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 § 112
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 51, 63 and 68 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.
Regarding claim 51, the claim recites “said images are input from a plurality of optical sensors”. However clam 50 from which claim 50 depends only introduces one image and one optical sensor. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Regarding clam 63, the claim recites “said section being wide enough to estimate a 3-D angle of said liquid relative to said container”. However the term “wide enough” provides no workable range or tern of degree for the standard for how wide the section must be. Therefore, the claim has been rendered indefinite. For the purpose of examination, the claim will be treated to be consistent with the instant specification, which describes the image should show at least two faces of the container to perform calculations.
Regarding claim 68, the claim recites “images of other components”. However it is unclear what the other components are apart of or come from. Are the components apart of the liquid, the container, a different container? Therefore, the claim has been rendered indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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)(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.
Claims 50, 53, 59, 65 and 69 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mizutani et al US20200057880 (hereinafter “Mitzutani”).
Regarding claim 50, Mitzutani discloses a system (instrument-100) for monitoring a liquid volume (volume detection system-120 included in system-104), comprising a processing circuitry (system-104 includes computing device-200 which includes processing device-202, Paragraph 0449-0450) configured to:
input at least one image of a liquid contained in a container (containers-110, paragraph 0403-0414) from at least one optical sensor (capture unit-130, 132 includes camera unit-550, paragraphs 0417);
estimate, from said at least one image, a volume of said liquid in said container (paragraph 0414, 0486-0498, 0524-0527, Figs 6-9); and
output an indicator (Paragraph 0783,0790) of a consistency of said estimated liquid volume with an expected liquid volume based on an analysis of said estimated volume of said liquid (Paragraph 0473,0478, 0490-0491,0497, 0529-0537 Fig 5, 6-9 and 15).
Regarding claim 53, Mitzutani discloses said indicator (Paragraph 0783,0790) comprises at least one of: said estimated liquid volume; a rate of change of said liquid volume over time; a prediction of a future liquid volume; at least one of a frequency and an amplitude of a liquid fluctuation in the container; a color change of said liquid; a change in opacity of said liquid; a change in clarity of said liquid; a change in viscosity of said liquid; a presence of particles in the liquid; maintenance instructions; a time to failure estimation; a failure alert; and operating instructions in response to a detected failure. (Paragraph 0484-0485, 0536-0537 discloses operation-422 flagging the container-110)
Regarding claim 59, Mitzutani discloses said estimating is further based on data obtained from external sources (Correlation data-406). (Paragraph 0473, 0478, 0490-0497, Figs 5, 8, 20)
Regarding claim 65, Mitzutani discloses said at least one optical sensor (camera unit-550, 730) is located outside said container. (Paragraph 0417, 0433-0434, 0511-0522, See Fig 10-11 and 23-25 and 67)
Regarding claim 69, Mitzutani discloses a computer-implemented method (See Figs 6-9) for monitoring a liquid volume, comprising:
receiving, by at least one processor (system-104 includes computing device-200 which includes processing device-202, paragraphs 0449-0450), at least one image of a liquid contained in a container (contaners-110) from at least one optical sensor (capture unit-130, 132 includes camera unit-550, paragraphs 0417);
estimating, by the at least one processor, from said at least one image, a volume of said liquid in said container (paragraph 0414, 0486-0498, 0524-0527, Figs 6-9); and
outputting, by the at least one processor, an indicator (Paragraph 0783,0790) of a consistency of said estimated liquid volume with an expected liquid volume based on an analysis of said estimated volume of said liquid (Paragraph 0473,0478, 0490-0491,0497, 0529-0537 Fig 5, 6-9 and 15).
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 (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.
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 51, 52, 54-57, 60, 61, 67, and 68 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizutani et al US20200057880 (hereinafter “Mitzutani”) in view of Spears et al US11674839 (hereinafter “Spears”).
Regarding claim 51, Mitzutani disclose the system according to claim 50.
However, Mitzutani fails to disclose said images are input from a plurality of optical sensors capturing images of said container with respective fields of view. Spears discloses said images are input from a plurality of optical sensors (image capture devoces-104) capturing images of said container with respective fields of view (field of views-106). (Col 5 line 30-64, Col 6 line 56-Col 7 line 14, Fig 4)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Spears into Mitzutani for the purpose of increasing detection accuracy. The modification would allow for decreasing potential measurement errors by comparing multiple images.
Regarding claim 52, Mitzutani discloses the system according to claim 50.
However, Mitzutani fails to disclose said indicator comprises an assessment of a health of at least one of: said container; a machine utilizing said liquid; a vehicle utilizing said liquid; a mechanism utilizing said liquid; a heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) system; and a peripheral component. Spears discloses said indicator (Steps 414-416 of Fig 4) comprises an assessment of a health of at least one of: said container; a machine utilizing said liquid; a vehicle utilizing said liquid; a mechanism utilizing said liquid; a heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) system; and a peripheral component. (Col 7 line 44- Col 8 line 19, Col 12 line 50-Col 13 line 5, Fig 2)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Spears into Mitzutani for the purpose of increasing detection accuracy. The modification would allow for pausing or completely stopping operations to perform repairs before increased damage or full replacement of components occurs.
Regarding claim 54, Mitzutani discloses the system according to claim 50.
However, Mitzutani fails to disclose said estimating comprises analyzing a distribution of intensities in at least one channel of said at least one image and identifying pixels having a distribution consistent with a presence of a liquid. Spears discloses said estimating comprises analyzing a distribution of intensities in at least one channel of said at least one image and identifying pixels having a distribution consistent with a presence of a liquid. (Col 6 line 21-26, Col 8 line 32-Col 9 line 6 discloses Engine-208 using pixel intensities, see also Fig 3-4)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Spears into Mitzutani for the purpose of increasing detection accuracy. The modification would for decreased measurement errors by allowing for higher sensitivity and decreasing potential variances due to accounting for different pixel intensities.
Regarding claim 55, Mitzutani discloses the system according to claim 50.
However, Mitzutani fails to disclose said estimating comprises eliminating pixels distant from a main volume of said liquid from a calculation of said liquid volume. Spears discloses said estimating comprises eliminating pixels distant from a main volume of said liquid from a calculation of said liquid volume. (Col 11 line 59-Col 12 line 49, Figs 3-4)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Spears into Mitzutani for the purpose of increasing detection accuracy. The modification would for decreased measurement errors by allowing for higher sensitivity and decreasing potential variances due to accounting for different pixel intensities.
Regarding claim 56, Mitzutani discloses the system according to claim 50.
However, Mitzutani fails to disclose said estimating comprises calculating said liquid volume based on a geometrical analysis of a container shape. Spears discloses said estimating comprises calculating said liquid volume based on a geometrical analysis of a container shape. (Col 18 line 64-Col 19 line 21, Col 20 line 19-33, Fig 3-4)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Spears into Mitzutani for the purpose of increasing detection accuracy. The modification would for precise mathematical capacity estimates without fluid displacement and increase computational efficiency.
Regarding claim 57, Mitzutani discloses the system according to claim 50.
However, Mitzutani fails to disclose said estimating is based on a statistical analysis of a sequence of images. Spears discloses said estimating is based on a statistical analysis (Frame registration engione-204) of a sequence of images (six images-502-512). (Col 9 line 16-Col 10 line 4, Col 20 line 34-56, See Fig 5)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Spears into Mitzutani for the purpose of increasing detection accuracy. The modification would allow for decreasing potential measurement errors by comparing multiple images.
Regarding claim 60, Mitzutani discloses the system according to claim 50.
However, Mitzutani fails to disclose said analysis is based on a change of said liquid volume over time. Spears discloses said analysis is based on a change of said liquid volume over time (fluid tracking engine-212). (Col 9 line 16-23, Col 12 line 50- Col 14 line 52)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Spears into Mitzutani for the purpose of increasing detection accuracy. The modification would allow for pausing or completely stopping operations to perform repairs before increased damage or full replacement of components occurs.
Regarding claim 61, Mitzutani discloses the system according to claim 50.
However, Mitzutani fails to disclose said analysis is based on a trend analysis of changes in said liquid volume over time. Spears discloses said analysis is based on a trend analysis of changes in said liquid volume over time. (Col 20 line 66-Col 21 line 24, Fig 4)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Spears into Mitzutani for the purpose of increasing detection accuracy. The modification would allow for pausing or completely stopping operations to perform repairs before increased damage or full replacement of components occurs.
Regarding claim 67, Mitzutani discloses the system according to claim 50.
However, Mitzutani fails to disclose said indicator is retrieved from a data structure (fluid datastore-214) using values of at least one of: said estimated liquid volume; a rate of change of said liquid volume over time; a prediction of a future liquid volume; and a prediction of a variation in said rate of change of said liquid volume over time. Spears discloses said indicator is retrieved from a data structure using values of at least one of: said estimated liquid volume; a rate of change of said liquid volume over time; a prediction of a future liquid volume; and a prediction of a variation in said rate of change of said liquid volume over time. (Col 9 line 16-23, Col 12 line 65-Col 13 line 25, Col 14 line 20-26, Col 15 line 35-Col 16 line 38)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Spears into Mitzutani for the purpose of increasing detection accuracy. The modification would for decreasing potential measurement errors by comparing detected results with stored history data.
Regarding claim 68, Mitzutani discloses the system according to claim 50.
However, Mitzutani fails to disclose analysis is based on a machine learning model trained with a training set comprising at least one of: images collected during periods of usage of said liquid; images collected during periods of non-usage of said liquid; images collected of a similar container during periods of usage; images collected of a similar container during periods of non-usage; images collected of a different container in a similar machine during periods of usage; images collected of a different container in a similar machine during periods of non-usage; images of other components; and non-image data associated with some or all of the images in the training set. Spears discloses analysis is based on a machine learning model (AI engine-208) trained with a training set comprising at least one of: images collected during periods of usage of said liquid; images collected during periods of non-usage of said liquid; images collected of a similar container during periods of usage; images collected of a similar container during periods of non-usage; images collected of a different container in a similar machine during periods of usage; images collected of a different container in a similar machine during periods of non-usage; images of other components; and non-image data associated with some or all of the images in the training set. (Col 8 line 32-65, Col 10 line 9-Col 11 line 27)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Spears into Mitzutani for the purpose of increasing detection accuracy. The modification would for decreasing potential measurement errors by comparing detected results with stored history data.
Claim 58 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizutani et al US20200057880 (hereinafter “Mitzutani”) in view of Shapiro et al US20210407121 (hereinafter “Shapiro”).
Regarding claim 58, Mitzutani discloses the system according to claim 50.
However, Mitzutani fails to disclose said estimating is further based on data obtained from non-optical sensors. Shapiro discloses said estimating is further based on data obtained from non-optical sensors (position sensors, paragraph 0060).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Shapiro into Mitzutani for the purpose of increasing detection accuracy. The modification would allow for faster 3D reconstruction and enhanced machine learnings understanding of regional variations and geographical structure.
Claim 62 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizutani et al US20200057880 (hereinafter “Mitzutani”) in view of Pullack et al US2016002556 (hereinafter “Pullack”)
Regarding claim 62, Mitzutani discloses the system according to claim 50.
However, Mitzutani fails to disclose said at least one image shows at least two sides of said container. Pullack discloses said at least one image shows at least two sides of said container (cameras 67A-C using mirrors -80). (Paragraph 0105, 0109, Fig 8-9B)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Shapiro into Mitzutani for the purpose of increasing detection accuracy. The modification would allow for faster 3D reconstruction and enhanced machine learnings understanding of regional variations and geographical structure.
Claims 63 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizutani et al US20200057880 (hereinafter “Mitzutani”) in view of Streibl et al US20160018427 (hereinafter “Streibl”).
Regarding claim 63, Mitzutani discloses the system according to claim 50.
However, Mitzutani fails to disclose said at least one image shows a section of said container, said section being wide enough to estimate a three-dimensional angle of said liquid relative to said container. Streibl discloses said at least one image shows a section of said container (tube-1200), said section being wide enough to estimate a three-dimensional angle of said liquid relative to said container (Paragraph 0210, 0224-0228 Fig 12-16B)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Streibl into Mitzutani for the purpose of increasing detection accuracy. The modification would allow for faster 3D reconstruction and enhanced machine learnings understanding of regional variations and geographical structure.
Claims 64 and 66 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizutani et al US20200057880 (hereinafter “Mitzutani”) in view of Boelitz et al US20190277224 (hereinafter “Boelitz”).
Regarding claim 64, Mitzutani discloses the system according to claim 50.
However, Mitzutani fails to disclose said at least one optical sensor is configured to capture said at least one image while said container is in motion relative to the ground. Boelitz discloses said at least one optical sensor (image sensor-122) is configured to capture said at least one image while said container (rocket-100 includes tank-110) is in motion relative to the ground. (Paragraphs 0014-0019, 0027, See Figs 1, 4-5)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Boelitz into Mitzutani for the purpose of increasing detection accuracy. The modification would allow for more dynamically determining the liquid in the container to ensure proper operations.
Regarding claim 66, Mitzutani discloses the system according to claim 50.
However, Mitzutani fails to disclose said at least one optical sensor is located inside said container. Boelitz discloses said at least one optical sensor (image sensor-122) is located inside said container (tank-110). (Paragraph 0014-0019, Figs 2A-C)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Boelitz into Mitzutani for the purpose of increasing detection accuracy. The modification would allow for more dynamically determining the liquid in the container to ensure proper operations.
Conclusion
The prior art as cited on the PTO-892 is made of record and not relied upon but considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Patel et al US20220138622 discloses systems and methods are provided for predictive volumetric and structural evaluation of petroleum product containers. The system includes a computing device in communication with data input devices and implementation tools including calibration devices for measuring tank volume among other physical parameters bearing on tank volume. The computing device receives sets of historical physical parameter data for a plurality of tanks and, using machine learning (ML), generates predictive ML models for estimating volumetric parameters of tanks. The predictive model is applied by the system to historical and current data values to estimate current volumetric parameters for a given tank and, based on the results, the system performs or coordinates further operations for the given tank using an implementation tool. The further operations can include inventory management, physical calibration, maintenance and inspection as well as system evaluation and control operations.
Kluckner et al US20180365530 discloses a model-based method of determining characteristics of a specimen container. The method includes providing a specimen container, capturing images of the specimen container at different exposures times and at different spectra having different nominal wavelengths, selecting optimally-exposed pixels from the images at different exposure times at each spectra to generate optimally-exposed image data for each spectra, and classifying the optimally-exposed pixels as at least being one of tube, label or cap, and identifying a width, height, or width and height of the specimen container based upon the optimally-exposed image data for each spectra. Quality check modules and specimen testing apparatus adapted to carry out the method are described, as are other aspects.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIGEL H PLUMB whose telephone number is (571)272-8886. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-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 advised 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, John Breene can be reached at 571-272-4107. 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 (USA or CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NIGEL H PLUMB/ Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/Eric S. McCall/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
