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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed on 23 August, 2024.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II in the reply filed on 2 July, 2026 is acknowledged.
Examiner notes that the group of claims was incorrectly numbered in the Restriction/Election Requirement filed 6 May, 2026. The correct group numbers are as follows:
Group I encompassing claims 1 – 8 (Originally, 1 - 9).
Group II encompassing claims 9 – 19 (Originally, 10 - 19).
Claim 9 is an independent claim from which claims 10 depends. As the applicant has elected group II without traverse in the reply filed 2 July, 2026, the examiner will examine claims 9 – 19 in the newly corrected group II in this action.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 23 August, 2024 and 14 October, 2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the both abstracts dated 23 August, 2024 contain more than 150 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9 states “a 3D shape”, however 3D has not been defined as to what it is an abbreviation for.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 10 states “2D acquisitions”, however 2D has not been defined as to what it is an abbreviation for.
Claim 10 states on line 5 “aligining”, this appears to be a misspelling of “aligning” and should be corrected.
Claim 10 states “Converting 2D acquisitions” in line 3, however, there is no step in claim 10 or 9 in which a 2D acquisition has been acquired or has been referenced. The examiner believes these “2D acquisitions” to be the “captured images “ of claim 9, but this should be made explicitly clear in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 9 – 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
When reviewing independent claims 9 and 11, and based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, claims 9 and 11 are held to claim an abstract idea without reciting elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and is/are therefore rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. The Examiner will analyze claim 9 and 11 and the rationale, under MPEP § 2106, for this finding is explained below:
The claimed invention (1) must be directed to one of the four statutory categories, and (2) must not be wholly directed to subject matter encompassing a judicially recognized exception, as defined below. The following two step analysis is used to evaluate these criteria.
Step 1: Is the claim directed to one of the four patent-eligible subject matter categories: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
When examining the claim under 35 U.S.C. 101, the Examiner interprets that the claim 9 is related to a machine since the claim is directed to a system and claim 11 is related to a process since the claim is directed to a method for capturing images of one or more objects.
Step 2a, Prong 1: Does the claim wholly embrace a judicially recognized exception, which includes laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas, or is it a particular practical application of a judicial exception?
The Examiner interprets that the judicial exception applies since the claim 9 limitations of “an imaging module for capturing images of one or more objects”, “a 3D shape reconstruction module for reconstructing the 3D shape of the one or more objects based on the captured images”, and “a 3D shape classification module for classifying the 3D shape of the one or more objects based on the reconstructed shape” are directed to an abstract idea or insignificant extra-solution activity. The claim is related to mathematical concept by each limitation merely reciting steps that are performed by mathematic computations.
Additionally, the claim 11 limitation of “capturing images of one or more objects (e.g. particles) to enable reconstruction and classification of the 3D shapes of the one or more objects, the method comprising simultaneously capturing images of the one or more objects from a plurality of different angles” is directed to an abstract idea. The claim is related to a mental process by the limitation of capturing images of one or more objects being entirely directed to an action which can be easily performed by the human mind and capturing them simultaneously is merely insignificant extra-solution activity.
If the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea enumerated in MPEP § 2106.04(a), a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon), the claim requires further analysis in Prong Two.
Step 2a, Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
The Examiner interprets that the claim 9 limitations do not provide additional elements or a combination of additional elements to a practical application since the limitations which are not an abstract idea is insignificant extra-solution activity added to the judicial exception. See, MPEP §2106.05(g), and the claim 11 limitation does not provide additional elements or a combination of additional elements to a practical application since the limitation elements which are not an abstract idea are insignificant extra-solution activity added to the judicial exception. See, MPEP §2106.05(g)
Because a judicial exception is not eligible subject matter, Bilski, 561 U.S. at 601, 95 USPQ2d at 1005-06 (quoting Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. at 309, 206 USPQ at 197 (1980)), if there are no additional claim elements besides the judicial exception, or if the additional claim elements merely recite another judicial exception, that is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See, e.g., RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract"). OR Genetic Techs. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (eligibility "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself."). For a claim reciting a judicial exception to be eligible, the additional elements (if any) in the claim must "transform the nature of the claim" into a patent-eligible application of the judicial exception, Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 217, 110 USPQ2d at 1981, either at Prong Two or in Step 2B. If there are no additional elements in the claim, then it cannot be eligible. In such a case, after making the appropriate rejection (see MPEP § 2106.07 for more information on formulating a rejection for lack of eligibility), it is a best practice for the examiner to recommend an amendment, if possible, that would resolve eligibility of the claim.
Step 2b: If a judicial exception into a practical application is not recited in the claim, the Examiner must interpret if the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The Examiner interprets that claim 9 does not amount to significantly more since claim 9 comprises limitations that are entirely drawn to the judicial exception or are insignificant extra-solution activity.
Furthermore, the generic computer components of the imaging module recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system.
Claims 10 and 12 - 19 depending on the independent claims include all the limitation of the independent claims.
The Examiner finds that claim 10 does not state significantly more since the claim only recites “a calibration framework for converting 2D acquisitions into the same scale and coordinates”, “a calibration framework for aligining the images based on the real positions of the cameras”, and “a calibration system for adjusting a drag system and speed of acquisition”. The Examiner finds that claim 10 does not state significantly more since the claim only recites limitations which are mathematical concepts or generic computer components (a calibration framework understood to be a processor) performing well-understood, routine and conventional activities.
Additionally, the Examiner finds that claim 12 - 19 do not state significantly more since the claims only recite “reconstructing the 3D shape of the one or more objects based on the captured images” and “classifying the 3D shape of the one or more objects based on the reconstructed shape” in claim 12; “capturing images of one or more calibration objects of known sizes and/or shapes” in claim 13; “wherein the calibration procedure further comprises determining a pixel size (e.g. a scale corresponding to an image pixel) of an imaging device based on the known sizes of the one or more calibration objects and the sizes (in pixels) of the one or more calibration objects appearing in an image captured by the imaging device.” in claim 14; “reconstructing the 3D shape of the one or more calibration objects”, “determining the sizes and/or shapes of the one or more calibration objects based on the reconstructed shape”, “comparing the determined sizes and/or shapes with the known sizes and/or shapes”, and “determining one or more calibration factors based on a result of the comparison” in claim 15; “further comprising applying a drag field to the one or more objects to oppose the force of gravity on the one or more objects” in claim 16; “wherein the one or more objects and/or the one or more calibration objects comprise one or more objects and/or calibration objects having at least one of the following scales: - centimetre scale; - millimetre scale; - micron scale; - sub-micron scale.” in claim 17; “the computer program comprising instructions which, when the program is executed by a computer or processor, cause the computer or processor to carry out a method according to claim 11” in claim 18; and “the computer or processor-readable data carrier having stored thereon a computer program according to claim 18.” in claim 19;
The Examiner finds that claims 12 - 19 do not state significantly more since the claims only recites limitations which are mental processes (Claim 13), mathematical concepts (Claims 12, 14, and 15), generic computer components (a calibration framework understood to be a processor) performing well-understood, routine and conventional activities (Claims 18 and 19), or insignificant extra-solution activity (Claim 16 and 17).
Thus, claims 10 and 12 - 19 recite the same abstract idea and therefore are not drawn to the eligible subject matter as they are directed to the abstract idea without significantly more.
Therefore, the Examiner interprets that the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a “a computer program comprising instructions” in claim 18, and “the computer or processor-readable data carrier having stored thereon a computer program” that is non-statutory subject matter. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer-readable medium (also called machine readable medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent. See MPEP 2111.01. A review of the specification reveals that “Any such software may be stored in any suitable form of volatile or non-volatile storage device or medium, for example a ROM, RAM, memory chip, integrated circuit, or an optically or magnetically readable medium (e.g. CD, DVD, magnetic disk or magnetic tape).” On page 3 line 17 – 20.
A claim drawn to such a computer-readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by adding the limitation "a non-transitory computer-readable memory on which the computer program is stored" to the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The limitation of claim 10 which does not appear to be described in the specification is “a calibration framework for converting 2D acquisitions into the same scale and coordinates”. The specification filed 24 August, 2024 states in ¶ 0030: “the technique may further comprise means for calibration of 2D images to remove any potential misalignment and/or blur” but this broad concept does not detail steps related to converting 2D acquisitions into the same scale and coordinates.
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 – 11, 14 – 16, 18 and 19 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.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the 3D shape of the one or more objects” in line 4 and 6, and “the reconstructed shape” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the same scale and coordinates” in lines 3 – 4, and “the real positions of the cameras” in line 5 – 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the 3D shapes” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Additionally, claim 11 recites the limitations "an apparatus for capturing images of one or more objects (e.g. particles)". This renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the example limitation is part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the reconstructed shape” in line 5 – 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the size (in pixels)” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Additionally, claim 14 recites the limitation “determining a pixel size (e.g. a scale corresponding to an image pixel)”. This renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the example limitation is part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 15 recites the limitation “the 3D shape of the one or more calibration objects” in line 3, “the sizes and/or shapes of the one or more calibration objects” in line 4, "the reconstructed shape” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the force of gravity” in line 2 – 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the computer program comprising instructions” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Additionally, claim 18 states “a method according to claim 11”, the examiner believes this should be amended to “the method according to claim 11”.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the computer or processor-readable data carrier” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Additionally, claim 19 states “a computer program according to claim 18”, the examiner believes this should be amended to “the computer program according to claim 18”.
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 limitations are indicated in the table below, alone with corresponding structure and/or lack thereof:
Claim Limitation
Claim Numbers
Structure (PGPUB Citation)
“an imaging module for capturing images”
9
¶ 0080: An imaging device may comprise
a camera (e.g. digital camera), although the skilled
person will appreciate that any other suitable type of imaging
device may be used
“a 3D shape reconstruction module for reconstructing”
9
¶ 0043: In certain examples, the 3D shape reconstruction module 103 may be implemented in the form of software executed by a processor.
“a 3D shape classification module for classifying”
9
¶ 0044: In
certain examples, the 3D shape reconstruction module 103
may be implemented in the form of software executed by a
processor which may be the same processor as used in the 3D shape reconstruction module 103 or a different processor.
“a calibration framework for converting”
10
¶ 0026: Such an apparatus may comprise one or more elements, for example one or more of receivers, transmitters, transceivers, processors, controllers, modules, units, and the like, each element configured to perform one or more corresponding processes, operations and/or method steps for implementing the techniques described herein.
“a calibration framework for aligining”
10
¶ 0026: Such an apparatus may comprise one or more elements, for example one or more of receivers, transmitters, transceivers, processors, controllers, modules, units, and the like, each element configured to perform one or more corresponding processes, operations and/or method steps for implementing the techniques described herein.
“a calibration system for adjusting”
10
¶ 0026: Such an apparatus may comprise one or more elements, for example one or more of receivers, transmitters, transceivers, processors, controllers, modules, units, and the like, each element configured to perform one or more corresponding processes, operations and/or method steps for implementing the techniques described herein.
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.
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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for a patent.
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claim 11 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schafer et al (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2008/0279448 A1, hereinafter “Schafer”).
Regarding claim 11, Schafer teaches a method for capturing images of one or more objects (e.g. particles) to enable reconstruction and classification of the 3D shapes of the one or more objects, the method comprising simultaneously capturing images of the one or more objects from a plurality of different angles (¶ 0100: Observation of the Aligned Particles with the Aid of at Least Two Cameras and Image Acquisition, Recording being Carried Out for all Images on which Particles are at Least Partially Imaged ; ¶ 0104: According to the present invention, the number of observation directions is at least 2, preferably 2, 3 or 4, particularly preferably 4 (Variants 2, 2b, 2c)…. In general, the number of cameras corresponds to the number of observation directions.; ¶ 0116: All cameras which can be operated synchronously are suitable in principle for in-time acquisition of the images (see bae) and bbb));).
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.
Claims 9, 10, 12, 13, and 16 - 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schafer et al (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2008/0279448 A1, hereinafter “Schafer”) in view of Milne et al (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2014/017793 A1, hereinafter “Milne”)
Regarding claim 9, Schafer teaches a system comprising:
- an imaging module (¶ 0100: Observation of the Aligned Particles with the Aid of at Least Two Cameras and Image Acquisition, Recording being Carried Out for all Images on which Particles are at Least Partially Imaged) for capturing images of one or more objects (¶ 0100: After the image acquisition, it is possible to process i.e. evaluate a selected image set of a particle directly and subsequently measure the next particle, or firstly store the selected image set of a particle without further evaluation and measure the next particle after storage.);
- (¶ 0141: All the methods known to the person skilled in the art may be used in order to reconstruct and represent the individual three-dimensional shape of the particles (3D bodies) from the projection images obtained in step b)); and
- (¶ 0162: For determining the actual volume of each particle, the software program therefore comprises matching parameters which are assumed according to the known shape of the particles, in order to carry out corresponding extrapolations (convex correction).).
Schafer does not explicitly teach a 3D reconstruction module and a 3D shape classification module.
However, Milne does teach a 3D reconstruction module (¶ 0030: the computer program product comprising non-volatile, machine-readable instructions, which, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to…).
Additionally, Milne teaches a 3D shape classification module (¶ 0030: the computer program product comprising non-volatile, machine-readable instructions, which, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to…) for classifying the 3D shape of the one or more objects based on the reconstructed shape (¶ 0290: Once three-dimensional positioning of the particles has been established, one can associate with these positions the size and shape measurements obtained from two dimensional images from some or all of the imagers 110)
Milne is considered to be analogous art as it pertains to 3D object imaging and detection. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the device for automatically determining the individual three-dimensional shape of particles (as taught by Schafer) and the methods for nondestructive detection of undissolved particles in a fluid (as taught by Milne) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation for this combination of references would be the method of Milne runs two imaging sensors simultaneously with a half-cycle relative phase offset which improves the temporal resolution by a factor of two. These two image streams can then be combined to provide a single movie at double the nominal sensor rate (See ¶ 0170).
This motivation for the combination of Schafer and Milne is supported by KSR exemplary rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141 (III).
Regarding claim 10, the Schafer and Milne combination teaches the system according to claim 9.
Additionally, Schafer teaches further comprising one or more of:
- a calibration system (¶ 0030: the computer program product comprising non-volatile, machine-readable instructions, which, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to…) for adjusting a drag system and speed of acquisition (¶ 0075: In a dry environment (generally for samples in powder form), the particles are as a rule in contact with two plane surfaces (bearing surfaces, cuvette walls) when they are drawn by gravitational force or centrifugal force in the direction of the intersection line of these surfaces… Besides the gravitational force, it is also possible to use centrifugal forces (see Variant 3-2b, FIG. 12).; ¶ 0091: Otherwise, e.g. with entrained deliveries, the particles may be scraped, brushed or sucked off, e.g. with delivery in a centrifugal field (Variant 3-2b, FIG. 12).; ¶ 0127: Double-buffered image triggering, image exposure, image transmission, image processing and image storage are also advantageous. Image rates of the order of 40ms are therefore generally possible, but slower in simple systems or even much faster ( e.g. 5-10ms) when using more powerful hardware.).
Additionally, Milne teaches a calibration framework (¶ 0030: the computer program product comprising non-volatile, machine-readable instructions, which, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to…) for converting 2D acquisitions into the same scale and coordinates (¶ 0265: For example, FIG. 32 shows a histogram for the detected image size for a population of standard sized (as shown 100 µm diameter) particles (polymer micro spheres) in a fluid acquired using a system where distortion from the container has not been corrected (corresponding to the situation shown in FIG. SE). A significant variation in apparent image sizes due to container distortion effects is clearly shown.; ¶ 0269: Once the calibration curves have been determined, the apparent size distribution curve for a sample with particles having unknown sized may be obtained (e.g., from a static image or images, or any other suitable technique). The sample curve may be obtained under the same or similar experimental conditions (e.g., the same or similar container size and shape, fluid properties, illumination conditions, imaging conditions, etc.), This sample curve is compared to the calibration curves to determine information indicative of the sizes of the particles in the sample.);
- a calibration framework (¶ 0030: the computer program product comprising non-volatile, machine-readable instructions, which, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to…) for aligining the images based on the real positions of the cameras (¶ 0281: To account for this, the imagers 110 may be calibrated by imaging a known calibration fixture. Any sufficiently small lateral or vertical alignment deviations can then be accounted for by re-sampling and shifting the captured images accordingly. In some embodiments, the images may be processed to correct for variations in sensitivity or other performance characteristic differences between the different sensors used in the imagers 110.);
Milne is considered to be analogous art as it pertains to 3D object imaging and detection. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the device for automatically determining the individual three-dimensional shape of particles (as taught by Schafer) and the methods for nondestructive detection of undissolved particles in a fluid (as taught by Milne) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation for this combination of references would be the method of Milne runs two imaging sensors simultaneously with a half-cycle relative phase offset which improves the temporal resolution by a factor of two. These two image streams can then be combined to provide a single movie at double the nominal sensor rate (See ¶ 0170).
Regarding claim 12, Schafer teaches the method according to claim 11.
Additionally, Schafer teaches further comprising one or more of:
- reconstructing the 3D shape of the one or more objects based on the captured images (¶ 0141: All the methods known to the person skilled in the art may be used in order to reconstruct and represent the individual three-dimensional shape of the particles (3D bodies) from the projection images obtained in step b)); and
- classifying the 3D shape of the one or more objects based on the reconstructed shape (¶ 0162: For determining the actual volume of each particle, the software program therefore comprises matching parameters which are assumed according to the known shape of the particles, in order to carry out corresponding extrapolations (convex correction).).
Additionally, Milne teaches classifying the 3D shape of the one or more objects based on the reconstructed shape (¶ 0290: Once three-dimensional positioning of the particles has been established, one can associate with these positions the size and shape measurements obtained from two dimensional images from some or all of the imagers 110)
Milne is considered to be analogous art as it pertains to 3D object imaging and detection. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the device for automatically determining the individual three-dimensional shape of particles (as taught by Schafer) and the methods for nondestructive detection of undissolved particles in a fluid (as taught by Milne) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation for this combination of references would be the method of Milne runs two imaging sensors simultaneously with a half-cycle relative phase offset which improves the temporal resolution by a factor of two. These two image streams can then be combined to provide a single movie at double the nominal sensor rate (See ¶ 0170).
Regarding claim 13, the Schafer and Milne combination teaches the method according to claim 12.
Additionally, Milne teaches further comprising performing a calibration procedure, wherein the calibration procedure comprises:
- capturing images of one or more calibration objects of known sizes and/or shapes (¶ 0281: To account for this, the imagers 110 may be calibrated by imaging a known calibration fixture.; ¶ 0316: For example, in some embodiments, one or more calibration indicia ( e.g., a grid) may be placed behind the container 10 as a background for an imager 110. By detecting these indicia in the acquired image ( e.g., using edge detection or other suitable feature detection techniques), and comparing their appearance to the known actual appearance, the refractive distortion may be detected and mapped.);
Milne is considered to be analogous art as it pertains to 3D object imaging and detection. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the device for automatically determining the individual three-dimensional shape of particles (as taught by Schafer) and the methods for nondestructive detection of undissolved particles in a fluid (as taught by Milne) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation for this combination of references would be the method of Milne runs two imaging sensors simultaneously with a half-cycle relative phase offset which improves the temporal resolution by a factor of two. These two image streams can then be combined to provide a single movie at double the nominal sensor rate (See ¶ 0170).
Regarding claim 16, Schafer teaches the method according to claim 11.
Additionally, Schafer teaches further comprising applying a drag field to the one or more objects to oppose the force of gravity on the one or more objects (¶ 0075: In a dry environment (generally for samples in powder form), the particles are as a rule in contact with two plane surfaces (bearing surfaces, cuvette walls) when they are drawn by gravitational force or centrifugal force in the direction of the intersection line of these surfaces… Besides the gravitational force, it is also possible to use centrifugal forces (see Variant 3-2b, FIG. 12).; ¶ 0091: Otherwise, e.g. with entrained deliveries, the particles may be scraped, brushed or sucked off, e.g. with delivery in a centrifugal field (Variant 3-2b, FIG. 12).; ¶ 0127: Double-buffered image triggering, image exposure, image transmission, image processing and image storage are also advantageous. Image rates of the order of 40ms are therefore generally possible, but slower in simple systems or even much faster ( e.g. 5-10ms) when using more powerful hardware.).
Regarding claim 17, the Schafer and Milne combination teaches the method according to claim 11.
Additionally, Schafer teaches wherein the one or more objects and/or the one or more calibration objects comprise one or more objects and/or calibration objects having at least one of the following scales:
- centimetre scale;
- millimetre scale;
- micron scale (¶ 0093: The dimensions of the product delivery channels and the magnification scales can be adapted to the particle size. There is in principle no upper limit, and 20 to 300 μm can be regarded as a lower limit for dry delivery (sample in the form of powder) depending on the product. For wet delivery (Variant 4, see FIG. 16) in the form of dispersions, which is recommendable for handling non-flowable particles, particles can be detected beyond about 2 μm, and first shape information can be sensibly obtained beyond about 5 μm.);
- sub-micron scale.
Additionally, Milne teaches a micron scale (¶ 0128: Depending on its construction, the vial tray 170
may hold the containers 10 in predefined positions to within micron-scale tolerances to facilitate container retrieval and insertion by the robot 180, which may operate with micron scale
precision.)
Regarding claim 18, Milne teaches the computer program comprising instructions which, when the program is executed by a computer or processor, cause the computer or processor to carry out a method according to claim 11 (¶ 0030: the computer program product comprising non-volatile, machine-readable instructions, which, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to…) as taught by Schafer.
Additionally, Milne is considered to be analogous art as it pertains to 3D object imaging and detection. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the device for automatically determining the individual three-dimensional shape of particles (as taught by Schafer) and the methods for nondestructive detection of undissolved particles in a fluid (as taught by Milne) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation for this combination of references would be the method of Milne runs two imaging sensors simultaneously with a half-cycle relative phase offset which improves the temporal resolution by a factor of two. These two image streams can then be combined to provide a single movie at double the nominal sensor rate (See ¶ 0170).
Regarding claim 19, Milne teaches the computer or processor-readable data carrier having stored thereon a computer program (¶ 0030: the computer program product comprising non-volatile, machine-readable instructions, which, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to…) according to claim 18 as taught by Schafer.
Milne is considered to be analogous art as it pertains to 3D object imaging and detection. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the device for automatically determining the individual three-dimensional shape of particles (as taught by Schafer) and the methods for nondestructive detection of undissolved particles in a fluid (as taught by Milne) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation for this combination of references would be the method of Milne runs two imaging sensors simultaneously with a half-cycle relative phase offset which improves the temporal resolution by a factor of two. These two image streams can then be combined to provide a single movie at double the nominal sensor rate (See ¶ 0170).
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.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schafer et al (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2008/0279448 A1, hereinafter “Schafer”) in view of Milne et al (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2014/017793 A1, hereinafter “Milne”) and further in view of Wexler et al (U.S. Patent 10346999 B1, hereinafter “Wexler”).
Regarding claim 14, the Schafer and Milne combination teaches the method according to claim 13.
Schafer does not explicitly teach wherein the calibration procedure further comprises determining a pixel size (e.g. a scale corresponding to an image pixel) of an imaging device based on the known sizes of the one or more calibration objects and the sizes (in pixels) of the one or more calibration objects appearing in an image captured by the imaging device.
However, Berger does teach wherein the calibration procedure further comprises determining a pixel size (e.g. a scale corresponding to an image pixel) of an imaging device based on the known sizes of the one or more calibration objects and the sizes (in pixels) of the one or more calibration objects appearing in an image captured by the imaging device (Figure 19, 23; Col. 25, Line 63 – Col. 26, Line 9: This method is used to determine the reference object pixel dimensions and calibration factors (pixel scale factor, or pixels per unit length). The reference object is found by determining the fiducial pattern characteristics, such as printed pattern type (e.g., chessboard or dots, hourglasses), features, size and nominal location relative to paper edges based on the digital file that was sent to the user (step 260).).
Wexler is considered to be analogous art as it pertains to digital image object measurement. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the device for automatically determining the individual three-dimensional shape of particles (as taught by Schafer) and the system of measuring distances related to an object using ancillary objects (as taught by Wexler) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation for this combination of references would be the system of Wexler utilizes a dark background behind the image subject which eliminates the potential for irrelevant shapes to be present in the captured digital images, thus simplifying the process of identifying relevant features, such as the reference object (See Col. 18, ¶ 24 - 27).
This motivation for the combination of Schafer, Milne, and Wexler is supported by KSR exemplary rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141 (III).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schafer et al (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2008/0279448 A1, hereinafter “Schafer”) in view of Milne et al (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2014/017793 A1, hereinafter “Milne”) and further in view of Berger et al (U.S. Patent Publication 2021/0183152 A1, hereinafter “Berger”).
Regarding claim 15, the Schafer and Milne combination teaches the method according to claim 13.
Schafer does not explicitly teach wherein the calibration procedure further comprises: - reconstructing the 3D shape of the one or more calibration objects; - determining the sizes and/or shapes of the one or more calibration objects based on the reconstructed shape; - comparing the determined sizes and/or shapes with the known sizes and/or shapes; and - determining one or more calibration factors based on a result of the comparison.
However, Berger does teach wherein the calibration procedure further comprises:
- reconstructing the 3D shape of the one or more calibration objects (¶ 0047: The calibration object may be precisely mapped to obtain a ground-truth representation… Thus, the ground-truth representation may be a dense point cloud depicting the different features described above. In this way, precise measurements of the calibration object may be stored in the ground-truth representation.);
- determining the sizes and/or shapes of the one or more calibration objects based on the reconstructed shape (¶ 0047: Reconstructed objects may be generated based on images of the calibration object at difference positions on the stage.);
- comparing the determined sizes and/or shapes with the known sizes and/or shapes (¶ 0047: To determine a reconstruction accuracy, differences between a reconstructed object and the ground-truth representation may be determined.); and
- determining one or more calibration factors based on a result of the comparison (¶ 0049: Example reconstruction quality information may also indicate a quality score associated with a reconstructed object. For example, the quality score may indicate an overall score determined based on differences between the reconstructed object and ground-truth representation… Thus, there may be a multitude of quality scores corresponding to the different features.; ¶ 0074: In some embodiments, the reconstruction quality information 404 may be provided to the reconstruction engine 410 to adjust an algorithm or process associated with generating reconstructed objects 412. For example, the reconstruction quality information 404 may indicate an error per point of a point cloud. The reconstruction engine 410 may update weights of a neural network, fine-tune variables of a reconstruction algorithm, and so on, based on the errors.).
Berger is considered to be analogous art as it pertains to volumetric object imaging and measurement. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the device for automatically determining the individual three-dimensional shape of particles (as taught by Schafer) and the enhanced techniques for volumetric stage mapping based on calibration object (as taught by Berger) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation for this combination of references would be the system of Berger employs the user moving the calibration object or placing additional sensors in certain positions to improve the unacceptable quality and increase the accuracy of the reconstruction (See ¶ 0034)
This motivation for the combination of Schafer, Milne, and Berger is supported by KSR exemplary rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141 (III).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sivan et al (U.S. Patent Publication 2021/0056365 A1) teaches a system and method for object detection comprising, receiving a plurality of images of one or more objects captured by imaging sensor(s), receiving an object classification coupled with a first probability score from machine learning model(s) trained to detect the object(s) and applied to the image(s), computing a second probability score for classification of the object(s) according to physical attribute(s) of the object(s) estimated by analyzing the image(s), computing a third probability score for classification of the object(s) according to a movement pattern of the object(s) estimated by analyzing at least some consecutive images, computing an aggregated probability score aggregating the first, second and third probability scores, and outputting, in case the aggregated probability score exceeds a certain threshold, the classification of each object coupled with the aggregated probability score for use by object detection based system(s). This art additionally teaches a determination of the scale between a pixel size and a real world measurement according or one or more predefined and known physical attributes of one or more objects detected in one or more images captured by the imaging sensors.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW JONES whose telephone number is (703)756-4573. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-5:00 EST, off Every Other Friday.
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, Matthew Bella can be reached at (571) 272-7778. 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.
/ANDREW B. JONES/Examiner, Art Unit 2667
/MATTHEW C BELLA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2667
Prosecution Insights