CTNF 18/869,042 CTNF 84133 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Specification 06-16 AIA Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains two paragraphs. 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). 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA 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. 07-30-06 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: “spectral unit” in combination of “separates”, “a spectral front end” in combination of “generates”, and “a spectral reflectance calculation section” in combination of “calculate” in claims 1 and 25. 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. “a diffraction grating” is closed for a spectral unit in the specification. No devices are disclosed for a spectral front end and a spectral reflance calculation section. Therefore, the 112(a) and (b) rejections are set forth below. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-01 AIA 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. 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-31-01 Claims 1 – 23 and 25 are 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. As discussed above. 07-34-01 Claims 1 – 23 and 25 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. As discussed above. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 1 – 6 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2021 – 67611 A (hereunder Araya, See provided a translation copy) . With respect to independent claim 1, Araya teaches in Figs. 1 – 5 an imaging device comprising: a spectral unit diffraction grating 125; see paragraph [0018] that separates incident light coming from a measurement target; a spectral front end multi-channel photodetector 127 that generates spectral Raw data on a basis of a spectral result obtained by the spectral unit; a spectral reflectance calculation section 130; see paragraph [0018] that calculates spectral reflectance of the measurement target on a basis of the spectral Raw data; a visualized image forming section as shown in Fig. 5 that forms a visualized image on a basis of a specific value of the spectral reflectance; and a display section that displays the visualized image in real time as shown in Fig. 5 . With respect to dependent claim 2, Araya teaches in paragraph [0047] a state information calculation section thickness that calculates state information indicating a state of the measurement target, on the basis of the specific value of the spectral reflectance, wherein the visualized image forming section forms the visualized image on a basis of the state information. With respect to dependent claim 3, Araya teaches in paragraph [0048] a spectral radiance calculation section that calculates spectral radiance from the spectral Raw data, wherein the state information calculation section calculates the state information indicating the state of the measurement target, on a basis of the spectral radiance and the spectral reflectance. With respect to dependent claim 4, Araya teaches in paragraph [0048] wherein the spectral reflectance calculation section calculates the spectral reflectance of the measurement target on the basis of the spectral radiance. With respect to dependent claim 5, Araya teaches a diffraction grating and therefore wherein the spectral unit separates the incident light into at least four types or more of wavelength bands including visible light and near infrared light. With respect to dependent claim 6, as discussed above Araya teaches diffraction grating, and therefore wherein the spectral unit is of a spectral type using diffraction gratings (CTIS: Computed Tomography Imaging Spectrometer), a surface plasmon resonance type, a Fourier spectral type, a Fabry-Perot type, and a multi-lens band-pass filter type. With respect to independent claim 25, as discussed above Araya teaches A program causing a computer to operate as: a spectral unit diffraction grating that separates incident light coming from a measurement target sample S ; a spectral front end 125 that generates spectral Raw data on a basis of a spectral result obtained by the spectral unit; a spectral reflectance calculation section 130 that calculates spectral reflectance of the measurement target on a basis of the spectral Raw data; a visualized image forming section that forms a visualized image on the basis of a specific value of the spectral reflectance; and a display section that displays the visualized image in real time as discussed above . 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2016/152900 A1 (hereunder D1, See provided a translation copy) . With respect to independent claim 24, D1 teaches an operation method of an imaging device, the operation method comprising steps of: separating via filter group 32 incident light coming from a measurement target; generating spectral Raw data RGB in the bottom paragraph on p. 11 on a basis of a spectral result of the incident light; calculating see the third paragraph on p. 12 spectral reflectance of the measurement target on a basis of the spectral Raw data; forming image generation unit 24 a visualized image on a basis of a specific value of the spectral reflectance; and displaying via display 4 the visualized image in real time . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 7 – 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Araya, and further in view of Noguchi (US 2017/0118925 A1) . The teaching of Araya has been discussed above. With respect to dependent claim 7, Araya is silent with wherein the state information includes at least any one of a vegetation index of a plant corresponding to the measurement target and a trait and an environmental response of the plant. Noguchi, a pertinent art, teaches in paragraph [0076] determining vegetation index by measuring reflected light from plants. In view of this, it would be obvious at the time of the claimed invention was filed to modify the teaching of Araya in order to determine desired characteristics of desired sample by known reflectance measurements. This is in consistency with the Supreme Court Decision of the KSR. V. International Co .: applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results . With respect to dependent claim 8, Noguchi teaches wherein the vegetation index includes at least any one of an NDVI (Normalized Difference Vegetation Index) in paragraph [0076] and a PRI (Photochemical Reflectance Index) of the plant corresponding to the measurement target. With respect to dependent claim 9, Araya teaches in paragraph [0168] wherein the trait and the environmental response of the plant includes at least any one of information associated with photosynthesis and an environmental stress response of the plant corresponding to the measurement target . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Araya, and further in view of Tsuno (JP 2004 – 354098) . The teaching of Araya has been discussed above. With respect to dependent claim 10, Araya is silent with wherein the state information is information indicating a deterioration state of concrete corresponding to the measurement target. In clay 1 of Tsuno, Tsuno, a pertinent art, teaches determining deterioration of concrete by measuring reflected light. In view of this, it would be obvious at the time of the claimed invention was filed to modify the teaching of Araya in order to determine desired condition of desired sample by a known spectral measurement. This is in consistency with the Supreme Court Decision of the KSR. V. International Co .: applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 11 – 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Araya, and further in view of D1 . The teaching of Araya has been discussed above. With respect to dependent claim 11, Araya is silent with wherein the state information calculation section generates the state information including two-dimensional data, and the visualized image forming section forms a color map image as the visualized image by applying color mapping according to a value of the state information including the two- dimensional data. In the bottom paragraph on p. 16, D1, a pertinent art, teaches the image generation unit 24 determines the values of multiple primary colors. In view of this, it would be obvious at the time of the claimed invention was filed to modify the teaching of Araya in order to present desired results in desired format. This is in consistency with the Supreme Court Decision of the KSR. V. International Co .: applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results . With respect to dependent claim 12, D1 teaches in the bottom paragraph on p. 16 an RGB image forming section that forms an RGB image on the basis of the spectral reflectance; andan image synthesizing section that synthesizes the RGB image and the color map image to form a synthetic image, wherein the display section displays the synthetic image as the visualized image. With respect to dependent claim 13, D1 teaches in the last two lines on p. 26 – first two lines on p. 27 wherein the image synthesizing section superimposes the color map image of a region exhibiting a larger value than a predetermined value or a region exhibiting a lower value than the predetermined value on the RGB image, on a basis of the state information including the two-dimensional data, and synthesizes the color map image and the RGB image to form the synthetic image. With respect to dependent claim 14, as discussed above D1 teaches wherein the image synthesizing section synthesizes the RGB image of a region exhibiting a larger value than a predetermined value or a region exhibiting a lower value than the predetermined value with a masking image that masks regions other than the region, on a basis of the state information including the two-dimensional data, to form the synthetic image. With respect to dependent claim 15, as discussed above D1 teaches wherein the image synthesizing section forms the synthetic image that highlights, on the RGB image, a region exhibiting a larger value than a predetermined value or a region exhibiting a lower value than the predetermined value, on a basis of the state information including the two-dimensional data . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 16 – 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Araya, and further in view of Noguchi and D1 . The teaching of Araya has been discussed above. With respect to dependent claim 16, Araya is silent with a state identification section that identifies a state of a plant corresponding to the measurement target on the basis of the state information including the two-dimensional data, wherein the image synthesizing section forms the synthetic image that highlights, on the RGB image, the region exhibiting the larger value than the predetermined value or the region exhibiting the lower value than the predetermined value, on a basis of a state identification result obtained by the state identification section. As discussed above Noguchi teaches a vegetation index and D1 teaches forming synthetic images on the RGB image. In view of this, it would be obvious at the time of the claimed invention was filed to modify the teaching of Araya in order to applying known techniques of reflectance measurements and presentation method for desired samples. This is in consistency with the Supreme Court Decision of the KSR. V. International Co .: applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results . With respect to dependent claim 17, as discussed above, when modified by Noguchi and D1, Araya modified by Noguchi and D1 teaches wherein the state identification section identifies a state of the plant corresponding to the measurement target in a specific identification region by performing an image recognition process based on the RGB image or the color map image included in the state information including the two- dimensional data. With respect to dependent claim 18, as discussed above, when modified by Noguchi and D1, Araya modified by Noguchi and D1 teaches an individual identification section that identifies an individual of a plant which corresponds to the measurement target and which is included in the RGB image, the color map image, and the state information including the two-dimensional data. With respect to dependent claim 19, as discussed above, when modified by Noguchi and D1, Araya modified by Noguchi and D1 teaches wherein the individual identification section identifies the individual of the plant corresponding to the measurement target by giving an identifier to each of the individuals of the plants on a basis of any one of an image recognition process using the RGB image, a two-dimensional barcode within the RGB image, GIS (Geographic Information System) information, and manual input. With respect to dependent claim 20, as discussed above, when modified by Noguchi and D1, Araya modified by Noguchi and D1 teaches wherein the RGB image, the color map image, and the state information including the two-dimensional data are classified into folders that are different for each of the identifiers and that include, as image-attached data, the identifier for identifying the individual of the plant corresponding to the measurement target included in the RGB image, the color map image, and the state information, and are recorded in a recording device or transferred to destinations different for each of the identifiers. With respect to dependent claim 21, D1 teaches in the first paragraph on p. 28 a statistical analysis section that statistically analyzes the state information including the two- dimensional data, wherein the image synthesizing section forms the synthetic image including an analysis value as a statistical analysis result obtained by the statistical analysis section. With respect to dependent claim 22, D1 teaches in Fig. 9 a graph generation section that generates a graph on a basis of the statistical analysis result and outputs the graph as a graph image, wherein the image synthesizing section forms the synthetic image including the graph image. With respect to dependent claim 23, D1 teaches in the first paragraph on p. 38an input section that receives input of an ROI (Region of Interest) region on the RGB image, the color map image, and the synthetic image, wherein the statistical analysis section statistically analyzes the state information including the two-dimensional data in the ROI region input onto the RGB image, the color map image, and the synthetic image. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIHO KIM, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)270-1628. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8-5 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, David Makiya can be reached at (571)272-2273. 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. KIHO KIM, Ph.D. Primary Examiner Art Unit 2884 /Kiho Kim/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884 Application/Control Number: 18/869,042 Page 2 Art Unit: 2884 Application/Control Number: 18/869,042 Page 3 Art Unit: 2884 Application/Control Number: 18/869,042 Page 4 Art Unit: 2884 Application/Control Number: 18/869,042 Page 5 Art Unit: 2884 Application/Control Number: 18/869,042 Page 6 Art Unit: 2884 Application/Control Number: 18/869,042 Page 7 Art Unit: 2884 Application/Control Number: 18/869,042 Page 8 Art Unit: 2884 Application/Control Number: 18/869,042 Page 9 Art Unit: 2884 Application/Control Number: 18/869,042 Page 10 Art Unit: 2884 Application/Control Number: 18/869,042 Page 11 Art Unit: 2884 Application/Control Number: 18/869,042 Page 12 Art Unit: 2884 Application/Control Number: 18/869,042 Page 13 Art Unit: 2884 Application/Control Number: 18/869,042 Page 14 Art Unit: 2884
Prosecution Insights