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 .
Summary
Claims 1-26 are pending. Claims 1-26 are rejected herein. This is a First Action on the Merits.
Specification
The title of the invention is not in keeping with the invention because no mark or detect is controlled. A mark or defect is only identified. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: OPTICALLY IDENTIFYING A MARK OR A DEFECT ON A CABLE OR AN EXTRUDED BODY OF GREAT LENGTH
Claim Interpretation
The claims use the phrase “a cable or an extruded body of huge length” or a variation using “laminated body” (e.g. claims 1, 11, 12, 14, 25), which has been defined in para. 26 of the specification as published as “an extruded or laminated body having a main extension of at least a few meters or tens of meters, up to even several thousand meters, e.g., such as cables, wires, pipes, rods, and the like, made by extrusion or lamination on large lines.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1 and 12 is/are objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claims 1 and 12: The preamble recites “a cable or an extruded body” therefore all other references in the body of the claim should recite “the cable or the extruded body.” This would require “the” to be inserted six times in claim 1 and six times in claims 12.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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.
Claim(s) 11-13, 25, and 26 is/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 enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Regarding claim 11: Claim 11 recites “a control assembly for optically controlling a mark on a cable or an extruded body” however no control of a mark is performed or enabled by the structures of claim 11. Claim 11 only contains structures for moving a camera around a cable or extruded body and moving cable or extruded body through the camera’s viewing area. The invention of claim 11 is therefore only for inspecting a cable.
Regarding claims 12 and 25: These claims recite a method for “controlling” a mark applied to a cable or extruded or laminated body. However, there is no control of a mark recited in the method steps of the claim. All of the method steps are directed toward identifying a mark or defect. In the embodiment of a mark on a cable, for there to be control of the mark, the processed data that is acquired from the optical assembly would then need to be fed to some kind of actuator (e.g. a printing head) which would then apply some corrective marking to the cable to control the final mark that the cable ends up with. No such control is claimed or described in the specification. Instead, all embodiments of the present invention are aimed at identifying a mark or defect on the outer surface of a cable or other elongated body. Claims 1 and 14 are not rejected with this reasoning because they are apparatus claims and the “control” language in the preamble can be considered a statement of intended use.
Regarding claims 13 and 26: These claims are rejected as lacking enablement due to their dependence.
Regarding the Wands factors for claims 11, 12, and 25: The breadth of the claims (all structures and method steps) contains NO limitations directed toward controlling a mark on a cable (e.g. some kind of feedback loop based on the optical detection that performs remediation on the cable). One skilled in the art could consider inspection of a variable as the first step in controlling that variable, but without acting on the data from the inspection to produce some change in the variable, there is no control. The nature of the invention is that of quality assurance in an automated manufacturing environment. The Applicant’s disclosure provides enablement for inspecting the product, but not for any control of the product. One skilled in the art would need some explanation as to how the cable is acted upon to provide enablement for controlling a mark on a cable. There is no direction provided by the inventor as to how such control would be enacted. There is no existence of working examples in the Applicant’s disclosure. Therefore, the amount of experimentation required to invent an apparatus or method that controls a mark on a cable would not be experimenting based on the Applicant’s disclosure. It would be inventing wholesale the apparatus and method steps that would provide the necessary control of a mark on a cable based on the inspection disclosed by the Applicant.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim(s) 1-26 is/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.
Regarding claims 1, 11, 12, 14, and 25: All of the independent claims recite “controlling” a mark or defect, however none of the claims recite any structures or method steps to do this. Therefore it is indefinite as to whether additional steps or structures were omitted that would perform the controlling function. Claim 11 recites “a control assembly for optically controlling a mark on a cable” but is silent as to any control functions actually being performed or enabled on a mark on a cable.
Regarding claims 2, 5, 8, 18, and 21: These claims all recite optional limitations which are indefinite because it is unclear if they are supposed to be within the scope of the claim. If the limitation is required, it should be recited with definite language. If it is not required, the language should be removed. For the purposes of this office action, all optional limitations have been treated as not being within the scope of the claim.
Regarding claims 11 and 24: Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: the location and connection of the second motor. Claim 11 recites “a second motor” as an optional connection point for the supporting arm, but does not say where the second motor is installed, what it is connected to, or even what it is used to move. The Examiner recommends using the language of claim 7 which recites where the second motor is installed. This reasoning applies to claim 24 as well. The second motor is therefore not addressed in the art rejections of claims 11 and 24 since it is addressed elsewhere.
Regarding claims 13 and 26: It is unclear what is meant by “angular calibration position” because no calibration operation is described. In claim 13, the optical assembly reaches a position and takes an image which is the normal operation of the device. A calibration operation might be something like moving the optical assembly to a specific position and taking an image of a calibration object and the resulting image can be used to determine a difference in angular location between where the controller thinks the optical assembly is, and its actual location in three-dimensional space. Another operation might be moving the optical assembly to a specific position and measuring its position with an external and more precise position sensor to calibrate the internal position sensors of the device. No such operation or any other type of calibration is recited. This reasoning also applies to claim 26. These claims have been examined as just requiring angular positioning.
Regarding claim 23: Claim 23 depends from claim 14. Claim 14 is directed toward a device for optically controlling [inspecting] a defect. Claim 23 recites “a defect or mark” (emphasis added). Therefore it is unclear if claim 23 was meant to depend from another claim. The Examiner recommends deleting “or mark.”
Regarding claims 2-11, 13, 15-24, and 26: These claims are rejected as indefinite for depending from an indefinite claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 10, 12-17, 19,23, 25, and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1 and a2) as being anticipated by DUBE et al. (WO 2018201238).
Regarding claim 1: As best understood, DUBE discloses: A device (FIG. 2A) for optically controlling a mark on a cable or an extruded body of huge length (abstract), said device comprising: a supporting guide (external fixed holder 56 in FIG. 3B) adapted to be arranged close to the cable (24 in FIG. 2A) or the extruded body in a manner spaced apart therefrom (FIG. 2B shows the space between the drum 27 and the center of the drum where the object 24 will move.); an optical assembly (camera 64 and lights 70, 72) adapted to acquire or reconstruct an image of a portion of cable or extruded body at a mark provided on the cable (The device images the entire surface of the object as discussed in para. 179.), said optical assembly being engaged with the supporting guide (64 is mounted on 27 as shown in FIG. 2A, which is mounted on 56 as shown in FIG. 3B.) so as to be movable along a curvilinear trajectory about the cable or the extruded body (Drum 27 rotates in a circular trajectory carrying the camera 64 in a circular trajectory. Para. 144), a first motor (96 in FIG. 3A), operatively connected to the supporting guide (FIG. 3A, 3B), to move the optical assembly along the curvilinear trajectory (“optical assembly 34 rotates along with the drum 27” in para. 156); and an electronic control unit (94 in FIG. 3A; para. 184), configured to start acquisition of the image of the portion of cable or extruded body by the optical assembly and to process the image of the portion of cable or extruded body to extract mark information (“The processor 44 is configured for receiving a signal representative of the resulting light 42 from the detector 40 and continuously generating an image representative of the surface 22 of the object 24… The resulting light 42 is collected and detected by the detector 40 and is then processed… in some embodiments, the light source 36, the detector 40, the processor 44 and the control unit 94 are combined into a single integrated device.” para. 179-189).
Regarding claim 2: As best understood, DUBE discloses: the optical assembly comprises a camera (para. 184) and a supporting member (FIGS. 3A and 3B best show a plate-like structure supporting structure that is the outer periphery of drum 27.), the supporting member optionally being a plate, wherein the camera and the first motor are integral in motion with the supporting member (FIG. 3A shows that the motor 96 is mounted on the drum 27 and so will move with the camera. The optical assembly 64 is shown unlabeled at the far left of FIG. 3A, in the 8 o’clock position on drum 27, and is shown labeled in the 12 o’clock position of the drum 27 in FIG. 2A.), and wherein the supporting member slides in motion along the supporting guide to be moved along the curvilinear trajectory (para. 150-152; FIGS. 3A and 3B).
Regarding claim 3: As best understood, DUBE discloses: the curvilinear trajectory is a circular or semicircular trajectory (FIGS. 3A and 3B show that it will be a circular trajectory).
Regarding claim 4: As best understood, DUBE discloses: the supporting guide (outer periphery of drum 27) comprises a supporting plate with a circular or semicircular portion geometry (best seen in FIG. 3A).
Regarding claims 6 and 19: As best understood, DUBE discloses: the optical assembly (64, 70, 72 in FIGS. 2A and 2B) further comprises one or more lighting devices (70, 72), supported by the supporting member (mounted to 27 as shown in FIG. 2B) and adapted to illuminate the portion of cable or extruded body (para. 177).
Regarding claims 10 and 23: As best understood, DUBE discloses: the electronic control unit comprises storage means configured to store reference information of the mark (stored information such as threshold for defect detection in para. 195), and wherein said electronic unit is configured to compare the reference information with current mark information extracted from the image acquired by the optical assembly (para. 195) and to calculate data related to a discrepancy between said reference information and said current mark information extracted from the image acquired by the optical assembly (para. 195).
Regarding claims 12 and 25: As best understood, DUBE discloses: A method for optically controlling a mark applied to a cable or an extruded body of huge length, said method comprising: (a) providing a device for optically controlling the mark comprising: a supporting guide (external fixed holder 56 in FIG. 3B) arranged close to the cable or the extruded body in a manner spaced apart therefrom (FIG. 2B shows the space between the drum 27 and the center of the drum where the object 24 will move.), an optical assembly (camera 64 and lights 70, 72) adapted to acquire or reconstruct an image of a portion of cable or extruded body at a mark provided on the cable or the extruded body (The device images the entire surface of the object as discussed in para. 179.), said optical assembly being engaged with the supporting guide to be movable along a curvilinear trajectory about the cable or the extruded body (Drum 27 rotates in a circular trajectory carrying the camera 64 in a circular trajectory. Para. 144), a first motor (96 in FIG. 3A), operatively connected to the supporting guide (FIGS. 3A and 3B), to move the optical assembly along the curvilinear trajectory (“optical assembly 34 rotates along with the drum 27” in para. 156); and an electronic control unit (94 in FIG. 3A; para. 184), configured to start acquisition of the image of the portion of cable or extruded body by the optical assembly and to process the image of the portion of cable or extruded body (“The processor 44 is configured for receiving a signal representative of the resulting light 42 from the detector 40 and continuously generating an image representative of the surface 22 of the object 24… The resulting light 42 is collected and detected by the detector 40 and is then processed… in some embodiments, the light source 36, the detector 40, the processor 44 and the control unit 94 are combined into a single integrated device.” para. 179-189), said electronic control unit comprising storage means on which reference information of the mark is stored (storage of thresholds for defect detection in para. 195); (b) moving the optical assembly by the first motor until the optical assembly reaches an angular acquisition position about the cable or the extruded body (para. 156); (c) from the electronic unit, sending an image acquisition signal of the portion of the cable or extruded body comprising the mark (inherent in the image acquisition discussed in para. 179-189 under control of control unit 94); and (d) on the electronic unit, processing the image acquired in step (c), calculating current mark information extracted from the acquired image (real-time image generation in para. 197), comparing the reference information stored on the electronic unit with the current mark information extracted from the image acquired by the optical assembly (threshold for defect detection in para. 195), and calculating data related to a discrepancy between said reference information and said current mark information extracted from the image acquired by the optical assembly (identifying a defect in para. 180).
Regarding claims 13 and 26: As best understood, DUBE discloses: (b1) moving the optical assembly by the first motor until the optical assembly reaches an angular calibration position about the cable or the extruded body (It is unclear what is meant by angular calibration position. See 112 rejection above. Rotation of the drum 27 is discussed in para. 143-144.); (b2) from the electronic unit, sending an image acquisition signal of the portion of the cable or extruded body (inherent in the image acquisition discussed in para. 179-189 under control of control unit 94); (b3) on the electronic unit, processing the image acquired in step (b2) (threshold for defect detection in para. 195) and verifying a presence of an image of the mark on said acquired image (identifying a defect in para. 180); (b4) sequentially repeating the steps from (b1) to (b3) until the acquired image contains a complete image of the mark to be controlled (Entire surface is imaged in para. 179.), and (b5) storing the angular calibration position considered in step (b1) as the angular acquisition position (It is unclear what calibration operation is happening here, but the angular positions have to be known and stored in order to combine separate images into a combine image of the entire surface as discussed in para. 179.).
Regarding claim 14: As best understood, DUBE discloses: A device for optically controlling a defect on an outer surface of an extruded or laminated body of huge length, said device comprising: a supporting guide (external fixed holder 56 in FIG. 3B) adapted to be arranged close to the extruded or laminated body (24 in FIG. 2A); in a manner spaced apart therefrom (FIG. 2B shows the space between the drum 27 and the center of the drum where the object 24 will move ); an optical assembly (camera 64 and lights 70, 72) adapted to acquire or reconstruct an image of a portion of the extruded or laminated body at a defect on the extruded or laminated body (The device images the entire surface of the object as discussed in para. 179.), said optical assembly being engaged with the supporting guide (64 is mounted on 27 as shown in FIG. 2A, which is mounted on 56 as shown in FIG. 3B.) so as to be movable along a curvilinear trajectory about the extruded or laminated body (Drum 27 rotates in a circular trajectory carrying the camera 64 in a circular trajectory. Para. 144), a first motor (96 in FIG. 3A), operatively connected to the supporting guide (FIG. 3A, 3B), to move the optical assembly along the curvilinear trajectory (“optical assembly 34 rotates along with the drum 27” in para. 156); and an electronic control unit (94 in FIG. 3A; para. 184), configured to start acquisition of the image of the portion of the extruded or laminated body by the optical assembly and to process the image of the portion of the extruded or laminated body to extract defect information (“The processor 44 is configured for receiving a signal representative of the resulting light 42 from the detector 40 and continuously generating an image representative of the surface 22 of the object 24… The resulting light 42 is collected and detected by the detector 40 and is then processed… in some embodiments, the light source 36, the detector 40, the processor 44 and the control unit 94 are combined into a single integrated device.” para. 179-189).
Regarding claim 15: As best understood, DUBE discloses: the optical assembly comprises a camera (para. 184) and a supporting member (FIGS. 3A and 3B best show a plate-like structure supporting structure that is the outer periphery of drum 27.), the supporting member optionally being a plate, wherein the camera and the first motor are integral in motion with the supporting member (FIG. 3A shows that the motor 96 is mounted on the drum 27 and so will move with the camera. The optical assembly 64 is shown unlabeled on the far left of FIG. 3A, in the 8 o’clock position on drum 27, and is shown labeled in the 12 o’clock position on drum 27 in FIG. 2A.), and wherein the supporting member slides in motion along the supporting guide to be moved along the curvilinear trajectory (para. 150-152; FIGS. 3A and 3B).
Regarding claim 16: As best understood, DUBE discloses: the curvilinear trajectory is a circular or semicircular trajectory (FIGS. 3A and 3B show that it will be a circular trajectory).
Regarding claim 17: As best understood, DUBE discloses: the supporting guide (outer periphery of 27) comprises a supporting plate with a circular or semicircular portion geometry (best seen in FIG. 3A).
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) 11 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DUBE.
Regarding claims 11 and 24: As best understood, DUBE discloses: A control assembly (94 in FIG. 3A; para. 184) for optically controlling a mark on a cable or an extruded body of huge length, comprising the device of claim 1 (The rejection of claim 1 has been discussed above.) and a supporting structure (stand 48 in FIG. 3B; para. 153) comprising an upright element (vertical part of 48 in FIG. 3B).
DUBE does not disclose a supporting arm protruding from the upright element in a direction incident to the upright element, said supporting arm being connected to the supporting guide or to a second motor of the device to facilitate installation of the control assembly close to the cable or the extruded body with minimum hindrance for a sliding system of the cable or the extruded body.
However the Examiner take OFFICIAL NOTICE that it known in the art to mount equipment on arms based on available floor space and installation space to have the components of an apparatus in a convenient location.
Claim(s) 5 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DUBE in view of KIMPEL et al. (US 20140260705).
Regarding claim 5: As best understood, DUBE does not disclose the specific mechanical linkage between the motor 96 and the stationary portion of the apparatus. They only state that the motor drives rotation of the drum (para. 26).
KIMPEL however does teach a first curvilinear rack (inner part of frame 90 best seen in FIG. 6 which may have a plurality of teeth as discussed in para. 32) and a sliding guide (front part of frame 90, which is 90A in FIG. 6), the sliding guide optionally being a rail, wherein the device further comprises a pinion (sprockets 88 in FIG. 7; para. 32) kinematically connected to a first motor shaft (shown connecting motor 76 to primary sprocket 80 in FIG. 3) of said first motor (76) and engaged with said first curvilinear rack to move the inspection assembly (inspection head 100) along the sliding guide (FIG. 2), and wherein the inspection assembly comprises sliding members (roller 114), the sliding members optionally being skids or rollers, adapted to be engaged with the sliding guide to slidingly support the optical assembly (FIG. 6).
One skilled in the art at the time the application was effectively filed would be motivated to use the rack and pinion movement mechanism of KIMPEL to move the optical assembly of DUBE because it is one of the known ways to move an assembly over a surface (KIMPEL teaches a chain drive, a frictional drive, and a toothed drive in para. 32). A toothed drive has the advantage that it largely avoids slippage between the two components.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 7 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims while also successfully overcoming the 112 issues listed above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Dependent claims 7 and 20 contain allowable subject matter. None of the prior art of record teaches or suggests the claimed allowable subject matter. Specifically not found in the prior art of record are the limitations of a second motor adapted to be integrally connected to a supporting structure of the device, said second motor being operatively connected to the supporting guide to move said supporting guide along a second curvilinear trajectory.
Claims 8, 9, 21, and 22 are indicated as containing allowable subject matter due to their dependence.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. KNUESEL et al. (CH 704499) teaches a guide for continuously moving extruded goods while visually inspecting them and analyzing the data for irregularities. TUNACIK et al. (US 8844387) teaches a frame holding a camera or any sensing device to move along a cable to inspect it. US 20110052039, US20210148997, CN 108918542, and CN 209043824 all teach inventions for moving a cable past sensors or a camera for inspection purposes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANIEL J KOLB whose telephone number is (571)270-7601. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JESSICA HAN can be reached at (571) 272-2078. 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.
/NATHANIEL J KOLB/Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights