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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-6 and 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions I and III, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/12/2025.
Applicant’s election without traverse of invention II in the reply filed on 12/12/2025 is acknowledged.
The examiner notes that the election is without traverse, however simply for compact prosecution the examiner will address how the minor amendments to the claims applicant has provide fail to overcome the restriction mailed 10/21/2025.
Invention II still does not require diameter of primer pockets that invention I calculates as noted in the restriction previously. Further the particular orientation of the cameras of invention II is still not required in that of invention I.
Invention III is still distinct from inventions I and II in that III does not require two lasers, and instead can use only single laser, camera for estimating the diameter of a casing under test.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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 8-10 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.
As to claims 8-10, the examiner is unclear how to define the angles as claimed. Specifically the language “and extends between the longitudinal axes of the casings and the first sides of the casings”. The geometric structure under test is generally a cylinder (i.e. ammunition casings). The examiner is unclear how to define an angle between two parallel lines. As the clearest interpretation that the examiner can understand would be a line running longitudinally along the central axes of the cylindrical casing and a line running tangent longitudinally along the casing outer shell. It is unclear how to clearly define an angle between those two lines, and more so how the angle could be 60-70 degrees for example. This lack of clarity is compounded by applicant’s instant disclosure that defines that angle as 34 in figure 2, but then defines the angle between axes 38 (the central longitudinal axes) and 30. Item 30 is an arrow pointing at the figure as a whole and fails to seem to have any relation at all to the side of a casing. As such it is unclear what angle applicant is trying to define in the instant claims in question. For examination purposes the examiner is interpreting that any manner in which the angles can be met relative to the longitudinal axes of the casing under test, as the broadest reasonable interpretation of the instant claims in question.
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) 7 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nygaard et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2014/0168661 A1, Nygaard1 hereinafter for citations) in view of Nygaard (U.S. PGPub No 2013/0062262 A1, Nygaard2 herein after for citations).
As to claim 7, Nygaard1 discloses and shows in figures 5 and 10, an inspection system for casings, comprising:
first laser (48) (i) directed at the casings, respectively, (ii) orientated at a first angles (e.g. 0 degrees, i.e. parallel with the longitudinal axes of casing 31) relative to longitudinal axes of the casings, respectively, and (iii) configured to project first laser lines onto an interior surface of each casing within the corresponding pocket (50) of each casing (31) ([0083], ll. 1-5; [0089], ll. 1-8);
first and second cameras (44 and 34) (i) disposed on the first and second opposing sides of the casings (explicitly shown in figure 5), respectively, (ii) orientated at third and fourth angles relative to the longitudinal axes of the casings, respectively, and (iii) configured to capture an image of the first laser line on the interior surface of each casing ([0089], ll. 1-8); and
a controller (system controller/processor) programmed to estimate a dimension of each pocket based on a corresponding an image of the first laser line on a corresponding interior surface of each casing ([0088]; [0090]; [0091]).
Nygaard1 does not explicitly disclose where the inspection system uses a second laser disposed on at a different angle opposed from the first laser relative to the longitudinal axes of the casing, which is imaged by the second camera and used in conjunction with the controller to estimate a dimension of the pocket under test.
Nygaard2 does disclose and show in figures 3 and 4 and in ([0058]; [0080]-[0081]) where the inspection system uses a second laser (66, e.g. Laser-4) disposed at a different angle (45 degree offsets from any nearby laser as disclosed) opposed from the first laser relative to the longitudinal axes of the casing (e.g. Laser-1 and Laser-4), which is imaged by the second camera (Laser-4 Receiver) and used in conjunction with the controller to estimate a dimension of the pocket under test. As Nygaard2 discloses, in doing so increases accuracy and speed of the measurement system. The examiner notes that Nygaard2 uses a multiple laser setup at distinct angles relative to the casing (52, only shown in figure 3, but the center point of the beams shown in figure 4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nygaard1 where the inspection system uses a second laser disposed on at a different angle from the first laser relative to the longitudinal axes of the casing, which is imaged by the second camera and used in conjunction with the controller to estimate a dimension of the pocket under test in order to provide the advantage of increased accuracy and efficiency, as explicitly disclosed in Nygaard2 using multiple lasers obviously increased accuracy through redundancy of measurement, further obviously using multiple sources can more rapidly scan a sample under test yielding a total measurement time reduction.
As to claim 11, Nygaard1 does not explicitly disclose an inspection system further comprising third and fourth cameras (i) disposed on the first and second opposing sides of the casings, respectively, (ii) orientated at fifth and sixth angles relative to the longitudinal axes of the casings, respectively, and (iii) configured to capture a second set of images of the first and second laser lines on the interior surface of each casing.
However, Nygaard2 does disclose and show in figure 4 and in ([0058]; [0059]; [0081]) the use of a total of four cameras all at varying angles (Laser Receiver 1-4) which clearly disclose the third and further cameras as claimed, orientated at fifth and sixth angles. Clearly said cameras in being imaging, produce the second set of images as claimed. In doing so as previously noted one can measure from multiple angles giving a rapid and more complete view of the sample under test.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nygaard1 with an inspection system further comprising third and fourth cameras (i) disposed on the first and second opposing sides of the casings, respectively, (ii) orientated at fifth and sixth angles relative to the longitudinal axes of the casings, respectively, and (iii) configured to capture a second set of images of the first and second laser lines on the interior surface of each casing in order to provide the advantage of increased efficiency and accuracy, in adding two additional cameras one can image at varying additional angles giving a rapid and complete overall image of the sample under test.
As to claim 12, Nygaard1 does not explicitly disclose an inspection system, wherein the controller is further programmed to estimate the dimension of each pocket based on (i) the corresponding set of images of the first and second laser lines on the corresponding interior surface of each casing and (ii) a corresponding second set of images of the first and second laser lines on the corresponding interior surface of each casing.
However, Nygaard2 does disclose in ([0070], ll. 1-4; [0080]-[0081]) that the diameter is determined as a function of the response of using multiple emitters and corresponding detectors. As disclosed this is a manner in which one can “improve accuracy” at “high speed”. Obviously these calculations are done by the controllers disclosed in either reference.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nygaard1 does not explicitly disclose an inspection system, wherein the controller is further programmed to estimate the dimension of each pocket based on (i) the corresponding set of images of the first and second laser lines on the corresponding interior surface of each casing and (ii) a corresponding second set of images of the first and second laser lines on the corresponding interior surface of each casing in order to provide the advantage of increased accuracy and efficiency, in using images from multiple laser lines one can more rapidly measure the interior surface of the casing under test with improved accuracy.
As to claims 13-14, Nygaard1 does disclose in ([0089]-[0090]) using a line fitting algorithm to estimate the dimension of a pocket.
Nygaard1 does not explicitly disclose an inspection system wherein the controller is further programmed to estimate the dimension of each pocket based on applying a line fitting algorithm to the corresponding first set of images and the corresponding second set of images to generate corresponding first and second diameter estimates, respectively or wherein the estimated dimension of each pocket is a diameter based an average of the corresponding first and second diameter estimates.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that Nygaard1 in view of Nygaard2 could use said line fitting algorithm to analyze additional images of additional emitter/detectors to further refine the dimensional measurement. Further the examiner takes Office Notice that averaging to measured values together to determine a dimensional average measured value is well-known not only in the optical art, but all of measuring and testing.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nygaard1 with an inspection system wherein the controller is further programmed to estimate the dimension of each pocket based on applying a line fitting algorithm to the corresponding first set of images and the corresponding second set of images to generate corresponding first and second diameter estimates, respectively or wherein the estimated dimension of each pocket is a diameter based an average of the corresponding first and second diameter estimates in order to provide the advantage of expected results and increased accuracy in using more measured values for the pocket dimensional value analysis and a simple averaging analysis one can ensure the highest accuracy value of the pocket dimension is determined.
As to claim 15, Nygaard1 discloses an inspection system further comprising a conveyance system (20) configured to transport the casings (31), wherein the controller is further programmed to, in response to the diameters of the pockets being within a tolerable range direct the casings in a first direction along the conveyance system, and in response to the diameters of the pockets being outside of the tolerable range direct the casings in a second direction along the conveyance system ([0067]; [0084]-[0085]; as discloses if the tolerances are within spec (one of which being pocket diameter) they are sent on their own path (i.e. second direction) via flipper 32).
Claim(s) 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nygaard et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2014/0168661 A1, Nygaard1 hereinafter for citations) in view of Nygaard (U.S. PGPub No 2013/0062262 A1, Nygaard2 herein after for citations) further in view of St. Onge et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,403,872 B1).
As to claims 8-10, Nygaard1 fails to disclose an inspection system, wherein (i) the first angle ranges between 60° and 70° and extends between the longitudinal axes of the casings and the first sides of the casings and (ii) the second angle ranges between 60° and 70° and extends between the longitudinal axes of the casings and the second sides of the casings or wherein (i) the third angle ranges between 20° and 30° and extends between the longitudinal axes of the casings and the first sides of the casings and (ii) the fourth angle ranges between 20° and 30° and extends between the longitudinal axes of the casings and the second sides of the casings or wherein (i) the third angle ranges between 30° and 40° and extends between the longitudinal axes of the casings and the first sides of the casings and (ii) the fourth angle ranges between 30° and 40° and extends between the longitudinal axes of the casings and the second sides of the casings.
However, Nygaard2 does disclose and show in figure 4, and in ([0059]; [0081]) the basic concept of using multiple optical laser transmitters and camera receivers at varying angles around the casing under test. Nygaard2 discloses angles at approximately 45 degree increments and not the particular ranges as claimed. St. Onge also discloses and shows in figure 4 and in (col. 12, ll. 28-55), the basic concept of using ring light to allow varying angles of the sample under test to be illuminated. The examiner notes for clarity of record that the modification is not to replace the line light of Nygaard(1)(2) with ring light, but rather provide further evidence that varying angles of illumination/detection of a sample under test are well known. As such the it is held obvious that 60-70° and 20-30° or 30-40° for the emitters as detectors is well within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. As such the ranges noted above which are slight variances on that shown in the prior art is well-within the level or ordinary skill in the art. Lastly, the examiner notes that the instant disclosure fails to present any criticality or unexpected result for any of the claimed ranges.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nygaard1 wherein (i) the first angle ranges between 60° and 70° and extends between the longitudinal axes of the casings and the first sides of the casings and (ii) the second angle ranges between 60° and 70° and extends between the longitudinal axes of the casings and the second sides of the casings or wherein (i) the third angle ranges between 20° and 30° and extends between the longitudinal axes of the casings and the first sides of the casings and (ii) the fourth angle ranges between 20° and 30° and extends between the longitudinal axes of the casings and the second sides of the casings or wherein (i) the third angle ranges between 30° and 40° and extends between the longitudinal axes of the casings and the first sides of the casings and (ii) the fourth angle ranges between 30° and 40° and extends between the longitudinal axes of the casings and the second sides of the casings in order to provide the advantage of expected results and increased accuracy, in having a plurality of illumination/detection angles as noted by the prior art allows for a more accurate measurement of the sample under test further obviously providing more cameras and emitters at varying angles allows for more rapid imaging/measuring of the entire surface of the sample under test.
Prior art made of record
Lodewyckx et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,334,741 B2) appears to disclose and show light sources at the claimed angles relative to the longitudinal axes of the casing in figure 1. Further the claimed camera arrangement angles in figure 2.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL P LAPAGE whose telephone number is (571)270-3833. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5:30.
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, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached at 571-272-2287. 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.
/Michael P LaPage/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877