplying power to the units of the measurement device (Takatsuka paragraph 0020: “compared with a case where the imaging operation is performed for the entire pixel range in the imaging sensor”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cohen to incorporate the teachings of Takatsuka to reduce the power consumption related to imaging (Takatsuka paragraph 0020).
Regarding claim 9, Cohen, modified by Takatsuka, discloses the measurement device according to claim 8, wherein the power supply control unit switches the modes on a basis of a number of the clusters formed by the cluster forming unit or the feature amount calculated by the feature amount calculating unit (Takatsuka paragraph 0015: “the control unit prevents imaging of an imaging range corresponding to the light receiving reaction portion in a case where the image feature of the light receiving reaction portion does not match a designated image feature”).
Regarding claim 10, Cohen discloses the measurement device according to claim 1. However, Cohen fails to disclose an illumination unit that irradiates an imaging range of the vision sensor with light; and an illumination control unit that controls an amount of light emitted from the illumination unit, wherein the illumination control unit changes the amount of light when a changing condition is established. In related art, Takatsuka discloses an illumination unit that irradiates an imaging range of the vision sensor with light (Takatsuka paragraph 0113: “the detection light source 9 emits light for detecting the target object to the sample sampled in the flow cell 5”); and an illumination control unit that controls an amount of light emitted from the illumination unit (Takatsuka paragraph 0206: “the control unit 16 performs processing of turning ON the detection light source 9...[and] turning OFF the detection light source 9”), wherein the illumination control unit changes the amount of light when a changing condition is established (Takatsuka paragraphs 0207-0208: “the control unit 16 determines whether or not there is a light receiving region (that is, the above-described light receiving region Ats) matching the condition”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cohen to incorporate the teachings of Takatsuka to achieve the power saving of the measuring device (Takatsuka paragraph 0378).
Regarding claim 11, Cohen, modified by Takatsuka, discloses the measurement device according to claim 10, wherein the changing condition is at least one of a number of the event signals equal to or larger than a first predetermined number or equal to or smaller than a second predetermined number (Takatsuka paragraphs 0159, 0207: “the condition of the wavelength and size defined in the definition information I1 is satisfied, the light receiving region Ats is determined” where the size is determined by the number of event signals and must satisfy a range), the event signals being output from the vision sensor, a ratio of failures in tracking of the cluster, the ratio being equal to or larger than a first predetermined value or equal to or smaller than a second predetermined value, and the cluster having a predetermined size or larger with a sufficient momentum while an extremely large number of the events is likely to be provided.
Regarding claim 13, Cohen discloses the measurement device according to claim 1. However, Cohen fails to disclose an illumination unit including a plurality of light sources capable of being separately turned on or off; and an illumination control unit that controls on or off of the light sources, wherein on or off of the light sources is changed when a predetermined condition is established. In related art, Takatsuka discloses an illumination unit including a plurality of light sources capable of being separately turned on or off (Takatsuka paragraph 0100: “a front light source 7, a back light source 8, a detection light source 9”); and an illumination control unit that controls on or off of the light sources (Takatsuka paragraph 0206: “the control unit 16 performs processing of turning ON the detection light source 9...[and] turning OFF the detection light source 9”), wherein on or off of the light sources is changed when a predetermined condition is established (Takatsuka paragraphs 0207-0208: “the control unit 16 determines whether or not there is a light receiving region (that is, the above-described light receiving region Ats) matching the condition”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cohen to incorporate the teachings of Takatsuka to achieve the power saving of the measuring device (Takatsuka paragraph 0378).
Regarding claim 14, Cohen, modified by Takatsuka, discloses the measurement device according to claim 13, wherein the illumination control unit changes on or off of the light sources, a wavelength, and an amount of light when the predetermined condition is established (Takatsuka paragraphs 0206-0208: “in the case where it is determined that there is no light receiving region matching the condition, the control unit 16 returns to step S103” where “In step S103…the control unit 16 performs processing of turning ON the detection light source 9”).
Regarding claim 15, Cohen discloses the measurement device according to claim 1. However, Cohen fails to disclose a particle determination unit that classifies target particles classified by the cluster classifying unit, as active particles or passive particles. In related art, Takatsuka discloses a particle determination unit that classifies target particles classified by the cluster classifying unit, as active particles or passive particles (Takatsuka paragraph 0286: “a plurality of classes such as "phytoplankton" and "zooplankton" is configured to be identifiable as classes of objects” where phytoplankton are passive particles and zooplankton are active particles). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cohen to incorporate the teachings of Takatsuka to improve the efficiency of the image matching processing (Takatsuka paragraph 0287).
Regarding claim 16, Cohen, modified by Takatsuka, discloses the measurement device according to claim 15, further comprising a particle count unit that counts a number of the active particles and the passive particles (Takatsuka paragraph 0183: “appropriately specifying (counting) the number of target objects for each type”).
Regarding claim 17, Cohen, modified by Takatsuka, discloses the measurement device according to claim 16, further comprising a sensor that measures an external environment (Takatsuka paragraph 0175: “a sensor for detecting electrical conductivity of seawater or lake water is externally attached to the measuring device 1”), wherein the sensor stores the number of the active particles and the passive particles in relation to information about the external environment measured by the sensor (Takatsuka paragraph 0179: “Such measurement setting information 12 is stored in, for example, the storage unit 17, and the measuring device 1 measures the target object according to the measurement setting information 12”).
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen in view of Xavier et al. (US 2023/0125031 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Cohen discloses the measurement device according to claim 1, further comprising a control unit that controls an event threshold of the vision sensor (Cohen Figure 2.2: “a change in illumination of a certain magnitude (specified by an externally configurable threshold)”). However, Cohen fails to disclose the control unit changes the event threshold when a changing condition is established. In the related art of event-based image sensors, Xavier discloses the control unit changes the event threshold when a changing condition is established (Xavier FIG. 8, paragraph 0089: “an example of an evolution over time of a photoreceptor signal Vpr (doted line 51), whose incremental variation (stepped curve 52) of the detection threshold is also shown”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cohen to incorporate the teachings of Xavier to improve sensitivity to contrast changes (Xavier paragraph 0008).
Claim(s) 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen and Takatsuka in view of Myrick et al. (US 2013/0162999 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Cohen, modified by Takatsuka, discloses the measurement device according to claim 16. However, Cohen and Takatsuka fail to disclose a carbon content estimation unit that estimates a carbon content under water on a basis of the number of the passive particles and the feature amount. In the related art of classification of analyte within a fluid sample, Myrick discloses a carbon content estimation unit that estimates a carbon content under water on a basis of the number of the passive particles and the feature amount (Myrick paragraph 0007: “Knowledge of phytoplankton size and taxonomic composition is critical to characterizing biogeochemical cycles and quantifying carbon export”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cohen and Takatsuka to incorporate the teachings of Myrick to predict the ocean's response to future climate change (Myrick paragraph 0007).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Vejarano et al. (US 2024/0169577 A1) discloses measuring attributes of a particle in motion by observing a region of interest with an event-based sensor.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE ZHAO whose telephone number is (703)756-5986. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00am - 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, Andrew Bee can be reached at (571)270-5183. 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.
/C.Z./Examiner, Art Unit 2677
/ANDREW W BEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2677
Prosecution Insights