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 .
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 first computing unit”, “a second computing unit” in claim 1.
“a third computing unit” in claim 9.
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 4-7, and 13, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4, in lines 1-2, recites “The device according to claim 1, wherein the first image data and/or, if dependent on claim 3”, here from the claim language it is not clear whether claim 4, depends on claim 1 or claim 3, hence rendering claim 4 and its respective dependent claims 5-7, indefinite.
Regarding claim 13, the phrase "can be" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8-13, 15, and 17-19, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brittain (US PGPUB 2021/0041373 A1) and further in view of Munoz (US PGPUB 2019/0191061 A1).
As per claim 1, Brittain discloses a device for observing and/or inspecting a material web (Brittain, Fig. 2, and paragraph 41), comprising:
a first camera unit for capturing first image data of the material web (Brittain, Fig. 2:113A, image capturing devices, and paragraph 41);
a first computing unit (Brittain, Fig. 2:114A), which is connected to the first camera unit via a first camera connection line, is adapted to receive the first image data (Brittain, Fig. 2:113A:114A); and
a second computing unit (Brittain, Fig. 2:114Y) adapted to receive the first image data from the first computing unit (Brittain, Fig. 2:114A:114Y, and paragraphs 40 and 45);
wherein the first computing unit and the second computing unit are connected via a first (USB) line (Brittain, Fig. 2, shows 114A and 114Y, are connected through communication line);
wherein the first image data is transmitted to the second computing unit via the first (USB) line (Brittain, Fig. 2:114A:114Y, and paragraphs 40, and 45-47);
wherein the first computing unit comprises a first (USB) interface and the second computing unit comprises a second (USB) interface, wherein the first (USB) interface and the second (USB) interface are connected via the first (USB) line (Brittain, Fig. 2:114A:114Y, and paragraphs 40, 45-47, and 54);
wherein the first (USB) interface and the second (USB) interface are integrated into a network (Brittain, paragraphs 38 and 52).
Brittain discloses a first line, first interface, and second interface, as being explained above, however does not explicitly discloses a first USB line, first USB interface, and second USB interface, though said limitations would have been obvious in view of Brittain teachings as Brittain discloses in paragraph 54, image capturing devices 141, 143, 145, and 147 is communicatively coupled to processing circuitry 165, by a wired connection. Further said limitations are well known in the art for instance Munoz discloses a first line, first USB interface, and second USB interface (Munoz, paragraphs 22 and 23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Brittain teachings by implementing a USB communication protocol to the system, as taught by Munoz.
The motivation would be to provide an improved system of automatic image recognition with a USB interface (paragraph 8), as taught by Munoz.
As per claim 2, Brittain in view of Munoz further discloses the device according to claim 1, wherein the network is an Ethernet (Munoz, paragraph 25).
As per claim 3, Brittain in view of Munoz further discloses the device according to claim 1, comprising: a second camera unit for capturing second image data of the material web (Brittain, Fig. 2:113N).
As per claim 8, Brittain in view of Munoz further discloses the device according to claim 3, wherein the second computing unit is connected to the second camera unit via a second camera connection line and is adapted to receive the second image data (Brittain, Fig. 2:113N:114Y).
As per claim 9, Brittain in view of Munoz further discloses the device according to claim 3, comprising: a third computing unit (Brittain, paragraph 40, discloses acquisition computers 114A-114N each coupled to a corresponding one of image capturing devices 113A-113N), which is connected to the second camera unit via a second camera connection line, is adapted to receive the second image data (Brittain, Fig. 2:113N).
As per claim 10, Brittain in view of Munoz further discloses the device according to claim 9, wherein the second computing unit and the third computing unit are connected via a second USB line (Munoz, Fig. 1:2, and paragraphs 8 and 22), and the second image data is transmitted to the second computing unit via the second USB line (Munoz, paragraphs 22 and 25).
As per claim 11, Brittain in view of Munoz further discloses the device according to claim 1, wherein the first USB interface is integrated into the network (Munoz, paragraphs 22 and 23) via a virtual network apparatus (Brittain, paragraphs 6, 21, 49 and 52).
As per claim 12, Brittain in view of Munoz further discloses the device according to claim 11, wherein the maximum burst adjustment of the virtual network apparatus is greater than 0, greater than or equal to 10, or equal to 15 (Brittain, paragraphs 31 and 102).
As per claim 13, Brittain in view of Munoz further discloses the device according to claim 1, wherein the network can be configured by the first computing unit (120) via a first virtual network interface (Brittain, paragraphs 6, 21, 49 and 52).
As per claim 15, Brittain in view of Munoz further discloses the device according to claim 1, wherein the network can be configured by the second computing unit via a second virtual network interface (Brittain, paragraphs 6, 21, 49 and 52).
As per claim 17, Brittain in view of Munoz further discloses the device according to claim 1, wherein the first USB line is specified according to the USB 3.0 standard or higher (Munoz, paragraph 8).
As per claim 18, Brittain in view of Munoz further discloses the device according to claim 1, wherein the first USB line is specified according to one of the standards USB 3.0, USB 3.1, or USB 3.2 (Munoz, paragraph 8).
As per claim 19, Brittain further discloses a system for processing a material web (Brittain, Fig. 2, and paragraph 41), comprising:
the material web (Brittain, Fig. 2:112, and paragraph 27); and
the device for observing and/or inspecting the material web according to claim 1 (please see the analysis of claim 1).
Claim(s) 4-7, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brittain (US PGPUB 2021/0041373 A1) and further in view of Munoz (US PGPUB 2019/0191061 A1) and further in view of Zahnert (US PGPUB 2022/0129066 A1).
As per claim 4, Brittain in view of Munoz further discloses the device according to claim 1, wherein the Brittain in view of Munoz does not explicitly disclose first image data and/or, if dependent on claim 3, the second image data comprise images with a frame rate of at least 2 Hz, of at least 5 Hz or of at least 15 Hz.
Zahnert discloses first image data and/or, if dependent on claim 3, the second image data comprise images with a frame rate of at least 2 Hz, of at least 5 Hz or of at least 15 Hz (Zahnert, paragraph 316).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Brittain in view of Munoz teachings by implementing a camera with certain configuration, as taught by Zahnert.
The motivation would be to provide an improved device with reduced power consumption (paragraph 67), as taught by Zahnert.
As per claim 5, Brittain in view of Munoz in view of Zahnert further discloses the device according to claim 4, wherein an image comprises at least 8 megapixels or at least 8 RGB megapixels (Zahnert, paragraph 96).
As per claim 6, Brittain in view of Munoz in view of Zahnert further discloses the device according to claim 4, wherein an image comprises at least 14 megapixels or at least 14 RGB megapixels (Zahnert, paragraph 249).
As per claim 7, Brittain in view of Munoz in view of Zahnert further discloses the device according to claim 4, wherein an image comprises at least 20 megapixels or at least 20 RGB megapixels (Zahnert, paragraphs 203, 237, and 249, discloses CMOS image sensor, hence obvious variation since CMOS image sensor capture images at 20 megapixels).
Claim(s) 14, and 16, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brittain (US PGPUB 2021/0041373 A1) and further in view of Munoz (US PGPUB 2019/0191061 A1) and further in view of Kotha (US PGPUB 2012/0042095 A1).
As per claim 14, Brittain in view of Munoz further discloses the device according to claim 13, wherein Brittain in view of Munoz does not explicitly disclose the maximum transmission unit (MTU) of the first virtual network interface is configured as greater than 1500, greater than 7000, or as 15300.
Kotha discloses the maximum transmission unit (MTU) of the first virtual network interface is configured as greater than 1500, greater than 7000, or as 15300 (Kotha, paragraph 16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Brittain in view of Munoz teachings by implementing a network interface with certain configuration, as taught by Kotha.
The motivation would be to increase the effective data packet throughput to a computing device that is connected to two or more of the physical links or virtual links (paragraphs 16 and 19), as taught by Kotha.
As per claim 16, Brittain in view of Munoz further discloses the device according to claim 15, wherein Brittain in view of Munoz does not explicitly disclose the maximum transmission unit (MTU) of the second virtual network interface is configured as greater than 1500, greater than 7000, or as 15300.
Kotha discloses the maximum transmission unit (MTU) of the second virtual network interface is configured as greater than 1500, greater than 7000, or as 15300 (Kotha, paragraph 16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Brittain in view of Munoz teachings by implementing a network interface with certain configuration, as taught by Kotha.
The motivation would be to increase the effective data packet throughput to a computing device that is connected to two or more of the physical links or virtual links (paragraphs 16 and 19), as taught by Kotha.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYED Z HAIDER whose telephone number is (571)270-5169. The examiner can normally be reached MONDAY-FRIDAY 9-5:30 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, SAM K Ahn can be reached at 571-272-3044. 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.
/SYED HAIDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2633
Prosecution Insights