DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 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 of this title, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, and 5-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 (US 20220264060 A1) in view of D2 (US 10277838 B2) and D3 (JP 2020051982 A).
With regards to claims 1, 8, 9, 11, and 12, D1 discloses an imager comprising:
an imaging element including, in a single pixel
array 14 (Fig. 1), a visible-light receiving element that receives visible light and an infrared-light receiving element that receives infrared light [0114-0118; 0121-0123; 0130; 0191-0200]; and
a processing circuit 105 that generates a first image illustrating an image an object in a visible region and a second image illustrating an image of the object in an infrared region from data acquired by the imaging element, and inspects the object from the first image and the second image that have been generated [0144-0149; 0166-0170; 0182; 0201-0202].
D1 does not teach receiving infrared light in at least a short-wavelength infrared band, but instead teaches receiving NIR light [0124, 0191-0196]. However, D2 teaches a hybrid imaging sensor comprising a pixel array having both visible light receiving elements and SWIR receiving elements (Fig. 1; column 2, lines 12-22). It would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify D1 with the claimed wavelength range as taught by D2 in order to extend the infrared wavelength range of the imaging system and obtain additional spectral information.
D1 also does not teach imaging dried food. However, D3 teaches it was known to image dried food using visible and infrared wavelengths [0019-0020] to detect defects or foreign matter [0022-0024] using a learned model [0009, 0022, 0031-0033]. It would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify D1 with the teachings of D3 to determine characteristics of food products.
With regards to claim 2, D3 teaches detecting a moisture content of the dried food [0053].
With regards to claim 5, D3 teaches detecting a moisture content of the dried food [0053] and using a learned model for inspection and classification [0009, 0022, 0031-0033], but not expressly teach the claimed configuration. However, it would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to apply the learned model approach to moisture content estimation as a predictable use of the known technique to improve accuracy.
With regards to claims 6, 7, and 10, the combination of D1-D3 teach the invention according to claims 1, 5, and 8 above, but does not teach detecting a protein content or color tone. However, those skilled in the art would have recognized protein content and color tone as predictable parameters derivable from VIS-SWIR image analysis related to food products as an obvious modification.
With regards to claim 13, D1 does not teach the claimed configuration. However, D2 teaches a SIWR sensor sensitive to SWIR (Fig. 1; column 2, lines 12-22) and D3 teaches an infrared light source 103 that emits infrared light toward an inspection object and a camera that receives infrared light reflected from the inspection object for inspection [0052], wherein the inspection object may be dried food [0019]. It would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify D1 with the teachings of D2 and D3 to allow enhanced detection of material characteristics, such as moisture related properties.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 4 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
None of the prior art teach wherein the processing circuit compares the moisture content with a predetermined threshold and issues a notification that the dried food having the moisture content higher than the predetermined threshold is subject to a re-drying process.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCUS H TANINGCO whose telephone number is (571)272-1848. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm 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, Uzma Alam can be reached on 571-272-3995. 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.
/MARCUS H TANINGCO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights