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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 6, 9-14 and 17-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vaupel (DE102013005187A1)
With respect to claim 1, Vaupel teaches a sheet (surface material – Description at line 1) identification device comprising:
an acquisition portion (microscope) for acquiring identification image (interference pattern, 15, 16 and 17) in applied identification region 13, (see figure 2).
Vaupel teaches a pattern of light (light source 1) which is projected on to the surface of a material on which the image formation (interference pattern) is formed.
Vaupel teaches the identification image is an asperity identification. In the Description at the first para., nineth paragraph and in the second to last paragraph of page 3, the asperity portion are the “rough/roughness” values which is based on the sheet which is based on the identification image.
With respect to claim 2, Vaupel teaches determining an image processing condition which is the determination of the roughness values or height topographies based on the asperity information, see last para. at page 2. See also the last para. of page 3 of Vaupel.
With respect to claim 5, Vaupel teaches an irradiation portion, illustrated by figure 1, which is comprised of a light source 1 and a polarizer for shielding a portion of light which is output to allow pattern light to go through to the pattern.
With respect to claim 6, Vaupel teaches a stripe pattern of having light and dark portions in the identified region, see figure 2b.
With respect to claim 9, Vaupel teaches that the asperity information is “roughness values and/or height topographies”, see the last two lines of page 2 of the Description. Hence the height dimension is perpendicular to the plane as claimed and is projected upward along the plane ( the plane of the sheet material).
With respect to claim 10, Vaupel teaches identifying portions (region 13 of figure 2a) based on the width of the pattern of light. This is illustrated by figure 2b where the wiggly lines are illustrated within the rectangular box.
With respect to claim 11, Vaupel teaches an image processing apparatus in which image reading of a sheet (surface material) is conducted, as illustrated by figure 1. The microscopy scanning is a part of the processing apparatus. Moreover, the measuring of the height of topographies or roughness is yet a different portion of the processing apparatus. The image reading is performed by material microscopy, see the Abstract, Claim 9 and the Description at line 1 of Vaupel.
With respect to claim 12, Vaupel teaches a sheet identification method, which is identified by claim 9 of Vaupel. Vaupel teaches the method wherein an acquisition portion (microscope) for acquiring identification image (interference pattern, 15, 16 and 17) in applied identification region 13, (see figure 2).
Vaupel teaches a pattern of light (light source 1) which is projected on to the surface of a material on which the image formation (interference pattern) is formed.
Vaupel teaches a microscopic TIC module for identification of asperity image information (See claim 9). In the Description at the first para., nineth paragraph and in the second to last paragraph of page 3, the asperity portion are the “rough/roughness” values which are based on the sheet which is based on the identification image
With respect to claim 13, Vaupel teaches a sheet identification device via microscopy TIC module which comprises an acquisition portion (microscope) for acquiring identification image (interference pattern, 15, 16 and 17) in applied identification region 13, (see figure 2).
Vaupel further teaches asperity identification portion (section 13 of figure 2a) based on identify asperity information (interference pattern) obtained by integrating the interference pattern when the scanner or microscopy scan reads over the identification information based on movement over the sheet (material surface).
With respect to claim 14, within the TIC module taught by Vaupel, is a process for reading the asperity information.
As set forth in in the last paragraph of page 2, the interfering images in the form of stripe patterns of material sheet (11) from which roughness values and /or height topographies of the surface are obtained for image evaluation based on the reading of the asperity identification portion (striped region illustrated by figure 2b).
With respect to claim 17, Vaupel teaches an irradiation portion, illustrated by figure 1, which is comprised of a light source 1 and a polarizer for shielding a portion of light which is output to allow pattern light to go through to the pattern.
With respect to claim 18, Vaupel teaches a stripe pattern of having light and dark portions in the identified region, see figure 2b.
With respect to claim 19, Vaupel teaches wherein the black and white “width” portions of the stripes extend in a direction of the scan or movement toward the identification region 13 (see figure 2b).
With respect to claim 20, Vaupel teaches that the asperity information is “roughness values and/or height topographies”, see the last two lines of page 2 of the Description. Hence the height value is perpendicular to the plane as claimed and is along the plane ( the plane of the sheet material).
With respect to claim 21, Vaupel teaches, identifying portions (region 13 of figures 2a) based on the width of the pattern of light. This is illustrated by figure 2b where the wiggly lines are illustrated within the rectangular box.
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(s) 3, 4, 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaupel (DE102013005187A1)
in view of JP2022512031.
With respect to claim 3, Vaupel teaches all of the subject matter upon which the claim depends except for the identification information at a predetermined angle extending in the conveying direction.
Vaupel teaches a first line connecting between the light source 1 and the center of the identification region, see figure 1. The 031 reference teaches determining the asperity value a document sheet that is angled as shown by figures 4, 5 and 1
The 031 reference teaches different embodiments in which the document sheet is angled. At lines 13 and 14 of page 3 examples of +/- 90 degrees and +/- 30 degrees are provided.
Since the 031 reference teaches measuring defects of an engraving processing in which a “foil” is transferred to a surface of a paper in the form of patches or stripes (bands that extend over the heigh or a sheet or banknote), the purpose of inclining the sheets would have been recognized by Vaupel as set forth by the 031 reference.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of inclining the surface of a sheet material, as set forth by the 031 reference for determining the asperity values which is taught by both the 031 and Vaupel references.
With respect to claim 4, regarding the specific angles as claimed, see page 3, lines 13 and 14 . The motivation for this rejection is the same as that to claim 3 above.
With respect to claim 7, Vaupel teaches all of the subject matter which includes first and second stripes that are parallel with respect to each other. Vaupel does not teach that the stripes are perpendicular to teach other.
The 031 reference illustrates, by figures 32-34, orthogonal patterns of stripes via patterns 3, 4 and 6.
Since the 031 reference teaches measuring defects of an engraving process, in which a “foil” is transferred to a surface of a paper in the form of patches or stripes (bands that extend over the heigh or a sheet or banknote), the purpose of using orthogonal patterns would have been recognized by Vaupel.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use different striped patterns to determine the amount of asperities prevalent on a surface material as set forth by Vaupel and the 031 reference.
With respect to claim 8, Vaupel teaches all of the subject matter upon which the claim depends including pitch {P).
What Vaupel does not disclose is the specific values of more than 60 microns and less than 500 microns. as claimed.
The 031 reference, at page 3, lines 9-12 teaches a pitch that is between the claimed value.
Since the 031 reference teaches measuring defects of an engraving process, in which a “foil” is transferred to a surface of a paper in the form of patches or stripes (bands that extend over the heigh or a sheet or banknote), the purpose of using patterns with a pitch between 60 microns and 500 microns would have been contemplated by Vaupel as set forth by the 031 reference.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to designate the P valve as set forth in Vaupel to the specific values as claimed and discussed withing the 031 reference, for the purpose of measuring the asperity values to determine the roughness or height values of the identification image.
Claim(s) 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaupel in view of KSR v. Teleflex 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
With respect to claim 15, Vaupel teaches all of the subject matter upon which the claim depends including the movement whereby scanning of the of the stripe patterns is conducted. Vaupel suggests that the scanning apparatus moves relative to a stationary striped patter.
However, Vaupel may not be limited to this conveyance arrangement. The Examiner contends, that the alternative of having the paper conveyed with respect to the scanning mechanism is well known. It would have been obvious to try different conveying methods for reading the striped portion with respect to the image acquisition portion. Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing data of the claimed invention, to read a stripped pattern either to have the reader read relative to the stripped pattern or to have the striped portion move relative to the scanning mechanism for the purpose of reading the asperities caused by the roughness of the document.
With respect to claim 16, Vaupel teaches all of the subject matter upon which the claim depends but does not specifically discuss the rate of movement of the scanning mechanism relative to the striped portion.
While Vaupel teaches the movement (see the second to last paragraph at page 4), Vaupel teaches that the type of movement is not limited (Page 4, line 15).
Therefore, the Examiner contends that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute one rate of speed for that suitable to optimize the reading of the striped patterns. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to move the scanner or paper to be equal to or greater than the pitch value so that the asperity values can be computed for determining the degree of smoothness or roughness of the surface material as a result of the scan.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEROME GRANT II whose telephone number is (571)272-7463. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m..
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.
/JEROME GRANT II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2664