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
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 3, the limitation “the UV range” should be “a UV range” for antecedent purposes.
In line 10, the limitation “outputting at least one camera recording” should be “outputting the at least one camera recording” since the camera recording has already been mentioned in line 7 of the claim. This is for antecedent purposes.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 5, 7, 9, 10, 15, 17 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: there are many issues of antecedent basis, limitations mentioned in earlier claims in which these claims are dependent are repeated as if they are new, they should be using “the” or “said” for proper antecedent basis. Please review these claims and make sure proper antecedent basis is applied.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because products that do not have a physical or tangible form, such as information (often referred to as "data per se") or a computer program per se (often referred to as "software per se") when claimed as a product without any structural recitations and transitory forms of signal transmission (often referred to as "signals per se"), such as a propagating electrical or electromagnetic signal or carrier wave. The claim is a computer program product in claim 16, which could be a signal of light or merely software of 1s and 0s. The claims should state a non-transitory computer readable storage medium including a computer program loaded onto and executed by a computer/processor/or the like, to implement the steps of the method according to claim 9. Currently claim 16 is just a computer program, literally just software, the computer program product could be transitory in nature, therefore does not meet the requirements for 35 USC 101.
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.
Claim 14, 15 and 17-20 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.
In regards to claim 14, the limitation “a quantitative bird protection parameter (VSP)” is unclear with respect to the limitation “a bird protection parameter (VSP)” mentioned in claim 9 in which the claim is dependent. It appears these are the same limitation. For examining purposes they will be interpreted as the same. Please clarify.
In regards to claim 15, the limitation “a bird protection image (VSA)” is unclear with respect to the limitation “a bird protection image (VSA)” mentioned in claim 1 in which the claim is dependent. It appears these are the different limitations, one of visible light and one of UV light. For examining purposes they will be interpreted as different images. Please clarify.
In regards to claim 17, the limitation “an optical sensor device” seems to be the same as the already mentioned “camera device” in claim 1, in which claim 17 is dependent. Is the optical sensor device a part of the camera device or are they the same thing. They both have a UV filter and output a camera recording. Are there two sensor devices, which is not shown in the specification or drawings. Please clarify. This will be the same device.
Claims 18-20 are rejected as being dependent from claim 17.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3, 17and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buehrle et al. (US 12386348) in view of Hicks (US 20160041319) and Sandhu et al. (US 20140092238).
Re claim 1: Buehrle teaches verification method for verifying a function of a glass surface (16D) with at least one section that is effective at least in the UV range (col. 11, lines 19-36), comprising the following steps: aligning a recording direction of a camera device (14) onto the glass surface (16D) (col. 11, lines 19-36), generating at least one camera recording of the glass surface (16D) by means of the aligned camera device (14), outputting at least one camera recording as an image as proof of the function provided by the image (col. 7, lines 28-43, col. 9, lines 51-62, col. 11, lines 19-36, fig. 1 and 2), but does not specifically teach the function is a bird protection function of a glass surface and the camera device with a UV transmission filter device, wherein the image shows the bird protection function of the glass surface. Hicks teaches a bird protection function of a glass surface (10/6) with at least one bird protection section (10 of 10/6) that is effective at least in the UV range (paragraphs 16, 17, 31 and 32), generating at least one recording of the glass surface (10/6) with the bird protection section by means of measuring device (paragraph 32, the intensity was measured by a measuring device capable of detecting in the UV wavelength range), outputting at least one recording as a bird protection image as proof of the bird protection function provided by the bird protection section visible in the bird protection image (image is blue image/glow to birds in the wavelength range of 450 nm, the intensity measured from the coating is around 450 nm, paragraphs 16, 17, 31 and 32, fig. 1 and 4, the function being light emitted within a certain wavelength range as see by birds). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the camera device of Buehrle output an image of a coating on the glass surface of Buehrle with a function to provide bird protection similar to Hicks in order to evaluate whether the coating to reduce bird collisions is up to code increasing the value of the property. Buehrle as modified by Hicks does not specifically teach the camera includes an ultraviolet transmission filter. Sandhu teaches a camera (104) includes an ultraviolet transmission filter (106) (paragraph 21). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have an ultraviolet filter in a specific wavelength range with the camera of Buehrle as modified by Hicks similar to Sandhu in order to capture an image of the glass with the coating having the bird protection function in the ultraviolet wavelength range providing for improved determination of the functioning of the bird protection coating.
Re claim 2: Buehrle as modified by Hicks and Sandhu teaches verification method, wherein characterised in that the recording direction is aligned with a direction of reflection of the sky from the glass surface (Sandhu, paragraph 16 and 26, capable of being placed in a direction of reflection of the sky).
Re claim 3: Buehrle as modified by Hicks and Sandhu teaches verification method wherein characterised in that the recording direction is in addition aligned with respect to a direction of incident sunlight onto the glass surface (Sandhu, paragraph 16 and 26, capable of being placed in a direction of reflection of the sky).
Re claim 17: Buehrle as modified by Hicks and Sandhu teaches the camera device (Sandhu, 104, Buehrle, 14) for use in a verification method having the features of claim 1, comprising an optical sensor device (Sandhu, paragraph 21, 104, Buehrle, 14) for generating a camera recording (Buehrle, col. 7, lines 28-43, col. 9, lines 51-62, col. 11, lines 19-36, fig. 1 and 2) and an optical lens arrangement (Sandhu, paragraph 21) having a recording direction for guiding incident light rays onto the optical sensor device (Sandhu, paragraph 21, 104, Buehrle, 14), wherein the beam path through the optical lens arrangement to the optical sensor device is free of a UV protection filter, and a UV transmission filter device (Sandhu, 106) is further arranged in the beam path to limit the spectrum of the light rays incident on the optical sensor device to the UV range (Sandhu, paragraph 21, Buehrle, col. 7, lines 28-43, col. 9, lines 51-62, col. 11, lines 19-36, fig. 1 and 2).
Re claim 19: Buehrle as modified by Hicks and Sandhu teaches wherein the UV transmission filter device (Sandhu, 106) is arranged in the beam path before the optical lens arrangement (Sandhu, paragraph 21).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buehrle et al. (US 12386348) in view of Hicks (US 20160041319) and Sandhu et al. (US 20140092238) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Armstrong-Muntner et al. (US 20130293726).
Re claim 7: Buehrle as modified by Hicks and Sandhu teaches generating at least one camera recording of the glass surface (Buehrle, 16D) by means of the aligned camera device (Buehrle, 14), outputting at least one camera recording as an image as proof of the function provided by the image (Buehrle, col. 7, lines 28-43, col. 9, lines 51-62, col. 11, lines 19-36, fig. 1 and 2), but does not specifically teach wherein in that at least one reference parameter (RP) is recorded for at least one camera recording (KA). Armstrong-Muntner teaches wherein in that at least one reference parameter is recorded for at least one camera recording (paragraph 79). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include a reference parameter similar to Armstrong-Muntner to compare the images of Buehrle as modified by Hicks and Sandhu in order to ensure the bird function is functioning proper on the glass providing for higher quality verification.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buehrle et al. (US 12386348) in view of Hicks (US 20160041319) and Sandhu et al. (US 20140092238) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Tsuchiya et al. (US 20080143868).
Re claim 18: Buehrle as modified by Hicks and Sandhu teaches the UV transmission filter device (Sandhu, 106) is reversibly attached to allow an exchange (Sandhu, paragraph 21), but does not specifically teach exchanged with a VIS transmission filter device for limiting the spectrum of light rays incident on the optical sensor device to the visible range. Tsuchiya teaches exchanging different filter in a camera to form different images in different wavelengths (paragraphs 15, 19 and 66). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include a switching mechanism similar to Tsuchiya to provide different filters in Buehrle as modified by Hicks and Sandhu in order to measure different properties of the glass surface providing for higher quality verification.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6, 8 and 9-13 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.
Please fix any antecedent issues in the below claims:
In regards to claim 4, the prior art of record individually or in combination fails to teach a verification method according to claim 1 as claimed, more specifically in combination with wherein in that a reference section (RF) is placed in a recording area of the aligned camera device (10) which, when the camera recording (KA) is generated, is part of this camera recording (KA).
Claims 5 and 6 are objected to because of their dependency on claim 4.
In regards to claim 8, the prior art of record individually or in combination fails to teach a verification method according to claim 1 as claimed, more specifically in combination with wherein in that in addition to the bird protection image (VSA), a camera recording (KA) of a reference section (RF) is generated and is output as a reference recording (RA).
In regards to claim 9, the prior art of record individually or in combination fails to teach an evaluation method for a bird protection function of a bird protection section (VS) on the basis of a bird protection image (VSA), in particular generated using a verification method having the features of claim 1 as claimed, more specifically in combination with comprising the following steps: recording the bird protection image (VSA) of a glass surface (GO) with at least one bird protection section (VS) effective at least in the UV range, identifying UV absorption sections (UVAB) and/or UV reflection sections (UVRX) in the bird protection image (VSA), comparing at least one surface parameter (FP) of the identified UV absorption sections (UVAB) and/or the identified UV reflection sections (UVRX) with at least one specified surface value (FVW), outputting the comparison result as a bird protection parameter (VSP) for the bird protection function of the bird protection section (VS).
Claims 10-13 are objected to because of their dependency.
Claims 14, 15 and 20 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 14 and 15 have 35 USC 112 rejections applied to them, see above. These 112 rejections need to be clarified, once they are these claims because of their dependency on claim 9 would be objected to.
In regards to claim 20, the prior art of record individually or in combination fails to teach the camera device (10) according to claim 17 as claimed, more specifically in combination with wherein in that a mounting device (60) for a reference section (RF) is provided in the area of the recording direction (AR).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER D BENNETT whose telephone number is (571)270-3419. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM EST M-F.
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, Georgia Epps can be reached at 571-272-2328. 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.
/JENNIFER D BENNETT/Examiner, Art Unit 2878