DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on July 26, 2024.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/26/2024 & 2/11/2025 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claims 5-6, 10, 12, 14-15, 23-24, and 27-31 have been cancelled.
Claims 1-4, 7-9, 11, 13, 16-22, 25-26, and 32-33 are currently pending and have been examined.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 7, 9, 11, 13, 16-22, 25-26, and 32-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimoyama (EP 4159906) in view of Dal Mutto (US 20190096135).
Regarding Claims 1 and 32: Shimoyama teaches an inspection system for yarn bobbins comprising an image acquisition device (¶¶ 40, 41, Figs. 1–3), a database of training data (¶¶ 61, 64), and an application for determining the status of yarn bobbins (¶¶ 42, 55). However, Shimoyama does not explicitly teach a database built from images of bobbins with specific types of faults (e.g., abrasion, color, elastane-free, diameter, damaged bobbin), nor an application for determining whether the bobbin has a particular type of fault.
Dal Mutto teaches an inspection system for spools/bobbins with a database built from images of spools with specific defects (¶¶ 39–57, 118–124, claims 1, 16, 17, 18), an AI/ML application for classifying the type of defect, and overlay/marking of detected defects. Dal Mutto’s system is fully general for defect type and includes color, morphological, and dimensional defects.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Shimoyama’s system to include Dal Mutto’s defect-type-specific database and application logic for defect classification, in order to provide more robust and comprehensive defect detection and classification in automated yarn bobbin inspection.
Regarding Claims 2 and 3: Shimoyama teaches an inspection system for yarn bobbins with an image acquisition device, a database of training data, and an application for determining the status of yarn bobbins (¶¶ 61, 64, 65, 77). However, Shimoyama does not explicitly teach a database comprising datasets for multiple specific defect types, nor an application for determining which of multiple defect types is present. Dal Mutto teaches a database comprising multiple datasets for different defect types, each built from labeled images of samples with that defect, and an application that determines for a given bobbin/spool which defect type(s), if any, are present (¶¶ 39–57, 118–124, claims 1, 16, 17, 18). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Shimoyama’s system to include Dal Mutto’s approach of using multiple datasets for different defect types and corresponding application logic for defect assignment, in order to enhance the versatility and robustness of the automated inspection system.
Regarding Claim 4: Shimoyama teaches detecting yarn amount, position, and connection, but not explicitly elastane-free, abrasion, color, diameter, or damaged bobbin faults. However, Dal Mutto teaches a system for classifying a wide range of defect types, including color, morphological, and dimensional faults (¶¶ 39–57, Fig.3, claims 1, 16, 17, 18). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Shimoyama’s system to include Dal Mutto’s system and method for visual inspection, in order to provide a more general-purpose system able to detect all relevant defect types, as is common in automated textile inspection.
Regarding Claim 5 and 6: (canceled)
Regarding Claim 7: Shimoyama teaches assigning status but does not explicitly overlay a marker for the defect type. However, Dal Mutto teaches overlaying defect markers on images (¶¶ 25, 26, 39, 49, 57, claims 1, 16, 17, 18, 20). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Shimoyama’s system to include Dal Mutto’s system and method for visual inspection, in order to provide clear operator feedback and facilitate visual confirmation of defect location/type, as is standard in modern inspection systems.
Regarding Claim 9: Shimoyama substantially discloses the claimed invention, but does not teach color-coded overlays. However, Dal Mutto teaches overlaying markers with different colors for different defect types (¶¶ 39–57, Fig.3, claims 1, 16, 17, 18). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Shimoyama’s system to include Dal Mutto’s system and method for visual inspection, in order to enhance operator usability and make defect type identification more intuitive.
Regarding Claim 10: (canceled).
Regarding Claim 11: Shimoyama teaches the inspection system according to claim 1, wherein the inspection system further comprises a bobbin holder which is mounted on a rail, along which the bobbin holder can be moved through an inspection zone, which is a zone in which the image acquisition device is executed (¶¶ 86, 87, Figs. 1, 2, 6).
Regarding Claim 12: (canceled)
Regarding Claim 13: Shimoyama teaches the inspection system according to claim 11, wherein the bobbin holder is constituted by a ring having a fixing area in which the yarn bobbin can be placed in order to prevent a relative movement of the yarn bobbin within the bobbin holder in at least one of a circumferential direction and/or a translation direction (¶¶ 86, 87, Figs. 1, 2).
Regarding Claims 14 and 15: (canceled)
Regarding Claim 16: Shimoyama teaches the inspection system according to claim 11, wherein a plurality of bobbin holders are arranged one after each other along the rail (¶¶ 88, Figs. 1, 2, 6).
Regarding Claim 17: Shimoyama teaches the inspection system according to claim 16, wherein the plurality of bobbin holders are adapted to be moved together along the rail (¶¶ 88, Figs. 1, 2, 6).
Regarding Claim 18: Shimoyama teaches the inspection system according to claim 11, wherein the inspection system further comprises a dark-chamber, having two openings through which the rail extend from an entry to an exit (¶¶ 85, 86, Figs. 1, 2, 6).
Regarding Claim 19: Shimoyama teaches the inspection system according to claim 18, wherein the image acquisition device is provided within the dark-chamber (¶¶ 86, Figs. 1, 2, 6).
Regarding Claim 20: Shimoyama teaches the inspection system according to claim 1, wherein the image acquisition device comprises a illumination section illuminating an area of the yarn bobbin for fault detection, and an camera device, for acquiring the image of the area (¶¶ 70, 71, 90, Figs. 1, 2, 6).
Regarding Claim 21: Shimoyama teaches the inspection system according to claim 1, wherein the inspection system further comprises an image processing and adjustment module (¶¶ 71, 75, 95, Figs. 1, 2, 6).
Regarding Claim 22: Shimoyama teaches the inspection system according to claim 1, wherein the inspection system is configured that for determination of the fault, depending on a fault type to be detected, a different image acquisition device is used (¶¶ 91, 92, 93, Figs. 1, 2, 6).
Regarding Claims 23 and 24: (canceled).
Regarding Claim 25: Shimoyama teaches the inspection system according to claim 18, wherein at least one of the following image acquisition device types is provided within the dark-chamber: an image acquisition device for elastane-free fault, an image acquisition device for damaged bobbin fault, an image acquisition device for abrasion fault, an image acquisition device for color fault, and an image acquisition device for diameter fault, wherein an elastane-free fault is a fault wherein there is an area along the yarn in which there is a region where there is no elastane provided in an elastane containing yarn (¶¶ 91, 92, 93, Figs. 1, 2, 6).
Regarding Claim 26: Shimoyama teaches the inspection system according to claim 25, wherein the image acquisition device type is an image acquisition device for elastane-free fault, wherein the image acquisition device for elastane-free fault has an illumination section having a ring form and a camera device provided in a central region of the ring (¶¶ 91, 92, 93, Figs. 1, 2, 6).
Regarding Claims 27-31: (canceled)
Regarding Claim 33: Shimoyama teaches the inspection system according to claim 26, wherein the illumination section is mounted such that it irradiates the respective beam to a respective end surface in a longitudinal direction of the yarn bobbins (¶¶ 91, 92, 93, Figs. 1, 2, 6).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimoyama in view of Dal Mutto, and further in view of Michelini WO 2021-229344.
Regarding Claim 8: Shimoyama teaches an inspection system for yarn bobbins that marks detected faults on images of the bobbin (see, e.g., ¶¶ 42, 55, 71, 95, 109); while, Dal Mutto teaches overlaying defect markers on images (¶¶ 25, 26, 39, 49, 57, claims 1, 16, 17, 18, 20), but both do not explicitly disclose that the marker is defined by an agglomerate of pixels whose size and form correspond to the area of the fault. However, Michelini teaches an automated inspection system in which defects are identified as sets of pixels, and the marker/overlay for a defect is defined by an agglomerate of pixels that matches the size and form of the defect area (¶¶ 132–134, 139, Figs. 2–5, 10, 17). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Shimoyama to use pixel-accurate, area-corresponding markers as taught by Michelini, because such markers provide more precise and meaningful visual feedback regarding the location and extent of detected faults, thereby improving the effectiveness of the inspection process.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FAHD A OBEID whose telephone number is (571)270-3324. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-5:00pm.
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.
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.
/FAHD A OBEID/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights