Detailed Action
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Acknowledgements
2. Applicant’s arguments/remarks, filed on 02/26/2026, are acknowledged. Amended claims 1, 8, 10, 13-14, 17-18, and 20 are acknowledged. Accordingly, claims 1-20 remain pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejections of independent claims 1, 17, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 Akiyama (CN118234910A).
4. Applicant, on pg. 6-7, in the “Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment” (dated 02/26/2026), states:
the cited references fail to teach or suggest several features of the claims, as amended
wherein independent claims 1, 17, and 20 recite
“receive, from the height detection sensor, sensor data comprising a height of contents within a container”.
As such, the reference (e.g., Preston, US2015/0341542A1) fail to teach or suggest at least receiving, from the height detection sensor, sensor data comprising a height of contents within a container as recited by the claims. Preston fails to disclose or suggest sensor data comprising a height of contents within a container, because Preston’s distance measurements are exclusively directed to determining subject-to-camera distance for optical focusing purposes, not to determining fill level within a container.
Response
5. In the office action, dated 11/28/2025, Preston had been referenced as teaching a height detection sensor fixed to a camera. Preston doesn’t further specify an ability or a configuration wherein the sensor is used so to obtain a height of contents within a container.
However, Akiyama teaches a work system for driving a construction machine including various components. Among the components of the system, an imaging device 32 and object detector 34. As specified, on pg. 7-paragraph 4 (attached NPL), Akiyama teaches that the object detector can detect information on the height of a work object A and detect three-dimensional information indicative of changes in the surface of the work object A within a container 13. The object detector may detect information of the job object A based on an image of the object A, in which case the object detector 34 may be the imaging device 32. Thus, pg. 7 paragraph 3 also teaches that object detector 34 may detect the height of the work object A. This is further indicative of fluctuations in the surface of the work object A within the container 13.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that an object detector, as taught by Akiyama, could have been implemented as part of the camera system as taught by Preston, thereby having an ability to use such an imaging system to measure changes of fluctuating parameters which are part of working conditions requiring updates of parameter information.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-3, 10-11, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Preston US 2015/0341542 A1 in view of Akiyama (CN1182234910A).
8. Regarding claim 1, an imaging system (…Preston, in [0042], teaches camera system
in accordance with Fig. 1…) comprising:
an imaging device (…[0042] teaches a camera 1; Fig. 1…);
a height detection sensor (…[0042] teaches a distance measuring unit (sensor) 5
fixed to camera 1; Fig. 1…),
modify a focus level of the imaging device to one of a plurality of calibrated focus
levels based on the sensor data (…wherein [0057] teaches that the MCDPU causes the
change or adjusting of focus (among other things) to a desired or predetermined setting;
wherein as taught in [0024] distances to a plurality of subjects in a field of view of a
camera and provided offsets are taken into account to calculate a lens focus setting for
each of the subjects…), and
initiate a validation image at the focus level (…[0036] teaches that the focus
status indications, of subjects in an image, show direction and distance and are shown
on a display including graphical elements overlaid on an image capture by the camera;
wherein [0046] teaches a video overlay and processing unit (VOPU), which works in part
in conjunction with the MCDPU, as taught in [0064], which generates graphics to overlay
onto an image captured by the camera…),
a height detection sensor (…[0042] teaches a distance measuring unit (sensor) 5
fixed to camera 1; Fig. 1…); and
a programmable logic controller (PLC) (…wherein [0043] teaches a motor control,
data processing and communication unit (MCDPU) and a video overlay and processing
unit VOPU in [0046], which works in part in conjunction with the MCDPU, as taught in
[0064]…) configured to:
receive sensor data from the height detection sensor (…wherein [0044] teaches
that distance measuring unit 5 provides distance data to the MCDPU…).
Preston doesn’t further specify wherein the sensor data comprises a height of contents
within a container.
However, Akiyama teaches a work system for driving a construction machine including
various components. Among the components of the system, an imaging device 32 and object detector 34. As specified, on pg. 7-paragraph 4 (attached NPL), Akiyama teaches that the object detector can detect information on the height of a work object A (contents) and detect three-dimensional information indicative of changes in the surface of the work object A within a container 13. The object detector may detect information of the job object A based on an image of the object A, in which case the object detector 34 may be the imaging device 32 (viewed as a system of imaging and height detection). Thus, pg. 7 paragraph 3 also teaches that object detector 34 may detect the height of the work object A. This is further indicative of fluctuations in the surface of the work object A within the container 13.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention that an object detector, as taught by Akiyama, could
have been implemented as part of the camera system as taught by Preston, thereby having an
ability to use such an imaging system to measure changes of fluctuating parameters which are
part of working conditions requiring updates of parameter information.
9. Regarding claim 2, Preston in view of Akiyama teaches the imaging system of claim 1
(see claim 1 above), wherein
the height detection sensor is physically mounted to the imaging device at a fixed
position by a fixed mounting bracket (…wherein Preston, in [0042], teaches that distance
measuring unit 5 may be placed or fixed to a side of camera 1 or at other positions of the
camera…).
10. Regarding claim 10, Preston in view of Akiyama teaches the imaging system of claim 1
(see claim 1 above), wherein
the PLC is disposed on an electrical panel that is communicatively connected to the
imaging device and the height detection sensor by an input/output interfaces
(…wherein Preston, in [0056-0058] teaches the interconnection between the camera 1,
distance measuring device 5, and the MCDPU 3, as depicted in Fig. 1, to be electrically
facilitated…).
11. Regarding claim 11, Preston in view of Akiyama teaches the imaging system of claim 10
(see claim 10 above), wherein
the PLC comprises
memory (…wherein [0026] teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium to
execute software…) and
the plurality of calibrated focus levels is stored within the memory (…wherein
[0019] teaches a data processor configured to calculate a lens focus setting for a subject
or object, the data processor also corrects distances measured for an offset from the
distance measuring device to a predetermined location in an image plane of the camera;
thus the focus level can be viewed relative to the predetermined (calibrated) location to
which all calculated lens focus settings would correspond to…).
12. Regarding claim 14, Preston in view of Akiyama teaches the imaging system of claim 1 (see claim 1 above), wherein
initiating the validation image at the focus level comprises:
generating an imaging instructions that identify an image name and the focus level (…wherein [0046] further teaches that a wide variety of graphical means may
be used to encode subject focus status with respect to an underlying picture…);
providing the imaging instructions to the imaging device (…wherein
as taught in [0046], the video overlay and processing unit VOPU generates graphics to
overlay onto an image captured by a camera…);and
receiving at least a portion of an imaging response from the imaging device
(…wherein Preston teaches a display of a live image displayed on monitor with regards
to captured image in [0022]…).
13. Regarding claim 15, Preston in view of Akiyama teaches the imaging system of claim 14 (see claim 14 above), wherein
the PLC is further configured to:
receive, from a remote system, an imaging request (…wherein Preston, in
[0043], teaches that the MCDPU can be remotely controlled by a remote manual control
unit (RMU)…);
initiate, via the height detection sensor, a distance reading in response to the
imaging request (…wherein the RMU communicates to the camera commands and lens
calibration data to the MCDPU wherein the MCDPU has lens focus setting distance for
each object in the field of view…); and
in response to receiving the at least the portion of the imaging response,
providing the imaging response to the remote system (…wherein Preston teaches a display
that may be remote…).
14. Regarding claim 16, Preston in view of Akiyama teaches the imaging system of claim 15 (see claim 15 above), wherein
the PLC receives
the validation image (…wherein [0046] teaches a video overlay and
processing unit (VOPU), which works in part in conjunction with the MCDPU, as taught in
[0064], which generates graphics to overlay onto an image captured by the camera…),
an image classification (…wherein [0046] teaches the graphics indicate, for
each object in the field of view and/or detection zone of the distance sensor (DMD), the
magnitude and the sign of the difference in distance between the subject or subjects in
the field or in each zone; thus these indications can be viewed as classification…),
a classification score (…[0046] teaches that additional data can be displayed
relative to parameters of lens and image by option of manufacturer or user; as such data
which may vary depending on a current zone or distance to an object can be viewed as a
similar to a classification score…), and
the image name from the imaging device (…wherein [0046] further teaches
that a wide variety of graphical means may be used to encode subject focus status with
respect to an underlying picture…) and
the imaging response comprises
the validation image, the image classification, the classification score, the image
name, and the sensor data (…wherein the graphics to overlay onto a captured image,
including the above mapped information includes these elements including sensor
information as described in [0046]…).
15. Regarding claim 17, a computer-implemented (…wherein Preston in [0026] teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium containing encoded instructions when executed by a processing device execute software…) method comprising:
receiving, by a programmable logic controller (PLC), sensor data from a height detection
sensor physically connected to an imaging device (…wherein [0043] teaches a motor control,
data processing and communication unit (MCDPU) and a video overlay and processing
unit VOPU in [0046], which works in part in conjunction with the MCDPU, as taught in
[0064]…);
modifying, by the PLC, a focus level of the imaging device to one of a plurality of
calibrated focus levels based on the sensor data (…[0057] further teaches that the MCDPU
causes the change or adjusting of focus (among other things) to a desired or
predetermined setting; wherein as taught in [0024] distances to a plurality of subjects in
a field of view of a camera and provided offsets are taken into account to calculate a lens
focus setting for each of the subjects…); and
initiate, by the PLC and using the imaging device, a validation image at the focus level
(…[0036] teaches that the focus status indications, of subjects in an image, show
direction and distance and are shown on a display including graphical elements overlaid
on an image capture by the camera; wherein [0046] teaches a video overlay and
processing unit (VOPU), which works in part in conjunction with the MCDPU, as taught in
[0064], which generates graphics to overlay onto an image captured by the camera…).
Preston doesn’t further specify wherein the sensor data comprises a height of contents
within a container.
However, Akiyama teaches a work system for driving a construction machine including
various components. Among the components of the system, an imaging device 32 and object detector 34. As specified, on pg. 7-paragraph 4 (attached NPL), Akiyama teaches that the object detector can detect information on the height of a work object A (contents) and detect three-dimensional information indicative of changes in the surface of the work object A within a container 13. The object detector may detect information of the job object A based on an image of the object A, in which case the object detector 34 may be the imaging device 32 (viewed as a system of imaging and height detection). Thus, pg. 7 paragraph 3 also teaches that object detector 34 may detect the height of the work object A. This is further indicative of fluctuations in the surface of the work object A within the container 13.
16. Regarding claim 18, claim 18 is rejected for reasons related to claim 14.
17. Regarding claim 19, claim 19 is rejected for reasons related to claim 15.
18. Regarding claim 20, claim 20 is rejected for reasons related to claim 1.
19. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Preston (US
2015/0341542 A1) in view of Akiyama (CN1182234910A) and Sun (CN110619617A).
20. Regarding claim 4, Preston in view of Akiyama teaches the imaging system of claim 1 (see claim 1 above), wherein
the height detection sensor comprises
a single point laser sensor (…wherein Preston [0058] teaches that unit 5 comprises
an emitter that emits a radiation beam (LED-infrared light), Preston doesn’t additionally
specify a single point laser sensor.
However, Sun teaches a three dimensional imaging method and device wherein an
imaging acquisition device may include a single point laser sensor for generating
distance data information of measured points, as taught on pg. 5-lines 23-29.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention that a single point laser sensor could have
been used in conjunction with an imaging device so to obtain improved imaging
accuracy and resolution of the imaging device…).
21. Claims 5-7 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Preston (US 2015/0341542 A1) in view of Akiyama (CN1182234910A) and Bossaer et al (US 2023/0132104 A1).
22. Regarding claim 5, Preston in view of Akiyama teaches the imaging system of claim 1 (see claim 1 above), wherein
the imaging device and the height detection sensor are mounted at a particular height
above a conveyance line by an adjustable mounting bracket (…wherein [0039] teaches
calculations relative to the distance along the camera lens optical axis from the image
plane to a plurality of subjects for lens focusing setting for subjects; Preston doesn’t
explicitly teach a mounting structure for the camera system.
However, Bossaer teaches an adjustable camera mount that utilizes a controller to
lower or raise the camera, as taught in [0006].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention that an adjustable camera mount as taught
by Bossaer can be used so to automatically adjust a position of the camera system as
taught by Preston for optimal positioning of the camera relative to an object of
imaging…).
23. Regarding claim 6, Preston in view of Akiyama and Bossaer teaches the imaging system of claim 5 (see claim 5 above), wherein
the imaging device and the height detection sensor are placed at the particular height
using the height detection sensor (…wherein Preston teaches a camera able to determine
its distance relative to objects in the field of view of the camera, Preston further teaches
the usage of an image to determine the camera’s position relative to an object for optimal
positioning of the camera relative to an object of imaging, as taught in [0007].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention that the distance of an object relative to a
camera can be quantified so to determine an optimal positioning of the camera relative to
the object being imaged…).
24. Regarding claim 7, Preston in view of Akiyama and Bossaer teaches the imaging system of claim 6 (see claim 6 above), wherein
the imaging device comprises
a camera lens disposed at a first end of the imaging device (…wherein Preston
teaches objective lens 2, in [0056]; Fig. 1…) and
the imaging device is positioned above an imaging location of the conveyance
line with the camera lens facing downward and towards the imaging location (…wherein
Preston teaches a relative depiction of the camera entry pupil relative to the optical axis
in [0064] (Fig. 3); Bossaer teaches a mounting system for a camera wherein the camera is
positioned above the subject of imaging, as mentioned in [0037].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention that the distance of an object relative to a
camera can be quantified so to determine an optimal positioning of the camera relative to
the object being imaged…).
25. Regarding claim 12, Preston in view of Akiyama teaches the imaging system of claim 11 (see claim 11 above).
Preston doesn’t further specify wherein
the plurality of calibrated focus levels respectively corresponds to a plurality of
predefined fill level tiers that are stored within the memory (…however, Bossaer teaches a
controller which determines an image to be in focus to determine an optimal distance
from a top of a crop row, as taught in [0038]; further [0037] teaches that the optimal level
is dependent on the distance of a camera from the top row of the crop. Thus Bossaer
teaches that a focus level can be determined based on a distance of a camera from an
object.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention that the distance of an object relative to a
camera can be quantified so to determine an optimal positioning of the camera relative to
the object being imaged…).
26. Regarding claim 13, Preston in view of Akiyama and Bossaer teaches the imaging system of claim 12 (see claim 12 above), wherein
a predefined fill level tier of the plurality of predefined fill level tiers defines a distances measurement range (…wherein Preston, in [0070], teaches that distance measuring unit 5 has a detection mechanism in determining horizontal or vertical widths or heights with respect to detection zones…).
27. Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Preston
(US 2015/0341542 A1) in view of Akiyama (CN1182234910A) and Sun (CN110619617A) and further view of Bossaer et al. (US 2023/0132104 A1).
28. Regarding claim 8, Preston in view of Akiyama and Bossaer teaches the imaging system of claim 7 (see claim 7 above), wherein
the height detection sensor comprises
a laser lens disposed at a first end of the height detection sensor
(…wherein Preston in [0058] teaches reflected beam detector 14; Fig. 1; Preston doesn’t specify a laser lens.
However, Sun teaches a three dimensional imaging method and device wherein an
imaging acquisition device may include a single point laser sensor for generating
distance data information of measured points, as taught on pg. 5-lines 23-29.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention that a single point laser sensor could have
been used in conjunction with an imaging device, as one taught by Preston, so to obtain
improved imaging accuracy and resolution of the imaging device…), and
the height detection sensor is positioned above the imaging location of the conveyance
line with the laser lens facing downward and towards the imaging location (…wherein as mentioned in claim 6 the camera may be mounted for a top view via a mounting mechanism, as taught by Bossaer; Preston further teaches that the unit 5 is oriented in a manner wherein its line of sight is parallel to the light of sight of the camera in [0044].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the distance of an object
relative to a camera can be quantified so to determine an optimal positioning of the
camera relative to the object being imaged…).
29. Regarding claim 9, Preston in view of Akiyama and Bossaer teaches the imaging system of claim 8 (see claim 8 above), wherein
the height detection sensor is positioned at an angle relative to the imaging device in a
direction of a center point of the imaging location (…wherein Preston teaches that the unit 5
is oriented in a manner wherein its line of sight is parallel to the line of sight of the camera in [0044]…).
Conclusion
30. 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 SURAFEL YILMAKASSAYE whose telephone number is (703)756-1910. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, TWYLER HASKINS can be reached at (571)272-7406. 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.
/SURAFEL YILMAKASSAYE/Examiner, Art Unit 2639
/TWYLER L HASKINS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2639
Prosecution Insights