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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 18 is dependent on claim 17 which is canceled. For the purpose of examination, it will be interpreted that claim 18 is dependent on claim 1.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 12, 15, and 18 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.
Regarding claim 12, the claim limitation “a common sensor is used as the-calibrating photosensor and as the detecting photosensor” is indefinite insofar as the examiner is unclear about the structure of “a common sensor is used as the-calibrating photosensor and as the detecting photosensor” and it is impossible to determine the intending scope of the structure of “a common sensor is used as the-calibrating photosensor and as the detecting photosensor” in claim 12. For example: the claim could mean that the calibrating and detecting photosensors are the same sensor and there is then only one sensor. The claim could also mean the calibrating and detecting photosensors are made of the same type of photosensor but are two different detectors. The claim could also mean that the calibrating and detecting sensors are different sensors and may be different types of sensors and the rarity of both sensors is common. It is impossible to determine the intended scope of the claim. Therefore, it is indefinite.
For the purpose of examination, the claim will be interpreted as “one sensor is used as the calibrating photosensor and as the detecting photosensor”
Regarding claim 15, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 15 recites the broad recitation wherein the acquisition of the absorption or reflection spectra is carried out by the calibrating photosensor and the detecting photosensor by means of hyperspectral acquisition, and the claim also recites and in particular by means of a color camera which is the narrower statement of the limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
For the purposes of examination, either a means of hyperspectral acquisition or a color camera will anticipate the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation " the measuring laboratory." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 19, the claim recites: a device for determining whether an oily fruit, a nut, or a seed is putrid, comprising a calibrating light source, a detecting light source, a calibrating photosensor, and a detecting photosensor, wherein the device configured for carrying out a method as claimed in claim 1. The structural components of a calibrating light source, a detecting light source, a calibrating photosensor, and a detecting photosensor are all recited in claim 1. Additionally, the device of claim 19 can exist without performing the method of claim 1 meaning one could infringe on claim 19 without infringing on claim 1, and the device of claim 1 could perform methods other than that recited in claim 1 and thus does not include the limitations of the base claim (see MPEP 608.01(n).II.).
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
For the purposes of examination, only the structural components of the claim will be considered as if claim 19 were an independent claim.
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, 5, 7, 8, 11-16, 18-20, 22-22, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paltauf et al. US 2020/0378941 in view of Qi et al. CN 113420614.
Regarding claim 1, Paltauf teaches a method for determining whether an oily fruit, a nut, or a seed is putrid (#2; para. 0052), comprising at least the following calibration steps (para. 0037):
a) irradiating a sample of an oily fruit, a nut, or a seed with a calibrating light source (#3; para. 0052)
b) acquiring an absorption or reflection spectrum in a wavelength range of 300- 2500 nm by means of a calibrating photosensor (#4; para. 0052),
c) associating at least one characteristic wavelength or at least one characteristic wavelength range of the acquired absorption or reflection spectrum of the sample with a degree of putrescence (para. 0053),
d) repeating the preceding steps for a representative number of samples (para. 0023, 0058) and forming a correlation between the degree of putrescence and the associated wavelengths or wavelength ranges of the acquired absorption or reflection spectra (para. 0071 “In doing so, regions of the spectrum are looked for in which the difference in characteristics is very large or, respectively, the correlation to a sought-after substance is very high in contrast to other substances. The identified region(s) is/are then selected for the sorting process, and the respective spectra are normalized. That is, the absolute amplitudes of the spectrum are eliminated, and only the differences between the spectra of the good and bad products are used for the decision in sorting”), wherein the method then comprises the following detection steps (para. 0060 “detection process”), preferably in the following order:
e) irradiating an oily fruit, a nut, or a seed with a detecting light source (para. 0060)
f) acquiring absorption or reflection spectra in a wavelength range of 300-2500 nm by means of a detecting photosensor (para. 0061),
g) associating a degree of putrescence of the detecting photosensor by applying the correlation in accordance with step d) to the absorption or reflection spectra acquired from the pixels of the detecting photosensor (para. 0062-0064; applying the spectra to the rancidity table),
h) classifying the oily fruit, the nut, or the seed as putrid when exceeding a threshold value (para. 0065).
Paltauf fails to teach in step f) wherein the detecting photosensor has a plurality of pixels and each acquires one absorption or reflection spectrum per pixel; in step g) wherein the degree of putrescence is associated on a pixel-by-pixel basis; and in step h) wherein the threshold value is either a specific number of pixels exceeding a threshold value and/or at least one pixel exceeds a second threshold value.
Qi teaches a method for determining a nut’s putrescence wherein each pixel of the photosensor acquires a spectra; the degree of putrescence is determined on a pixel-by-pixel basis; and when the ratio of healthy to non-healthy pixels exceeds a threshold value then classifying the nut as putrid (pg. 6 step (8) “due to the presence of the same-spectrum and foreign-spectrum phenomenon, there is error condition between healthy peanut pixel and mildew pixel. Therefore, the number of mildew pixel in peanut reaches a certain proportion, can determine the occurrence of mildew. setting the proportion threshold value β; for each peanut to be identified, when the mildew pixel number ratio is lower than the threshold value β is judged to be health, otherwise judging it is mildew”) for the purpose of reducing errors from same-spectrum and foreign-spectrum phenomenon (pg. 6 step (8)).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have in step f) wherein the detecting photosensor has a plurality of pixels and each acquires one absorption or reflection spectrum per pixel; in step g) wherein the degree of putrescence is associated on a pixel-by-pixel basis; and in step h) wherein the threshold value is either a specific number of pixels exceeding a threshold value and/or at least one pixel exceeds a second threshold value as taught by Qi in the method of Paltauf for the purpose of reducing errors from same-spectrum and foreign-spectrum phenomenon.
Regarding claim 4, Paltauf teaches wherein characterized in that a wavelength range of 900-1700 nm is used in step b) (para. 0017).
Regarding claim 5, Paltauf teaches wherein after step b), at least one degree of putrescence is determined with the aid of the content of at least one fatty acid decomposition product in the sample (para. 0025, 0032, 0039).
Regarding claim 7, Paltauf teaches wherein the degree of putrescence is determined with the aid of the contents of at least two fatty acid decomposition products in the oily fruit (fig. 3).
Regarding claim 8, , Paltauf teaches wherein several components of the fatty acid decomposition products (fig. 3) which have the largest difference in concentration between good and putrid oily fruits, nuts, or seeds are searched for (para. 0071 “In a modelling process, the photometrically detected spectral profiles of good products are compared to the bad product. In doing so, regions of the spectrum are looked for in which the difference in characteristics is very large or, respectively, the correlation to a sought-after substance is very high in contrast to other substances.”).
Regarding claim 9, Paltauf teaches wherein the correlation is at least one correlation function (para. 0003 “calibration curve”) or at least one index table (para. 0014 “rancidity index table”) or a value table, or comprises at least one comparison of spectral information which comprises at least the degree of putrescence of the oily fruit and the wavelengths or wavelength ranges of the acquired absorption or reflection spectra associated therewith (figs. 2, 3; para. 0056-0057, 0062-0064).
Regarding claim 11, Paltauf teaches wherein a wavelength range of 900-1700 nm is used in step e) (claim 15; para. 0014).
Regarding claim 12, , Paltauf teaches wherein a common sensor is used as the-calibrating photosensor and as the detecting photosensor (see Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112; fig. 4 #4).
Regarding claim 13, Paltauf does not specifically disclose the calibrating light source and the detecting light source are integral. However, the fact that the parts are integral is not sufficient by itself to patentably distinguish over an otherwise old device unless there are new or unexpected result (MPEP 2144). Also, making the parts integral would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made because reducing number of parts would decrease the cost of the device and reduce the manufacturing cost and process.
Regarding claim 14, Paltauf teaches wherein the association of the at least one characteristic wavelength or of the at least one characteristic wavelength range of the acquired absorption or reflection spectrum of the sample with the degree of putrescence (para. 0062-0064) is carried out by means of at least one mean, a bandwidth, or individual frequency bands of the acquired absorption or reflection spectrum (para. 0066 “comparing an average, a bandwidth or individual frequency bands of the absorption or reflection spectra, or a combination thereof”).
Regarding claim 15, Paltauf teaches wherein the acquisition of the absorption or reflection spectra is carried out by the calibrating photosensor and the detecting photosensor by means of hyperspectral acquisition (para. 0037 “hyperspectral imaging”; para. 0061 “hyperspectral camera”) and in particular by means of a color camera.
Regarding claim 16, Paltauf teaches wherein the correlation in an operating mode which is characterized by the detection steps is used in order (see Claim 1; para. 0060-0065) to associate a corresponding measured value for the degree of putrescence with newly recorded spectra (para. 0078).
Regarding claim 18, Paltauf teaches wherein a reference value based on the calibration by means of the determined correlation between spectral data and the measuring laboratory (para. 0080-0083).
Paltauf fails to teach the reference value corresponding to each pixel.
Qi teaches a method for determining a nut’s putrescence wherein each pixel of the photosensor acquires a spectra; the degree of putrescence is determined on a pixel-by-pixel basis; and when the ratio of healthy to non-healthy pixels exceeds a threshold value then classifying the nut as putrid (pg. 6 step (8) “due to the presence of the same-spectrum and foreign-spectrum phenomenon, there is error condition between healthy peanut pixel and mildew pixel. Therefore, the number of mildew pixel in peanut reaches a certain proportion, can determine the occurrence of mildew. setting the proportion threshold value β; for each peanut to be identified, when the mildew pixel number ratio is lower than the threshold value β is judged to be health, otherwise judging it is mildew”) for the purpose of reducing errors from same-spectrum and foreign-spectrum phenomenon (pg. 6 step (8)).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the reference value corresponding to each pixel as taught by Qi in the method of Paltauf for the purpose of reducing errors from same-spectrum and foreign-spectrum phenomenon.
Regarding claim 19, Paltauf teaches a device for determining whether an oily fruit, a nut, or a seed is putrid (fig. 4), comprising a calibrating light source (#3, 3’; para. 0052), a detecting light source (#3, 3’; para. 0061), a calibrating photosensor (#4; para. 0052), and a detecting photosensor (#4; para. 0061), wherein the device configured for carrying out a method as claimed in claim 1.
Regarding claim 20, Paltauf teaches wherein the device comprises a sorting unit (#6), wherein the sorting unit is configured to reject an oily fruit, a nut, or a seed from a product stream when the oily fruit, the nut, or the seed is classified as putrid (para. 0066, 0069; claim 14).
Regarding claim 22, Paltauf fails to teach wherein the sorting unit operates at least with two adjustable threshold values, wherein a first adjustable threshold value comprises a substance quantity for a pixel and the second adjustable threshold value comprises a non-homogeneous distribution of the substance, in which for sorting, the second adjustable threshold value takes into consideration the number of pixels with the attribution: putrid.
Qi teaches a method for determining a nut’s putrescence wherein each pixel of the photosensor acquires a spectra; the degree of putrescence is determined on a pixel-by-pixel basis; and when the ratio of healthy to non-healthy pixels exceeds a threshold value then classifying the nut as putrid (pg. 6 step (8) “due to the presence of the same-spectrum and foreign-spectrum phenomenon, there is error condition between healthy peanut pixel and mildew pixel. Therefore, the number of mildew pixel in peanut reaches a certain proportion, can determine the occurrence of mildew. setting the proportion threshold value β; for each peanut to be identified, when the mildew pixel number ratio is lower than the threshold value β is judged to be health, otherwise judging it is mildew”) for the purpose of reducing errors from same-spectrum and foreign-spectrum phenomenon (pg. 6 step (8)).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the sorting unit operates at least with two adjustable threshold values, wherein a first adjustable threshold value comprises a substance quantity for a pixel and the second adjustable threshold value comprises a non-homogeneous distribution of the substance, in which for sorting, the second adjustable threshold value takes into consideration the number of pixels with the attribution: putridas taught by Qi in the method of Paltauf for the purpose of reducing errors from same-spectrum and foreign-spectrum phenomenon.
Regarding claim 23, Paltauf teaches wherein the device comprises a processing unit which evaluates spectral data (#5; para. 0003 “a computer unit analyzes the absorption or reflection spectrum”).
Regarding claim 25, Paltauf teaches a computer program product (#5) comprising program commands (a computer unit implies programs to operate the computer) which are configured to carry out at least a method as claimed in claims 1 (see Claim 1).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paltauf et al. US 2020/0378941 and Qi et al. CN 113420614 in further view of Akiyama et al US 2021/0140887.
Regarding claim 6, Paltauf discloses claim 6 except that the fatty acid decomposition product comprises acetic acid, pentanoic acid, and/or hexanoic acid (fig. 3) instead of at least one component from the group: butyrolactone, diacetyl, 2-methylbutanal, 3-methylbutanal, acetylacetone, filbertone or 2,3-butanediol, Akiyama teaches that different food release different “objective components” which include at least acetic acid and 3-methylbutanal (para. 0030). Therefore, because at least acetic acid and 3-methylbutanal were art-recognized equivalent degradation components at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute butyrolactone, diacetyl, 2-methylbutanal, 3-methylbutanal, acetylacetone, filbertone or 2,3-butanediol for acetic acid, pentanoic acid, and/or hexanoic acid.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paltauf et al. US 2020/0378941 and Qi et al. CN 113420614 in further view of the article “Neocognitron: A Self-organizing Neural Network Model for a Mechanism of Pattern Recognition Unaffected by Shift in Position” by Fukushima.
Regarding claim 24, Paltauf and Qi fails to teach an Al module is present which is linked to the processing unit.
Fukushima teaches neural networks (AI module) can improve pattern-recognition computational tasks (pg. 201 col. 2 3rd full paragraph) which improves the accuracy of sorting tasks.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an Al module is present which is linked to the processing unit as taught by Fukushima in the device of Paltauf and Qi for the purpose of improving the accuracy.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Richard Toohey whose telephone number is (703)756-5818. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 7:30am – 5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, the 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, Uzma Alam can be reached on (571)272-2995. The fax number for the organization where this application or processing 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.
/RICHARD O TOOHEY/Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/EDWIN C GUNBERG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884