DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to claims 1-20 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. The rejections are necessitated due to claim amendments.
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 1, 6, 8-10, 14, 15, 17, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alders et al. (Patent No. US 6,320,654) in view of Ringlien (Patent No. 5,233,186) further in view of Scheich (Pub. No. US 2022/0146915).
Regarding claim 1, Alders a car body inspection device [title and abstract] comprising: an illuminator to emit light to an inspection surface of a car body conveyed in one direction, the illuminator is spaced apart from the car body and located on a first surface side of the car body [Col. 5 lines 46-50, fig. 2 and related description]; an imager to capture/recorder an image of the inspection surface illuminated with the light emitted from the illuminator, the imager is spaced apart from the car body [Col. 6 lines 12-16; Col. 8 lines 14-45; fig. 2 and related description]; and a defect detector to detect a defect of the inspection surface with the image captured by the imager [Abstract, Col. 2 lines 53-55, Col 6 lines 35-38; Claim 1 and corresponding description].
However, Alders doesn’t explicitly teach having a second surface side opposite the first surface side with the car body intervening between the first surface side and the second surface side.
Ringlien teaches on a second surface side opposite the first surface side with the car body intervening between the first surface side and the second surface side [Abstract, Col. 2 lines 23-27, Claim 1 and corresponding description].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Alders to incorporate the opposed side optical arrangement, feature as taught by Ringlien, by arranging the image capturing unit on the side of the car body opposite the illumination unit with the car body between them, in order to improve inspection geometry and coverage by viewing the illuminated inspection surface from the opposite side.
Alders in view of Ringien doesn’t explicitly teach the illuminator is disposed below a lower surface of the car body and the imager is disposed above an upper surface of the car body.
Scheich teaches the illuminator (additional light sources) is disposed below (vehicle underbody) a lower surface of the car body [Para. 7, 8, and 27 “This additional lighting source is positioned upwards such that it casts light upon the vehicle underbody so that an inspector may see the details of the vehicle underbody and inspect for any fluid leaks or damage to the vehicle underbody”] and the imager is disposed above an upper surface of the car body [Para. 31, “camera 56 is configured to capture photographs of a vehicle V positioned on the planar stage 38”; Para. 31 “Embodiments of the inventive enclosable photographic booth 30 employ cameras 56 deployed around the parameter walls 32 and ceiling 40 of the photographic booth 30”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Alders in view of Ringlien to add light under the vehicle and a camera over the vehicle, feature as taught by Scheich, to improve inspection efficiency and image quality by using controlled lighting and multi-angle cameras in a booth to capture consistent, glare free images that enable detection of surface defects without complex setup.
Regarding claim 6, Alders teaches a car body inspection method comprising (title and abstract): emitting light to an inspection surface of a car body from a first position apart from the car body and on a first surface side of the car body [Col. 6 lines 12-16; Col. 8 lines 14-45; fig. 2 and related description]; capturing/recording an image of the inspection surface illuminated with the light emitted in the emitting at a second position apart from the car body [Col. 2 lines 41-45; Col. 4, lines 30-34]; and detecting/recognizing a defect of the inspection surface with the image captured in the capturing [Abstract, Col. 2 lines 53-55, col 6 lines 35-38; claim 1].
However, Alders doesn’t explicitly teach on a second surface side opposite the first surface side with the car body intervening between the first surface side and the second surface side.
Ringlien teaches on a second surface side opposite the first surface side with the car body intervening between the first surface side and the second surface side [Abstract, Col. 2 lines 23-27, Claim 1 and corresponding description].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Alders to incorporate the opposed side optical arrangement, feature as taught by Ringlien, by arranging the image capturing unit on the side of the car body opposite the illumination unit with the car body between them, in order to improve inspection geometry and coverage by viewing the illuminated inspection surface from the opposite side.
Regarding claim 8, Andres teaches wherein: the imager includes an imaging element comprising a charge coupled device (CCD) or a complementary metal-oxide-semiconductor (CMOS) [Col. 3 lines 14-17; and Col. 6 lines 3-6].
Regarding claim 9, Andres teaches a car body sensor to detect the car body being conveyed and output a detection signal (data transmitted) [Para. 5 lines 52-60].
Regarding claim 10, Andres teaches the defect detector includes circuitry (computer system) configured to extract a feature value (extraction of the characteristics) from the image and determine the presence of a defect based on the feature value (characteristics) [Col. 4 lines 33-37; Col. 6 lines 15-18; and col. 5 lines 57-60].
Regarding claim 14, Andres teaches the defect detector is configured to determine the defect of the inspection surface (surfaces of a body shell) using measurement data (test data) obtained by performed a three-dimensional measurement (three-dimensional scanning) [Col. 2 lines 56-59; Col. 3 lines 38-41; and col. 2 59-63].
Regarding claim 15, Andres teaches the three-dimensional measurement includes a phase shift method, a light section method, or a time of flight (ToF) method [Col. 1 lines 62-65].
Regarding claim 17, Alders in view of Ringlien doesn’t explicitly teach the claim limitation.
However, Scheich teaches circuitry configured to operate the imager in synchronization with an emission of light from the illuminator [Para. 27 “The lighting source 42 may include a plurality of lights that can be controlled and turned on and off independently of one another”; Para. 34 “In inventive embodiments, a script is run, triggering each camera in series and each light individually or in groups”; and Para. 37 “Information related to the vehicle, such as vehicle make, model, body style, and color encoded in the VIN may be used to automatically adjust lighting, the height of the vehicle to optimize photographic conditions, as well as camera height, zoom, and camera placement/position for a subject vehicle to be processed. Through control of lighting and camera firing sequence, the driver of a vehicle is virtually invisible as a result of being hidden by glass reflection”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Alders in view of Ringlien to add light under the vehicle and a camera over the vehicle, feature as taught by Scheich, to improve inspection efficiency and image quality by using controlled lighting and multi-angle cameras in a booth to capture consistent, glare free images that enable detection of surface defects without complex setup.
Regarding claim 18, Aldres teaches the imager and the illuminator (radiation emitters) are disposed outside a conveyance region (surrounds the conveying mans) of the car body (body shell) [Col. 4 lines 20-34].
Regarding claim 20, Alders in view of Ringlien doesn’t explicitly teach the claim limitation.
However, Scheich the car body is a painted automobile body [Para. 28].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Alders in view of Ringlien to add light under the vehicle and a camera over the vehicle, feature as taught by Scheich, to improve inspection efficiency and image quality by using controlled lighting and multi-angle cameras in a booth to capture consistent, glare free images that enable detection of surface defects without complex setup.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alders et al. (Patent No. US 6,320,654) in view of Ringlien (Patent No. 5,233,186) further in view of Scheich (Pub. No. US 2022/0146915) further in view of Haddad et al. (Pub. No. US 2014/0307059) and further in view of Waks (Pub. No. US 2021/0211563).
Regarding claim 2, Alders in view of Ringlien further in view of Sheich doesn’t explicitly teach a light path of the light emitted from the illuminator and incident on the imager.
However, Haddad teaches wherein a light path of the light emitted from the illuminator and incident on the imager [Abstract “The system can also include a system lens positioned to direct incident light along an optical pathway onto the first light incident surface. The first imager array is operable to detect a first portion of the light passing along the optical pathway and to pass through a second portion of the light, where the second imager array is operable to detect at least a part of the second portion of light” and Summary “in some aspects such a system can further include an active light emitter configured to emit active light radiation at least substantially toward the three dimensional subject, where the active light radiation has a center wavelength of from about 750 nm to about 1100 nm.”]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Alders in view of Ringlien further in view of Sheich to teach the claim limitation, feature as taught by Haddad, in order improve distance imaging by using stocked imager arrays where a first imager detects first portion of the incident light and passes a second portion to the second image for comparison.
However, Alders in view of Ringlien further in view of Sheich further in view of Haddad doesn’t explicitly teach the emitted light is longer than a length between a first end of the first surface side of the car body and a second end of the second surface side of the car body.
Waks teaches the emitted light is longer than a length between a first end of the first surface side of the car body and a second end of the second surface side of the car body [Para. 53 “The essence of the invention is that this in-focus image is produced by a light-path that is substantially longer than the thickness of the imaging system, thus enabling a long focal length in a small and compact imaging system”; Para. 54-55; fig. 1, 2 and related description].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Alders in view of Ringlien further in view of Haddad to teach the claim limitation, feature as taught by Waks, in order to achieve increased effective optical path length relative to system thickness for compact implementation.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alders et al. (Patent No. US 6,320,654) in view of Ringlien (Patent No. 5,233,186) further in view of Scheich (Pub. No. US 2022/0146915) further in view of Scheich (Pub. No. US 2022/0146915) further in view of Scheich (Pub. No. US 2022/0146915) further in view of Scheich (Pub. No. US 2022/0146915) further in view of Scheich (Pub. No. US 2022/0146915) further in view of Okuda (Pub. No. US 2017/0192247).
Regarding claim 3, Alders in view of Ringlien doesn’t explicitly teach the claim limitation.
However, Okuda teaches wherein the imager includes a shift lens that moves in parallel to the inspection surface [Para. 4. Para. 6 “When the shiftable unit is shifted for the camera vibration in a direction parallel to the imaging surface, the image blur can be corrected but the defocus occurs”; Para. 45 and 50].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Alders in view of Ringlien further in view of Sheich to teach the claim limitation, feature as taught by Okuda, in order to enable controlled lateral shifting while maintaining a parallel relationship for accurate surface imaging and reduced distortion.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alders et al. (Patent No. US 6,320,654) in view of Ringlien (Patent No. 5,233,186) further in view of Scheich (Pub. No. US 2022/0146915) further in view of TAKEDA (Pub. No. US 2021/0194089).
Regarding claim 4, Alders wherein the inspection surface has a rear surface or a hood surface of the car body [fig. 2 and related description].
Alders in view of Ringlien further in view of Sheich doesn’t explicitly teach the rest of claim limitation.
However, TAKEDA teaches the rear surface or the hood surface is perpendicular to the one direction [Para. 47].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Alders in view of Ringlien further in view of Sheich to teach the claim limitation, feature as taught by TAKEDA, in order to enable consistent imaging geometry.
Claims 5, 7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alders et al. (Patent No. US 6,320,654) in view of Ringlien (Patent No. 5,233,186) further in view of Scheich (Pub. No. US 2022/0146915) and further in view of Imanishi et al. (Patent No. 5,726,705).
Regarding claim 5, Alders teaches multiple inspection surfaces including the inspection surface, [Col. 2 lines 30-37; Col. 4 lines 20-24, fig. 2 related description]; multiple illuminators including the illuminator; and multiple imagers including the imager [Col. 3 lines 12-18, fig. 2 and related description], the multiple illuminators including [Col. 3 lines 12-18]: a first illuminator to emit light to a first inspection surface of the multiple inspection surfaces [Col. 6 lines 6-10, and Col. 8 lines 14-20]; and a second illuminator to emit light to a second inspection surface different from the first inspection surface of the multiple inspection surfaces [Col. 6 lines 6-10 and Col. 8 lines 20-28], the multiple imagers including: a first imager to capture an image of the first inspection surface illuminated with the light emitted from the first illuminator [Col. 8 lines 14-20 and Col. 6 lines 12-16, fig. 2 and related description]; and a second imager to capture an image of the second inspection surface illuminated with the light emitted from the second illuminator [Col. 8 lines 20-26 and Col. 6 lines 12-16, fig 2 and related description].
However, Alders in view of Ringlien further in view of Sheich doesn’t explicitly teach each of the multiple inspection surfaces extending in a direction perpendicular to the one direction
Imanishi teaches each of the multiple inspection surfaces extending in a direction perpendicular to the one direction [Col. 1 lines 27-35, Claim 1 and corresponding description].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Alders in view of Ringlien further in view of Sheich to teach the claim limitation, feature as taught by Imanishi, in order to ensure coverage of inspection surfaces extending across the travel direction.
Regarding claim 7, Alders in view of Ringlien further in view of Sheich doesn’t explicitly teach the claim limitation.
However, Imanishi teaches the multiple imagers (CCD cameras 3) include a third imager (CCD cameras) to capture an image of a side surface (left side surface, right side surface) of the car body [Col. 4 lines 52-60].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Alders in view of Ringlien further in view of Sheich to teach the claim limitation, feature as taught by Imanishi, in order to ensure coverage of inspection surfaces extending across the travel direction.
Regarding claim 11 Alders in view of Ringlien further in view of Sheich doesn’t explicitly teach the claim limitation.
However, Imanishi teaches the circuitry configured to extract (tracking section 42) includes a display-to-display defect information (defect information) when the defect detector (processing section 4) determines that the inspection surface (painted surface of the vehicle body 5) includes a defect [Col 8 lines 31-41].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Alders in view of Ringlien further in view of Sheich to teach the claim limitation, feature as taught by Imanishi, in order to ensure coverage of inspection surfaces extending across the travel direction.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alders et al. (Patent No. US 6,320,654) in view of Ringlien (Patent No. 5,233,186) further in view of Scheich (Pub. No. US 2022/0146915) and further in view of TISSANDIER et al. (Pub. No. US 2021/0396684).
Regarding claim 12, Alders in view of Ringlien further in view of Sheich doesn’t explicitly teach the claim limitation.
However, TISSANDIER teaches the illuminator includes a light source comprising a light-emitting diode (LED), a fluorescent lamp, or a halogen lamp [Para. 24, 25 and 47].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Alders in view of Ringlien further in view of Sheich to teach the claim limitation, feature as taught by TISSANDIER, in order to ensure coverage of inspection surfaces extending across the travel direction.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alders et al. (Patent No. US 6,320,654) in view of Ringlien (Patent No. 5,233,186) further in view of Scheich (Pub. No. US 2022/0146915) and further in view of RYU et al. (Pub. No. US 2011/0026242).
Regarding claim 13 Alders in view of Ringlien further in view of Sheich doesn’t explicitly teach the claim limitation.
However, RYU teaches the illuminator further includes a diffusion plate to diffuse light emitted from a light source [Para. 32 and 35].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Alders in view of Ringlien further in view of Sheich to teach the claim limitation, feature as taught by RYU, in order to ensure coverage of inspection surfaces extending across the travel direction.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alders et al. (Patent No. US 6,320,654) in view of Ringlien (Patent No. 5,233,186) further in view of Scheich (Pub. No. US 2022/0146915) and further in view of ONO et al. (Pub. No. US 2022/0156914).
Regarding claim 16, Alders in view of Ringlien further in view of Sheich doesn’t explicitly teach the claim limitation.
However, ONO teaches the defect detector includes circuitry configured to calculate a posture or position of the inspection surface based on point group data [Claim 5 and corresponding description].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Alders in view of Ringlien further in view of Sheich to teach the claim limitation, feature as taught by ONE, in order to enable consistent imaging geometry.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alders et al. (Patent No. US 6,320,654) in view of Ringlien (Patent No. 5,233,186) further in view of Scheich (Pub. No. US 2022/0146915) and further in view of KAEHLER (Pub. No. US 2016/0342835).
Regarding claim 19, Alders in view of Ringlien further in view of Sheich doesn’t explicitly teach the claim limitation.
However, KAEHLER teaches the imager includes a tilt (tilt-shift lens) structure to adjust an angle of a lens [Para. 11, 12 and 24].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Alders in view of Ringlien further in view of Sheich to teach the claim limitation, feature as taught by KAEHLER, in order to ensure coverage of inspection surfaces extending across the travel direction.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOLOMON G BEZUAYEHU whose telephone number is (571)270-7452. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 10 AM-8 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Oneal Mistry can be reached on 313-446-4912. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 888-786-0101 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-4000.
/SOLOMON G BEZUAYEHU/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2666
Prosecution Insights