DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
This application claims benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) of GB2206350.7, filed in UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND on 4/29/2022, and GB2216480.0, GB2216475.0, and GB2216482.6, filed in UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND on 11/4/2022.
None of the priority documents for these priorities have been received.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/25/2024, 1/16/2025, and 1/30/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered and attached by the examiner.
Preliminary Amendment
Applicant submitted a preliminary amendment on 1/3/2025. The Examiner acknowledges the amendment and has reviewed the claims accordingly.
Claims 5, 8, 19, 27-29, 31-39, 42, and 44 have been cancelled.
Claim Objections
Claims objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4 recites the first instance of “a substantially round shape”. It’s unclear what constitutes a substantially round shape. Further clarification is required.
Claim 15 states “determining whether a shape of the first article in the image comprises extensions which are likely to represent a second article.” The bounds of “likely” are unclear and need to be clarified.
Claim 18 recites the first instance of “a stable base”. It’s unclear what this means and needs to be further clarified.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-16, 18, 20-26, 30, 40-41, 43, and 45-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dinkelmann (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2018/0290765) in view of Dal Mutto (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2019/0108396).
Regarding Claim 1, Dinkelmann teaches an imaging processing device comprising: Dinkelmann 2018/0290765
processing means, wherein the processing means is configured to (Fig. 1, 28 Controller:)
a. receive an image of a region of interest comprising a first article (¶56 One or more cameras may also be positioned around the injector to record images of luggage accepted) in response to the article being placed on a belt wherein the belt is configured to convey the article along a path between an origin and a destination (¶47 Once a piece of luggage has been accepted, the controller 28 actuates the injector conveyor 50 to convey the piece of luggage to a downstream collector conveyor system 52. The conveyor 50 may be actuated by a variable speed drive that runs at a lower speed during movement of the conveyor 50 by approximately 100 mm increments than during movement of the conveyor 50 to convey a piece of luggage to the downstream collector conveyor system 52;)
b. determine a (¶60 The dynamic virtual zone is preferably adapted to provide a secure field around the piece of luggage and to prevent intrusion of the field by the user or foreign object; ¶65 The virtual zone system may be modified to be dynamic using the Microsoft Kinect™ 3D camera systems or arrays instead of relying on the fixed laser sensing devices; This determines a specific 3D zone for the region of interest, but does not explicitly disclose determining the coordinates of the zone.)
c. determine
i. whether a tub has been placed on the belt (¶54 Preferably, the controller may be able to detect the use of the tub from pattern recognition software that compares the presented tub with a databases of tubs commonly used in the airport within which the station is installed. This may allow the system to automatically detect the use of a standard luggage tub as used within airport facilities;)
ii. that the first article is conveyable along the path in response to a determination that a tub has been placed on the belt; and/or (¶51 Monitoring devices may be provided around the injector 14 to detect when luggage is placed on the bottom surface of the injector 14 as well as intrusion during processing of the piece of luggage and delivery of the piece of luggage to the downstream collector conveyor system)
d. determine
i. whether the first article has an irregular shape; and/or ii. whether a second article has been placed on the belt (¶64 Preferably, the controller includes a pattern recognition algorithm, and may determine whether the piece of luggage is irregularly shaped and may bend the walls of the zone accordingly;)
iii. that the first article is not conveyable along the path in response to a determination that the first article has an irregular shape or that a second article has been placed on the belt (¶71 Should an intrusion occur in either of these regions, the controller will restrict or immediately stop the injector conveyor 50 and dispatch or downstream conveyor 52 will cease moving.)
Dinkelmann does not explicitly b. determine a plurality of coordinates in three-dimensional space associated with the region of interest.
Dal Mutto is in the same field of art of image analysis. Further, Dal Mutto teaches b. determine a plurality of coordinates in three-dimensional space associated with the region of interest (¶87 Using a geometrically calibrated depth camera, it is possible to identify the 3-D locations of all visible points on the surface of the object with respect to a reference coordinate system (e.g., a coordinate system having its origin at the depth camera). Thus, a range image or depth image captured by a range camera 100 can be represented as a “cloud” of 3-D points, which can be used to describe the portion of the surface of the object (as well as other surfaces within the field of view of the depth camera).)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Dinkelmann by determining coordinates in a region that is taught by Dal Mutto; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the references to enable classification with high accuracy (Dal Mutto ¶75).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 2, Dinkelmann in view of Dal Mutto discloses the image processing device of claim 1 wherein the image comprises depth data associated with the image (Dinkelmann, ¶70 Generally, an Intrusion Processing Module consisting of one or more depth image sensors, but preferably 3 sensors. The sensors may be light curtains, stereotypic cameras including but not limited to Microsoft Kinect™ devices, photo eyes. At least one default depth image sensor that has adequate field of vision of the injector.) (Dal Mutto, ¶7 The 3-D scanning system may include one or more 3-D scanners, and each 3-D scanner may include: a time-of-flight depth camera; a structured light depth camera; or a stereo depth camera including: at least two infrared cameras; an infrared projector; and a color camera.)
Regarding Claim 3, Dinkelmann in view of Dal Mutto discloses the image processing device of claim 2 wherein the image further comprises infrared data associated with the image (Dinkelmann, ¶10 Preferably, wherein the first aspect includes one or more cameras as the at least one sensor, and further the cameras may be stereotypic cameras or infrared spectrum cameras.) (Dal Mutto, ¶7 The 3-D scanning system may include one or more 3-D scanners, and each 3-D scanner may include: a time-of-flight depth camera; a structured light depth camera; or a stereo depth camera including: at least two infrared cameras; an infrared projector; and a color camera.)
Regarding Claim 4, Dinkelmann in view of Dal Mutto discloses the image processing device of claim 3 wherein the processing means is further configured to determine, from the depth data associated with the image, the infrared data associated with the image and the plurality of coordinates, whether the first article has a substantially round shape and wherein the processing means is further configured to determine that the first article is not conveyable along the path in response to a determination that the first article has a substantially round shape (Dinkelmann, ¶20 In the context of the present invention, the word “tub” may refer to or be construed as any tub suitable for use as a portable luggage receptacle in an airport environment. Typically, tubs include within their meaning a five shaped tray or cup shaped receptacle with a flat bottom forming a general rectangular shape when viewed from a top view; ¶64 It is generally noted that other shapes other than boxes may be used to achieve a similar result or function including spheres; the default depth image sensor creates a virtual zone consisting of a relatively vertical curtain between the user and the scale conveyor and a relatively horizontal curtain above the scale conveyor. Should an intrusion occur in either of these regions, the controller will restrict or immediately stop the injector conveyor 50 and dispatch or downstream conveyor 52 will cease moving.)
Regarding Claim 6, Dinkelmann in view of Dal Mutto discloses the image processing device of claim 3 wherein the processing means is further configured to determine, from the depth data associated with the image and the infrared data associated with the image, whether the first article has an irregular shape (Dinkelmann, ¶64 the controller includes a pattern recognition algorithm, and may determine whether the piece of luggage is irregularly shaped.)
Regarding Claim 7, Dinkelmann in view of Dal Mutto discloses the image processing device of claim 3 wherein the image further comprises data representing colours of the image (Dal Mutto, ¶85 The color and the infrared cameras are synchronized and geometrically calibrated, allowing these cameras to capture sequences of frames that are constituted by color images and depth-maps, for which it is possible to provide geometrical alignment) and wherein the processing means is further configured to determine, from the data representing colours of the image, the depth data associated with the image and the infrared data associated with the image, whether a second article has been placed on the belt (Dal Mutto, ¶12 At least one of the one or more 3-D models may include at least two objects.)
The reasons for combining Dinkelmann and Dal Mutto are similar to that stated in the rejection of claim 1. In addition, this same reasoning is pertinent and applicable to the rejections of claims 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 25, 30, 41, and 46 below.
Regarding Claim 9, Dinkelmann in view of Dal Mutto discloses the image processing device of claim 4 wherein the processing means is further configured to determine that the article is conveyable along the path in response to a determination that the first article does not have a substantially round shape, an irregular shape and that a second article has not been placed on the belt (Dineklmann, ¶64 Preferably, the controller includes a pattern recognition algorithm, and may determine whether the piece of luggage is irregularly shaped; ¶71 the default depth image sensor creates a virtual zone consisting of a relatively vertical curtain between the user and the scale conveyor and a relatively horizontal curtain above the scale conveyor. Should an intrusion occur in either of these regions, the controller will restrict or immediately stop the injector conveyor 50 and dispatch or downstream conveyor 52 will cease moving.)
Regarding Claim 10, Dinkelmann in view of Dal Mutto discloses the image processing device of claim 3 wherein the processing means is further configured to receive an image of an empty belt and determine, from the depth data associated with the image and the infrared data associated with the image, that the belt is empty (while it is obvious to one skilled in the art that if no object is detected the belt would be empty, Dal Mutto teaches ¶164 Because it is assumed that each bin includes, at most, one item, the analysis system 300 assigns, at most, one identity to each bin (e.g., no bin is assigned two different identities, because it is assumed that there is only one object in each bin, and empty bins may be assigned no identity, because empty bins contain no objects).)
Regarding Claim 11, Dinkelmann in view of Dal Mutto discloses the image processing device of claim 7 wherein the processing means is further configured to generate an image of the first article by combining the depth data associated with the image, the infrared data associated with the image, the data representing colours of the image and the plurality of coordinates (Dal Mutto, ¶7 The 3-D scanning system may include one or more 3-D scanners, and each 3-D scanner may include: a time-of-flight depth camera; a structured light depth camera; or a stereo depth camera including: at least two infrared cameras; an infrared projector; and a color camera; ¶87 Using a geometrically calibrated depth camera, it is possible to identify the 3-D locations of all visible points on the surface of the object with respect to a reference coordinate system (e.g., a coordinate system having its origin at the depth camera).)
Regarding Claim 12, Dinkelmann in view of Dal Mutto discloses the image processing device of claim 1 wherein the processing means is further configured to segment a first portion of the image representing the first article from a second portion of the image (Dal Mutto, ¶182 in order to obtain the lists of the object identities at each location, the analysis of the captured 3-D model and the identification process may be different for each location. For example, identification agents for cluttered scenarios, such as applying scene segmentation to the captured depth images.)
Regarding Claim 13, Dinkelmann in view of Dal Mutto discloses the image processing device of claim 1 wherein the processing means is configured to determine whether a tub has been placed on the belt by determining from the plurality of coordinates whether a height of the first article comprises an edge corresponding to a shape of a known tub (Dinkelmann, ¶33 Sidewall 36 and top 38 of the virtual box are generated by the combination of sensors, respectively, such that no physical barrier is provided on these sides of the injector 14, and thereby define a side access opening 39 to the injector 14 to facilitate a passenger side loading luggage into the injector 14 from a position adjacent the user interface 20. The combination of sensors facilitate determination of whether the height and width of the loaded piece of luggage are within predetermined limits for acceptance; ¶34 The initial height and width dimensions of the virtual box may be adjusted by a suitably authorised technician, for example to conform the luggage processing station to the regulatory standards on luggage dimensions for a particular airport.)
Regarding Claim 14, Dinkelmann in view of Dal Mutto discloses the image processing device of claim 1 wherein the processing means is configured to determine whether a second article has been placed on the belt by determining from the plurality of coordinates whether a section of the image represents a height profile that is different from that of the first article (Dal Mutto, ¶12 At least one of the one or more 3-D models may include at least two objects; ¶83 circumstances in which the items to be identified may be characterized by their surface colors and geometry, including the size of the object.)
Regarding Claim 15, Dinkelmann in view of Dal Mutto discloses the image processing device of claim 7 wherein the processing means is configured to determine whether a second article has been placed on the belt by determining whether a shape of the first article in the image comprises extensions which are likely to represent a second article (Dal Mutto, ¶83 In many embodiments of the present invention, this type color and shape of information can be used to automate the identification of different items; ¶135 Several techniques for retrieval and classification from view-based representations of shapes are known in the literature)
Regarding Claim 16, Dinkelmann in view of Dal Mutto discloses the image processing device of claim 1 wherein the processing means is configured to determine whether the first article has an irregular shape by determining from the plurality of coordinates (coordinates of Dal Mutto taught in claim 1) whether a height profile of the first article corresponds to that of an irregular shape (Dinkelmann, ¶67 With the Dynamic Virtual zone, upon placing a bag on the belt and the initial three dimensional (3D) scan being completed, the side and height measurements will be changed to suit the dimensions of the bag. This will therefore be slightly higher than the bag placed on the conveyor and is worked out using complex 3D mathematical algorithms; ¶77 The processing module associated with the default depth image sensor will monitor any intrusions through the virtual zone, to determine one or more of whether a predetermined limit on dimensions of the piece of luggage has been exceeded or whether a foreign object has intruded the virtual zone from outside.)
Regarding Claim 18, Dinkelmann in view of Dal Mutto discloses the image processing device of claim 4 wherein the processing means is further configured to determine if the first article has a stable base (Dinkelmann, ¶20 Typically, tubs include within their meaning a five shaped tray or cup shaped receptacle with a flat bottom forming a general rectangular shape when viewed from a top view) and wherein the processing means is further configured to withdraw a conclusion that the first article has a substantially round shape in response to determining that the first article has a stable base (Dinkelmann, ¶64 Preferably, the controller includes a pattern recognition algorithm, and may determine whether the piece of luggage is irregularly shaped (rounded).)
Regarding Claim 20, Dinkelmann in view of Dal Mutto discloses the image processing device of claim 9 wherein the processing means is further configured to determine a length, width and height of the first article upon determining that the first article is conveyable along the path (Dinkelmann, ¶33 The combination of sensors facilitate determination of whether the height and width of the loaded piece of luggage are within predetermined limits for acceptance. Sensors 16c and 16d (in cooperation with 16a and 16b respectively) include photo eyes for facilitating positioning of the piece of luggage in the injector 14 and determining whether the length of the piece of luggage is within predetermined limits for acceptance. However, in alternate embodiments, 3D imaging using cameras may be used to detect the length and width of the piece of luggage.)
Regarding Claim 21, Dinkelmann in view of Dal Mutto discloses the image processing device of claim 20 wherein the processing means is configured to determine the height of the first article using the depth data associated with the image by determining a difference between a depth of the first article and a depth of the belt (Dinkelmann, ¶73 The depth image sensor shall have the entire scale conveyor in its field of vision, i.e. beginning at the end stop (which is preferably determined by the position of sensor 16c) and ending with the down-stream conveyor 52, the depth image sensor shall have the entire sidebar in its field of vision, the depth image sensor shall have the maximum permissible bag height in its field of vision for the entire length of the scale conveyor, no point in either the side or top region of the virtual zone must be further than 3 m from the depth image sensor; ¶77 At least one depth image sensor, (the default depth image sensor) that has adequate field of vision of the injector is able, in conjunction with the walls 30 & 32 and floor 14 of the injector, to create a virtual zone around the piece of luggage, by constructing a virtual side curtain 36 and virtual top curtain 38. The processing module associated with the default depth image sensor will monitor any intrusions through the virtual zone, to determine one or more of whether a predetermined limit on dimensions of the piece of luggage has been exceeded or whether a foreign object has intruded the virtual zone.)
Regarding Claim 22, Dinkelmann in view of Dal Mutto discloses the image processing device of claim 20 wherein the processing means is configured to determine the width and length of the first article by fitting a rectangle such that it bounds a portion of the image representing the first article and determining a length and width of the rectangle (Dinkelmann, ¶33 Preferably, the sensors 16a, 16b, (please note that sensors 16a and 16b are not visible in the perspective views shown in FIGS. 1-5, as there are positioned on the opposed respective inner side on injector proximal to the access opening) 16c and 16d, in combination with walls 30, 32 and a floor 34 of the injector 14, create a six-sided virtual box around a loaded piece of luggage.)
Regarding Claim 23, Dinkelmann in view of Dal Mutto discloses the image processing device of claim 1 wherein the processing means is further configured to determine, from the plurality of coordinates, whether the whole of the first article is not within a region of interest on the belt, the processing means being configured to process articles only within this region of interest (Dinkelmann, ¶62 Preferably in the preferred embodiments of the present invention, the dynamic virtual box (Region of Interest) wall and ceiling May be initially set at pre-set values and may be configured at the build and commission stage of station installation.)
Regarding Claim 24, Dinkelmann in view of Dal Mutto discloses the image processing device of claim 1 wherein the processing means is further configured to determine, from the plurality of coordinates, whether a dimension of the first article is below a minimum threshold (Dineklmann, ¶15 Preferably, wherein the zone includes a virtual top wall which is generally parallel to a floor of the injector when the height of the virtual top is below a minimum threshold; ¶77 The processing module associated with the default depth image sensor will monitor any intrusions through the virtual zone, to determine one or more of whether a predetermined limit on dimensions of the piece of luggage has been exceeded or whether a foreign object has intruded the virtual zone from outside.)
Regarding Claim 25, Dinkelmann in view of Dal Mutto discloses the image processing device of claim 1 wherein the processing means is further configured to determine, from the plurality of coordinates, whether the first article comprises straps (Dal Mutto, ¶119 the system further includes a plurality of color cameras 150 configured to capture texture (color) data 16 of the query object. As noted above, in some embodiments of the present invention, the depth cameras may use RBG-IR sensors which capture both infrared data and color camera data, such that the depth cameras 100 provide color data 166 instead of using separate color cameras 150. The texture data may include the color, shading, and patterns on the surface of the object (all would indicate whether it has straps or not) that are not present or evident in the physical shape of the object.)
Regarding Claim 26, Dinkelmann in view of Dal Mutto discloses the image processing device of claim 1 wherein the processing means is further configured to determine that the first article is not conveyable along the path in response to a determination that a dimension of the first article is below a minimum threshold, or that the first article comprises straps, or that the whole of the first article is not within a region of interest (Dinkelmann, ¶71 Should an intrusion occur in either of these regions, the controller will restrict or immediately stop the injector conveyor 50 and dispatch or downstream conveyor 52 will cease moving.)
Regarding Claim 30, Dinkelmann in view of Dal Mutto discloses the processing device of claim 1 wherein the processing means is further configured to filter the plurality of coordinates (Dal Mutto, ¶118 A point cloud, which may be obtained by merging multiple aligned individual point clouds (individual depth images) can be processed to remove “outlier” points due to erroneous measurements (e.g., measurement noise) or to remove structures that are not of interest, such as surfaces corresponding to background objects (e.g., by removing points having a depth greater than a particular threshold depth) and the surface (or “ground plane”) that the object is resting upon (e.g., by detecting a bottommost plane of points).)
Regarding Claim 40, Dinkelmann in view of Dal Mutto discloses an article handling system comprising:
a camera (Dinkelmann, ¶33 3D imaging using cameras may be used to detect the length and width of the piece of luggage;)
a belt or conveyor for conveying an article (Dinkelmann, ¶47 Once a piece of luggage has been accepted, the controller 28 actuates the injector conveyor 50 to convey the piece of luggage to a downstream collector conveyor system 52;)
wherein the camera has a field of view directed towards the belt or conveyor; and (Dinkelmann, ¶70 Generally, an Intrusion Processing Module consisting of one or more depth image sensors, but preferably 3 sensors. The sensors may be light curtains, stereotypic cameras including but not limited to Microsoft Kinect™ devices, photo eyes. At least one default depth image sensor that has adequate field of vision of the injector)
further comprising the processing device of claim 1 (Fig. 1, 28 Controller.)
Regarding Claim 41, Dinkelmann in view of Dal Mutto discloses the article handling system of claim 40 wherein the camera is configured to output data associated with an image captured by the camera and wherein the data comprises depth data associated with the image and/or infrared data associated with the image and/or data representing colours of the image (Dal Mutto, ¶7 The 3-D scanning system may include one or more 3-D scanners, and each 3-D scanner may include: a time-of-flight depth camera; a structured light depth camera; or a stereo depth camera including: at least two infrared cameras; an infrared projector; and a color camera.)
Regarding Claim 43, Dinkelmann in view of Dal Mutto discloses the article handling system of claim 40 further comprising a sensor configured to detect articles which exceed a predetermined size threshold and wherein the sensor is an infrared intrusion sensor (Dinkelmann, ¶35 The controller 28 is adapted to monitor, via sensors, intrusions through the virtual box to determine whether a foreign object has intruded the virtual box from outside, which may indicate that the piece of luggage has been tampered with, and allow further processing of the piece of luggage only if no intrusion of the virtual box is detected; ¶65 Additionally, the preferred sensors or cameras may be adapted to operate in the infrared frequency)
Regarding claim 45, claim 45 has been analyzed with regard to claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above as well as in accordance with Dinkelmann further teaching on: A method of determining whether an article is conveyable along a path (Dinkelmann, ¶6 It is also an aim or objective of the present invention to provide an improved processing, system and/or method for processing luggage)
Regarding Claim 46, Dinkelmann in view of Dal Mutto discloses a computer program product storing a program which when executed by a computing device undertakes the method of claim 45 (Dal Mutto, ¶6 an analysis agent including a processor and memory, the memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: receive the one or more 3-D models from the 3-D scanning system.)
Claims 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dinkelmann (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2018/0290765) in view of Dal Mutto (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2019/0108396) in view of Davami (U.S. Patent No. 10417495).
Regarding Claim 17, Dinkelmann in view of Dal Mutto teaches the image processing device of claim 4 (see claim 4)
Dinkelmann in view of Dal Mutto does not explicitly disclose wherein the processing means is configured to determine whether the first article has a substantially round shape by determining whether a plurality of normals associated with the plurality of coordinates correspond to a same point.
Davami is in the same field of art of image analysis. Further, Davami teaches wherein the processing means is configured to determine whether the first article has a substantially round shape by determining whether a plurality of normals associated with the plurality of coordinates correspond to a same point (Col 11 Lines 54-60: for each best fit ellipse, the two possible circle solutions share a center point, and their normal vectors have the same scalar components along two dimensions (e.g., the x- and y-dimensions). Thus, in a 2D space (i.e., the two dimensions in which the normal vectors share scalar components), the normal vectors of the two circles are equivalent to a single 2D vector.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Dinkelmann in view of Dal Mutto by determining the normals are the same that is taught by Davami; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the references to identify circles (Davami Col 11).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUSTIN BILODEAU whose telephone number is (571)272-1032. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm.
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, Jennifer Mehmood can be reached at (571) 272-2976. 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.
/DUSTIN BILODEAU/Examiner, Art Unit 2664
Prosecution Insights