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 .
Notice re prior art available under both pre-AIA and AIA
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to ATA 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 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.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5-7, 9, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nielsen, et al. (US 2021/0375078 A1).
Before advancing the detailed claim rejections, it will be helpful to briefly describe the automated vehicle body damage detection of Nielsen, et al. At paragraph 0013, Nielsen, et al. disclose methods and systems for automating inspections for detecting vehicle body damage and reducing human inspections. Aspects of the disclosed technology include utilizing a projector system to project electromagnetic radiation, such as visible light patterns, onto the body of the vehicle. Furthermore, a sensor system, such as a camera, receives and stores reflected electromagnetic radiation (e.g. an image of how the light pattern appears on the body of the vehicle) as sensor data. A computing system receives the sensor data and analyzes the sensor data to determine if the vehicle has damage.
With regard to claim 1, Nielsen, et al. disclose an apparatus for performing a quality inspection measurement of a vehicle part, i.e., body (See for example, Fig. 1) the apparatus comprising a light source (See for example, item 120, in Fig. 1), a camera (See for example, item 130, in Fig.1; and paragraph 0013), and a processing unit, i.e., computing system (See for example, item 150, in Fig. 1), wherein the processing unit is configured to provide a reference image, i.e., expected pattern/expected electromagnetic radiation (See for example, paragraph 0024), the reference image comprising a reference light grid overlaying a reference vehicle part, the light source being arranged at a first predefined distance from the vehicle part and configured to project an actual light grid onto the vehicle part, i.e., surface of the body of the vehicle (See for example, paragraph 0017; and Fig. 1), the camera being arranged at a second predefined distance from the vehicle part and configured to obtain an actual image, i.e., reflected pattern, sensor data or reflected electromagnetic radiation, of the vehicle part (See for example paragraph 0023; and Fig. 1), the actual image comprising the actual light grid projected onto the vehicle part (See for example, paragraphs 0017-0018), and wherein the processing unit is configured to compare the reference image and the actual image using image processing algorithms to thereby obtain the quality inspection measurement of the vehicle part (See for example, paragraph 0024). Thus, each of the requirements of claim 1 is met.
With regard to claim 2, the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processing unit is configured to determine if the obtained quality inspection measurement of the vehicle part complies with predetermined design tolerance values for the vehicle part (See for example, paragraph 0025: if the reflected electromagnetic radiation pattern matches the expected pattern of reflected electromagnetic radiation, computing system 150 may determine that there is little to no damage. In some embodiments, computing system 150 may determine that the vehicle 102 has damage and that the damage is within an acceptable range, such that the damage is not critical and/or requiring repairs).
With regard to claim 5, the apparatus according to claim 2, a machine learning model that is trained to estimate the predetermined design tolerance values based on information from the reference image (See for example, paragraph 0019, 0030, and 0038).
With regard to claim 6, the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the light source comprises at least one laser and at least one optical element, the light source being configured to generate parallel grid lines (See for example, paragraphs 0017-0018).
With regard to claim 7, the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processing unit is further configured to generate error data, the error data indicating which portions of the vehicle part do not comply with the predetermined design tolerance values (See for example, paragraph 0027).
With regard to claim 9, the apparatus according to claim 1, configured with a machine learning model that is trained to estimate the reference image based on information obtained from a plurality of measured vehicle bodies (See for example, paragraphs 0019 and 0029).
With regard to claim 12, the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the quality inspection measurement of the entire vehicle body is performed with at least three light sources (See for example, item 120, in Fig. 1).
With regard to claim 13, the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processing unit is configured to compare the reference light grid and the actual light grid by image processing algorithms in order to determine a mismatch, i.e., deviations and/or distortions, between corresponding light lines of the reference light grid and the actual light grid (See for example, paragraph 0024).
Claim 14 is rejected the same as claim 1 except claim 14 is a method claim. Thus, argument similar to that presented above for claim 1 is applicable to claim 14.
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.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nielsen, et al. ‘078 in view of Kosmopoulos, et al. (Automated inspection of gaps on the automobile production line through stereo vision and specular reflection).
With regard to claims 3 and 4 Nielsen, et al. (hereinafter “Nielsen”) discloses all of the claimed subject matter as already addressed above in paragraph 6, and incorporated herein by reference. Nielsen does not expressly call for wherein the processing unit is configured to identify outlines, i.e., profiles, of the vehicle part, i.e., body/doors, using image processing of the obtained actual image, and wherein the quality inspection measurement includes a gap and/or flush measurement between the identified outlines of the vehicle body. However, Kosmopoulos, et al. (See for example, sections 2 – 2.3, pages 51-53; and Figs. 1-3) teach these features. Nielsen and Kosmopoulos, et al. are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor, i.e., vehicle body/door inspection (See for example, section 2.1, 3rd paragraph). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to employ the teaching as taught by Kosmopoulos, et al. into the system of Nielsen, and to do so would at least allow extracting profiles of the vehicle doors and perform gap and flush measurements between the vehicle doors (See for example, Figs. 1 and 2, and the associated text). if for no other reason than to display defect areas of the vehicle body after inspection (See Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Nielsen with Kosmopoulos, et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claims 3 and 4.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nielsen ‘078 in view of Kodama, et al. (US 5,844,801).
With regard to claim 8, Nielsen discloses all of the claimed subject matter as already addressed above in paragraph 6, and incorporated herein by reference. While Nielsen generates a damage report as a result of inspecting the body of the vehicle (See for example, paragraph 0027), Nielsen does not expressly call for a display unit. This feature is extremely well known and predictable because a display is required to view the report. Nonetheless, Kodama, et al. (See for example, item 50, in Fig. 1) teach this feature. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to employ the teaching as taught by Kodama, et al. into the system of Nielsen, if for no other reason than to display defect areas of the vehicle body after inspection (See for example, col. 7, lines 11-32). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Nielsen with Kodama, et al to obtain the invention as specified in claim 8.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nielsen ‘078 in view of Kim (US 2016/0140703 A1).
With regard to claim 10, Nielsen discloses all of the claimed subject matter as already addressed above in paragraph 6, and incorporated herein by reference. Nielsen does not expressly call for wherein the reference grid is defined by the same predefined distances between the light source and the camera and the vehicle part. However, Kim, given the description made at paragraph 0029 of the specification “In some examples, . . . . In other words, when taking the reference image, relevant distances between the apparatus (light source, camera) and the imaged reference part may be the same as the corresponding distances between the apparatus and the part under inspection. It is thereby ensured that the reference grid and the actual grid correspond to each other and only deviations in the inspected part will be identified” (See for example, Fig. 9, and paragraphs 0062-0065) teaches this feature. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to employ the teaching as taught by Kim into the system of Nielsen so that the defective portions formed on entire portions of the vehicle body may be exactly determined (See for example, paragraph 0065). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Nielsen with Kim to obtain the invention as specified in claim 10.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nielsen ‘078 in view of Enis, et al. (Computer English Translation of Japanese Patent Number JP 2007-523333).
With regard to claim 11, Nielsen discloses all of the claimed subject matter as already addressed above in paragraph 6, and incorporated herein by reference. Nielsen does not expressly call for wherein the light source and the camera are configured to be repositioned to thereby allow for a quality inspection measurement of another vehicle part. However, Enis, et al. (See for example, page 4, paragraph 4) teach this feature. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to employ the teaching as taught by Enis, et al. into the system of Nielsen, and to do so may allow inspecting the various regions of the vehicle’s body by placing the camera and light source at various locations (See for example, page 4, paragraph 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Nielsen with Enis, et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 11.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL G MARIAM whose telephone number is (571)272-7394. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 EST.
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, ANDREW MOYER can be reached at (571)272-9523. 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.
/DANIEL G MARIAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2675