DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. 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.
3. Claim 4 is 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 Claim 4, recites the limitation "the threshold" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
4. 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.
5. Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
6. 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.
7. 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 limitations use 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 limitations are:
“a point light source configured to”, “an image capture device configured to”, “a computing device configured to”, “optical elements to control”, “a frame for translating the image capture device”, and “emitting, with a point light source” in claims 1, 5, 8, 10, 13, and 19-20.
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.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. Claims 1, 4, 6-9, 11-17 and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JPS6262205A by Motomia et al. (hereinafter Motomia) in view of JP2021162584A by Tsukamoto et al. (hereinafter Tsukamoto).
Regarding Claim 1, Motomia teaches a system for detecting surface profile defects within a moving web (Fig. 1 @ 1, Abstract, Par. [0001]), the system comprising:
a conveyor configured to translate the web, along a downweb direction (Fig. 1 @ 1, arrow beneath the object 1. Inherently teaches a conveyor) and at a translation speed (Fig. 1 @ 1, Abstract, Par. [0001], Page 4-5: transported in the inspection object at high speed), relative to an inspection area (Fig. 1 @ 1, illustrates the inspection area);
a point light source (Fig. 1 @ 2, Abstract, Par. [0001]: a slit light generating device, i.e. the point light source) configured to emit light (Fig. 1 @ 3, Abstract, Par. [0001]), wherein the point light source (Fig. 1 @ 2, Abstract, Par. [0001]: a slit light generating device, i.e. the point light source) is positioned and oriented relative to the conveyor (Fig. 1 @ 1, arrow beneath the object 1. Inherently teaches a conveyor) to illuminate a portion of the web (Fig. 1 @ 1, Abstract, Par. [0001]) positioned within the inspection area (Fig. 1 @ 1, illustrates the inspection area);
a diffusing screen (Fig. 1 @ 5, Abstract, Par. [0001]: screen. A screen per se has certain diffusion characteristic in contrast to reflection thus teaches the limitation) positioned and oriented relative to the conveyor (Fig. 1 @ 1, arrow beneath the object 1. Inherently teaches a conveyor) to receive the light reflected (Fig. 1 @ 4, Abstract, Par. [0001]: reflected light) from the web as the web (Fig. 1 @ 1, Abstract, Par. [0001]) is translated through the inspection area (Fig. 1 @ 1, illustrates the inspection area);
an image capture device (Fig. 1 @ 6, Abstract, Par. [0001]: camera, i.e. the image capture device) configured to capture image data indicative of an image formed on the diffusing screen (Fig. 1 @ 5, Abstract, Par. [0001]: screen. A screen per se has certain diffusion characteristic in contrast to reflection thus teaches the limitation); and
a computing device (Fig. 1 @ 7, Abstract, Par. [0001]: image processing apparatus, i.e. the computing device) configured to:
identify, based on the image data, a surface profile defect (Abstract, Par. [0001]: detects the change in the image processing apparatus. When this is detected, an abnormality signal is generated and is outputted to the outside) in a surface of the web (Fig. 1 @ 1, Abstract, Par. [0001]); and
output data indicating a relative location of the defect (Fig. 1 @ 8, Fig. 2-3, Abstract, Par. [0001]: detects the change in the image processing apparatus. When this is detected, an abnormality signal is generated and is outputted to the outside) within the web (Fig. 1 @ 1, Abstract, Par. [0001]) but does not explicitly teach a diffusing screen.
However, Tsukamoto teaches a diffusing screen (Fig. 1 @ 5, Abstract, Page 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Motomia by Tsukamoto as taught above such that a diffusing screen is accomplished in order to improve the light intensity obtained by the image pickup device (Tsukamoto, Page 6).
2. (Canceled)
3. (Canceled)
Regarding Claim 4, Motomia teaches the threshold variation in the defect comprises a deviation of at least about 0.05 degrees (Fig. 2,3, illustrates a deviation of at least about 0.05 degrees).
Regarding Claim 6, Motomia teaches the image capture device (Fig. 1 @ 6, Abstract, Par. [0001]: camera, i.e. the image capture device) comprises a line-scan camera (Par. [0001]: horizontal scanning line, thus teaches a line-scan camera) defining a scanning array oriented perpendicular to the downweb direction (Par. [0001]: The ITV camera 6 captures a linear light image of the screen 5 "- in the vertical direction and Figure 1 of the inspected object, suits 1 light with respect to the horizontal scanning lines captures the image on the screen vertically).
Regarding Claim 7, Motomia teaches the light from the point light source (See Claim 1 rejection) comprises divergent light (Abstract: A beam of wide slit light 3 (i.e. the divergent light)).
Regarding Claim 8, Motomia teaches divergent light (See claim 7 rejection) one or more optical elements to control emitted light angles ranging from fully divergent to slightly converging (Par. [0001]: a slit light generating device constituted by, for example, a laser and a cylindrical lens. Note: Cylindrical lenses are often used with laser diodes to collimate or shape the laser beam).
Also, it is considered obvious to try all known solutions when there is a recognized need in the art (one or more optical elements to control emitted light angles ranging from fully divergent to slightly converging), there had been a finite number of identified (divergent, non-divergent (i.e. collimated)), predictable solutions to the recognized need, and when one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP § 2143, E. Furthermore, such an arrangement would imply to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use one or more optical elements such as collimating lens to control emitted light angles ranging from fully divergent to slightly converging to improve the intensity of the transmission light.
Regarding Claim 9, Motomia teaches the point light source comprises a light emitting diode (LED) or a spotlight (Abstract, Par. [0001]; laser) configured to output collimated light (Par. [0001]: a slit light generating device constituted by, for example, a laser and a cylindrical lens. Note: Cylindrical lenses are often used with laser diodes to collimate or shape the laser beam) in a crossweb region of the web having a width of at least 1 meter (Par. [0001]: size of the object thus teaches the limitation).
Regarding Claim 11, Motomia teaches the diffusing screen (Fig. 1 @ 5, Abstract, Par. [0001]: screen. A screen per se has certain diffusion characteristic in contrast to reflection thus teaches the limitation) comprises a diffuse reflective screen oriented to reflect the collimated light (Fig. 1, illustrates such configuration) toward the image capture device (Fig. 1 @ 6, Abstract, Par. [0001]: camera, i.e. the image capture device).
Regarding Claim 12, Motomia as modified by Tsukamoto teaches the diffusing screen comprises a diffuse-light transmission screen (Tsukamoto, Fig. 1 @ 5, Abstract).
Regarding Claim 13, Motomia as modified by Tsukamoto teaches the point light source, the diffusing screen and the image capture device form a imaging unit, the imaging unit comprising a point light source arranged to illuminate a crossweb portion of the surface of the web with collimated light, a diffusing screen arranged to receive the collimated light reflected from the web and a line scanner camera arranged to image the diffusing screen,
wherein the imaging unit is arranged in a row across the web, and the diffusing screens collects collimated light from a crossweb portion of the web (See Claim 1 rejection) but does not explicitly teach plurality of imaging units, each of the imaging units comprising a point light source arranged to illuminate a crossweb portion of the surface of the web with collimated light;
wherein the plurality of imaging units are is arranged in a plurality of rows across the web, and wherein the plurality of imaging units are is staggered in a crossweb direction to form a staggered pattern so that each of the diffusing screens collects collimated light from a different crossweb portion of the web.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use plurality of imaging units, each of the imaging units comprising a point light source arranged to illuminate a crossweb portion of the surface of the web with collimated light;
wherein the plurality of imaging units are is arranged in a plurality of rows across the web, and wherein the plurality of imaging units are is staggered in a crossweb direction to form a staggered pattern so that each of the diffusing screens collects collimated light from a different crossweb portion of the web in order to obtain a predictable result, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding Claim 14, Motomia as modified by Tsukamoto teaches the staggered pattern comprises a first row of point light sources, diffusing screens, and image capture devices, and a second row of point light sources, diffusing screens, and image capture devices (See Claim 13 rejection), but does not explicitly teach wherein the point light sources, diffusing screens and image capture devices of the first row is oriented 180 degrees opposite relative to the point light sources, diffusing screens and image capture devices of the second row.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to rearrange parts for different configurations in order to obtain a predictable result, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding Claim 15, Motomia as modified by Tsukamoto teaches the computing device and identify the defect in the web based on the image data (See Claim 1 rejection) but does not explicitly teach comprises a machine-learning model trained to identify the defect in the web based on the image data.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use machine-learning model in order to obtain a predictable result since it is well known in the art that machine-learning model provides overall performance and quality improvement.
The examiner takes Official Notice that machine-learning model is well-known, or to be common knowledge in the art is capable of instant and unquestionable demonstration as being well-known. As noted by the court in In re Ahlert, 424 F.2d 1088, 1091, 165 USPQ 418,420 (CCPA 1970).
Regarding Claim 16, Motomia teaches the web comprises a polyester film, an optical film or a protective automotive paint film (Page 4: the inspected object can be applied to those of the flat. For example, a film, a metal, plus deck, building materials, glass, paper, ceramics and the like).
Regarding Claim 17, Motomia teaches the translation speed of the web during inspection comprises about 10 ft/minute to about 1000 ft/minute (Page 4-5: be transported in the inspection object at high speed thus teaches the limitation).
Regarding Claim 20, Motomia teaches a method for detecting surface profile defects within a moving web (See Claim 1 rejection. Note: an apparatus claim can be used to implement a method claim), the method comprising:
translating, within a conveyor of manufacturing process line, a web along a downweb direction and at a translation speed, relative to an inspection area (See Claim 1 rejection);
emitting, with a point light source, light incident on a surface of the moving web, wherein the point light source is positioned and oriented relative to the conveyor to illuminate a portion of the web positioned within the inspection area (See Claim 1 rejection);
receiving, with a diffusing screen positioned and oriented orthogonal relative to the downweb direction of the conveyor (Fig. 1 @ 1, 5), the light reflected from the web as the web is translated through the inspection area, wherein the light reflected from the web forms an image on the diffusing screen, the image indicating a shadow of a surface profile defect of the web (See Claim 1 rejection);
generating, with a linescanner image capture device (See Claim 6 rejection), image data indicative of the image formed on the diffusing screen (See Claim 1 rejection); and
processing, with a processor, the image data to detect the surface profile defect in a surface of web (See Claim 1 rejection).
Regarding Claim 21, Motomia teaches outputting, with the processor, data indicating a relative location of the defect within the web (See Claim 1 rejection).
Regarding Claim 22, Motomia teaches transmitting the light emitted by the point light source for illuminating the portion of the web (See Claim 1 rejection) but does not explicitly teach through an optical element to collimate the light.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use a collimator (i.e. an optical element to collimate the light) in order to obtain a predictable result since it is well known in the art that a collimator provides parallel light to avoid divergence.
The examiner takes Official Notice that a collimator is well-known, or to be common knowledge in the art is capable of instant and unquestionable demonstration as being well-known. As noted by the court in In re Ahlert, 424 F.2d 1088, 1091, 165 USPQ 418,420 (CCPA 1970).
10. Claims 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Motomia in view of Tsukamoto as applied to Claim 1 above and further in view of US Patent Pub. No. 2021/0278347 A1 by Floeder et al. (hereinafter Floeder).
Regarding Claim 18, Motomia teaches the surface profile defect in the web (See Claim 1 rejection) but does not explicitly teach comprises a machine direction line (MDL) defect that is approximately parallel with the downweb direction, and
wherein the MDL defect has a variation in a thickness of the web in a range of 10 - 1000 nanometers.
However, Floeder teaches a machine direction line (MDL) defect (Abstract, Par. [0004, 0041) that is approximately parallel with the downweb direction (Par. [0004, 0041]), and
wherein the MDL defect has a variation in a thickness of the web in a range of 10 - 1000 nanometers (Par. [0005]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Motomia as modified by Tsukamoto by Floeder as taught above such that the surface profile defect in the web comprises a machine direction line (MDL) defect that is approximately parallel with the downweb direction, and wherein the MDL defect has a variation in a thickness of the web in a range of 10 - 1000 nanometers is accomplished in order to provide an indication of the detection of one or more machine direction line (MDL) defects in the film product (Floeder, Abstract).
Allowable Subject Matter
11. Claims 5, 10 and 19 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.
12. Claims 5,10 and 19 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMIL AHMED whose telephone number is (571)272-1950. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Kara Geisel can be reached on 571-272-2416. 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.
/JAMIL AHMED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877