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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) received on July 2nd 2024 has been considered by the examiner and an initialed copy of the IDS is hereby attached.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Within the specification, named element 716 is not shown in any of the drawings.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because elements 315, 714, 834, 821, and 820 are labeled in the drawings but are not defined in the specification. Appropriate correction is required. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 objected to because of the following informalities: The phrasing of "plate positions in proximity to said reflector" should be corrected to "plate is positioned in proximity to said reflector".
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:
"a control processor for processing" in claims 10 and 20.
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.
Support can be found in the discloser for the following structures as noted below:
“a control processor” (See at least paragraphs 0020 and 0052)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 4, 8, and 19 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 4 recites the limitation "said far wall". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as the “far wall” has not been introduced in the dependent claim 1. This limitation was instead introduced in claim 3, which claim 4 is not dependent on.
Regarding claim 8, The term “In proximity” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “In proximity” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The claim or specification should be amended to place an upper and lower bound on proximity are clearly defined.
Regarding claim 19, the same argument as claim 8 applies.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2,9-10,11-13,20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jakkula et al. (US 20210262792 A1) , hereinafter Jakkula, in view of Wyble et al. (US 20090310974 A1), hereinafter Wyble.
Regarding claim 1, Jakkula discloses [Note: what Jakkula fails to clearly disclose is strike-through]:
A (Jakkula Figs. 1, 2, further Paragraph 0002 “It is important that in a manufacturing or processing phase a width, a thickness, a shape and/or a location of at least one of the edges of a moving metal sheet is measured.”), said
a radar configured to emit beams (Jakkula Fig. 1, further paragraph 0076 “Jakkula Fig. 1, further Paragraph 0076 " In an embodiment, the opening angle of the beam of the microwave transmission and/or reception may be about 5°, for example.");
a reflector positioned apart and facing said radar (Jakkula Fig. 8, further paragraph 0075 “The fourth reflecting reference 802 may be a separate reflector or it may the same as or a part of the first reflecting reference 110.”); and
a continuous metal strip positioned between said radar and said reflector, wherein said strip comprises a leading edge and a trailing edge, wherein said leading edge indicates an edge closer to said radar, and wherein said trailing edge indicates an edge away from said radar (Jakkula Fig. 3A, elements 12 and 22, further paragraph 0046 “ In an embodiment, a width of the sheet 10 may be measured using only the at least two or three sensors 100 to 104 at one side of the sheet 10. The microwaves reflect then from both the first edge 12 and the second edge 22 as surface waves.”).
wherein said radar simultaneously illuminates said leading edge of the strip and said reflector (Jakkula Fig. 8, see signal paths LR and LT, further paragraph 0072 “Fig. 8, signal paths LR and LT. Further paragraph 0072, "FIG. 8 illustrates an example of an embodiment, where a transceiver 800 may transmit the microwaves towards the first edge 12 of the sheet 10. The microwaves reflect back to the transceiver 800 from the first edge (see microwaves 400).", paragraph 0074 " However, if the distance LT remains unknown, the width W may be determined in the following manner. The transceiver 800 may transmit the microwaves towards the fourth reflecting reference 802."),
wherein said reflector augments and shapes scattered energy [Paragraph 0075 “Any of the reflecting references 110, 160, 162, 802 may comprise a retroreflector such as a triangular corner reflector (similar to those used in radar technology), a flat metal surface and/or a spherical surface (if a radius of the spherical surface is at least approximately the same as a distance to a transmitter, the spherical surface will reflect the transmission back to the transmitter)."], and
wherein said reflector redirects transmitted radar energy toward said trailing edge and reflects radar energy scattered off said trailing edge back toward said radar via a reciprocal path (Jakkula Fig. 8 element 404, further paragraph 0074 " In this case the microwaves reflect from the fourth reflecting reference 802 to the second edge 22 wherefrom the microwaves reflect back to the fourth reflecting reference 802. Then the microwaves reflect from the fourth reflecting reference 802 back to the transceiver 800 (see microwaves 404). ").
Wyble discloses,
a single strip centering system (Fig. 1 element 170, further see abstract “The apparatus may additionally include a controller (160) configured to determine a position of the media based on the received light from the optical transmitter reflected off the concave reflector.”)
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Wyble into the invention of Jakkula. Both Jakkula and Wyble are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention, as they both disclose a system for the detection of sheet geometries during processing using electromagnetic waves. Jakkula discloses a processing system that uses radar and a reflector to detect the geometry of sheet metal during processing, which determines the locations of the sheet edges and thus can be used for centering. However, Jakkula fails to disclose this process using a single radar transmitter. Wyble discloses the use of a single transmitter that uses optical light to detect the leading and trailing edges of sheets during processing. The multi-transmitter method of Jakkula is required to determine information such as sheet elevation and angular misalignment, which is not required to perform only edge detection. Unlike Jakkula, the disclosure of Wyble only is intended to detect the y-axis displacement of a sheet and its leading and trailing edges. Thus, the use of single radar in a system to detect the edges of a sheet would have been obvious in light of Wyble. The combination of Jakkula and Wyble would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to position a sheet using a single radar transceiver.
Regarding claim 2, Jakkula further discloses,
The single radar strip centering system of Claim 1, wherein said reflector comprises a spherical surface [Jakkula paragraph 0075 “Paragraph 0075 " Any of the reflecting references 110, 160, 162, 802 may comprise a retroreflector such as a triangular corner reflector (similar to those used in radar technology), a flat metal surface and/or a spherical surface (if a radius of the spherical surface is at least approximately the same as a distance to a transmitter, the spherical surface will reflect the transmission back to the transmitter)." ].
Regarding claim 9, Jakkula further discloses,
The single radar strip centering system of Claim 1, wherein said radar emits the beams in the form of frequency-modulated, continuous-wave (FMCW) waveforms or range strobes and mixes the radar energy scattered off via the reciprocal path to form a signal (Jakkula paragraph 0077 " In an embodiment, the determination of the at least one geometrical parameter may be based on a frequency modulated continuous wave (FMCW) method.", further Fig. 8 and paragraph 0074 “The distance between the transceiver 800 and the fourth reflecting reference 802 may be measured by the data processing unit 180 on the basis of effects caused by the distance to the microwaves.”).
Regarding claim 10, Jakkula further discloses,
The single radar strip centering system of Claim 1, further comprises a control processor for processing the signal for measuring the position and width of said strip in order to adjust the position of said strip to meet or maintain centering (Jakkula Paragraph 0083 " Then the one or more memories 1002, the one or more processors 1000 and a computer program code may cause the data processing unit 180 to process the information from the sensors. The data processing unit 180 may also control the measurement.").
While Jakkula does not teach that the observed sheet edge positions are used for centering, it does disclose the detection of sheet edge positions and width. It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at or before the filing date to apply the information of the sheet position and width from Jakkula to the centering of said sheet with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 11, Jakkula further discloses,
The single radar strip centering system of Claim 1, wherein said radar and said reflector are positioned on a common axis (Jakkula Fig. 4, Fig. 3B), such that said strip positions intentionally to occlude one-half of the illuminating radar beam.
It is the examiner’s understanding that sheets are typically manufactured in a large spool, which would be true in the case of Jakkula. Both spools and sheets as supplied by a manufacturer must have a beginning and an end. Therefore, when practicing the invention as disclosed by Jakkula, there must be a moment in time where the beam is half occluded such as when the sheet is first entering the beam.
Regarding claim 12, the same cited references and justification as claim 1 are used.
Regarding claim 13, the same cited references and justification as claim 2 are used.
Regarding claim 20, the same cited references and justification as claim 9 are used.
Claim(s) 3-6 and 14-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jakkula et al. (US 2021025792 A1) , in view of Wyble et al. (US 20090310974 A1), further in view of Yamamoto et al. (US 20130300598 A1), hereinafter Yamamoto.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Jakkula and Wyble discloses [Note: what the combination of Jakkula and Wyble does not clearly disclose is strike-through]:
The single radar strip centering system of Claim 1, wherein said single radar strip centering system implements
Yamamoto discloses,
in a furnace having a near wall and a far wall, wherein said near wall indicates a wall on the side of said radar, and wherein said far wall indicates a wall (Yamamoto Fig. 3, further paragraph 0057, “On the furnace wall 301R on the right side, a microwave transmitting antenna 101R and a microwave receiving antenna 103R are provided such that microwaves transmitted by the microwave transmitting antenna 101R is reflected by the right end of the cold-rolled steel strip 201 and received by the microwave receiving antenna 103R. Similarly, on the furnace wall 301L on the left side, a microwave transmitting antenna 101 L and a microwave receiving antenna 103 L are provided such that microwaves transmitted by the microwave transmitting antenna 101 L is reflected by the left end of the cold-rolled steel strip 201 and received by the microwave receiving antenna 103 L.”)
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Wyble and Yamamoto into the invention of Jakkula. Both Jakkula and Yamamoto are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention, as they both disclose systems using microwaves to detect the width of a metallic sheet during processing. Jakkula discloses a radar centering system for the processing of a metal sheet with a spherical reflector on the opposite wall. However, Jakkula fails to disclose a specific processing environment or a near and far walls. Yamamoto also discloses a radar system for the processing of a metal strip, but clearly specifies that the process is to be performed in a furnace where the radar is mounted on a near wall and transmits signals to a far wall from which the signal is reflected. The combination of Jakkula with Yamamoto and Wyble would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to implement a single-radar sheet centering system in a furnace with a near and far wall.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Jakkula and Wyble further discloses [Note: what the combination of Jakkula and Wyble fails to clearly disclose is strike-through],
The single radar strip centering system of Claim 2, wherein
Yamamoto discloses,
said far wall is planar and impinges the radar energy at near normal incidence (Yamamoto Fig. 4 and paragraph 0074 "The furnace has furnace walls 301T and 301B which are parallel to the plane of the strip 201 and furnace walls 301L and 301R which are perpendicular to the plane of the strip 201.").
Jakkula discloses a radar strip centering system, but fails to specifically disclose near and far walls. Yamamoto discloses a radar strip centering system wherein radar transmitters clearly emit radar energy upon a far wall of a furnace at near normal incidence. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the inventions of Jakkula and Yamamoto to emit radar signals on a far wall at near-normal incidence, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Jakkula and Wyble further discloses
The single radar strip centering system of Claim 3, wherein said radar and said reflector are aligned such that an antenna boresight vector of said radar is coincident with, and anti-parallel to, the axis of symmetry of the surface of said reflector (Paragraph 0053 "The microwave signal may be directed to a first reflecting reference 110 that has a known location with respect to the at least two second sensors 150 to 154 or the second edge 22. The microwave signal may travel in a direction that has a component parallel to a normal of the first and second edges 12, 22.").
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Jakkula and Wyble discloses [Note: what the combination of Jakkula and Wyble does not clearly disclose is strike-through],
The single radar strip centering system of Claim 5, wherein positioning of said reflector is such that a center point of the surface of said reflector is at the same distance from the antenna boresight vector (Jakkula Fig. 3A elements 108 and 110)
Yamamoto discloses,
as said far wall (Yamamoto Figs. 3 and 4, further paragraph 0018 “A scattering plate according to the third aspect of the present invention is a scattering plate for scattering microwaves which are incident thereon, wherein the scattering plate is corrugated.”).
Jakkula discloses a radar centering system for the processing of a metal sheet with a spherical reflector on the opposite wall, in line with the antenna boresight vector. However, Jakkula fails to disclose a specific processing environment or a near and far walls. Yamamoto also discloses a radar system for the processing of a metal strip, but clearly specifies that the process is to be performed in a furnace where the radar is mounted on a near wall and transmits signals to a far wall from which the signal is reflected. The combination of Jakkula with Yamamoto and Wyble would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to implement a single-radar sheet centering system in a furnace with a near and far wall.
Regarding claim 14, the same references and arguments as claim 3 apply.
Regarding claim 15, the same references and arguments as claim 4 apply.
Regarding claim 16, the same references and arguments as claim 5 apply.
Regarding claim 17, the same references and arguments as claim 6 apply.
Claim(s) 7-8 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jakkula et al. (US 2021025792 A1) , in view of Wyble et al. (US 20090310974 A1), further in view of Takahashi et al. (US 20110013172 A1), hereinafter Takahashi.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Jakkula and Wyble discloses [Note: what the combination of Jakkula and Wyble does not clearly disclose is strike-through],
The single radar strip centering system of Claim 1, further comprises a
Takahashi discloses
diffusor plate for reducing the returning radar energy scattered off from said reflector and supporting detection of the radar energy (Takahashi Fig. 3, Fig. 4A, Fig. 4B, further paragraph 0140 “In such a case, the emission section described in the first embodiment may be configured of a radio wave emission section which emits a radio wave, first and second reflecting plates which respectively reflect the radio wave in the manner described in the first embodiment, a diffusion plate which diffuses the radio wave in the manner described in the first embodiment").
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Wyble and Takahashi into the invention of Jakkula. Both Jakkula and Takahashi are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention, as they both disclose systems using electromagnetic waves (microwave or radio) to detect the shape of an object. Jakkula discloses a radar centering system for the processing of a metal sheet with a spherical reflector on the opposite wall that can detect the trailing edge of a sheet. However, Jakkula fails to disclose a diffusor plate. Takahashi discloses a different system for the purpose of object detection, but also specifies the inclusion of a diffusion plate to support the detection of radio waves. Additionally, the usage of diffusor plates to attenuate the energy of a radar signal is well known to those of ordinary skill in the art. The combination of Jakkula with Takahashi and Wyble would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to support the detection of the trailing edge of a sheet by reducing the energy of the reflected signal from said edge.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Jakkula and Wyble discloses [Note: what the combination of Jakkula and Wyble does not clearly disclose is strike-through],
The single radar strip centering system of Claim 7
Takahashi discloses,
wherein said diffusor plate positions in proximity to said reflector (Takahashi Fig. 3, further paragraph 0140).
Jakkula discloses a radar strip centering system with a reflector. Jakkula does not disclose a diffusor plate. Takahashi teaches the usage of a diffusion plate in proximity of a reflector. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application combine the elements of Takahashi and Jakkula to achieve the apparatus in the instant application. This would be performed by a simple combination of the diffusor plate into the invention of Jakkula using known methods which would yield predictable results, with a reasonable chance of success.
Regarding claim 18, the same references and arguments as claim 7 apply.
Regarding claim 19, the same references and arguments as claim 8 apply.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS JAMES HALLORAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8643. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 7:30am-5pm.
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, William Keller can be reached at (571) 272-7753. 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.
/T.J.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/William Kelleher/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648