DETAILED ACTION
1. This is a first office action in response to application no. 18/879,325 filed on December 27, 2024 in which claims 1-24 are presented for examination.
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 Interpretation - 35 USC § 112
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-2, 5-6, 8, 14-15, 17-19 have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
For example: Claim 1 has been written with generic place holder “means” coupled with the functional language “configured to”.
For example: Claim 2 has been written with generic place holder “means” coupled with the functional language “configured to”.
For example: Claim 6 has been written with generic place holder “means” coupled with the functional language “configured to”.
For example: Claim 19 has been written with generic place holder “means” coupled with the functional language “to”.
The claims cited above use a generic placeholder “means” coupled with functional language “configured to” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
NOTE: The Examiner pointed out many of the claims invoking 112(f) paragraph. However, the Applicant must review all claims of the instant application in order to correct the language of all claims.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 1-23 have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
5. Claim limitation “means configured to” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. “receiving samples”, “capture image”, “distribute sample”, “move samples”, “capture imagery”. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
7. 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 –
(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.
8. Claims 1 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jones et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2005/0074146).
As per claim 1, Jones discloses an apparatus for visual inspection (See Jones Abstract, [0002]), the apparatus comprising:(i) a receiving means configured to receive a sample of particulates (See Jones [0034]); and(ii) an imagery means configured to capture imagery of the sample (See Jones [0036]).
As per claim 24, Jones method for visual inspection of a sample of particulates, the method comprising the steps of:(i) feeding the sample into an apparatus according to any one of(i) feeding the sample into an apparatus according to any one of to capture imagery of the sample (See Jones [0012]); and(ii) passing the captured imagery to a processing means to apply one or more data evaluation algorithms on the captured imagery to produce a data output (See Jones [0035]-[0036]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. Claims 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2005/0074146) in view of Kokko et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2003/0072484).
As per claim 19, Jones discloses a method for visual inspection of a sample of particulates (See Jones [0002], [0025]), comprising the steps of:(i) feeding the sample into a receiving means (See Jones [0034]);(ii) subjecting the received sample into an imagery means to capture imagery of the sample (See Jones [0036]).
It is noted that although Jones captures images to produce output of processed images (See Jones [0015]0, it is silent about processing means to apply one or more data evaluation algorithms on the captured imagery to produce a data output.
However, Kokko teaches processing means to apply one or more data evaluation algorithms on the captured imagery to produce a data output (See Kokko [0048], [0153]-[0154] and [0161]).
Therefore, it is considered obvious that one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize the advantage of modifying Jones to incorporate Kokko’s teachings with processing means to apply one or more data evaluation algorithms on the captured imagery to produce a data output. The motivation for performing such a modification in Jones is to perform image processing in order to eliminate an outer layer of pixels on the outer circumference of each of the objects and any debris.
As per claim 20, the combination of Jones and Kokko further teaches wherein the data outputs is information relating to physical features of the sample (See Kokko [0063], [0140]).
As per claim 21, the combination of Jones and Kokko further teaches wherein the output determines a quality of the sample for visual inspection including presence of defects or contaminants (See Jones [0059]-[0060]).
As per claim 22, the combination of Jones and Kokko further teaches wherein the processing means is adapted to derive the data output using Deep Learning algorithms (See Kokko [0027], [0060]).
As per claim 23, the combination of Jones and Kokko further teaches wherein the Deep Learning algorithm allows separation of individual grains within the captured imagery of the sample (See Kokko [0027] and [0060]).
12. Claims 2-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2005/0074146) in view of Satake et al. (US Patent no. 5,917,927), and further in view of Morimoto et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2017/0115211).
Regarding claims 2-4, it is noted that Jones is silent about a batch feeder configured to feed the sample onto a plate, wherein the batch feeder receives a half hectolitre of particulates through a hopper and deposits the sample of the particulates onto the plate.
However, Satake teaches a batch feeder configured to feed the sample onto a plate (See Satake col. 4, lines 34-42 (See Stages 42-43 and plate 47 with feeder 29)), wherein the batch feeder receives a half hectolitre of particulates through a hopper and deposits the sample of the particulates onto the plate (See Satake col. 11, lines 5-25, with batch weighing that will provide the “hectolitre” if so desire).
Therefore, it is considered obvious that one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize the advantage of modifying Jones to incorporate Satake’s teachings to provide a batch feeder configured to feed samples wherein the batch feeder receives particulates to deposit the samples onto the plate. The motivation for performing such a modification in Jones is to provide a grain inspection that can provide information that can be used to optimize inspection process.
It is further noted that the combination of Jones and Satake is silent about wherein the plate is formed of glass.
However, Morimoto teaches wherein the plate is formed of glass (See Morimoto [0120] and [0122]).
Therefore, it is considered obvious that one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize the advantage of modifying the combination of Jones and Satake to incorporate Morimoto’s teachings to provide a plate is formed of glass. The motivation for performing such a modification in the combination of Jones and Satake is to provide a glass so as to serve as protection films because they are arranged in intimate contact with stored grain.
As per claims 5-7, the combination of Jones, Satake and Morimoto further teaches wherein the receiving means further comprises one or more vibration means (See Satake col. 5, lines 23-28), and wherein the receiving means further comprises one or more vibration means (See Satake col. 6, lines 19-28). The exciter as claimed is necessary in a vibrating system.
As per claims 8-9, the combination of Jones, Satake and Morimoto further teaches wherein the imagery means comprises at least two capturing elements (See Jones [0058] and [0062]).
As per claims 10-11, the combination of Jones, Satake and Morimoto further teaches wherein the two image capturing elements are arranged in a manner such that the image capturing elements captures a top and bottom view of the entire sample of the plate (See Jones [0076], [0130]), and wherein the imagery is then captured from each of the two image capturing elements simultaneously (See Jones [0130]).
As per claim 12, the combination of Jones, Satake and Morimoto further teaches wherein the background for both top and bottom views are uniform (See Jones [0044], [0076]).
13. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2005/0074146) in view of Satake et al. (US Patent no. 5,917,927) and Morimoto et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2017/0115211) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Kokko et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2003/0072484).
Regarding claim 13, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the above rejection of claim 12.
It is noted that the combination of Jones, Satake and Morimoto is silent about the apparatus wherein the background is black.
However, Kokko teaches the apparatus wherein the background is black (See Kokko [0166], and [0188]).
Therefore, it is considered obvious that one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize the advantage of modifying the combination of Jones, Satake and Morimoto to incorporate Kokko’s teachings wherein the background is black. The motivation for performing such a modification in the combination of Jones, Satake and Morimoto is to use a black background of the image in order to distinguish a non-seed from a true seed (See Kokko [0188]).
14. Claims 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2005/0074146) in view of Satake et al. (US Patent no. 5,917,927).
As per claims 14-15, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the above rejection of claim 1.
It is noted that Jones is silent about a transfer means configured to move the sample through the apparatus, and wherein the transfer means comprises a conveyor.
However, Satake teaches a transfer means configured to move the sample through the apparatus (See 15, lines 38-53), and wherein the transfer means comprises a conveyor (See Satake col. 4, lines 13-33).
Therefore, it is considered obvious that one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize the advantage of modifying Jones to incorporate Satake’s teachings to provide a transfer means configured to move the sample through the apparatus, and wherein the transfer means comprises a conveyor. The motivation for providing such a modification in Jones is to move the tray forward until the grain in the sample have been processed and inspected, and to discharge the grains from the collection hopper or container (See Satake col. 15, lines 34-42).
As per claim 16, the combination of Jones and Satake further teaches wherein the sample on a plate is moved through the apparatus, on a continuous closed-loop conveyor (See Satake col. 4, lines 13-33).
As per claim 17, the combination of Jones and Satake further teaches wherein the conveyor moves the sample through the receiving means and the imagery means (See Satake col. 4, lines 13-33).
15. Claim 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2005/0074146) in view of Deppermann et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2007/0207485).
Regarding claim 18, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the above rejection of claim 1.
It is noted that Jones is silent about the apparatus further comprising one or more pressurised air cleaning means.
However, Depperman teaches an apparatus further comprising one or more pressurised air cleaning means (See Depperman [0063]).
Therefore, it is considered obvious that one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize the advantage of modifying Jones to incorporate Deppermann’s teachings to provide an apparatus further comprising one or more pressurized air cleaning means. The motivation for performing such a modification in Jones is use the pressurized to remove and/or collect any seed coat residue that may collect on the bits the milling tools.
16. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
See the Notice of References Cited (PTO-892).
17. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GIMS S PHILIPPE whose telephone number is (571)272-7336. The examiner can normally be reached Maxi Flex.
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, Benjamin Bruckart can be reached at 571-272-3982. 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.
/GIMS S PHILIPPE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2424
Prosecution Insights