DETAILED ACTION
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 23-24, 26-27, 30-31, 33-34, 37-38, and 40 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.
Claims 24, 31, and 38 recite the limitation “wherein the sequence of calibration steps comprises.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the word “calibration” in each claim. Note, no prior art rejection has been given for these claims, and they potentially would be objected to, if this rejection is overcome.
Claims 23, 30, and 37, recite the limitation, “wherein the selected underwater camera positioning mode comprises a warm positioning mode.” The term “warm positioning mode” does not have an accepted meaning in the art and is not specifically defined by the specification, therefore the metes and bounds of these claims are unknown. Note, no prior art rejection has been given for these claims, and they potentially would be objected to, if this rejection is overcome.
Claims 26, 33, and 40, recite the limitation, “wherein the selected underwater camera positioning mode comprises a fast-full positioning mode.” The term “fast-full positioning mode” does not have an accepted meaning in the art and is not specifically defined by the specification, therefore the metes and bounds of these claims are unknown. Note, no prior art rejection has been given for these claims, and they potentially would be objected to, if this rejection is overcome.
Claims 27 and 34, recite the limitation, “wherein the selected underwater camera positioning mode comprises a slow-full positioning mode.” The term “slow-full positioning mode” does not have an accepted meaning in the art and is not specifically defined by the specification, therefore the metes and bounds of these claims are unknown. Note, no prior art rejection has been given for these claims, and they potentially would be objected to, if this rejection is overcome.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 21-22, 28-29, and 35-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Atwater et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0340440 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Atwater discloses, a computer-implemented method comprises: receiving, by a control system, an instruction to move an underwater camera to a position where a threshold amount or rate of food that is being dispensed is visible to the underwater camera;
PNG
media_image1.png
7
7
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(See Atwater ¶109, “In some implementations, the motion sensors in the camera system 620 may detect fish motion around the fish-feeding device 630 when the fish-feeding device 630 releases fish food. The microcontroller in the camera system 620 may receive data indicative of the direction or location of the motion from the motion sensors and determine a rotation angle for the camera system 620 to be directed towards the location at which motion has been detected. The microcontroller may then control the active pivot 625 to rotate the camera system 625 in the direction of the fish eating the fish food.”
Further see Atwater ¶113, “For example, a captured image 705A or 705B may be evaluated to determine a quality of the image or the depiction of a fish in the image. If the image 705A or 705B is significantly blurred, has occlusions, or the fish is at an undesired angle relative to the camera, e.g., a longitudinal axis of the fish is not perpendicular to the camera, the cameras may be recalibrated and another image may be captured.”
Since the camera is positioned towards fish eating food near the fish-feeding device, at times that fish food is released, and the images are not blurry or occluded, then a threshold amount of food being dispensed will automatically be visible.)
selecting, by the control system, an underwater camera positioning mode from among multiple candidate underwater camera positioning modes (See Atwater ¶110, “The same camera system 620 may be redirected in different directions and configured according to different camera settings in different monitoring modes to capture images of fish engaged in different types of activity.”)
and executing, by the control system, a sequence of steps associated with the selected underwater camera positioning mode to move the underwater camera to a position where the threshold amount or rate of the food that is being dispensed is visible to the underwater camera. (See Atwater ¶108, “After some time, the camera system 620 may execute a second monitoring mode for obtaining images of fish feeding. In some implementations, the second monitoring mode may have an image acquisition timing that matches the timing of the release of food by the fish-feeding device 630 such that the fish-feeding device 630 releases fish food at the same time that the second monitoring mode commences. The active pivot 625 may then rotate camera system 620 by an angle according to the camera settings specified by the second monitoring mode.”
Further see Atwater ¶77, “If the location of a source of the fish food may be learned or provided to the monitoring system, for example, in instances in which a fish feeding device at a fixed location in the northwest quadrant is utilized to release fish food at particular times, the monitoring system may further control cameras F, H, and K to point towards the fish feeding device at the feeding times.”)
Regarding claim 22, Atwater discloses, the method of claim 21, wherein the underwater camera is initially uncalibrated when the instruction to move the underwater camera is received. (See Atwater ¶70, “In some implementations, the cameras 312A and 312B in the camera system 312 are calibrated before obtaining fish images. To calibrate the cameras 312A and 312B, the cameras 312A and 312B may capture images of reference patterns at different angles and distances relative to the camera lens, and a room mean square (RMS) error may be calculated by determining the difference between the captured images of the patterns and the reference patterns. If the RMS error satisfies an error threshold, settings of the cameras 312A and 312B may be adjusted to recalibrate the cameras 312A and 312B. Adjusting the settings of the cameras 312A and 312B may include any operation that modifies a captured reference image. The operations may include, but are not limited to, one or more of adjusting a position of a camera, adjusting a lens position of the cameras 312A and 312B, and adjusting an amount of zoom of the cameras 312A and 312B.”)
Regarding claim 28, Atwater discloses, one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media that store instructions which, when executed by the one or more computer processors, cause the one or more computer processors to perform operations comprising:
receiving, by a control system, an instruction to move an underwater camera to a position where a threshold amount or rate of food that is being dispensed is visible to the underwater camera; selecting, by the control system, a underwater camera positioning mode from among multiple candidate underwater camera positioning modes; and executing, by the control system, a sequence of steps associated with the selected underwater camera positioning mode to move the underwater camera to a position where the threshold amount or rate of the food that is being dispensed is visible to the underwater camera. (See the rejection of claim 21 as it is equally applicable for these limitations of claim 28 as well.)
Regarding claim 29, Atwater discloses, the media of claim 28, wherein the underwater camera is initially uncalibrated when the instruction to move the underwater camera is received. (See the rejection of claim 22 as it is equally applicable for claim 29 as well.)
Regarding claim 35, Atwater discloses, a system comprising one or more computers and one or more storage devices storing instructions that are operable, when executed by the one or more computers, to cause the one or more computers to perform operations comprising: (See Atwater ¶140, “Elements of a computer may include a processor for performing instructions and one or more memory devices for storing instructions and data. Generally, a computer will also include, or be operatively coupled to receive data from or transfer data to, or both, one or more mass storage devices for storing data.”)
receiving, by a control system, an instruction to move an underwater camera to a position where a threshold amount or rate of food that is being dispensed is visible to the underwater camera; selecting, by the control system, a underwater camera positioning mode from among multiple candidate underwater camera positioning modes; and executing, by the control system, a sequence of steps associated with the selected underwater camera positioning mode to move the underwater camera to a position where the threshold amount or rate of the food that is being dispensed is visible to the underwater camera. (See the rejection of claim 21 as it is equally applicable for these limitations of claim 35 as well.)
Regarding claim 36, Atwater discloses, the system of claim 35, wherein the underwater camera is initially uncalibrated when the instruction to move the underwater camera is received. (See the rejection of claim 22 as it is equally applicable for claim 36 as well.)
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 25, 32, and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atwater et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0340440 A1) in view of Huang et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0045364 A1).
Regarding claim 25, Atwater discloses, the method of claim 21, but he fails to disclose the following limitations.
However, Huang discloses, wherein the threshold amount or rate comprises a threshold count of feed detected in an image. (See Huang ¶27, “Referring to FIG. 1 and FIG. 2, after the underwater images are captured, a feed remaining amount is calculated according to the underwater image, and the feeding machine 116 is controlled according to the feed remaining amount to dispense feed to the breeding pool 110. For example, when the feed remaining amount is greater than a threshold, the controller 122 controls the feeding machine 116 not to dispense the feed. When the feed remaining amount is less than the threshold, the controller 122 controls the feeding machine 116 to dispense the feed.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the determining a threshold amount of feed in an image as suggested by Huang to Atwater’s repositioning of cameras. This can be done using known engineering techniques, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so as disclosed by Huang is to control the feeding machine to dispense the appropriate amount of food.
Regarding claim 32, Atwater and Huang disclose, the media of claim 28, wherein the threshold amount or rate comprises a threshold count of feed detected in an image. (See the rejection of claim 25 as it is equally applicable for claim 32 as well.)
Regarding claim 39, Atwater and Huang disclose, the system of claim 35, wherein the threshold amount or rate comprises a threshold count of feed detected in an image. (See the rejection of claim 25 as it is equally applicable for claim 39 as well.)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID PERLMAN whose telephone number is (571) 270-1417.
The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday; 10:00am -6:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Chineyere Wills-Burns can be reached at (571) 272-9752. 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.
/DAVID PERLMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2673