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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 10/29/2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document (EP 4009018 A1); each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 8 of claim 1 recites “…filtering a broadband light pulse…”, however, line 6 of claim 1 already recites “broadband light pulses.” Therefore, it is unclear whether “a broadband light pulse” from line 8 is referring to “broadband light pulses” from line 6 or another broadband light pulse, altogether. It would appear that line 8 of claim 1 should instead recite “…filtering the broadband light pulse…”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 9 and 12 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.
Lines 2-4 of Claim 9 recites the limitation "the light pulses" in “…a part of the light of the light pulses is directed to the reference detector via the beam splitter so as to measure the energy and/or intensity of the light pulses”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear which light pulse is being referred to when claim 1 recites both a narrowband light pulse and a broadband light pulse. Referring to Fig. 15 where the reference detector is element DET1, it is the narrowband light pulse (Fabry-Perot Interferometer FPI1 forms a narrowband light pulse as claimed in claim 1 and shown in Figs. 1 and 15) that is directed to the reference detector DET1 via a beam splitter BS1. Therefore, as best understood and therefore interpreted, “the light pulses” from claim 9 is referring to narrowband light pulses.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the actuator unit" in “…the actuator unit comprises a conveyor belt and/or a robot”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 does not recite an actuator unit, however, claim 11 does recite an actuator unit. Therefore, it would appear that claim 12 should be dependent on claim 11.
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) is/are:
“Beam shaping optics” in claims 1 and 16. Here the word “optics” is a generic placeholder for the term “means”, is modified by the functional language “to form linear pattern from a narrowband light pulse”, and further is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
“Actuator unit” in claim 11. Here the word “unit” is a generic placeholder for the term “means”, is modified by the functional language “to cause relative motion between the object and the linear pattern”, and further is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Examples of structures corresponding to “beam shaping optics/line shaping optics OPT1” was found in the specification in paragraph [0082] where examples of beam shaping optics includes a Powell lens, diffractive optical element, cylindrical lens, or a first cylindrical lens and a second cylindrical lens.
Examples of structures corresponding to “actuator unit” was found in the specification in paragraph [0040] where examples of an actuator unit include a conveyor belt, robot, or motion system.
If applicant does not intend to have this/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 it/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 it/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, 4, 8, 11-12, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Learmonth (US 2018/0084231 A1 which was disclosed in IDS dated 08/29/2024) in view of Talbert (US 20210274076 A1).
Regarding Claims 1 and 16, Learmonth teaches an apparatus and method for spectral imaging (Spectral Imager from Figs. 2A-2B), comprising:
- an illuminating unit (Fig. 2A: light source 202, Fabry-Perot interferometer (FPI) 210, and optics 212-214) to illuminate a linear region of an object (Fig. 1: substrate/conveyor belt 100) with a linear pattern (Fig. 1: imaging area 106) formed from a narrowband light ([0027]: “FPI 210 filters incident light down to one or more narrow bands, which are projected onto an imaging area using optics 212 and optics 214.” and [0031]: “In some embodiments, suitable optics shape the output beam from FPI 210 or out of filter 258 into a narrow rectangular beam—for example, using one or more cylindrical lenses.”), and
- a line scan camera (Fig. 2A: image sensor 222 which is a linear sensor with more pixels in one axis than in the other [0040]) to capture an image of the illuminated linear region, wherein the illuminating unit comprises:
- a light source (Fig. 2A: light source 202) to generate broadband light ([0024]: Light source is a single or composite broadband light source such as a halogen lamp.),
- a tunable Fabry-Perot interferometer (Fig. 2A: adjustable Fabry-Perot interferometer (FPI) 210 [0019]) to form the narrowband light by filtering a broadband light ([0027]: “FPI 100 filters incident light down to one or more narrow bands…”.),
- beam-shaping optics (Fig. 2A: optics 212 and 214 where the optics shape the output beam from FPI 210 into a narrow rectangular beam ([0027] and [0031]), which is shown in Fig. 1) to form the linear pattern from the narrowband light ([0031]), the wavelength of the linear pattern being determined by the mirror gap of the Fabry-Perot interferometer (A FPI would do this.; [0026]: “Spectral imager 104 takes a series of images each with different spectral sensitivity range as controlled by an adjustable filter (e.g., a Fabry-Perot etalon).”), and wherein the apparatus is arranged to change the mirror gap of the Fabry-Perot interferometer ([0027]: FPI 210 is an adjustable Fabry-Perot interferometer or etalon.).
Learmonth appear to be silent to using a pulsed light.
Talbert, related to spectral imaging, does teach using a pulsed light (Abstract and [0061]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Learmonth to incorporate pulsed light, as disclosed by Talbert. The use of pulsed light is known in the field of endeavor, therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use pulsed light with the advantage of high-definition imaging with reduced pixel counts in a controlled illumination environment ([0049] from Talbert).
Regarding Claim 4, Learmonth modified by Talbert teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Learmonth modified by Talbert further teaches the image sensor of the line scan camera comprises only one active row of detector pixels (Learmonth, linear sensor from [0020] would have only one active row of detector pixels).
Regarding Claim 8, Learmonth modified by Talbert teaches the apparatus of
claim 1.
Learmonth modified by Talbert further teaches that the light source comprises
a laser light source (Learmonth, [0024]: Light source can be an array of LEDs).
Regarding Claims 11 and 17, Learmonth modified by Talbert teaches the apparatus of claim 1 and method of claim 16.
Learmonth modified by Talbert further teaches an actuator unit (Learmonth, Fig. 1: conveyor belt 100) to cause relative motion between the object and the linear pattern (Learmonth, [0020]: “A light source which can emit at least the expected wavelengths to be captured by the Fabry-Perot etalon illuminates a moving substrate (e.g. a conveyor belt) carrying objects.”).
Regarding Claim 12, Learmonth modified by Talbert teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Learmonth modified by Talbert further teaches that the actuator unit comprises a conveyor belt (Learmonth, Fig. 1: conveyor belt 100) and/or a robot.
Regarding Claim 15, Learmonth modified by Talbert teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Learmonth modified by Talbert further teaches that the Fabry-Perot interferometer (Learmonth, Fig. 2A: FPI 210) is arranged to have a first mirror gap (Learmonth, Abstract) at a first time to form a first narrowband light pulse (Talbert, Abstract and [0061]) which has a first wavelength (Learmonth, first illumination wavelength from [0037]), the illuminating unit (Learmonth, Fig. 2A: light source 202, FPI 210, and optics 212-214) is arranged to illuminate a first linear region of the object with a first linear pattern having the first wavelength (Learmonth, shown in Fig. 1 and described in [0037]), the line scan camera (Learmonth, Fig. 2A: imaging sensor 222) is arranged to capture an image of the first linear region illuminated with the first linear pattern (Learmonth, shown in Fig. 1), the Fabry-Perot interferometer is arranged to have a second mirror gap at a second time to form a second narrowband light pulse which has a second wavelength, the illuminating unit is arranged to illuminate a second linear region of the object with a second linear pattern having the second wavelength, the line scan camera is arranged to capture an image of the second linear region illuminated with the second linear pattern (This claim limitation is merely describing the function of a tunable Fabry-Perot interferometer (FPI) where by adjusting the gap of the FPI changes the wavelength of the illumination light; Learmonth, [0037]: “At that instant, FPI 210 or FPI 260 is set to a first gap which corresponds to a first illumination wavelength. The sensor images a rectangular region which includes the object or object feature. The digital numbers captured by the image sensor pixel, or pixels, and which correspond to light intensities at the various pixels, are saved to memory and indexed. FPI 210 is set to a second gap corresponding to a second wavelength while the object is at a second position and a second image is captured, indexed and stored.”).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Learmonth (US 2018/0084231 A1 which was disclosed in IDS dated 08/29/2024) in view of Talbert (US 20210274076 A1) and further in view of Learmonth 2 (US 2017/0167919 A1, which was disclosed in the IDS dated 08/29/2024).
Regarding Claim 2, Learmonth modified by Talbert teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Learmonth modified by Talbert further teaches the apparatus of claim 1, being arranged to generate a plurality of narrowband light pulses (Talbert, Abstract and [0061]) at different wavelengths by changing the mirror gap of the Fabry-Perot interferometer during a scanning time period (Learmonth, [0037]: “At that instant, FPI 210 or FPI 260 is set to a first gap which corresponds to a first illumination wavelength. The sensor images a rectangular region which includes the object or object feature. The digital numbers captured by the image sensor pixel, or pixels, and which correspond to light intensities at the various pixels, are saved to memory and indexed. FPI 210 is set to a second gap corresponding to a second wavelength while the object is at a second position and a second image is captured, indexed and stored. The system is designed (magnification and line speed) such that FPI 210 or FPI 260 completes a complete sequence of gaps while an object is within its field of view.”).
Learmonth modified by Talbert appears to be silent to the movement of the moving mirror of the Fabry-Perot interferometer is not stopped during the scanning time period.
Learmonth 2, related to spectral imaging, does teach the movement of the moving mirror of the Fabry-Perot interferometer is not stopped during the scanning time period ([0078]: “In some embodiments, the actuators controlling the gap spacing of the tunable Fabry-Perot etalon mirrors do not wait for the LEDs to turn on and for an image of the reflected image to be captured and recorded. Rather, the actuators continuously scan the gap spacing, using active feedback to ensure the mirrors are always parallel.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Learmonth combined with Talbert so that the movement of the moving mirror of the Fabry-Perot interferometer is not stopped during the scanning time period, as disclosed by Learmonth 2. Having the movement of the moving mirrors of the FPI not stopped during the scanning time period has the advantage of allowing for a much faster total acquisition of the data cube ([0078] from Learmonth 2).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Learmonth (US 2018/0084231 A1 which was disclosed in IDS dated 08/29/2024) in view of Talbert (US 20210274076 A1) and further in view of Antila (US 2017/0138790 A1 which was disclosed in the IDS dated 10/29/2024).
Regarding Claim 3, Learmonth modified by Talbert teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Learmonth modified by Talbert appears to be silent to the Fabry-Perot interferometer is positioned in a vacuum chamber, wherein the absolute pressure of the vacuum chamber is arranged to be smaller than 10 kPa.
Antila, related to spectral imaging, does teach that the Fabry-Perot interferometer (Fig. 1: Fabry-Perot interferometer (FPI) 100) is positioned in a vacuum chamber, wherein the absolute pressure of the vacuum chamber is arranged to be smaller than 10 kPa ([0203]: “During normal operation, the space ESPACE1 between the mirrors 110, 120 may be filled with a gas. However, the interferometer 100 may also be operated in vacuum so that the gas pressure in the space ESPACE1 is substantially equal to zero.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Learmonth combined with Talbert so that the Fabry-Perot interferometer is positioned in a vacuum chamber, wherein the absolute pressure of the vacuum chamber is arranged to be smaller than 10 kPa, as disclosed by Antila. The above-mentioned configuration is known in the field of endeavor. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods (having an FPI positioned in a vacuum chamber where the absolute pressure of the vacuum chamber is smaller than 10 kPa) to yield predictable results (to reduce light scattering, minimize absorption, and avoid contamination in the vacuum chamber) (MPEP 2143 (I)(A)).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Learmonth (US 2018/0084231 A1 which was disclosed in IDS dated 08/29/2024) in view of Talbert (US 20210274076 A1) and further in view of Zhao (US 7564544 B2, which was disclosed in the IDS dated 10/29/2024).
Regarding Claim 5, Learmonth modified by Talbert teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Learmonth modified by Talbert appears to be silent to the image sensor of the line scan camera comprises two rows of detector pixels.
Zhao, related to spectral imaging, does teach that the image sensor (TDI sensors from Col. 6, ll. 51-57) of the line scan camera comprises two rows of detector pixels (Col. 6, ll. 51-57: “TDI sensors has multiple rows of elements to enhance light sensitivity…”.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Learmonth combined with Talbert so that the image sensor of the line scan camera comprises two rows of detector pixels, as disclosed by Zhao. The advantage of having an image sensor of the line scan camera comprises two rows of detector pixels is that multiple rows of elements enhance light sensitivity (Col. 6, ll. 51-57 from Zhao).
Regarding Claim 6, Learmonth modified by Talbert and Zhao teaches the apparatus of claim 5.
Learmonth modified by Talbert and Zhao further teaches that at least one row of detector pixels of the line scan camera comprises an optical filter such that the spectral sensitivity of a first row of detector pixels is different from the spectral sensitivity of a second row of detector pixels (Learmonth, [0040]: “In some embodiments, the image sensor includes a color filter array.”).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Learmonth (US 2018/0084231 A1 which was disclosed in IDS dated 08/29/2024) in view of Talbert (US 20210274076 A1) and further in view of Zhu (US 9,097,800 B1).
Regarding Claim 7, Learmonth modified by Talbert teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Learmonth modified by Talbert further teaches the apparatus of claim 1, being arranged to operate such that the mirror gap is changed from a first value to a second value during a scanning time period (Learmonth, [0037] and Abstract), and wherein capturing of the images is synchronized with the narrowband light pulses (Learmonth, This would necessarily happen so that the images captured have the proper illumination rather than no illumination).
Learmonth modified by Talbert appears to be silent to the scanning time period is shorter than 100 ms.
Zhu, related to spectral imaging, does teach that the scanning time period is shorter than 100 ms (Col. 15, ll. 42-47: Scanning intervals can be 100 ms, 33 ms, 1 ms, 1 sec, etc.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify to Learmonth combined with Talbert so that the scanning time period is shorter than 100 ms, as disclosed by Zhu. Adjusting scanning time period is well known in the field of endeavor. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute one known element for another (differing choice of scanning time period) to obtain predictable results (to best optimize measurements and data acquisition) (MPEP 2143 (I)(B)).
Learmonth modified by Talbert and Zhu appears to be silent to the number of narrowband light pulses formed at different wavelengths during the scanning time period is greater than 10 and the number of images captured at the different wavelengths during the scanning time period is greater than 10. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found that measurement parameters, such as light pulse duration and number of images captured in a scanning time period, to be obvious measurement parameters that could be adjusted to best optimize their measurements.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Learmonth combined with Talbert and Zhu so that the number of narrowband light pulses formed at different wavelengths during the scanning time period is greater than 10 and the number of images captured at the different wavelengths during the scanning time period is greater than 10. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods (adjusting parameters such as pulse duration and number of images captured during a scanning period) to yield predictable results (to best optimize measurements to ensure quality of image and ability to visualize motion during scans) (MPEP 2143 (I)(A)).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Learmonth (US 2018/0084231 A1 which was disclosed in IDS dated 08/29/2024) in view of Talbert (US 20210274076 A1) and further in view of Saari (US 8,792,100 B2).
Regarding Claim 9, Learmonth modified by Talbert teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Learmonth modified by Talbert further teaches that the illuminating unit comprises a beam splitter (Learmonth, Fig. 2A: beam splitter 224) and a detector (Learmonth, Fig. 2A: image sensor 222), wherein a part of the light of the light pulses (Talbert, light pulses from Abstract and [0061]) is directed to the detector via the beam splitter so as to measure the energy and/or intensity of the light pulses (Learmonth, Shown in Fig. 2A where beam splitter 224 directs light to the imaging sensor 222).
Learmonth modified by Talbert appears to be silent to the illuminating unit comprises a beam splitter and a reference detector, wherein a part of the light of the light pulses is directed to the reference detector via the beam splitter.
Saari, related to spectral imaging, does teach an illuminating unit (Fig. 3a: light source 310, FPI 341, and lenses 331, 333, and 337) comprises a beam splitter (Fig. 3a: beam splitter mirror 335) and a reference detector (Fig. 3a: reference detector 339), wherein a part of the light is directed to the reference detector via the beam splitter (shown in Fig. 3a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Learmonth combined with Talbert so that the illuminating unit comprises a beam splitter and a reference detector, wherein a part of the light of the light pulses is directed to the reference detector via the beam splitter, as disclosed by Saari. The advantage of having a reference detector is so that the reference detector can provide feedback data about the intensity of the illumination light beam in order to adjust the light intensity of the light source and to monitor the operation of a Fabry-Perot interferometer (Col. 8, ll. 54-58 from Saari).
Claims 10 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Learmonth (US 2018/0084231 A1 which was disclosed in IDS dated 08/29/2024) in view of Talbert (US 20210274076 A1) and further in view of Vrhel (US 7,443,508 B1, which was disclosed in the IDS dated 10/29/2024).
Regarding Claim 10, Learmonth modified by Talbert teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Learmonth modified by Talbert further teaches the line scan camera (Learmonth, linear sensor from [0020])
Learmonth modified by Talbert appears to be silent to the line scan camera is arranged to capture a dark image when the object is not illuminated with a linear pattern, or when the wavelength of the linear pattern is outside the spectral detection range of the line scan camera.
Vrhel, related to spectral imaging, does teach that the line scan camera is arranged to capture a dark image when the object is not illuminated with a linear pattern (Col 14, ll. 12-21: “The exemplary method illustrated in FIG. 8C starts at block 240 where all of the LEDs, i.e., all of the LEDS of the LED array 120, are turned off. Then, at block 242, an image row, i.e., a row of a spectral reflectance image, is captured by the imaging system 134 with no LEDs turned on. Next, at block 243 the captured dark image row is stored. At block 244, the reference detector output with no LEDs turned on is stored, i.e., the analog input of the reference detector 106 is converted to digital form by the ADC 126 and the resulting digital data is stored.”), or when the wavelength of the linear pattern is outside the spectral detection range of the line scan camera.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Learmonth combined with Talbert so that the line scan camera is arranged to capture a dark image when the object is not illuminated with a linear pattern, or when the wavelength of the linear pattern is outside the spectral detection range of the line scan camera, as disclosed by Vrhel. It is well known in the field of endeavor that measuring dark signals (noise generated by a sensor) has the advantage of allowing for those dark signals to be subtracted from test measurements to remove noise and unwanted artifacts from the test measurements (Col 14, ll. 12-21 from Vrhel).
Regarding Claim 13, Learmonth modified by Talbert teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Learmonth modified by Talbert further teaches a control unit (Learmonth, Fig. 1: processor 110), which is configured to be able to execute a calibrating spectral measurement (Learmonth, claims 16-17 and [0043]).
Learmonth modified by Talbert appears to be silent to a control unit, which is configured to determine spectral reflectance values from pixel values of a captured image by using calibration data.
Vrhel, related to spectral imaging, does teach a control unit (There would necessarily be a control unit to perform the method outlined below), which is configured to determine spectral reflectance values from pixel values of a captured image by using calibration data (Described in Col. 10, ll. 22 to Col. 12, ll. 37 and shown in Figs. 6-7, in particular, steps 218-222 of Fig. 6. Fig. 6 shows calibration is performed and calibration data is used to correct variations (spectral reflectance values) in images taken).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Learmonth combined with Talbert so that a control unit is configured to determine spectral reflectance values from pixel values of a captured image by using calibration data, as disclosed by Vrhel. The above-mentioned method has the advantage of being able to compensate for nonuniform illumination across a sample by removing the variation of illumination between the locations on the sample from the recorded data (Col. 10, ll. 51-64 from Vrhel).
Regarding Claim 14, Learmonth modified by Talbert teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Learmonth modified by Talbert further teaches a control unit (Learmonth, Fig. 1: processor 110), which is configured to be able to execute a calibrating spectral measurement (Learmonth, claims 16-17 and [0043]).
Learmonth modified by Talbert appears to be silent to a control unit which is configured to determine calibration data from captured images of a reference surface.
Vrhel, related to spectral imaging, does teach a control unit (There would necessarily be a control unit to perform the method outlined below), which is configured to determine calibration data from captured images of a reference surface (Col. 10, ll. 22 to Col. 12, ll. 37: Calibration data is obtained from measuring a standard reflectance sample surface.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Learmonth combined with Talbert so that a control unit is configured to determine calibration data from captured images of a reference surface, as disclosed by Vrhel. The above-mentioned method has the advantage of being able to compensate for nonuniform illumination across a sample by removing the variation of illumination between the locations on the sample from the recorded data (Col. 10, ll. 51-64 from Vrhel).
Conclusion
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