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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 7 - 9 of claim 2 recite, in part, “move the disk, which is moved on the conveyor and is determined to be defective by the determination unit, to the storage unit” which appears to contain a typographical error and/or a minor informality. In view of lines 3 - 4 and lines 5 - 6 of claim 2, it appears as though non-defective disks are to be moved to the storage unit and defective disks are to be moved to the discharge unit. Therefore, the Examiner suggests amending lines 7 - 9 of claim 2 to --move the disk, which is moved on the conveyor and is determined to be non-defective by the determination unit, to the storage unit-- in order to maintain consistency with lines 3 - 4 of claim 2 and to improve the clarity and precision of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 5 of claim 4 recites, in part, “a grip unit which moves on the tray and grips” which appears to contain inconsistent claim terminology and/or a minor informality. The Examiner suggests amending the claim to --a grip unit which moves on the tray unit and grips-- in order to maintain consistency with line 3 of claim 4 and to improve the clarity and precision of the claim. 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 light emitting unit configured to project”, “a photographing unit configured to photograph”, “a determination unit configured to analyze”, “a storage unit configured to store”, “a discharge unit configured to discharge”, “a distinguishing unit configured to move”, “a grip unit which moves”, “a recognition unit configured to recognize”, “a first photographing unit configured to photograph”, “a second photographing unit configured to photograph”, “first light emitting unit projects” and “second light emitting unit projects” in claims 1 - 6.
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.
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 2 - 6 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 2 recites the limitation "the disk determined to be non-defective" (emphasis added) in lines 3 - 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the disk determined to be defective" (emphasis added) in lines 5 - 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the determination units" (emphasis added) in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the disk that reflects light projected by the first light emitting unit," (emphasis added) in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the disk that reflects the light projected by the second light emitting unit" (emphasis added) in lines 7 - 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the light projected by the second light emitting unit" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 4 and 6 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, due to being dependent upon a rejected base claim(s) but would be withdrawn from the rejection if their base claim(s) overcome the rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception, an abstract idea, without significantly more. The claim is directed towards determining whether a disk is defective, which is an abstract idea.
The claim recites, at a high level of generality, “analyz[ing] the image [of the disk]… and determin[ing] whether the disk is defective.”
The limitation of “analyze the image [of the disk]… and determine whether the disk is defective”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a determination unit” and “an AI-based algorithm” (see claim 1), nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. The Examiner asserts that the claim does not provide any details nor limit how the AI-based algorithm operates or how the analysis and determination is made, and the plain meanings of “analyze” and “determine” encompass mental observations or evaluations, e.g., a user mentally identifying abnormalities in an image of an object. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the specification, “analyz[ing]” and “determin[ing]” encompass mental observations and/or evaluations that are practically performed in the human mind. For example, but for the recitation of the aforementioned generic computer components, the claimed analyzing the image [of the disk] and determining whether the disk is defective encompasses a user observing an image of a disk/product and performing an evaluation by mentally identifying any abnormalities present on the disk/product in the image. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements of: “a light emitting unit configured to project light onto a disk, which moves on a conveyor, at a certain angle”, “a photographing unit configured to photograph the disk moving on the conveyor and generate an image of the disk”, “a determination unit” and “using an AI-based algorithm”.
The limitations of “a light emitting unit configured to project light onto a disk, which moves on a conveyor, at a certain angle” and “a photographing unit configured to photograph the disk moving on the conveyor and generate an image of the disk”, are mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering and output, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claims. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering. See MPEP § 2106.05. Additionally, the elements of the aforementioned limitations amount to recording digital images by use of conventional or generic technology in a nascent but well-known environment and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(d). Moreover, elements of the aforementioned limitations amount to no more than invoking computers and/or other machinery merely as tools to perform an existing process and/or as objects on which the judicial exception operates, which does not integrate the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP § 2106(b) & MPEP § 2106(f).
Further, the limitation of “a determination unit” is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Furthermore, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of determining whether a disk is defective in a computer environment. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Additionally, the limitation of “analyze the image using an AI-based algorithm” provides nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.05(f) provides the following considerations for determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. Moreover, the AI-based algorithm is used to generally apply the abstract idea without placing any limits on how the AI-based algorithm functions. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Additionally, the recitation of “analyze the image using AI-based algorithm” merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. Although the additional element of “analyze the image using AI-based algorithm” limits the identified judicial exception “determin[ing] whether the disk is defective”, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (artificial intelligence) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of: “a light emitting unit configured to project light onto a disk, which moves on a conveyor, at a certain angle”, “a photographing unit configured to photograph the disk moving on the conveyor and generate an image of the disk”, “a determination unit” and “using an AI-based algorithm” do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they merely perform insignificant extrasolution activity, mere data gathering, amount to no more than invoking computers and/or other machinery merely as tools to perform an existing process and/or as objects on which the judicial exception operates and/or amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components and/or machinery cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onishi U.S. Publication No. 2024/0104911 A1 in view of Higo U.S. Publication No. 2016/0267647 A1.
- With regards to claim 1, Onishi discloses an artificial intelligence (AI)-based vehicle disk defect detection system (Onishi, Abstract, Figs. 1 - 6 & 13, Pg. 2 ¶ 0032 - 0038, Pg. 3 ¶ 0041 - 0053, Pg. 4 ¶ 0060 - 0064, Pg. 6 ¶ 0077 - 0082) comprising: a disk, which moves on a conveyor; (Onishi, Figs. 1, 3 & 6, Pg. 2 ¶ 0034 - 0035, Pg. 3 ¶ 0043 and 0053, Pg. 6 ¶ 0078 - 0080 [Figures 1, 3 and 6 of Onishi explicitly illustrate disk-shaped products.]) a photographing unit (Onishi, Figs. 1 - 3, Pg. 2 ¶ 0033 - 0036, Pg. 3 ¶ 0042 and 0052 - 0053, Pg. 4 ¶ 0060 - 0061, Pg. 6 ¶ 0078 - 0079, Pg. 10 ¶ 0124 and 0129) configured to photograph the disk moving on the conveyor and generate an image of the disk; (Onishi, Figs. 1 - 4, Pg. 2 ¶ 0034 - 0036, Pg. 3 ¶ 0042 - 0044 and 0053, Pg. 4 ¶ 0060 - 0061, Pg. 6 ¶ 0078 - 0079 and 0086) and a determination unit (Onishi, Abstract, Figs. 1 - 3, Pg. 2 ¶ 0032 - 0038, Pg. 3 ¶ 0048 - Pg. 4 ¶ 0062) configured to analyze the image using an AI-based algorithm and determine whether the disk is defective. (Onishi, Abstract, Figs. 3 & 4, Pg. 2 ¶ 0035 - 0037, Pg. 4 ¶ 0059 - 0064, Pg. 4 ¶ 0066 - Pg. 5 ¶ 0067, Pg. 6 ¶ 0078 - 0082) Onishi fails to disclose explicitly a light emitting unit configured to project light onto a disk at a certain angle. Pertaining to analogous art, Higo discloses a defect detection system (Higo, Abstract, Figs. 1, 2, 4 & 6 - 17, Pg. 1 ¶ 0006, Pg. 2 ¶ 0027 - 0036, Pg. 3 ¶ 0038, Pg. 4 ¶ 0052, 0055 and 0058, Pg. 6 ¶ 0080 and 0086 - 0087, Pg. 7 ¶ 0096 - 0098, Pg. 9 ¶ 0116) comprising: a light emitting unit (Higo, Abstract, Figs. 1, 2, 7 - 10, 12 & 13, Pg. 1 ¶ 0006, Pg. 2 ¶ 0030 - 0032, Pg. 7 ¶ 0088 and 0091) configured to project light onto a target object, which moves on a conveyor, at a certain angle; (Higo, Abstract, Figs. 9 & 13, Pg. 1 ¶ 0006, Pg. 2 ¶ 0031 - 0032, Pg. 6 ¶ 0080 - 0083, Pg. 7 ¶ 0088 - 0091, 0094 and 0098, Pg. 8 ¶ 0112) a photographing unit (Higo, Abstract, Figs. 1, 2, 7, 9, 10, 12 & 13, Pg. 2 ¶ 0031 - 0035, Pg. 6 ¶ 0083 - 0087, Pg. 7 ¶ 0089, Pg. 8 ¶ 0114) configured to photograph the target object moving on the conveyor and generate an image of the target object; (Higo, Figs. 9 & 13, Pg. 6 ¶ 0080 - 0087, Pg. 7 ¶ 0089 - 0090 and 0093) and a determination unit (Higo, Abstract, Figs. 1, 7, 10 & 12, Pg. 1 ¶ 0006 - 0007, Pg. 2 ¶ 0028 - 0030, Pg. 2 ¶ 0035 - Pg. 3 ¶ 0038, Pg. 6 ¶ 0086 - 0087, Pg. 9 ¶ 0116) configured to analyze the image using an algorithm and determine whether the target object is defective. (Higo, Abstract, Figs. 4, 6 & 11, Pg. 1 ¶ 0006 - 0007, Pg. 2 ¶ 0029 - 0031 and 0035 - 0036, Pg. 4 ¶ 0052, 0055 and 0058, Pg. 6 ¶ 0080 and 0086 - 0087, Pg. 7 ¶ 0096 - 0098) Onishi and Higo are combinable because they are both directed towards image processing systems that inspect images of objects moving along a conveyor belt for defects. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Onishi with the teachings of Higo. This modification would have been prompted in order to enhance the base device of Onishi with the well-known and applicable technique Higo applied to a comparable device. Utilizing a light emitting unit(s) to project light onto the disk at a certain angle(s), as taught by Higo, would enhance the base device of Onishi by enabling the images of disks it analyzes to be generated at a high and consistent level of quality in order to thereby improve its ability to accurately and reliably determine whether or not disks are defective by analyzing the generated images of the disks. This combination could be completed according to well-known techniques in the art and would likely yield predictable results, in that the base device of Onishi would utilize a light emitting unit(s) to project light onto the disk at a certain angle(s) in order to enable it to generate images of disks at a high and consistent level of quality and thereby improve its ability to accurately and reliably determine whether or not disks are defective by analyzing the generated images. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Onishi with Higo to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Claims 2 - 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onishi U.S. Publication No. 2024/0104911 A1 in view of Higo U.S. Publication No. 2016/0267647 A1 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. KR Publication No. 10-2016-0105738. The Examiner notes that the citations of Kim et al. correspond to the provided machine translation.
- With regards to claim 2, Onishi in view of Higo disclose the AI-based vehicle disk defect detection system of claim 1. Onishi fails to disclose explicitly a storage unit configured to store the disk determined to be non-defective by the determination unit; a discharge unit configured to discharge the disk determined to be defective by the determination unit; and a distinguishing unit configured to move the disk, which is moved on the conveyor and is determined to be defective by the determination unit, to the storage unit and move the disk, which is moved on the conveyor and is determined to be defective by the determination unit, to the discharge unit. Pertaining to analogous art, Kim et al. disclose a storage unit (Kim et al., Fig. 1, Pg. 4 ¶ 0020 - 0022, Pg. 7 ¶ 0034 - Pg. 8 ¶ 0036, Pg. 11 ¶ 0062) configured to store the disk determined to be non-defective by the determination unit; (Kim et al., Fig. 1, Pg. 4 ¶ 0020 - 0022, Pg. 7 ¶ 0034 - Pg. 8 ¶ 0036, Pg. 11 ¶ 0062) a discharge unit (Kim et al., Figs. 1, 4a & 4b, Pg. 3 ¶ 0013 - 0014, Pg. 7 ¶ 0033 - 0035, Pg. 11 ¶ 0057 - Pg. 12 ¶ 0065) configured to discharge the disk determined to be defective by the determination unit; (Kim et al., Figs. 1, 4a & 4b, Pg. 3 ¶ 0013 - 0014, Pg. 7 ¶ 0033 - 0035, Pg. 11 ¶ 0057 - Pg. 12 ¶ 0065) and a distinguishing unit (Kim et al., Figs. 1, 4a & 4b, Pg. 4 ¶ 0019, Pg. 5 ¶ 0023 - 0025, Pg. 7 ¶ 0031 - Pg. 8 ¶ 0036, Pg. 11 ¶ 0057 - Pg. 12 ¶ 0065) configured to move the disk, which is moved on the conveyor and is determined to be [non-]defective by the determination unit, to the storage unit (Kim et al. Figs. 1, 4a & 4b, Pg. 4 ¶ 0020 - 0022, Pg. 7 ¶ 0034 - Pg. 8 ¶ 0036, Pg. 11 ¶ 0062, Pg. 12 ¶ 0065) and move the disk, which is moved on the conveyor and is determined to be defective by the determination unit, to the discharge unit. (Kim et al., Figs. 1, 4a & 4b, Pg. 3 ¶ 0013 - 0014, Pg. 7 ¶ 0033 - 0035, Pg. 11 ¶ 0057 - Pg. 12 ¶ 0065)Onishi in view of Higo and Kim et al. are combinable because they are all directed towards image processing systems that inspect images of objects moving along a conveyor belt for defects. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined teachings of Onishi in view of Higo with the teachings of Kim et al. This modification would have been prompted in order to enhance the combined base device of Onishi in view of Higo with the well-known and applicable technique Kim et al. applied to a comparable device. Utilizing a distinguishing unit to move the disk to a storage unit when the disk is determined to be non-defective and to move the disk to a discharge unit when the disk is determined to be defective, as taught by Kim et al., would enhance the combined base device by enabling defective disks to be easily and efficiently separated from non-defective disks automatically so that end-users may quickly identify and locate defective disks for further examination, prevent defective disks from undergoing further processing steps during manufacturing and/or implement effective quality control of manufactured disks. Furthermore, this modification would have been prompted by the teachings and suggestions of Higo that determination results are stored in association with identification information of the products associated with the determination results and that the conveyance destination of a target object is controlled based on the target object having an abnormality or not and that target objects having abnormalities are conveyed to a discarding box, see at least figure 11, page 4 paragraph 0064, page 5 paragraph 0067, page 6 paragraphs 0086 - 0087, page 7 paragraphs 0097 - 0098 and page 8 paragraphs0103, 0105 and 0110 - 0111 of Higo. This combination could be completed according to well-known techniques in the art and would likely yield predictable results, in that the combined base device would utilize a distinguishing unit to move the disk to a storage unit when the disk is determined to be non-defective and to move the disk to a discharge unit when the disk is determined to be defective in order to enable defective disks to be easily, efficiently and automatically separated from non-defective disks so that end-users may quickly identify and locate defective disks for further examination, prevent defective disks from undergoing further processing steps during manufacturing and/or implement effective quality control of manufactured disks. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Onishi in view of Higo with Kim et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 2.
- With regards to claim 3, Onishi in view of Higo in view of Kim et al. disclose the AI-based vehicle disk defect detection system of claim 2, wherein the determination units extract an identification code of the disk determined to be defective. (Onishi, Pg. 2 ¶ 0034 - 0037, Pg. 4 ¶ 0062 - 0064, Pg. 5 ¶ 0067) Onishi fails to disclose explicitly wherein the distinguishing unit recognizes an identification code of the disk, compares the recognized identification code with the identification code extracted by the determination unit, and moves the disk to the storage unit or the discharge unit. Pertaining to analogous art, Kim et al. disclose wherein the determination units extract an identification code of the disk determined to be defective, (Kim et al., Fig. 1, Pg. 5 ¶ 0025, Pg. 7 ¶ 0033 - Pg. 8 ¶ 0036, Pg. 11 ¶ 0062 - Pg. 12 ¶ 0065) and the distinguishing unit recognizes an identification code of the disk, compares the recognized identification code with the identification code extracted by the determination unit, (Kim et al., Pg. 5 ¶ 0025, Pg. 7 ¶ 0031, Pg. 7 ¶ 0033 - Pg. 8 ¶ 0036, Pg. 11 ¶ 0062 - Pg. 12 ¶ 0065) and moves the disk to the storage unit or the discharge unit. (Kim et al., Figs. 1, 4a & 4b, Pg. 3 ¶ 0013 - 0014, Pg. 4 ¶ 0020 - 0022, Pg. 7 ¶ 0033 - Pg. 8 ¶ 0036, Pg. 11 ¶ 0057 - Pg. 12 ¶ 0065)
- With regards to claim 4, Onishi in view of Higo in view of Kim et al. disclose the AI-based vehicle disk defect detection system of claim 3. Onishi fails to disclose explicitly wherein the distinguishing unit includes: a tray unit disposed on a path between the conveyor and the storage unit; a grip unit which moves on the tray and grips the disk; and a recognition unit configured to recognize the identification code of the disk gripped by the grip unit. Pertaining to analogous art, Kim et al. disclose wherein the distinguishing unit includes: a tray unit disposed on a path between the conveyor and the storage unit; (Kim et al., Figs. 1, 4a & 4b, Pg. 3 ¶ 0013 - 0014, Pg. 7 ¶ 0033 - 0035, Pg. 11 ¶ 0057 - 0064) a grip unit (Kim et al., Figs. 1, 4a & 4b, Pg. 3 ¶ 0013 - 0014, Pg. 7 ¶ 0033 - 0035, Pg. 11 ¶ 0057 - 0064) which moves on the tray and grips the disk; (Kim et al., Figs. 1, 4a & 4b, Pg. 3 ¶ 0013 - 0014, Pg. 7 ¶ 0033 - 0035, Pg. 11 ¶ 0057 - 0064) and a recognition unit (Kim et al., Fig. 1, Pg. 5 ¶ 0025, Pg. 7 ¶ 0031, Pg. 7 ¶ 0033 - Pg. 8 ¶ 0036, Pg. 11 ¶ 0062 - Pg. 12 ¶ 0065) configured to recognize the identification code of the disk gripped by the grip unit. (Kim et al., Pg. 5 ¶ 0025, Pg. 7 ¶ 0031, Pg. 7 ¶ 0033 - Pg. 8 ¶ 0036, Pg. 11 ¶ 0062 - Pg. 12 ¶ 0065)
- With regards to claim 5, Onishi in view of Higo in view of Kim et al. disclose the AI-based vehicle disk defect detection system of claim 2, wherein the photographing unit is configured to photograph the disk. (Onishi, Figs. 1 - 4, Pg. 2 ¶ 0034 - 0036, Pg. 3 ¶ 0042 - 0044 and 0053, Pg. 4 ¶ 0060 - 0061, Pg. 6 ¶ 0078 - 0079 and 0086) Onishi fails to disclose explicitly wherein the light emitting unit includes a first light emitting unit disposed on a path of the conveyor, and a second light emitting unit disposed downstream of the first light emitting unit on the path of the conveyor, and the photographing unit includes a first photographing unit configured to photograph the disk that reflects light projected by the first light emitting unit, and a second photographing unit configured to photograph the disk that reflects the light projected by the second light emitting unit. Pertaining to analogous art, Higo discloses wherein the light emitting unit includes a first light emitting unit disposed on a path of the conveyor, (Higo, Abstract, Figs. 9 & 13, Pg. 1 ¶ 0006, Pg. 2 ¶ 0029 - 0002, Pg. 7 ¶ 0088 - 0091, Pg. 8 ¶ 0112) and a second light emitting unit disposed downstream of the first light emitting unit on the path of the conveyor, (Higo, Abstract, Figs. 9 & 13, Pg. 1 ¶ 0006, Pg. 2 ¶ 0029 - 0002, Pg. 7 ¶ 0088 - 0091, Pg. 8 ¶ 0112) and the photographing unit includes a first photographing unit (Higo, Figs. 9, 10, 12 & 13, Pg. 2 ¶ 0031 and 0033, Pg. 6 ¶ 0083 - 0086, Pg. 7 ¶ 0089 - 0091 and 0093 - 0095, Pg. 8 ¶ 0114) configured to photograph the disk that reflects light projected by the first light emitting unit, (Higo, Pg. 2 ¶ 0029 - 0033, Pg. 6 ¶ 0083 - 0086, Pg. 7 ¶ 0088 - 0091 and 0093 - 0095, Pg. 8 ¶ 0112 - 0114) and a second photographing unit (Higo, Figs. 9, 10, 12 & 13, Pg. 2 ¶ 0031 and 0033, Pg. 6 ¶ 0083 - 0086, Pg. 7 ¶ 0089 - 0091 and 0093 - 0095, Pg. 8 ¶ 0114) configured to photograph the disk that reflects the light projected by the second light emitting unit. (Higo, Figs. 9, 10, 12 & 13, Pg. 2 ¶ 0029 - 0033, Pg. 6 ¶ 0083 - 0086, Pg. 7 ¶ 0088 - 0091 and 0093 - 0095, Pg. 8 ¶ 0112 - 0114) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined teachings of Onishi in view of Higo in view of Kim et al. with additional teachings of Higo. This modification would have been prompted in order to enhance the combined base device of in view of Higo in view of Kim et al. with the well-known and applicable technique Higo applied to a comparable device. Utilizing first and second photographing units to photograph the disk, as taught by Higo, would enhance the combined base device by improving its ability to accurately, reliably and effectively determine whether or not disks are defective by analyzing images of the disks since the images of the disks that are analyzed would be captured from multiple different perspectives thereby helping ensure that the entirety of each disk is adequately evaluated for potential defects. Furthermore, this modification would have been prompted by the teachings and suggestions of Onishi that edge devices that include cameras may be arranged at each of a plurality of locations on one manufacturing line, see at least page 10 paragraphs 0124 and 0129 of Onishi. This combination could be completed according to well-known techniques in the art and would likely yield predictable results, in that the combined base device would utilize first and second photographing units to photograph the disk in order to improve its ability to accurately, reliably and effectively determine whether or not disks are defective by analyzing images of the disks since the images of the disks that are analyzed would be captured from multiple different perspectives so as to help ensure that the entirety of each disk is adequately evaluated for potential defects. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Onishi in view of Higo in view of Kim et al. with additional teachings of Higo to obtain the invention as specified in claim 5.
- With regards to claim 6, Onishi in view of Higo in view of Kim et al. disclose the AI-based vehicle disk defect detection system of claim 5. Onishi fails to disclose explicitly wherein an angle at which the first light emitting unit projects light onto the disk moving on the conveyor is different from an angle at which the second light emitting unit projects light onto the disk moving on the conveyor. Pertaining to analogous art, Higo discloses wherein an angle at which the first light emitting unit projects light onto the disk moving on the conveyor is different from an angle at which the second light emitting unit projects light onto the disk moving on the conveyor. (Higo, Fig. 9, Pg. 2 ¶ 0029 - 0032, Pg. 7 ¶ 0088 - 0091, Pg. 8 ¶ 0112)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Floeder et al. U.S. Publication No. 2023/0169642 A1; which is directed towards an inspection system, wherein an image capture device captures images of sheet parts moving on a belt, a plurality of neural networks process the images of the sheet parts to classify the sheet parts into defective sheet parts and non-defective sheet parts and the classified sheet parts are sorted into bins based on their respective classifications.
Hu et al. U.S. Publication No. 2023/0169634 A1; which is directed towards an inspection apparatus, wherein a trained deep learning model processes images of products to determine whether or not the products are good or defective and products determined to be defective are transported to a conveyor belt distinct from a conveyor belt to which products determined to be good are transported.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC RUSH whose telephone number is (571) 270-3017. The examiner can normally be reached 9am - 5pm Monday - Friday.
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, Andrew Bee can be reached at (571) 270 - 5183. 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.
/ERIC RUSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2677