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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in China on 27 November 2023. A petition restoring the right of priority to this application was granted 17 April 2025. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the Chinese application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
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: “imaging unit”, “data storage unit”, “data processing unit” and “display/control unit” in claim 1.
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.
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 1-10 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.
In claim 1, the overall claim is to a “unit”, which is later (Claim 7) used by the device of claim 7, and claim 7 recites an imaging unit, a control display unit – which seem to have already been recited in Claim 1. It is unclear if the unit of claim 1 is a device, an algorithm, or some other sort of program,.
Claim 5 is a claim to a unit – interpreted as a device – but then a method is recited. It is unclear if this is a device, a method of using a device, or a method of making a device.
The term “common” in claim 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “common” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what constitutes a common monochrome imaging unit, the term is not explicitly defined outside of the parenthesis statement suggesting it to entail being black and white. Is the mere usage of a black and white coloring scheme what makes it a monochrome imaging unit? Is commonness determined by the complexity of the imager?
The term “common” will be omitted from consideration.
The phrase “are independently arranged or combined to constitute different devices” is unclear and possibly meaningless; these components are part of the overall device, and no sub-devices have been defined.
The significance of the material in parentheses is unclear. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 8 recites the broad recitation “monochrome”, and the claim also recites “(black and white)” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. The same problem exists with the second limitation in parentheses.
In claim 10 the steps are unclear. Several steps (e.g. “a black matte coating is spray-coated on an inner wall of the shooting box to reduce light reflection on the inner wall”) could be read as steps of constructing the device. Is this a limitation on the device or a step of “spray painting”?
Each of the claims must be clearly directed to a device (a set of interrelated physical elements, possibly with software or hardware storing logic to execute certain algorithms) or a method (a set of steps to be done over time, possibly using certain devices ). The claims, to be definite, must be redrafted in this manner. While there are other statutory categories, this does not appear likely to be e.g. a composition of matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, for the reasons as follows:
In re to claim 1, the claim is directed at a unit, which does not fall within one of the four statutory categories. Additionally, due to their dependency reciting similar limitations, claims 2-10 are rejected for the same reasons provided below.
Regarding the claimed “unit”, it is unclear what it a “unit” is with respect to its subject matter. Claim 7 indicates that a device may utilize the unit described in claim 1. Additionally, a method is alluded to in claim 3. Further, the specification does not explicitly define the “unit” as being indicative of one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. As the concept of a unit is not clearly indicated, it cannot be determined to be of one of the four statutory categories. Additionally, due to the mention of methods and devices, it is further implied that a unit is neither of these categories. It has been treated as though “unit”, first instance, is “device”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Boydston et al. (US publication 20110176029 A1; hereinafter “Boydston”).
In re to claim 1, Boydston teaches wherein: A multispectral imaging unit, comprising an imaging unit (camera; Fig. 1 (19) shows the implementation of a camera, understood as an imaging unit), a combination of feature illuminant sources (light sources; [0068] discloses the use of a light sources used for illumination), a data storage unit (memory; [0072] discloses the usage of non-volatile memory, and as such, discloses what is understood as a data storage unit), a data processing unit (computer; [0072] and Fig. 1 show the use of a computer, understood as a data processing unit) and a display/control unit (computer display; Fig. 1 shows the usage of a computer display);
wherein the combination of feature illuminant sources comprises N (N ≥ 2) linearly independent illuminant sources (Fig. 3 and [0070] indicate the usage of a plurality of light emission modules, with Fig. 3 showing that the modules emit light from independent light sources (emission modules 5). It is understood that as each light emission module is independent of another (as can be seen in exemplary figure 1, the sources are spaced from one another), that the respective beams projected have linear independence with regards to their projection from their respective panels) within a predetermined range of test spectrum ([0066] lines 1-7 discloses the generation of calibration data for each wavelength band of the LED. As such, it is understood that the test spectrum is of the available to be selected wavelength bands of said LED. As these bands are the result of the construction of the LED, they are additionally understood to be a predetermined range of wavelengths), and spectral widths of the illuminant sources are not restricted ([0032] lines 1-3 denotes that the illuminates used in the system may not include filters, and are thus understood to unrestricted spectral widths. [0086] further discusses measurement of unmodified emission spectrums of LEDs using filters for measurement. It is understood that this further indicates unrestricted illuminant sources due to their emission spectrums being unmodified);
PNG
media_image1.png
731
558
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Exemplary Figure 1: Fig. 3 of Boydston
wherein the combination of feature illuminant sources is calibrated on a plurality of adjacent wavebands ([0066] lines 1-7 discloses the generation of calibration data for each wavelength band of LED. As such, it is understood to indicate calibration of the illuminant sources on adjacent wavebands as this data is used for the image capture process (per [0066]), which requires said illumination sources);
calibrated data are stored in the data storage unit ([0066] lines 1-7 discloses the storage of the calibration data);
the imaging unit is configured to generate a plurality of images (captured image data; [0060] discloses the capture of image data of a given scene. It is understood that the plurality of images are said captured images) of a tested sample under illumination of different feature illuminant sources ([0060] discloses captures of a plurality of images containing a target to be captured (understood as a tested sample). Further, per [0060], this target is used for calibration data generation, thus, the images captured are generated using different illuminant sources (understood to be the illumination sources that produce a different color of light to that of a first illumination color)); and
the data processing unit and the data storage unit are configured to analyze and calculate the plurality of images of the sample based on the calibrated data ([0060] discloses the adjustment of captured image data according to calibration data, thus disclosing the analysis and calculation of a plurality of images based on said data) and associated algorithm ([0060] discloses the adjustment of image data by the computer and appropriate software, thus disclosing the use of an associated algorithm) to obtain an optical reflectance or transmittance spectral image ([0060] lines 13-17 discloses the adjustment of captured images is for the generation a color image representing the scene. [0062] discloses that the imaging device captures reflection or transmission images (understood as optical reflectance or transmittance spectral images due to the nature of their capture being the result of spectral imaging). As such, it is understood that the resultant color image is an optical reflectance or transmittance spectral image (correspondent to the claims) due to being adjusted captured image data) of the sample in a specific wavelength range ([0067] discloses the use of lighting modules to capture the image data of the system. Further, per [0068], the lighting modules emit light within a narrow spectral band, and as such, a specific wavelength range. As such, the adjusted color image described in [0062] that is derived from the captured images is understood to be within said wavelength range).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boydston in further view of Sims et al. (US patent 9347894 B2; hereinafter “Sims”).
In re to claim 7 [dependent on claim 1], Boydston teaches wherein: comprising a power supply (power supply subsystem; Fig. 1 (20) and [0067] discloses the usage of a power supplying subsystem, understood to be the power supply), and an imaging unit, a control/display unit (computer; Fig. 18 shows the use of a computer that has a display), a combination of feature illuminant sources ([0066] lines 1-7 discloses the generation of calibration data for each wavelength band of LED. As such, it is understood to indicate calibration of the illuminant sources on adjacent wavebands as this data is used for the image capture process (per [0066]), which requires said illumination sources) and a sample rack (Fig. 1 shows a raised platform that is used to image a target object. It is understood that this raised platform is the sample rack (see exemplary figure 2)) arranged in the shooting box; as well as the combination of feature illuminant sources is configured to provide an illumination environment with different spectral features for the imaging unit ([0066] lines 1-7 discloses the generation of calibration data for each wavelength band of LED. It is understood that the plurality of wavelengths produced by the LED constitute different spectral features provided for the imaging unit (correspondent to the claims));
as well as the sample rack is arranged below the imager and is configured to place a reflective sample test plate or a transmitted sample test plate (Flat field target; [0094] denotes that the system may image a flat field target which has uniform reflectance or transmittance (thus being a reflective sample). It is understood that as this is an imaged target, the sample rack (correspondent to the claim) is configured to enable placement of a sample test plate (understood as the flat field target));
as well as the control/display unit is electrically connected to the combination of feature illuminant sources, and is configured to control ([0065] discloses that the computer controls and adjusts connected devices) the combination of feature illuminant sources, acquire data, store data, process and calculate data, operate and display ([0074] discloses the distributed bi-directional communication and data between the computer (18) and the respective components of the camera system. Further, [0075] denotes that wired connection may provide communication between the computer and the respective elements of the system shown. Thus, disclosing electrical connection between the illuminant sources (as they comprise the panels of Fig. 1 (1) as is corroborated by [0069], which denotes Fig. 1 (1) as being the spectral lighting module)).
PNG
media_image3.png
548
494
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Exemplary Figure 2: imaging system of Fig. 1 with annotated area around raised platform
Boydston does not explicitly teach wherein: a shooting box
wherein an interior of the shooting box is a shooting environment shielded from external alight;
the sample rack is arranged at a bottom of the shooting box;
the imaging unit is arranged on a top of the shooting box and is arranged opposite the sample rack, and the imaging unit is configured to acquire an image with a specific format of a tested sample on the sample rack or the test plate.
However, in a related field of endeavor, Sims teaches wherein: comprising a shooting box (housing of imaging system; Fig. 1 shows an encapsulated system containing an imaging system, as shown in Fig. 2. It is understood to be a shooting box)
wherein an interior of the shooting box is a shooting environment shielded from external light (Figs. 1 and 2 shown an enclosed environment covered with a casing. Thus, disclosing an environment shielded from external light);
the sample rack is arranged at a bottom of the shooting box (Fig. 2 shows a surface in which the sample (Fig. 1 (12) as is described in col. 3 lines 6-25) is sitting upon. It is understood that this surface platform is the sample rack, which is located at the bottom of the enclosed environment of Fig. 2);
the imaging unit is arranged on a top of the shooting box and is arranged opposite the sample rack, and the imaging unit is configured to acquire an image (Fig. 2 and col. 3 lines 6-25 indicates that the camera that captures image data (Fig. 2 (26) is displaced at the top of the shooting box, relative to the sample rack (correspondent to the claims). Thus, being opposite to the aforementioned sample rack)) with a specific format of a tested sample on the sample rack or the test plate (format of camera; Fig. 2 shows that the camera is placed above the sample, and as such images it from the top down. It is understood that the image in a top-down perspective is the specific format of the tested sample (understood as the imaged sample (12))).
Sims, like Boydston, discloses an imaging system that performs illumination of a sample in a particular space.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Boydston to utilize a shooting box, as taught by Sims. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been to reduce external interference from surrounding light sources.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boydston in further view of Sims and Mochizuki et al. (US publication 20180010773 A1; hereinafter “Mochizuki”).
In re to claim 8 [dependent on claim 7], Boydston, in view of Sims teaches wherein: the imaging unit, the combination of feature illuminant sources, a data storage unit, a data processing unit and the control/display unit are independently arranged or combined to constitute different devices;
the imaging unit adopts a common monochrome (black and white) imaging unit or a colour imaging unit ([0115] and [0119] denote the usage of grayscale imaging in relation to the captured images in a spectral stack. It is understood that the grayscale image generator is the monochrome imaging unit) (when using a colour system, only brightness data generated thereby is used).
Boydston, in view of Sims, does not explicitly teach wherein: a front of the combination of feature illuminant sources is provided with a scattering film or a scattering cap for enabling the illuminant sources to provide uniformly diffused light.
However, in a related field of endeavor, Mochizuki teaches wherein: a front of the combination of feature illuminant sources is provided with a scattering film or a scattering cap for enabling the illuminant sources to provide uniformly diffused light (Fig. 1 shows the usage of a light diffusing layer (3) in front of LED light sources (2). It is understood that the diffusion layer is a scattering cap).
Mochizuki, like Boydston, discloses an illumination system that performs emission of light using LEDs.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Boydston, in view of Sims, to utilize a diffuser, as taught by Mochizuki. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been to enable the dimming of LED lights without affecting hue or coloration, as is a benefit detailed in Mochizuki [0057].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-6, 9 and 10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance for claim 2 (and its respective dependent claims). The claimed features of claim 2 (as well as its respective dependent claims) are not anticipated nor obvious in view of prior art of record.
The closest known prior art Boydston discloses a system that performs multispectral imaging using a camera directed at an imaging base. It additionally has a test spectrum of wavelengths in relation to the possible wavelengths available to it LED light sources, per [0066] lines 1-7. However, it does not explicitly indicate the usage of a characterization matrix between each of its test spectrum wavebands and spectral feature data in the configuration of MxN, as required by the claim. Nor does it explicitly state that it is performing a calculation of the average optical reflectance or transmittance values of the test sample. It also does not explicitly indicate that the averages are obtained simultaneously.
He et al. (US patent 7443506 B2; hereinafter “He”) discloses a multispectral analysis apparatus that utilizes a control scheme with a display, as shown in Fig. 1B. Per the abstract, it generates emissions using linearly independent light sources. The apparatus further performs determinations of reflectance and transmittance, as indicated by col. 4 lines 36-40. Additionally, it constructs an illumination characterization matrix, as is indicated by col. 4 line 66 - col. 5 line 3. This is also a matrix of M wavelengths and N illuminant sources, per abstract, and as such is an MxN matrix. It further indicates in col. 6 lines 14-15 to obtain average reflectance values. Also, per col. 2 lines 46-59, it also provides an enclosed space in which it illuminates a sample. However, it does not explicitly indicate that the that the averages are obtained simultaneously using the generation of the illuminant characterization matrix. Nor does it explicitly indicate that the processing that occurs relies on pixel data, as is required to determine the illuminant characterization matrix of the claims. While there is mention of the use of an optical sensor according to col. 2 line 66-col. 3 line 1, there is no explicit indication that the system uses pixel information in an image of the sample itself (as there is no explicit mention of a capture/storage of an image) to generate the matrix.
Tin et al. (US publication 20140028801 A1; hereinafter “Tin”) discloses a multispectral imaging system that captures image data of a given object. It further generates matrices in relation to captured image information. However, its matrices are not based off of the information required by the claims. Additionally, the information provided is not provided in a simultaneous manner.
Neither the closest known prior art, nor any reasonable combination of known prior art teaches dependent claim 2 (and its dependent limitations) without use of impermissible hindsight bias.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance for claim 9. The claimed features of claim 9 are not anticipated nor obvious in view of prior art of record.
The closest known prior art Boydston discloses a system that performs multispectral imaging using a camera directed at an imaging base. However, it does not explicitly indicate the usage of white matte spray coating explicitly when performing reflectance image testing. Nor does it disclose the explicit use of generation of average reflectance values for a color block of adjacent wavebands.
He discloses a multispectral analysis apparatus that utilizes a control scheme with a display, as shown in Fig. 1B. Per the abstract, it generates emissions using linearly independent light sources. The apparatus further performs determinations of reflectance and transmittance, as indicated by col. 4 lines 36-40. Also, per col. 2 lines 46-59, it also provides an enclosed space in which it illuminates a sample. However, there is no explicit indication that (during reflectance image testing) it has a white matte coating sprayed onto the interior the enclosed space. Further, while it does disclose determination of average reflectance values, it does not additionally state that there is a specific color block that is on the tested sample that the average reflectance values are obtained from.
Sims discloses an imaging space that the system provides to image a sample. This space is shown in Fig. 2 and further contains a lighting system (Fig. 2 (28)). However, there is no explicit indication that the interior of the shooting box has a sprayed-on coating of matte white. Nor does it state that the system obtains averages of a color block on the sample.
Neither the closest known prior art, nor any reasonable combination of known prior art teaches dependent claim 9 without use of impermissible hindsight bias.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance for claim 10. The claimed features of claim 10 are not anticipated nor obvious in view of prior art of record.
The closest known prior art Boydston discloses a system that performs multispectral imaging using a camera directed at an imaging base. However, it does not explicitly indicate the usage of black matte spray coating explicitly when a transmittance image is tested. Nor does it disclose the explicit use of generation of average reflectance values for a color block of adjacent wavebands. Nor does it further indicate the usage of an internal backlight box.
He discloses a multispectral analysis apparatus that utilizes a control scheme with a display, as shown in Fig. 1B. Per the abstract, it generates emissions using linearly independent light sources. The apparatus further performs determinations of reflectance and transmittance, as indicated by col. 4 lines 36-40. Also, per col. 2 lines 46-59, it also provides an enclosed space in which it illuminates a sample. However, there is no explicit indication that (during transmittance image testing) it has a black matte coating sprayed onto the interior the enclosed space. Further, while it does disclose determination of average reflectance values, it does not additionally state usage of a backlight box disposed in its .
Sims discloses an imaging space that the system provides to image a sample. This space is shown in Fig. 2 and further contains a lighting system (Fig. 2 (28)). However, there is no explicit indication that the interior of the shooting box has a sprayed-on coating of matte black. Nor does it state that the system obtains averages of a color block on the sample.
Neither the closest known prior art, nor any reasonable combination of known prior art teaches dependent claim 10 without use of impermissible hindsight bias
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN M COOMBER whose telephone number is (571)270-0950. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am-5:00pm.
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, Gregory Morse can be reached at (571) 272-3838. 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.
/KEVIN M COOMBER/Examiner, Art Unit 2663
/GREGORY A MORSE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2698
