DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-19 were previously pending. Applicant’s amendment filed March 2, 2026, has been entered in full. Claims 1, 4-7, 9-12, 14, 16-17, and 19 are amended. Claims 2-3, 8, 15 and 18 are cancelled. New claim 20 is added. Accordingly, claims 1, 4-7, 9-14, 16-17, and 19-20 are now pending.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), Applicant points to responses to related rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) (Remarks filed March 2, 2026, hereinafter Remarks: Pages 10-11). Examiner likewise provides responses below.
Applicant argues that the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been overcome and requests their withdrawal (Remarks: Page 11-18). Examiner agrees that most of the previous ‘112(b) rejections have been overcome and they are withdrawn accordingly. Specific responses are provided below for the rejections that have been maintained.
Applicant presents the following Remarks at page 15:
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Page 16, lines 9-21, of the specification is reproduced below:
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
This portion of the specification generally restates the functions recited in claim 16. However, “simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient” to satisfy the written description requirement. MPEP 2161.01, Subsection I. In order to satisfy the written description requirement, “the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed.” Id. As explained in the Non-Final Rejection, the specification does not describe any algorithm or otherwise explain how the inventor intended the functions of identifying high values or extrema of pixel amplitude and/or pixel-to-pixel gradient, identifying confined or line or sharp image structures having edge or point like structures, or identifying fixed objects as stand-still or essentially static to be performed. Therefore, claim 16 does not satisfy the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Applicant presents the following Remarks at pages 15-16:
PNG
media_image3.png
180
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
200
400
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As the previous rejection acknowledged, the specification does mention each of the “read out module,” “image taking module,” “deviation-compensation module,” and “control unit”. Applicant’s citations note such mentions of these components and description of their functions. However, Examiner’s rejection was not based on lacking literal support or functional description, but rather for lack of any disclosure of specific structure for performing the claimed functions. For example, Examiner has not identified any disclosure of a computer in the specification. None of the citations provided by Applicant resolves this issue. Instead, they generally restate the functions performed by the modules/unit without ever explaining what structure is performing those functions. The claims are indefinite because it is unclear what structures fall within the scopes of the claimed “read out module,” “image taking module,” “deviation-compensation module,” and “control unit”.
Applicant traverses the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103, arguing that the claims are not obvious over Turner in view of Kraus (Remarks: Pages 18-20). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding Applicant’s point no. 1, Examiner agrees that Turner does not anticipate the claims. However, the previous rejection was for obviousness, not anticipation.
Regarding Applicant’s point no. 2, Applicant argues that “Turner is not even aware of the problem”. Examiner notes that obviousness is determined from the point of view of a hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art, not from the point of view of a particular reference. See, e.g., MPEP 2142. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had access to the prior art Kraus reference, which explains the presence of the problem and how to correct it.
Regarding Applicant’s point no. 3, Applicant argues that Kraus does not disclose monitoring a glass furnace. This is a piecemeal analysis of the references, which is respectfully non-persuasive. The primary reference – Turner – already teaches monitoring a glass furnace and one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Applicant further argues that Kraus uses plural cameras, rather than a single camera. Examiner acknowledges that Kraus describes embodiments with plural cameras (e.g., Fig. 1) but Applicant is again engaged in a piecemeal analysis of the references. Turner already teaches using a single camera (e.g., Fig. 1, camera 22). Furthermore, the image alignment in Kraus that the rejection proposes to use in Turner’s furnace is applied to images from a single camera (e.g., [0077], “a registration and alignment estimation” is computed “for each of the multispectral image capturing devices”; [0079], the same pixel location represents the same physical location of the enclosure in sequence of images”). Kraus does later combine corrected images from multiple cameras to calculate 3D information (e.g., [0080] et seq.), but this is not relied upon in the rejection. In summary, Turner teaches a single camera and Kraus’ image alignment and registration technique is applicable to an image series captured by a single camera.
Regarding Applicant’s point no. 4, Applicant argues that Kraus does not disclose an “all-picture registration process as claimed.” Examiner respectfully notes that the claim does not recite an “all-picture registration process” or state that 3D information may not be used. Furthermore, the 3D information in Kraus is based on a 3D model of the furnace (e.g., [0077], “three-dimensional geometrical coordinates of the enclosure”), not a 3D reconstruction from the images. The registration is based on image analysis. Specifically, the images are analyzed to identify characteristic points/markers in the furnace and their image positions are related to the known real-world positions of those characteristic points/markers to align the images such that a given pixel corresponds to the same real-world point in all images.
Regarding Applicant’s point no. 5, Applicant argues “Kraus suffers from the need of a 3D-registration which again is complicated and not reliable.” The basis for this statement is respectfully unclear, but Examiner respectfully disagrees for substantially the same reasons discussed above.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 13, “the series of images are” should be “the series of images is”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
the “read out module” of claim 17,
the “image taking module” of claim 17,
the “deviation-compensation module” of claim 17, and
the “control unit” of claim 17.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
the “means of a camera sensor of a single camera” in claim 1,
the “means of an image point read out” in claim 1,
the “means of the deviation-compensated object image position in the actual image” in claim 1,
the “means of identifying the deviation” of claim 7,
the “means of a transformation function” of claim 12,
the “means of an inverse transformation function” of claim 14,
the “neural network image analysis means” of claim 16,
the “means of the camera sensor” of claim 17,
the “means of the image point read out” of claim 17,
the “means of the deviation compensated object image position in the actual image” of claim 17, and
the “means of a deviation-compensated actual image” of claim 17.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 16-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 16 recites discriminating between furnace crown and furnace material basin and selecting points of interest by:
identifying high values or extrema of pixel amplitude and/or pixel-to-pixel gradient,
identifying confined or line or sharp image structures having edge or point like structures, and
identifying fixed objects as stand-still or essentially static.
Each of these steps apparently recites a computer-implemented functional claim limitation at least because each step recites an identifying function and the claim recites computer-based image processing, such as a neural network.
MPEP 2161.01, Subsection I, provides instructions for determining whether there is adequate written description for a computer-implemented functional claim limitation. “When examining computer-implemented functional claims, examiners should determine whether the specification discloses the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor possessed the claimed subject matter at the time of filing.” Id.
Examiner has reviewed the specification, but has not identified disclosure of a computer for performing any of the noted functions, nor disclosure of any algorithm for performing any of the functions. I.e., while the specification may repeat the language of the claims (see, e.g., [0126]-[0128], as published), it does not explain how to perform the functions recited in the claims, nor does it describe any computer or other structure for performing the recited functions. Therefore, claim 16 does not comply with the written description requirement under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
As explained below, claims 17 and 19-20 have been found to be indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) based on failure of the specification to disclose corresponding structure, material or act (including an algorithm) that performs the entire claimed function. “A means- (or step-) plus-function limitation that is found to be indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) based on failure of the specification to disclose corresponding structure, material or act that performs the entire claimed function also lacks adequate written description.” MPEP 2181, Subsection IV. Accordingly, claims 17 and 19-20 are also rejected for lack of adequate written description under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the image of the series" in the sixth line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear which of the images in the series of images recited in claim 1 is the image of the series.
In claim 17, the “read out module,” “image taking module,” “deviation-compensation module,” and “control unit” all invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. While the specification mentions each of these components, it does not describe any structure for these components. For example, there is no description of a computer. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Claims 19 and 20 are also indefinite because they include the limitations of claim 17.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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) 1, 4-7, 9-14, 17, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘Turner’ (US 2019/0322562 A1) in view of ‘Kraus’ (US 2017/0148184 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Turner teaches a method of monitor and/or control of operation of an industrial glass furnace for processing a heated material, namely for processing a melt in a melting end of a kiln of the industrial glass furnace (e.g., [0057]-[0058], Fig. 1, operation of glass-melting furnace/kiln is controlled and monitored; also see further mapping to the body of the claim below), wherein the industrial glass furnace has a furnace space including an inner furnace space (e.g., Fig. 1, the inner space enclosed by furnace 10; Fig. 3 is an example of an image showing the inner space) comprising a furnace crown (e.g., Fig. 1, the upper curved surface of furnace 10), a furnace superstructure (e.g., Fig. 1, the walls of furnace 10, such as the end walls including batch chargers 14 and camera 22) and a furnace material basin (e.g., Fig. 1, the lower portion of furnace 10, which includes molten glass material as it flows towards and through outlet 20; Also see, e.g., Fig. 3, which shows the lower portion of furnace 10 acting as a basin to hold molten glass 11), wherein the control applies to a temperature control of the industrial glass furnace (e.g., [0074]), and in the method:
an image process of at least a part of the furnace space is provided, namely provided with a series of images in the course of time (e.g., [0023], “The images may be generated at successive time points”; Fig. 3 shows an example image of at least part of the furnace space),
wherein the series of images is provided by means of a camera sensor of a single camera (See Claim Interpretation; e.g., [0054], Fig. 1, single thermal imaging camera 22), the single camera installed at the furnace with a single point of camera view to the furnace space (e.g., Figs. 1 and 3),
and the series of images are related to a technical map of at least one process parameter of the furnace space during operation of the furnace by means of an image point read out (See Claim Interpretation; e.g., [0054], image pixels are read out to provide temperature process parameter of the furnace space; e.g., [0060], the thermal camera readings may be adjusted by a calibration/technical map to account for obscuring materials; also see, e.g., discussion of surface emissivity and reflection compensation described at [0062] et seq.), and
wherein the at least one process parameter is used in the monitor and/or control of operation (e.g., [0047]-[0048], [0074], temperature parameter may be used for monitoring/control by providing alarms when the measured temperature is outside an acceptable range and/or adjusting furnace settings), and
an image point of the series of images corresponds to an object-image position assigned to an object location of an object in the furnace space (e.g., Fig. 3, each point of an image corresponds to different object-image positions, such as positions corresponding to molten glass object 11, burner objects 16, etc.; Also see points 3 and 4 in Fig. 3 and [0069]), wherein the image point is related with a sensor point of the camera sensor (e.g., [0054], each image point is related with one of more than 300,000 sensor pixel points of the camera sensor), the method comprising
assigning the object-image position to a characteristic object, wherein the characteristic object corresponds to one or more selected points of a group or cluster of points of interest in a reference image of the furnace space wherein the points of interest are identified in the reference image by means of an image analysis (see Note Regarding Deviation below), wherein
a processed material in form of the melt and/or an interface between the melt and furnace structure is identified enabling discriminating between the furnace crown, the furnace superstructure and the furnace material basin and/or
the processed material is excluded from identifying the points of interest (see Note Regarding Deviation below),
providing the reference image reference image at an initial time during the course of time (e.g., [0023], “a previously collected image”),
providing an actual image at a further time during the course of time (e.g., [0023], “Images from successive points in time”),
identifying a characteristic object-image position in the actual image and a corresponding characteristic object-image position is identified in the reference image (see Note Regarding Deviation below),
identifying a deviation for the characteristic object-image position in the actual image as compared to the characteristic object-image position in the reference image (see Note Regarding Deviation below), wherein the camera view is subject to a camera view variation in the course of time due to ambient conditions of the furnace, such that the camera view variation causes a deviation of the image point from the object-image position (see Note Regarding Deviation below),
providing a deviation-compensation to the object-image position in the actual image, so as to apply for a varying camera view, wherein the deviation-compensation is based on the deviation identified (see Note Regarding Deviation below), and
determining at least one process parameter by means of the deviation-compensated object image position in the actual image (e.g., [0023], process parameter including a change in temperature or position is determined based on successive/actual image; see Note Regarding Deviation below), wherein the deviation-compensation is based on the deviation identified (see Note Regarding Deviation below),
wherein determining for the image of the series which is used for relating into the technical map of the at least one processor parameter, one or more enhanced process parameters by means of a deviation compensated actual image (e.g., [0074], enhanced process parameters, such as flame control parameters, are determined from thermal image temperature monitoring; as explained in Note Regarding Deviation below, Turner is modified to use deviation-compensated actual images for temperature monitoring), and
wherein the using the one or more enhanced process parameters based on corrected imaging results to monitor the industrial furnace operation and/or to control the industrial furnace operation in a feed-forward control loop or a feedback control loop (e.g., [0057]-[0058], temperature measurements from camera are used to control furnace to reduce difference between actual and ideal temperature profiles, which is at least a feed-back control loop; also see [0074] et seq.; As noted above and explained in Note Regarding Deviation below, Turner is modified to use deviation-compensated actual images for temperature monitoring).
Note Regarding Deviation. Turner describes comparing images captured over time to detect changes (e.g., [0023]), but does not explicitly describe any processing to ensure that the images are properly aligned (i.e., registered) or to compensate for any possible camera motion between image captures. In particular, Turner does not teach:
assigning the object-image position to a characteristic object, wherein the characteristic object corresponds to one or more selected points of a group or cluster of points of interest in a reference image of the furnace space wherein the points of interest are identified in the reference image by means of an image analysis, wherein
a processed material in form of the melt and/or an interface between the melt and furnace structure is identified enabling discriminating between the furnace crown, the furnace superstructure and the furnace material basin and/or
the processed material is excluded from identifying the points of interest,
identifying a characteristic object-image position in the actual image and a corresponding characteristic object-image position is identified in the reference image,
identifying a deviation for the characteristic object-image position in the actual image as compared to the characteristic object-image position in the reference image, wherein the camera view is subject to a camera view variation in the course of time due to ambient conditions of the furnace, such that the camera view variation causes a deviation of the image point from the object-image position,
providing a deviation-compensation to the object-image position in the actual image, so as to apply for a varying camera view, wherein the deviation-compensation is based on the deviation identified, and
determining the at least one process parameter by means of the deviation-compensated object image position in the actual image.
However, Kraus does teach techniques for monitoring a furnace that, like Turner, rely on using cameras to capture images over time (e.g., [0058]). Kraus recognizes that “Unwanted movement of the image-capturing devices and imaging areas often occurs in the enclosure. For example, in an industrial environment, vibrations and shakings of furnace walls can be caused by adjacent equipment that are frequently in contact with the furnace during operation.” ([0076]). “[s]ignificant errors result if a relative motion of the image-capturing device is not correctly set and adjusted.” Id. Kraus teaches techniques for avoiding these errors by performing registration and alignment on the captured images to compensate for deviations due to relative movement (e.g., [0077] et seq.). In particular, Kraus teaches
assigning the object-image position to a characteristic object (e.g., Fig. 1, markers 22; e.g., [0077], characteristic features), wherein the characteristic object corresponds to one or more selected points of a group or cluster of points of interest in a reference image of the furnace space (e.g., [0077], position of a characteristic feature and/or marker [both of which are fixed objects that will be represented as some cluster of pixels/points of interest in an image] in an earlier/reference image) wherein the points of interest are identified in the reference image by means of an image analysis (Note: the “means of an image analysis” is interpreted under ‘112(f); The corresponding structure, material, acts, etc. includes feature extraction and matching – see [0222] of the published specification; Kraus uses feature extraction and matching – e.g., [0077]), wherein
a processed material in form of the melt and/or an interface between the melt and furnace structure is identified enabling discriminating between the furnace crown, the furnace superstructure and the furnace material basin and/or
the processed material is excluded from identifying the points of interest (e.g., [0077], points of interest for matching are selected from features of the enclosure or markers on the enclosure, rather than the processed material),
identifying a characteristic object-image position in the actual image and a corresponding characteristic object-image position is identified in the reference image (e.g., [0077], “Characteristic features that are distinct and easily recognizable in the multispectral image, such as view ports and corners of the enclosure, are initially selected and subsequently detected”),
identifying a deviation for the characteristic object-image position in the actual image as compared to the characteristic object-image position in the reference image (e.g., [0078], perspective transformation is performed to align the feature points; I.e., a transformation is performed to reverse an identified deviation in the positions of the same objects/points in the two images), wherein the camera view is subject to a camera view variation in the course of time due to ambient conditions of the furnace, such that the camera view variation causes a deviation of the image point from the object-image position (e.g., [0076]),
providing a deviation-compensation to the object-image position in the actual image, so as to apply for a varying camera view (e.g., [0076]), wherein the deviation-compensation is based on the deviation identified (e.g., [0078]-[0079], the transformation is deviation compensation because it compensates for the deviation and brings the corresponding points into alignment), and
determining at least one process parameter by means of the deviation-compensated object image position in the actual image (e.g., [0079], a temperature process parameter is determined for an image position in the transformed/deviation-compensated actual image), wherein the deviation-compensation is based on the deviation identified (see mapping above and [0076]-[0078]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Turner with the image alignment and registration of Kraus in order to improve the method with the reasonable expectation that this would result in a method that could advantageously avoid errors due to unwanted relative motion of cameras in a furnace over time. This technique for improving the method of Turner was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Kraus.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Turner and Kraus to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Turner in view of Kraus teaches the method as claimed in claim 1.
Turner further teaches:
the camera has a camera position and/or is directed to the furnace space with a camera orientation, wherein a camera pose is assigned to the position and/or orientation of the camera (Every camera necessarily has a position, orientation, and pose; e.g., Fig. 1 shows the assigned position/pose of camera 22).
Kraus further teaches:
with varying camera pose in the course of time the image point deviates from the corresponding object-image position (e.g., [0076]).
Regarding claim 5, Turner in view of Kraus teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, and Turner further teaches that the image is a pixel image and is is provided with a number of image points, wherein an image point is assigned to a sensor pixel, of the camera sensor (e.g., [0054], each point in the image corresponds to one of more than 300,000 pixel points of the camera sensor).
Regarding claim 6, Turner in view of Kraus teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, and Kraus further teaches that
the characteristic object in the furnace space is selected at the initial time (e.g., [0077], easily recognizable points and/or markers are “initially selected” as characteristic object in reference image), wherein
the characteristic object-image position of the object corresponds to an original image point in the reference image (e.g., [0077], pixel coordinates of the feature points), and
the actual image is provided at the further time, wherein the original image point, being related with the sensor point of the camera sensor in the actual image, corresponds to another object-image position of another object (e.g., [0076], relative motion between the camera and scene causes a certain pixel point in the earlier/reference image to correspond to another position of another object in the later/actual image), and/or
the characteristic object-image position of the object is identified to correspond to another image point being related with the sensor point of the camera sensor in the actual image (e.g., [0077]-[0078], common points in the scene [i.e., points corresponding to the markers or characteristic features] correspond to different pixel points in the earlier/reference and later/actual images due to relative motion).
Regarding claim 7, Turner in view of Kraus teaches the method as claimed in claim 6, and Kraus further teaches that:
the deviation-compensation is provided to the object-image position in the actual image and applies for the varying camera pose (e.g., [0078]-[0079], transformation is applied to provide deviation compensation), wherein
the deviation-compensation is determined by means of identifying the deviation between the original image point in the actual image and the another image point in the actual image (e.g., [0078]-[0079], deviation compensation is determined by performing a transform to remove identified deviation, such that points in the actual image are aligned with corresponding points in reference image).
Regarding claim 9, Turner in view of Kraus teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, and Kraus further teaches that:
another characteristic object-image position is identified to correspond to another image point in the actual image as compared to the reference image, wherein at least some of the points of interest are identified in the actual image (e.g., [0077]-[0078], corresponding pixel coordinates – i.e., other characteristic object-image positions – are found in each of the images being aligned/registered, including the actual image).
Regarding claim 10, Turner in view of Kraus teaches the method as claimed in claim 9, and Kraus further teaches that
a deviation between the original image point and the another image point in the actual image corresponds to a deviation-relation between at least some of selected points of interest (e.g., [0077]-[0078], positions of a feature point are found in both images being aligned; Differences in the found positions are the deviation), and the deviation is used to determine the deviation-compensation to the object-image position in the actual image (e.g., [0078]-[0079], the found deviations of the corresponding points are used to perform a transformation that compensates for the deviation, thereby providing aligned images).
Regarding claim 11, Turner in view of Kraus teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, and Kraus further teaches that:
the camera view variation in the course of time is related to a drift of camera pose (e.g., [0076], “Unwanted movement of the image-capturing devices”), and/or
the camera view variation results in that the image point assigned to a sensor pixel of the camera sensor deviates from a corresponding object-image position and results into a difference between an image point read out at the initial time and an image point read out at the further time (e.g., [0076]-[0078], motion of camera causes same points in scene to appear at different pixel coordinates in images captured at different times, thus necessitating the alignment), and/or
the deviation-compensation to the object-image position in the actual image provides deviation-compensated object-image position in the actual image, wherein the sensor pixel of the camera sensor is again related to the corresponding object-image position such that the difference is compensated (e.g., [0078]-[0079], the perspective transformation brings the corresponding points back into alignment, such that the difference is compensated).
Regarding claim 12, Turner in view of Kraus teaches the method as claimed in claim 10, and Kraus further teaches that:
the object-image position is assigned to the object location by an assignment which is evaluated by means of a transformation function (e.g., [0078]-[0079], perspective transformation), and/or
a deviation-compensating transformation function is applied to the object-image position in the actual image (e.g., [0078]-[0079], perspective transformation).
Regarding claim 13, Turner in view of Kraus teaches the method as claimed in claim 12, and Kraus further teaches that:
the deviation-relation between said at least some of the selected points of interest, namely as identified in the reference image and in the actual image, is used to determine the deviation-compensating transformation function to the object-image position in the actual image (e.g., [0078]-[0079], corresponding pixel coordinates in the images being aligned, which differ due to camera drift, are used to determine a perspective transformation that brings them back into alignment).
Regarding claim 14, Turner in view of Kraus teaches the method as claimed in claim 11, and Kraus further teaches that:
the deviation-compensation provided to the object-image position in the actual image is applied, such that the image point of the image of the deviation-compensated transformed object-image position in the actual image is assigned to the original location of the object (e.g., [0079], “the same pixel location represents the same physical location of the enclosure in sequence of images”),
wherein the assignment is evaluated by means of an inverse transformation function (e.g., [0078], perspective transformation function, which is an “inverse” transformation function at least because it reverses/inverts the perspective transformation due to camera drift).
Regarding claim 17, the claim is indefinite. See the rejections above. For purposes of examination with respect to the prior art, it is being interpreted to require a system including a camera and modules configured to perform the method of claim 1. The modules include an image read out module, an image taking module, a deviation-compensation module, and a control unit. Each of these modules is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), but the specification does not disclose any corresponding structure – see above.
Turner in view of Kraus teaches the method of claim 1 (see above). Turner further teaches a camera (e.g., Fig. 1, camera 22). Turner further teaches performing its method using a control unit and a set of modules (e.g., Fig. 1, control unit 12, including modules). Therefore, as best understood in view of the indefiniteness issues explained above, the teachings of Turner in view of Kraus fall within the scope of claim 17.
Regarding claim 19, Turner in view of Kraus teaches the control system as claimed in claim 17, and Turner further teaches that images obstructed by deposits (e.g., [0020], [0060]) and/or blurred images and/or barrel and pincushion distortion or the like system distortions are compensated.
Regarding claim 20, Turner in view of Kraus teaches an industrial glass furnace for processing a heated material, namely for processing a melt in a melting end of a kiln of the industrial glass furnace, wherein the industrial glass furnace has an inner furnace space comprising a furnace crown, a furnace superstructure and a furnace material basin, wherein the control applies to a temperature control of the industrial glass furnace, and comprising the control system of claim 17 of monitor and/or control of operation of the industrial glass furnace (see rejections of claims 1 and 17, which include detailed mapping of the furnace).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEOFFREY E SUMMERS whose telephone number is (571)272-9915. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:00 AM to 3:30 PM ET.
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, Chan Park can be reached at (571) 272-7409. 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.
/GEOFFREY E SUMMERS/Examiner, Art Unit 2669
Prosecution Insights