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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/10/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-5, 7-10, and 12-15 are pending. Claims 1 and 14 are amended. Claims 6 and 11 were previously cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment of independent Claims 1 and 14, which has altered the scope of the claims of the instant application, has necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this office action with respect to claims of the instant application. Accordingly, in response to Applicant’s arguments that are merely directed to the amended portion of the claims, new analyses have been presented below, which make Applicant’s arguments moot.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
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, 5, 7-10, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyahara et al. (US 2010/0157301 A1), in view of Shottenfeld et al. (US Patent no. 3,729,635 A), in further view of Smith et al. (US 2017/0191946 A1), still in further view of Pieper et al. (US 11,978,181 B1) and yet in further view of Okuda et al. (US 2016/0168761 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Miyahara teaches, An inspection system of a filament yarn, comprising: (Miyahara, ¶0001: “inspecting defects of carbon fiber yarns in a carbon fiber production process”) an LED or halogen strobe lamp (Miyahara, ¶0089: “a light source such as a halogen or LED”) which irradiates the filament yarn with inspection light; (Miyahara, ¶0005: “yarn is irradiated with the light from a light projecting section”) a camera (Miyahara, ¶0007: “yarns are imaged using a camera”) with an area sensor which measures (Miyahara, ¶0123: “scanning by the area sensor”) a luminance level of a shade and a background of the filament yarn (Miyahara, ¶0098: “the luminance of the yarn portions and the luminance of the background portions”) obtained by the irradiation with the inspection light (Miyahara, ¶0102: “calculating each yarn width specified from the positions of the yarns and the lightness values in the transverse direction of each yarn”) by the LED or halogen strobe lamp; (Miyahara, ¶0089: “light source such as a halogen or LED”) an image processor (Miyahara, ¶0039: “processing equipment”) which obtains image information on the basis of information obtained (Miyahara, ¶0035: “processing the image obtained by the inspection data acquiring and processing equipment”) from the area sensor; (Miyahara, ¶0094: “area sensor used for obtaining two-dimensional data”) and at least one selected from a group of a computer, a memory and an artificial intelligence, (Miyahara, ¶0111: “second data processing procedure… a personal computer”) which decides an error (Miyahara, ¶0110: “second data processing procedure… determined that the yarn concerned has a defect”) and determines an inspection result of the filament yarn (Miyahara, ¶0110: “determined that the yarn concerned has a defect”) on the basis of a threshold value according to the error, (Miyahara, ¶0112: “a predetermined threshold value can be identified, and on the basis of it, the occurrence of a defect on a yarn can be determined”) wherein the filament yarn comprises a glass fiber, (Miyahara, ¶0083: “The yarns to which the running yarn inspection method in an embodiment of the invention can be applied include… inorganic fiber yarns formed of glass fibers”). However, Miyahara does not explicitly teach, a frequency of the error from the image information and the LED or halogen strobe lamp is configured to be synchronized with the area sensor, the image processor carries out a correction of the image information obtained from the area sensor by (1) setting of inspection region and image reduction, (2) shading correction, (3) filtering, and (4) noise removal, in this order, the filament yarn is irradiated with the inspection light in only one direction, the filament yarn is composed of from 10 to 500 single yarns having a single yarn diameter of from 1 to 10 μm, the inspection light is planar light, and the image information is a two-dimensional image, not a one-dimensional image data, so that the two-dimensional image data obtained by the area sensor is not handled in a same manner as one-dimensional image data by dividing the two-dimensional image data in a same direction as a pixel direction.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Shottenfeld teaches, a frequency of the error (Shottenfeld, col. 2, line 22: “detecting the number of defects per unit length”) from the image information (Shottenfeld, col. 5, line 26-27: “an image of the light source and the edgewise shadow of the yarn”) and the filament yarn is irradiated with the inspection light in only one direction (Shottenfeld, col. 5 line 9-11: “a light source 10 is provided at one side edge of the yarn sheet that is to be inspected”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Miyahara using the teachings of Shottenfeld to introduce counting a frequency of defects found in the yarn’s shadow casted by an inspection light from one direction. A person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the known elements as described above and achieve the predictable result of evaluating the quality of the inspected yarn. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the analogous arts Miyahara and Shottenfeld to obtain the above-described limitations in claim 1. However, the combination of Miyahara and Shottenfeld does not explicitly teach the LED or halogen strobe lamp is configured to be synchronized with the area sensor, the image processor carries out a correction of the image information obtained from the area sensor by (1) setting of inspection region and image reduction, (2) shading correction, (3) filtering, and (4) noise removal, in this order and the filament yarn is composed of from 10 to 500 single yarns having a single yarn diameter of from 1 to 10 μm, the inspection light is planar light, and the image information is a two-dimensional image, not a one-dimensional image data, so that the two-dimensional image data obtained by the area sensor is not handled in a same manner as one-dimensional image data by dividing the two-dimensional image data in a same direction as a pixel direction.
In another analogous field of endeavor, Smith teaches, the LED or halogen strobe lamp is configured to be synchronized with the area sensor (Smith, ¶0099: “Image capture is synchronised with the activation of each light in sequence”; ¶0136: “camera would be employed (either line scan or area scan”) the inspection light is planar light, (Smith, ¶0027: “the illuminates may comprise line lights (e.g. made of a fluorescent tube or more preferably a row of high intensity LEDs) that emit a planar beam of light”) and the image information is a two-dimensional image, not a one-dimensional image data, (Smith, ¶0019: “a machine vision technique for recovering 3D surface normal data (known as a ‘bump map’) and 2D reflectance data (known as albedo) from surfaces”) so that the two-dimensional image data obtained by the area sensor (Smith, ¶0136: “camera would be employed (either line scan or area scan”) is not handled in a same manner as one-dimensional image data (Smith, ¶0003: “defects to be detected and measured are, for example, two-dimensional features”) by dividing the two-dimensional image data in a same direction as a pixel direction. (Smith, ¶0111: “Spatial multiplexing may be used to generate a series of images of the whole surface”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Miyahara in view of Shottenfeld using the teachings of Smith to introduce a planar light synchronized with a 2D area sensor. A person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the known elements as described above and achieve the predictable result of detecting defects in an illuminated two-dimensional area. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the analogous arts Miyahara, Shottenfeld and Smith to obtain the above-described limitations in claim 1. However, the combination of Miyahara, Shottenfeld and Smith does not explicitly teach the image processor carries out a correction of the image information obtained from the area sensor by (1) setting of inspection region and image reduction, (2) shading correction, (3) filtering, and (4) noise removal, in this order and the filament yarn is composed of from 10 to 500 single yarns having a single yarn diameter of from 1 to 10 μm.
In still another analogous field of endeavor, Pieper teaches the image processor carries out a correction of the image information obtained from the area sensor by (1) setting of inspection region and image reduction, (2) shading correction, (3) filtering, and (4) noise removal, in this order. (Pieper, col 10, lines 42-45: “operations performed by an ISP may include any combination of applying a Bayer filter, performing noise reduction, performing shading correction, performing image scaling”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Miyahara in view of Shottenfeld in further view of Smith using the teachings of Pieper to introduce a series of image processing functions. A person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the known elements as described above and achieve the predictable result of preparing the image for higher evaluation accuracy. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the analogous arts Miyahara, Shottenfeld, Smith and Pieper to obtain the above-described limitations in claim 1. However, the combination of Miyahara, Shottenfeld, Smith and Pieper does not explicitly teach, the filament yarn is composed of from 10 to 500 single yarns having a single yarn diameter of from 1 to 10 μm.
In still another analogous field of endeavor, Okuda teaches, the filament yarn is composed of from 10 to 500 single yarns (Okuda, ¶0081: “a fiber bundle consisting of 500 single-fibers”) having a single yarn diameter of from 1 to 10 μm. (Okuda, ¶0027: “single-fibers to have an average diameter of 4 to 7 μm”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Miyahara in view of Shottenfeld in further view of Smith and still in further view of Pieper using the teachings of Okuda to introduce specific yarn properties. A person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the known elements as described above and achieve the predictable result of reproducing the yarn with similar properties in order to obtain similar qualities. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the analogous arts Miyahara, Shottenfeld, Smith, Pieper, and Okuda to obtain the invention in claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Miyahara in view of Shottenfeld, in further view of Smith, still in further view of Pieper and yet in further view of Okuda teaches, The inspection system according to claim 1, wherein, when the error includes a plurality of types of errors, (Shottenfeld, col. 1, line 37-38: “the invention inspects for minor defects, major defects”) the at least one selected from a group of a computer, a memory and an artificial intelligence, determines the inspection result of the filament yarn (Shottenfeld, col.1, line 40-42: “Any defects occurring in the yarn generate electrical signals which can be used as desired to indicate audibly or visually the presence of defects”) on the basis of a threshold value series according to each error type. (Shottenfeld, col. 3, line 59-61: “the major defect panel may be set for 4 percent while that of the minor defect panel is set for 2 percent”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Miyahara in view of Shottenfeld in further view of Smith, still in further view of Pieper and yet in further view of Okuda using the additional teachings of Shottenfeld to introduce different thresholds for detecting deferent types of yarn defects. A person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the known elements as described above and achieve the predictable result of determining specific type of defect based on the predetermined threshold. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the analogous arts Miyahara, Shottenfeld, Smith, Pieper and Okuda to obtain the invention in claim 2.
Regarding claim 5, Miyahara in view of Shottenfeld, in further view of Smith, still in further view of Pieper and yet in further view of Okuda teaches, The inspection system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one selected from a group of a computer, a memory and an artificial intelligence, decides the threshold value (Miyahara, ¶0024: “a threshold value predetermined by the second data processing procedure”) by combining the image information (Miyahara, ¶0154: “two-dimensional data of an image”) and a measurement result of a yarn diameter of the filament yarn. (Miyahara, ¶0110: “the number of pixels of the dark portion showing each yarn width is larger or smaller than the threshold value”; thus, threshold value is based on the expected yarn width/diameter in the image).
Regarding claim 7, Miyahara in view of Shottenfeld, in further view of Smith, still in further view of Pieper and yet in further view of Okuda teaches, The inspection system according to claim 1, wherein the filament yarn is made of the glass fiber, (Miyahara, ¶0083: “yarns formed of glass fibers”) and at least one selected from the group consisting of an acrylic resin fiber, a fiber containing an acrylic resin and another synthetic resin, (Miyahara, ¶0083: “synthetic fiber yarns formed of acrylic fibers”) and a carbon fiber. (Miyahara, ¶0083: “inspecting black carbon fiber yarns”).
Regarding claim 8, Miyahara in view of Shottenfeld, in further view of Smith, still in further view of Pieper and yet in further view of Okuda teaches, The inspection system according to claim 1, wherein the filament yarn is made of the glass fiber. (Miyahara, ¶0083: “yarns formed of glass fibers”).
Regarding claim 9, Miyahara in view of Shottenfeld, in further view of Smith, still in further view of Pieper and yet in further view of Okuda teaches, The inspection system according to claim 1, further comprising another computer controlling (Miyahara, ¶0151: “processing can be continuously performed to perform continuous inspection of running yarns”) the LED or halogen strobe lamp, the camera, the image processor, and the at least one selected from the group of the computer, the memory and the artificial intelligence. (Shottenfeld, col 2, lines 61-66: “a circuit for detecting yarn defects per unit length, a coordinating logic circuit, a meter circuit including an indicating meter, and a power supply circuit which controls the light source and supplies power for the other circuits”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Miyahara in view of Shottenfeld in further view of Smith, still in further view of Pieper and yet in further view of Okuda using the additional teachings of Shottenfeld to introduce a circuit that controls the components of the yarn inspection system. A person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the known elements as described above and achieve the predictable result of controlling the different operations of the inspection system using the controlling circuit. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the analogous arts Miyahara, Shottenfeld, Smith, Pieper and Okuda to obtain the invention in claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, Miyahara in view of Shottenfeld, in further view of Smith, still in further view of Pieper and yet in further view of Okuda teaches, The inspection system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one selected from the group of the computer, the memory and the artificial intelligence further determines acceptance or rejection of an original yarn of the filament yarn on the basis of the inspection result of the filament yarn. (Miyahara, ¶0165: “defective portions can be removed on the basis of the defect occurrence positions obtained as inspection results, or the inspection results can be used as quality assurance”).
Regarding claim 12, Miyahara in view of Shottenfeld, in further view of Smith, still in further view of Pieper and yet in further view of Okuda teaches, The inspection system according to claim 1, which is used off-line. (Miyahara, ¶0085: “the inspection for finding whether or not yarns have defects”).
Regarding claim 13, Miyahara in view of Shottenfeld, in further view of Smith, still in further view of Pieper and yet in further view of Okuda teaches, The inspection system according to claim 1, which is used in-line. (Miyahara, ¶0085: “inspection is performed in the final step in the production process”)
Regarding claim 14, it recites a method with steps corresponding to the elements of the system recited in claim 1. Therefore, the recited steps of method claim 14 are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding elements in system claim 1. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine Miyahara, Shottenfeld, Smith, Pieper and Okuda presented in rejection of claim 1, apply to this claim. Additionally, Miyahara teaches, An inspection method of a filament yarn (Miyahara, ¶0083: “the running yarn inspection method”).
Regarding claim 15, Miyahara in view of Shottenfeld, in further view of Smith, still in further view of Pieper and yet in further view of Okuda teaches, The inspection system according to claim 1, wherein the camera and the LED or halogen strobe lamp are configured to form a pair, (Smith, ¶0027: “The light source 106 and detector 108 are physically coupled to one another”; See also, Fig. 2A-2D) so that the filament yarn is irradiated with the inspection light in only one direction from the LED or halogen strobe lamp. (Smith, ¶0010: “a light source disposed on one side of the component, and an optical detector disposed on the other side of the component”; See also Fig. 2A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Miyahara in view of Shottenfeld in further view of Smith, still in further view of Pieper and yet in further view of Okuda using the additional teachings of Smith to introduce a light source coupled with a light detector. A person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the known elements as described above and achieve the predictable result of precise measurements during an inspection. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the analogous arts Miyahara, Shottenfeld, Smith, Pieper and Okuda to obtain the invention in claim 15.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyahara et al. (US 2010/0157301 A1), in view of Shottenfeld et al. (US Patent no. 3,729,635 A), in further view of Smith et al. (US 2017/0191946 A1), still in further view of Pieper et al. (US 11,978,181 B1) yet in further view of Okuda et al. (US 2016/0168761 A1) and even in further view of Liu et al. (US 2021/0374941 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Miyahara in view of Shottenfeld, in further view of Smith, still in further view of Pieper and yet in further view of Okuda teaches, The inspection system according to claim 1, wherein, when the threshold value includes a plurality of threshold values, (Miyahara, ¶0111: “use multiple threshold values selectively”) the at least one selected from a group of a computer, a memory and an artificial intelligence, outputs a determination result of the image with (Miyahara, ¶0110: “two-dimensional data of an image concerning contrast into the recording means, the types, forms, etc. of the defects”). However, the combination of Miyahara, Shottenfeld, Smith, Pieper and Okuda does not explicitly teach, the threshold values being divided into a first threshold value or less, from the first threshold value to a second threshold value, and the second threshold value or more.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Liu teaches, the threshold values being divided into (Liu, ¶0072: “the first threshold value can be set to 0.90, and the second threshold value can be set to 0.50”) a first threshold value or less, (Liu, ¶0072: “less than a second threshold value”; 0.50 or less) from the first threshold value to a second threshold value, (Liu, ¶0072: “not greater than a first threshold value”; less than 0.90, more than 0.50) and the second threshold value or more. (Liu, ¶0072: “greater than a first threshold value”; more than 0.90).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Miyahara in view of Shottenfeld in further view of Smith, still in further view of Pieper and yet in further view of Okuda using the teachings of Liu to introduce different range of thresholds. A person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the known elements as described above and achieve the predictable result of detecting the type of defect by comparing the calculated value with threshold values. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the analogous arts Miyahara, Shottenfeld, Smith, Pieper, Okuda and Liu to obtain the invention in claim 3.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyahara et al. (US 2010/0157301 A1), in view of Shottenfeld et al. (US Patent no. 3,729,635 A), in further view of Smith et al. (US 2017/0191946 A1), still in further view of Pieper et al. (US 11,978,181 B1), yet in further view of Okuda et al. (US 2016/0168761 A1), even in further view of Liu et al. (US 2021/0374941 A1) and still even in further view of Zhou et al. (US 2015/0093040 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Miyahara in view of Shottenfeld, in further view of Smith, still in further view of Pieper, yet in further view of Okuda and even in further view of Liu teaches, The inspection system according to claim 3, wherein, when the threshold value includes . However, the combination of Miyahara, Shottenfeld, Smith, Pieper, Okuda and Liu does not explicitly teach, three or more threshold values and from the second threshold value to a third threshold value, and the third threshold value or more.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Zhou teaches, three or more threshold values (Zhou, ¶0052: “the third preset brightness threshold may be selected”) from the second threshold value (Zhou, ¶0011: “greater than or equal to the second preset brightness threshold”) to a third threshold value, (Zhou, ¶0011: “less than or equal to the third preset brightness value”) and the third threshold value or more. (Zhou, ¶0011: “greater than a third preset brightness threshold”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Miyahara in view of Shottenfeld, in further view of Smith, still in further view of Pieper, yet in further view of Okuda and even in further view of Liu using the teachings of Zhou to introduce a third threshold value. A person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the known elements as described above and achieve the predictable result of determining a defect type based on which range of threshold value the calculated number falls in. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the analogous arts Miyahara, Shottenfeld, Smith, Pieper, Okuda, Liu and Zhou to obtain the invention in claim 4.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEHRAZUL ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)270-0489. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 8am-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, Saini Amandeep can be reached at (571) 272-3382. 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.
/MEHRAZUL ISLAM/Examiner, Art Unit 2662
/AMANDEEP SAINI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2662
Prosecution Insights