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 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.
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 limitations 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 limitations are: image acquisition unit, assessment unit, measurement unit, lighting unit in claims 1-6.
Because these claim limitations 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 limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations 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 limitations recite 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 § 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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamahira et al. (US 11,187,637 B2 hereinafter Yamahira) in view of Tao et al. (CN103509901 A hereinafter Tao).
As to claim 1, Yamahira teaches an apparatus for assessing a particle size of raw materials of a blast furnace (particle size distribution measurement apparatus and a particle size distribution measurement method for measuring a particle size distribution of a raw material for use in a blast furnace or the like; Col. 1, lines 8-11), comprising: an image acquisition unit acquiring continuous images of raw materials transferred to a blast furnace (An image capturing sensor such as a CCD or CMOS sensor included in the digital camera captures the image of the coke 13 to generate the image data; Col. 5, lines 34-37); and an assessment unit for assessing particle size of respective material (A particle size distribution measurement apparatus 1 measures a particle size distribution of the coke (raw material) 13 including the coarse grains on the conveyor 12 and the adherent powder adhering to the coarse grains, and includes a coarse grain measurement device 2, an adherent powder measurement device 3, and a computation device 4; Col. 4, lines 62-67) and determining type of respective material based on color and pattern of surface of respective material (acquire in real time spectral reflectances at nine wavelengths in a visible light region and an infrared region as the information indicating the particle size distribution of the adherent powder. In this case, the wavelengths of the spectral reflectances acquired by the spectroscopic device are, for example, blue, green, red, 1.32 μm, 1.46 μm, 1.60 μm, 1.80 μm, 1.96 μm, and 2.10 μm, from a short wavelength side; Col. 5, lines 55-62).
Yamahira does not explicitly teach the assessment of particle size of the respective material was done by determining boundaries of respective material based on contrast of the image.
Tao teaches detecting the particle size of raw materials for blast furnaces ([0002]) wherein after obtaining the edge of the raw material particles their particle size is determined ([0055]).
It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have also used Tao’s edge detection to obtain particle size since it’s a well known method within image recognition to first detect the edge/boundaries of an object before determining the size.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamahira and Tao as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim (KR20090002830U).
As to claim 5, Yamahira and Tao teach the apparatus for assessing a particle size of raw materials of a blast furnace of The apparatus for assessing a particle size of raw materials of a blast furnace of wherein the image acquisition unit comprises a camera for capturing an image from above the raw material (An image capturing sensor such as a CCD or CMOS sensor included in the digital camera captures the image of the coke 13 to generate the image data; Col. 5, lines 34-37 Yamahira); a lighting unit for providing light to a raw material before and after a moving direction of a belt conveyor for transferring the raw material (a combination of a camera and lighting; Col. 18, lines 7-8 Yamahira). Yamahira and Tao do not teach a purge hood disposed below the camera to block an inflow of dust from the raw material; and a frame disposed below the purge hood to block the inflow of dust from the raw material together with the purge hood.
Kim teaches cameras being used in industrial settings and the desire to protect them from dust (page 2, paragraph 2) where a structure for preventing the front glass of a housing that protects an optical instrument from being contaminated by purging external air at a certain pressure in front of the glass window of the front hood of the housing that houses the optical instrument for protection (page 3, paragraph 2 through page 4 paragraph 1)
It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to use the hooded camera protection system of Kim with Yamahira in order to provide protection again dust as described in Kim’s teaches.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is allowed.
Claims 2-4 are 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLAIRE X WANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1051. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Patricia Mallari can be reached at (571) 272-4729. 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.
CLAIRE X. WANG
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1774
/CLAIRE X WANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights