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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 30 July 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed 27 July 2026 have been entered. Claims 1, 6-8, 10, 13-16, and 18-25 remain pending in the application, as well as newly added claim 26 (claims 2-5, 9, 11-12, and 17 have been cancelled). The Applicant’s amendments to the claims overcome each and every rejection previously set forth in the Final Rejection dated 27 February 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-10, filed 27 July 2026, with respect to the rejections of newly amended independent claims 1, 8, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are made in view of Mustafic et al. (.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 6, 8, and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1: “interior sidewalls” in line 22 should be “the interior sidewalls” and “a dome-shaped bottom” in line 23 should be “the dome-shaped bottom” for further clarity and continuity in the claim language.
Claim 6: “a uniform lacquer coating” in lines 3-4 and 5 respectively should be “the uniform lacquer coating” for further clarity and continuity in the claim language.
Claim 8: “interior sidewalls” in line 22 should be “the interior sidewalls”, “a dome-shaped bottom” in line 23 should be “the dome-shaped bottom”, and “a uniform lacquer coating” in lines 24-25 and 26 respectively should be “the uniform lacquer coating” for further clarity and continuity in the claim language.
Claim 14: “interior sidewalls” in lines 30-31 should be “the interior sidewalls” and “a dome-shaped bottom” in lines 31-32 should be “the dome-shaped bottom” for further clarity and continuity in the claim language.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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, 6-8, 10, 13, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tucker (U.S. Patent No. 4924107 A) in view of Brumbaugh et al. (USPGPub 20150035970 A1), Mustafic et al. (Cotton contamination detection and classification using hyperspectral fluorescence imaging), and Sakane (USPGPub 20220390383 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Tucker teaches a method of determining a condition of an interior of a can (10), comprising: illuminating an interior of one can (BC) of a plurality of metal cans (10) on a production line (110) using a first light source (410) (see figure 2; claim 16, wherein said object is a metal can; and col. 5, lines 23-25, Illuminating optics 410 such as a fiber optic ring in camera C1 produces light 420 which illuminates the inside of the can 10); capturing a first image of the interior of the one can (BC) while the interior is illuminated by the first light source (410) (col. 5, lines 37-39, a ring-shaped field view as shown by arrows 460 provide the video image to be captured by camera C1 and analyzed by processor P1); illuminating the interior of the one can (BC) on the production line (110) using a second light source (820) (see figures 2 and 8, second camera C2 having a second light source 820; and col. 6, lines 24-26, The optic ring 820 delivers light 830 into the inside of the can 10 thereby illuminating the sidewalls 40a and the bottom 60); capturing a second image of the interior of the one can (BC) while the interior is illuminated by the second light source (820) (see figure 8; and col. 6, lines 30-32, the area to be inspected is captured by camera C2 and is delivered into processor P2); and determining whether the interior of the one can (BC) has a uniform lacquer coating and one or both of surface defects and contaminates by comparing first and second optical characteristics from the first and second images of the interior of the one can to a set of pre-established ranges for the first and second optical characteristics under light illumination from both the first and second light sources (col. 4, lines 64-68 and col. 5, line 1, Rejection of a can occurs when the operator sets a predetermined tolerance in each of the processors P1, P2, and P3. The processors will then count the defects or imperfections in the area of inspection that exceeds the preset tolerances, the processor will cause the can to be rejected; and col. 6, lines 18-21, The types of defects detected include grease spots, regions of no spray, partial spray, or over spray, general flaws, severe dents, internal lithography and internal base coat), wherein the pre-established ranges for the optical characteristics comprises a set of pre-established ranges of values for interior sidewalls of the one can and a set of pre-established ranges of values for a dome-shaped bottom of the one can (see figure 2; col. 4, lines 11-29, As can BC2 moves along the conveyor belt 110 in the direction of arrow 130, the bottom of the can is sensed by a photo detector 150a which delivers a signal over line 152a to processor P1. Processor P1 then activates camera C1 to capture an image of the moat 50 and chime 70. As can BC2 travels along conveyor belt 110, the bottom of the can will then activate photocell 150b delivering a signal over 152b to processor P2 which causes camera C2 to capture an image of the lower sidewall 40a and the bottom dome 60. Finally, as can BC2 travels along conveyor 110, the neck 30 of the can activates photocell 150c causing a signal to be delivered over line 152c into processor P3. Processor P3 then causes camera C3 to capture an image of the upper sidewall 40b, the neck 30, and the flange 20. Should can BC2 have an unacceptable defect or flaw as determined by processor P1, P2, or P3; an appropriate reject signal is delivered over bus 160 to the reject circuit 140; and col. 4, lines 64-66, Rejection of a can occurs when the operator sets a predetermined tolerance in each of the processors P1, P2, and P3). However, Tucker fails to explicitly teach wherein the first light source is a UV light source that emits light having wavelengths of between 100 nm and 400 nm; determining whether the interior of the one can has a uniform lacquer coating and whether any transparent contaminants are present by comparing first optical characteristics from the first image of the interior of the one can to a first set of pre-established ranges for the first optical characteristics under UV light illuminance; and wherein the second light source is a visible light source that emits light having wavelengths of between 380 nm and 700 nm.
However, Brumbaugh teaches wherein the first light source (130) is a UV light source that emits light having wavelengths of between 100 nm and 400 nm (¶24, The illumination source may comprise one or more ultraviolet (UV) light emitting diodes (LEDs); and NOTE: ultraviolet light wavelength range is 100 nm to 400 nm); and determining whether the interior of the one can has a uniform lacquer coating by comparing first optical characteristics from the first image of the interior of the one can to a first set of pre-established ranges for the first optical characteristics under UV light illuminance (¶23, an image is captured of the inside of a coated can, and the captured image is analyzed to identify characteristics (e.g., consistency, adhesion, thickness, coating voids) of the coating inside the can; ¶66, a template matching technique detects or identifies coating characteristics or defects… The template(s) or reference(s) are then used for comparison (e.g., by image subtraction) to identify characteristics of the suspect; and see remainder of ¶66 for further details).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tucker to incorporate the teachings of Brumbaugh to further include an ultraviolet light source because ultraviolet light can be used to provide a particular degree of contrast between coated and uncoated portions of a container in a captured image (Brumbaugh, ¶48). However, the combination fails to explicitly teach determining whether any transparent contaminants are present; and wherein the second light source is a visible light source that emits light having wavelengths of between 380 nm and 700 nm.
However, Mustafic teaches whether any transparent contaminants are present (page 1582, “For transparent plastic materials, the hyperspectral fluorescence imaging achieved a classification rate of 96%, which was 50% higher compared with a hyperspectral reflectance imaging system that only achieved a classification rate of 44%; page 1575, col. 2, All foreign matter categories were subject to fluorescence spectroscopy analysis in the UV excitation range of 320–400 nm; and see remainder of page 1575 for further details).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Tucker and Brumbaugh to incorporate the teachings of Mustafic to use UV light to detect transparent contaminants as opposed to visible light because these systems were not able to classify foreign matter with a similar appearance. For instance, transparent plastics or white paper cannot be correctly classified from lint using color features (Mustafic, page 1575, col. 1). However, the combination fails to explicitly teach wherein the second light source is a visible light source that emits light having wavelengths of between 380 nm and 700 nm.
However, Sakane teaches wherein the second light source (112f) is a visible light source that emits light having wavelengths of between 380 nm and 700 nm (¶152, an irradiation unit 110 further has a light emitting element (reference light emitting element) 112f (see FIG. 12) capable of irradiating the subject 800 with visible light).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Tucker, Brumbaugh, and Mustafic to incorporate the teachings of Sakane to use visible light because of its ability to create multi-color tone images, in which it is easy to detect the contour, allowing for the easy detection of imperfections on the surface of the object (Sakane, ¶166).
Regarding claim 6, Tucker as modified by Brumbaugh, Mustafic, and Sakane teaches the method of determining the condition of the interior of the can (Tucker 10 | Sakane 800) of claim 1, further comprising: rejecting the one can (Tucker BC | Sakane 800) upon determining that the interior of the one can (Tucker BC | Sakane 800) does not have a uniform lacquer coating, the one can (Tucker BC | Sakane 800) has one or both of surface defects and contaminates, or the interior of the one can (Tucker BC | Sakane 800) does not have a uniform lacquer coating and the one can (Tucker BC | Sakane 800) has one or both of surface defects and contaminates (Tucker, col. 4, lines 64-68 and col. 5, line 1, Rejection of a can occurs when the operator sets a predetermined tolerance in each of the processors P1, P2, and P3. The processors will then count the defects or imperfections in the area of inspection that exceeds the preset tolerances, the processor will cause the can to be rejected).
Regarding claim 7, Tucker as modified by Brumbaugh, Mustafic, and Sakane teaches the method of determining the condition of the interior of the can (Tucker 10 | Sakane 800) of claim 1, wherein: illuminating the interior of the one can (Tucker BC | Sakane 800) and imaging the interior of the one can (Tucker BC | Sakane 800) are performed while the one can (Tucker BC | Sakane 800) is moving down the production line (Tucker 110 | Sakane 300) (Tucker, col. 4, lines 11-25, As can BC2 moves along the conveyor belt 110 in the direction of arrow 130, the bottom of the can is sensed by a photo detector 150a which delivers a signal over line 152a to processor P1. Processor P1 then activates camera C1 to capture an image of the moat 50 and chime 70. As can BC2 travels along conveyor belt 110, the bottom of the can will then activate photocell 150b delivering a signal over 152b to processor P2 which causes camera C2 to capture an image of the lower sidewall 40a and the bottom dome 60. Finally, as can BC2 travels along conveyor 110, the neck 30 of the can activates photocell 150c causing a signal to be delivered over line 152c into processor P3. Processor P3 then causes camera C3 to capture an image of the upper sidewall 40b, the neck 30, and the flange 20).
Regarding claim 8, Tucker teaches a method of determining a condition of an interior of a can (10), comprising: illuminating the interior of one can (BC) of a plurality of metal cans (10) on a production line (110) using a first light source (410) (see figure 2; claim 16, wherein said object is a metal can; and col. 5, lines 23-25, Illuminating optics 410 such as a fiber optic ring in camera C1 produces light 420 which illuminates the inside of the can 10); capturing a first image of the interior of the one can (BC) while the interior is illuminated by the first light source (410) (col. 5, lines 37-39, a ring-shaped field view as shown by arrows 460 provide the video image to be captured by camera C1 and analyzed by processor P1); illuminating the interior of the one can (BC) using a second light source (820) (see figures 2 and 8, second camera C2 having a second light source 820; and col. 6, lines 24-26, The optic ring 820 delivers light 830 into the inside of the can 10 thereby illuminating the sidewalls 40a and the bottom 60); capturing a second image of the interior of the one can (BC) while the interior is illuminated by the second light source (820) (see figure 8; and col. 6, lines 30-32, the area to be inspected is captured by camera C2 and is delivered into processor P2); determining whether the interior of the one can (BC) has a uniform lacquer coating and one or both of surface defects and contaminates by comparing first and second optical characteristics from the first and second images of the interior of the one can to a set of pre-established ranges for the first and second optical characteristics under light illumination from both the first and second light sources (col. 4, lines 64-68 and col. 5, line 1, Rejection of a can occurs when the operator sets a predetermined tolerance in each of the processors P1, P2, and P3. The processors will then count the defects or imperfections in the area of inspection that exceeds the preset tolerances, the processor will cause the can to be rejected; and col. 6, lines 18-21, The types of defects detected include grease spots, regions of no spray, partial spray, or over spray, general flaws, severe dents, internal lithography and internal base coat); and rejecting the one can (BC) upon determining that the interior of the one can (BC) does not have a uniform lacquer coating, the one can (BC) has one or both of surface defects and contaminates, or the interior of the one can (BC) does not have a uniform lacquer coating and the one can (BC) has one or both of surface defects and contaminates (col. 4, lines 64-68 and col. 5, line 1, Rejection of a can occurs when the operator sets a predetermined tolerance in each of the processors P1, P2, and P3. The processors will then count the defects or imperfections in the area of inspection that exceeds the preset tolerances, the processor will cause the can to be rejected), wherein the pre-established ranges for the optical characteristics comprises a set of pre-established ranges of values for interior sidewalls of the one can and a set of pre-established ranges of values for a dome-shaped bottom of the one can (see figure 2; col. 4, lines 11-29, As can BC2 moves along the conveyor belt 110 in the direction of arrow 130, the bottom of the can is sensed by a photo detector 150a which delivers a signal over line 152a to processor P1. Processor P1 then activates camera C1 to capture an image of the moat 50 and chime 70. As can BC2 travels along conveyor belt 110, the bottom of the can will then activate photocell 150b delivering a signal over 152b to processor P2 which causes camera C2 to capture an image of the lower sidewall 40a and the bottom dome 60. Finally, as can BC2 travels along conveyor 110, the neck 30 of the can activates photocell 150c causing a signal to be delivered over line 152c into processor P3. Processor P3 then causes camera C3 to capture an image of the upper sidewall 40b, the neck 30, and the flange 20. Should can BC2 have an unacceptable defect or flaw as determined by processor P1, P2, or P3; an appropriate reject signal is delivered over bus 160 to the reject circuit 140; and col. 4, lines 64-66, Rejection of a can occurs when the operator sets a predetermined tolerance in each of the processors P1, P2, and P3). However, Tucker fails to explicitly teach wherein the first light source emits UV light having wavelengths of between 100 nm and 400 nm; determining whether the interior of the one can has a uniform lacquer coating and whether any transparent contaminants are present by comparing first optical characteristics from the first image of the interior of the one can to a first set of pre-established ranges for the first optical characteristics under UV light illuminance; and wherein the second light source emits visible light having wavelengths of between 380 nm and 700 nm.
However, Brumbaugh teaches wherein the first light source (130) is a UV light source that emits light having wavelengths of between 100 nm and 400 nm (¶24, The illumination source may comprise one or more ultraviolet (UV) light emitting diodes (LEDs); and NOTE: ultraviolet light wavelength range is 100 nm to 400 nm); and determining whether the interior of the one can has a uniform lacquer coating by comparing first optical characteristics from the first image of the interior of the one can to a first set of pre-established ranges for the first optical characteristics under UV light illuminance (¶23, an image is captured of the inside of a coated can, and the captured image is analyzed to identify characteristics (e.g., consistency, adhesion, thickness, coating voids) of the coating inside the can; ¶66, a template matching technique detects or identifies coating characteristics or defects… The template(s) or reference(s) are then used for comparison (e.g., by image subtraction) to identify characteristics of the suspect; and see remainder of ¶66 for further details).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tucker to incorporate the teachings of Brumbaugh to further include an ultraviolet light source because ultraviolet light can be used to provide a particular degree of contrast between coated and uncoated portions of a container in a captured image (Brumbaugh, ¶48). However, the combination fails to explicitly teach determining whether any transparent contaminants are present; and wherein the second light source emits visible light having wavelengths of between 380 nm and 700 nm.
However, Mustafic teaches whether any transparent contaminants are present (page 1582, “For transparent plastic materials, the hyperspectral fluorescence imaging achieved a classification rate of 96%, which was 50% higher compared with a hyperspectral reflectance imaging system that only achieved a classification rate of 44%; page 1575, col. 2, All foreign matter categories were subject to fluorescence spectroscopy analysis in the UV excitation range of 320–400 nm; and see remainder of page 1575 for further details).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Tucker and Brumbaugh to incorporate the teachings of Mustafic to use UV light to detect transparent contaminants as opposed to visible light because these systems were not able to classify foreign matter with a similar appearance. For instance, transparent plastics or white paper cannot be correctly classified from lint using color features (Mustafic, page 1575, col. 1). However, the combination fails to explicitly teach wherein the second light source is a visible light source that emits light having wavelengths of between 380 nm and 700 nm.
However, Sakane teaches wherein the second light source (112f) emits visible light having wavelengths of between 380 nm and 700 nm (¶152, an irradiation unit 110 further has a light emitting element (reference light emitting element) 112f (see FIG. 12) capable of irradiating the subject 800 with visible light).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Tucker, Brumbaugh, and Mustafic to incorporate the teachings of Sakane to use visible light because of its ability to create multi-color tone images, in which it is easy to detect the contour, allowing for the easy detection of imperfections on the surface of the object (Sakane, ¶166).
Regarding claim 10, Tucker as modified by Brumbaugh, Mustafic, and Sakane teaches the method of determining the condition of the interior of the can (Tucker 10 | Sakane 800) of claim 8, wherein: the first image is captured by a first camera (Tucker C1 | Brumbaugh 120) and the second image is captured by a second camera (Tucker C2 | Brumbaugh 120) (Tucker, col. 5, lines 37-39, a ring-shaped field view as shown by arrows 460 provide the video image to be captured by camera C1 and analyzed by processor P1; and col. 6, lines 30-32, the area to be inspected is captured by camera C2 and is delivered into processor P2).
Regarding claim 13, Tucker as modified by Brumbaugh, Mustafic, and Sakane teaches the method of determining the condition of the interior of the can (Tucker 10 | Sakane 800) of claim 8, wherein: rejecting the one can (Tucker BC | Johler 1 | Sakane 800) comprises automatically removing the one can (Tucker BC | Sakane 800) from the production line (Tucker 110 | Sakane 300) using a removal mechanism (Tucker 140) (Tucker, col. 4, lines 26-30, Should can BC2 have an unacceptable defect or flaw as determined by processor P1, P2, or P3; an appropriate reject signal is delivered over bus 160 to the reject circuit 140 which causes can BC2 to be pushed out from the conveyor belt 110 in the direction of arrow 170).
Regarding claim 25, Tucker as modified by Brumbaugh, Mustafic, and Sakane teaches the method of determining the condition of the interior of the can of claim 1, wherein: each of the first optical characteristics and the second optical characteristics comprises at least one of a color, a brightness, or a contrast of the interior of the can (Tucker 10 | Sakane 800) (Brumbaugh, ¶12, The void detection operation may be configured to identify the presence or absence of voids in the sprayed coating… The void detection operation may include one or more of edge-finding, blob-finding, symmetry analysis, pixel counting, segmentation, brightness analysis, or color analysis).
Claims 14-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tucker (U.S. Patent No. 4924107 A) in view of Brumbaugh et al. (USPGPub 20150035970 A1), Mustafic et al. (Cotton contamination detection and classification using hyperspectral fluorescence imaging), Sakane (USPGPub 20220390383 A1), and Falgout (USPGPub 20230067525 A1).
Regarding claim 14¸ Tucker teaches a production line, comprising: a conveyor mechanism (110) that is configured to transport a plurality of metal cans (10) down a portion of the production line (110) (see figure 2, conveyor belt 110; and claim 16, wherein said object is a metal can); a first light source (410) that emits light at a first position of the conveyor mechanism (110) (see figures 2 and 4, first camera C1 at a first location along the conveyor emitting light with first light source 410; and col. 5, lines 23-25, Illuminating optics 410 such as a fiber optic ring in camera C1 produces light 420 which illuminates the inside of the can 10); a first camera (C1) directed toward the first position (see figure 2, first camera C1); a second light source (820) that emits light at a second position of the conveyor mechanism (110) (see figures 2 and 8, light source 820 positioned at C2; and col. 6, lines 24-26, The optic ring 820 delivers light 830 into the inside of the can 10 thereby illuminating the sidewalls 40a and the bottom 60); a second camera (C2) directed toward the second position (see figure 2, second camera C2); one or more processors (P1/P2/P3) (see figure 2, processors P1, P2, and P3); and the one or more processors (P1/P2/P3): illuminate an interior of one can (BC) of the plurality of metal cans (10) using the first light source (410); capture a first image of the interior of the one can (BC) using the first camera (C1) while the interior of the one can (BC) is illuminated by the first light source (410); illuminate the interior of the one can (BC) using the second light source (820); capture a second image of the interior of the one can (BC) using the second camera (C2) while the interior of the one can (BC) is illuminated by the second light source (820) (col. 4, lines 11-25, As can BC2 moves along the conveyor belt 110 in the direction of arrow 130, the bottom of the can is sensed by a photo detector 150a which delivers a signal over line 152a to processor P1. Processor P1 then activates camera C1 to capture an image of the moat 50 and chime 70. As can BC2 travels along conveyor belt 110, the bottom of the can will then activate photocell 150b delivering a signal over 152b to processor P2 which causes camera C2 to capture an image of the lower sidewall 40a and the bottom dome 60. Finally, as can BC2 travels along conveyor 110, the neck 30 of the can activates photocell 150c causing a signal to be delivered over line 152c into processor P3. Processor P3 then causes camera C3 to capture an image of the upper sidewall 40b, the neck 30, and the flange 20); and determining whether the interior of the one can (BC) has a uniform lacquer coating and one or both of surface defects and contaminates by comparing first and second optical characteristics from the first and second images of the interior of the one can to a set of pre-established ranges for the first and second optical characteristics under light illumination from both the first and second light sources (col. 4, lines 64-68 and col. 5, line 1, Rejection of a can occurs when the operator sets a predetermined tolerance in each of the processors P1, P2, and P3. The processors will then count the defects or imperfections in the area of inspection that exceeds the preset tolerances, the processor will cause the can to be rejected; and col. 6, lines 18-21, The types of defects detected include grease spots, regions of no spray, partial spray, or over spray, general flaws, severe dents, internal lithography and internal base coat), wherein the pre-established ranges for the optical characteristics comprises a set of pre-established ranges of values for interior sidewalls of the one can and a set of pre-established ranges of values for a dome-shaped bottom of the one can (see figure 2; col. 4, lines 11-29, As can BC2 moves along the conveyor belt 110 in the direction of arrow 130, the bottom of the can is sensed by a photo detector 150a which delivers a signal over line 152a to processor P1. Processor P1 then activates camera C1 to capture an image of the moat 50 and chime 70. As can BC2 travels along conveyor belt 110, the bottom of the can will then activate photocell 150b delivering a signal over 152b to processor P2 which causes camera C2 to capture an image of the lower sidewall 40a and the bottom dome 60. Finally, as can BC2 travels along conveyor 110, the neck 30 of the can activates photocell 150c causing a signal to be delivered over line 152c into processor P3. Processor P3 then causes camera C3 to capture an image of the upper sidewall 40b, the neck 30, and the flange 20. Should can BC2 have an unacceptable defect or flaw as determined by processor P1, P2, or P3; an appropriate reject signal is delivered over bus 160 to the reject circuit 140; and col. 4, lines 64-66, Rejection of a can occurs when the operator sets a predetermined tolerance in each of the processors P1, P2, and P3). However, Tucker fails to explicitly teach wherein the first light source emits UV light having wavelengths of between 100 nm and 400 nm; determining whether the interior of the one can has a uniform lacquer coating and whether any transparent contaminants are present by comparing first optical characteristics from the first image of the interior of the one can to a first set of pre-established ranges for the first optical characteristics under UV light illuminance; wherein the second light source emits visible light having wavelengths of between 380 nm and 700 nm; and a memory having instructions stored thereon that, when executed, cause the one or more processors to function.
However, Brumbaugh teaches wherein the first light source (130) emits UV light having wavelengths of between 100 nm and 400 nm (¶24, The illumination source may comprise one or more ultraviolet (UV) light emitting diodes (LEDs); and NOTE: ultraviolet light wavelength range is 100 nm to 400 nm); and determining whether the interior of the one can has a uniform lacquer coating by comparing first optical characteristics from the first image of the interior of the one can to a first set of pre-established ranges for the first optical characteristics under UV light illuminance (¶23, an image is captured of the inside of a coated can, and the captured image is analyzed to identify characteristics (e.g., consistency, adhesion, thickness, coating voids) of the coating inside the can; ¶66, a template matching technique detects or identifies coating characteristics or defects… The template(s) or reference(s) are then used for comparison (e.g., by image subtraction) to identify characteristics of the suspect; and see remainder of ¶66 for further details ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tucker to incorporate the teachings of Brumbaugh to further include an ultraviolet light source because ultraviolet light can be used to provide a particular degree of contrast between coated and uncoated portions of a container in a captured image (Brumbaugh, ¶48). However, the combination fails to explicitly teach determining whether any transparent contaminants are present; wherein the second light source emits visible light having wavelengths of between 380 nm and 700 nm; and a memory having instructions stored thereon that, when executed, cause the one or more processors to function.
However, Mustafic teaches whether any transparent contaminants are present (page 1582, “For transparent plastic materials, the hyperspectral fluorescence imaging achieved a classification rate of 96%, which was 50% higher compared with a hyperspectral reflectance imaging system that only achieved a classification rate of 44%; page 1575, col. 2, All foreign matter categories were subject to fluorescence spectroscopy analysis in the UV excitation range of 320–400 nm; and see remainder of page 1575 for further details).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Tucker and Brumbaugh to incorporate the teachings of Mustafic to use UV light to detect transparent contaminants as opposed to visible light because these systems were not able to classify foreign matter with a similar appearance. For instance, transparent plastics or white paper cannot be correctly classified from lint using color features (Mustafic, page 1575, col. 1). However, the combination fails to explicitly teach wherein the second light source emits visible light having wavelengths of between 380 nm and 700 nm; and a memory having instructions stored thereon that, when executed, cause the one or more processors to function.
However, Sakane teaches wherein the second light source (112f) emits visible light having wavelengths of between 380 nm and 700 nm (¶152, an irradiation unit 110 further has a light emitting element (reference light emitting element) 112f (see FIG. 12) capable of irradiating the subject 800 with visible light).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Tucker, Brumbaugh, and Mustafic to incorporate the teachings of Sakane to use visible light because of its ability to create multi-color tone images, in which it is easy to detect the contour, allowing for the easy detection of imperfections on the surface of the object (Sakane, ¶166). However, the combination fails to explicitly teach a memory having instructions stored thereon that, when executed, cause the one or more processors to function.
However, Falgout teaches a memory (76) having instructions stored thereon that, when executed, cause the one or more processors to function (¶19, A controller 76, such as a programmable logic controller or other programmable processor executing program steps in a program memory, controls the timing and receives imaging information from the visual inspection system 46. The controller 76 also turns on and off the white-light source 60, 61 for the white-light imaging. The controller 76 activates each of the air-jet valves 74, 75 over control lines 78, 79).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Tucker, Brumbaugh, Mustafic, and Sakane to incorporate the teachings of Falgout to include a memory for operating the elements of the inspection device in order to control the multiple elements of the device from one controller, preventing any possible conflicting messages from multiple controllers.
Regarding claim 15, Tucker as modified by Brumbaugh, Mustafic, Sakane, and Falgout teaches the production line of claim 14, further comprising: a removal mechanism (Tucker 140 | Falgout 26) configured to remove the one can (Tucker BC | Sakane 800) upon determining that the interior of the one can (Tucker BC | Sakane 800) does not have a uniform lacquer coating, the one can (Tucker BC | Sakane 800) has one or both of surface defects and contaminates, or the interior of the one can (Tucker BC | Sakane 800) does not have a uniform lacquer coating and the one can (Tucker BC | Sakane 800) has one or both of surface defects and contaminates (Tucker, col. 4, lines 26-30, Should can BC2 have an unacceptable defect or flaw as determined by processor P1, P2, or P3; an appropriate reject signal is delivered over bus 160 to the reject circuit 140 which causes can BC2 to be pushed out from the conveyor belt 110 in the direction of arrow 170).
Regarding claim 16, Tucker as modified by Brumbaugh, Mustafic, Sakane, and Falgout teaches the production line of claim 14, wherein: the first light source (Tucker 410 | Brumbaugh 130 | Sakane 112a | Falgout 38) is coupled with the first camera (Tucker C1 | Brumbaugh 120) (Tucker, see figure 4, illuminating optics 410 coupled with first camera C1); and the second light source (Tucker 820 | Sakane 112f | Falgout 40) is coupled with the second camera (Tucker C2 | Brumbaugh 120) (Tucker, see figure 8, optic ring 820 coupled to second camera C2).
Regarding claim 18, Tucker as modified by Brumbaugh, Mustafic, Sakane, and Falgout teaches the production line of claim 14, wherein: the first position is positioned upstream of the second position (Tucker, see figure 2, C1 at first position is upstream of C2 at second position).
Regarding claim 19, Tucker as modified by Brumbaugh, Mustafic, Sakane, and Falgout teaches the production line of claim 14, wherein: the first light source (Tucker 410 | Brumbaugh 130 | Sakane 112a | Falgout 38) and the second light source (Tucker 820 | Sakane 112f | Falgout 40) are positioned above the conveyor mechanism (Tucker 110 | Sakane 300 | Falgout 20) (Tucker, see figure 2, first and second cameras C1 and C2 (having light sources 410 and 820 coupled respectively) located above conveyor belt 110).
Regarding claim 20, Tucker as modified by Brumbaugh, Mustafic, Sakane, and Falgout teaches the production line of claim 14, wherein: the first camera (Tucker C1 | Brumbaugh 120) is positioned to image an additional can (Tucker BC2) of the plurality of metal cans (Tucker 10) while the second camera images (Tucker C2 | Brumbaugh 120) the one can (Tucker BC3) (Tucker, see figure 2, while can BC3 is being inspected by camera C2, can BC2 is being inspected by camera C1).
Claims 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tucker (U.S. Patent No. 4924107 A) in view of Brumbaugh et al. (USPGPub 20150035970 A1), Mustafic et al. (Cotton contamination detection and classification using hyperspectral fluorescence imaging), Sakane (USPGPub 20220390383 A1), and Falgout (USPGPub 20230067525 A1) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Scholey et al. (USPGPub 20220362832 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Tucker as modified by Brumbaugh, Mustafic, Sakane, and Falgout teaches wherein the conveyor mechanism (Tucker 110 | Sakane 300 | Falgout 20) is configured to transport the plurality of metal cans (Tucker 10) to a subsequent station of the production line (Tucker, claim 16, wherein said object is a metal can; and col. 3, lines 48-49, a conventional conveyor belt 110 carrying a plurality of cans 10 in the direction of arrow 130). However, the combination fails to explicitly teach a necker that is configured to shape a neck of each of the plurality of cans.
However, Scholey teaches a necker (10) that is configured to shape a neck of each of the plurality of cans (1) (¶3, Some can bodies after being formed in a bodymaker are further formed in a die necking machine, commonly referred to as simply a necker machine).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Tucker, Brumbaugh, Mustafic, Sakane, and Falgout to incorporate the teachings of Scholey to further provide a necker in order to properly shape the can to provide ease of use to the consumer, as well as preventing sharp edges.
Regarding claim 22, Tucker as modified by Brumbaugh, Mustafic, Sakane, Falgout, and Scholey teaches the production line of claim 21, wherein: the subsequent station comprises a palletizer (Scholey, ¶2, The bodymaker, typically, includes a ram/punch that moves the blanks through a number of dies to form the can body. The can body is ejected from the ram/punch for further processing such as, but not limited to, trimming, washing, printing, flanging, and inspecting, before being placed on pallets which are then shipped to a filler. At the filler, the cans are taken off of the pallets, filled, have ends placed on them, and then are typically repackaged in various quantities (e.g., six packs, twelve pack or other multi-can cases, etc.) for sale to the consumer).
Regarding claim 23, Tucker as modified by Brumbaugh, Mustafic, Sakane, and Falgout teaches the conveyor mechanism (Tucker 110 | Sakane 300 | Falgout 20) configured to transfer a plurality of metal cans (Tucker, claim 16, wherein said object is a metal can; and col. 3, lines 48-49, a conventional conveyor belt 110 carrying a plurality of cans 10 in the direction of arrow 130). However, the combination fails to explicitly teach an unloading mechanism that is configured to transfer the plurality of cans from a pallet to the conveyor mechanism.
However, Scholey teaches an unloading mechanism that is configured to transfer the plurality of cans from a pallet to the conveyor mechanism (¶2, The bodymaker, typically, includes a ram/punch that moves the blanks through a number of dies to form the can body. The can body is ejected from the ram/punch for further processing such as, but not limited to, trimming, washing, printing, flanging, and inspecting, before being placed on pallets which are then shipped to a filler. At the filler, the cans are taken off of the pallets, filled, have ends placed on them, and then are typically repackaged in various quantities (e.g., six packs, twelve pack or other multi-can cases, etc.) for sale to the consumer).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Tucker, Brumbaugh, Mustafic, Sakane, and Falgout to incorporate the teachings of Scholey to further provide a pallet of cans for transfer in order to transfer a large number of cans at once, increasing the flow of cans being made and filled.
Regarding claim 24, Tucker as modified by Brumbaugh, Mustafic, Sakane, Falgout, and Scholey teaches the production line of claim 23, further comprising: a filling station that is configured to receive acceptable cans of the plurality of metal cans from the conveyor mechanism (Scholey, ¶2, The bodymaker, typically, includes a ram/punch that moves the blanks through a number of dies to form the can body. The can body is ejected from the ram/punch for further processing such as, but not limited to, trimming, washing, printing, flanging, and inspecting, before being placed on pallets which are then shipped to a filler. At the filler, the cans are taken off of the pallets, filled, have ends placed on them, and then are typically repackaged in various quantities (e.g., six packs, twelve pack or other multi-can cases, etc.) for sale to the consumer).
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tucker (U.S. Patent No. 4924107 A) in view of Brumbaugh et al. (USPGPub 20150035970 A1), Mustafic et al. (Cotton contamination detection and classification using hyperspectral fluorescence imaging), and Sakane (USPGPub 20220390383 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Safai (USPGPub 20210356404 A1).
Regarding claim 26, Tucker as modified by Brumbaugh, Mustafic, and Sakane teaches comparing the first optical characteristics from the first image of the interior of the one can and comparing the second optical characteristic from the second image of the interior of the one can against pre-established ranges to detect whether any defects are present in the interior of the one can (Tucker, col. 4, lines 64-68 and col. 5, line 1, Rejection of a can occurs when the operator sets a predetermined tolerance in each of the processors P1, P2, and P3. The processors will then count the defects or imperfections in the area of inspection that exceeds the preset tolerances, the processor will cause the can to be rejected). However, the combination fails to explicitly teach wherein the optical characteristics are compared across respective pixels to detect whether any defects are present by detecting any outlier pixels that have significant shifts in optical characteristics values relative to nearby pixels.
However, Safai teaches wherein the optical characteristics are compared across respective pixels to detect whether any defects are present by detecting any outlier pixels that have significant shifts in optical characteristics values relative to nearby pixels (¶41, processor 140 of inspection system 100 performs image processing and comparison of first output 128 (e.g., a first data set) derived from first feedback camera 130 of one or more feedback cameras 118 based on second light radiation 120 with a second output (a second data set) derived from first feedback camera 130 or another feedback camera of one or more feedback cameras 118 based on fourth light radiation 126. The image processing performed by processor 140 includes a pixel-by-pixel comparison of images of a currently acquired image of the part and a previously acquired image of the part or an image of a known defect-free part in the same orientation as the part being manufactured; and see ¶¶42-43 and ¶58 for further details).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Tucker, Brumbaugh, Mustafic, and Sakane to incorporate the teachings of Safai to compare images on a pixel by pixel basis as this is a well-known scanning technique in the art, and in order to determine the exact location where a defect is occurring.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kanai et al. (USPGPub 20240044806 A1): Kanai teaches a method of determining the presence of foreign matter by comparing detected pixels values with a predetermined threshold (¶68, a method of determining the presence or absence of a foreign matter by comparing the luminance value of the pixel at each position with a predetermined threshold value).
Youngs et al. (USPGPub 20210100256 A1): Youngs teaches a method of detecting foreign debris on a pixel-by-pixel basis (¶8, A library communicatively coupled to the processor containing data representative of acceptable pixels corresponding to images of foodstuff is provided, wherein the processor compares images of the foodstuffs on a pixel by pixel basis with the data representative of acceptable pixels stored in the library to detect foreign debris; and see ¶29).
Smith (USPGPub 20210088453 A1): Smith teaches a method of detecting defects on a pixel-by-pixel basis (¶73, subtracting the topography characteristics of a region of interest of the sample from the topography characteristics of the reference location on a pixel-by-pixel basis, removes common pattern structures or characteristics and leaves only variations. Resulting variations may be determined to be defects).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIN R GARBER whose telephone number is (571)272-4663. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0730-1730.
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, Georgia Y Epps can be reached at (571)272-2328. 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.
/ERIN R GARBER/Examiner, Art Unit 2878
Prosecution Insights