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 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 limitations are: “image sensor” in claims 1, 3, 8, 12, and 13 and “control unit” in claims 1-2 and 5-7.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is 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 limitation 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 to avoid it 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 recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it 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 1-14 and 18 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 limitation “control unit” in claims 1-2 and 5-7, invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. For example, the specification, pgs. 2 and 3, lines 31-32 and 1-6, respectively, describes a computing device for entering image files corresponding to desired braille lettering sequences, and pg. 7, lines 18-20, further describes a memory comprising a program including an algorithm which enables the control unit to execute functions corresponding to claim 1. These disclosures do not provide sufficient structural details of the “control unit” itself. The specification merely states that the “control unit” is configured to execute the program, without describing the physical components that constitute the “control unit” or how such components are arranged to perform the specific functions recited in claim 1. Therefore, claims 1-2 and 5-7 are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 5 recites “the actual braille lettering”, which lacks antecedent basis. It is unclear if the element is meant to refer to the previously recited “actual braille lettering sequence” introduced in claim 1, or if it is meant to refer a new element. For examination purposes, the limitation will be interpreted as “the actual braille lettering sequence”.
Claim 18 recites “E2) Calculating the embossing height of the embossing protrusions on the first braille tool and the embossing depth of the embossing cavities on the second braille tool”, which is indefinite. Claim 16, of which claim 18 dependents on, already includes a step E2). It is unclear if step E2) introduced in claim 18 is meant to further limit the step E2) of claim 16, or if it is meant to specify a new step. Further, it is unclear if only one or both of the step E2) is meant to be referred to in the last wherein clause of claim 18. For examination purposes, the steps E2 for both claims 16 and 18 will be treated as separate steps.
Claims 3-4 and 8-14 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
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.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of collecting image information of braille sequences and comparing those sequences with a reference, without significantly more.
The claim recites: “An inspection system for checking braille characters in a converting machine, the inspection system comprising: an image sensor configured to capture at least one image of a first braille tool provided with embossing protrusions, the first braille tool being provided on a circumference of a first embossing roller, a memory configured to store a program and a desired braille lettering sequence, and a control unit configured to execute the program which enables the control unit to retrieve the at least one image from the image sensor, determine an actual braille lettering sequence from the at least one image, and to compare the actual braille lettering sequence to the desired braille lettering sequence stored in the memory.”
The limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the human mind. A person can visually capture and observe an image of a braille tool, mentally identify braille sequences from the observation, and compare the sequence to a known reference. These steps correspond to common pattern recognition and verification processes that can be performed entirely in the human mind, such as to determine if the braille tool is correct.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. For example, the claim does not recite any additional elements that transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. As discussed above with respect to identification of the abstract idea, the steps of the claim can be performed entirely in the human mind. The claim does not add anything beyond this abstract idea, but merely applies the idea using generic components. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, the “image sensor” can correspond to the eye of the person, the “control unit” and “memory” to the mind performing the identification and comparison.
Because the claim is directed to nothing more than the abstract idea itself, performed with generic components, it fails to contain an inventive concept. The claim does not specify how these components work together in an unconventional way to solve a technical problem or improve the functioning of the computer itself (see MPEP 2106.04(d)). Therefore, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim recites additional elements which amount to mere insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, issuing a control signal corresponds to well-understood and conventional data outputting. This claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a further limitation of the same abstract idea identified in the analysis of claim 1. For example, the person can capture and observe an image of a second braille tool. This claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a further limitation of the same abstract idea identified in the analysis of claim 1. For example, the person can capture and observe an image of a first and a second braille tools, where the tools respectively provided on the circumference of cooperating embossing rollers. This claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a further limitation of the same abstract idea identified in the analysis of claim 1. For example, the person can observe the image containing a braille sequence and mentally translate the sequence to plain text.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim recites additional elements which amount to mere insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, displaying the translated braille sequence corresponds to well-understood and conventional data outputting. This claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a further limitation of the same abstract idea identified in the analysis of claim 1. For example, the person can perform a mental comparison between translated plain text and a reference master text. This claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a further limitation of the same abstract idea identified in the analysis of claim 1. For example, the person can observe multiple images, such as observing the braille tool over time or from multiple angles, to identify braille sequences. This claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a further limitation of the same abstract idea identified in the analysis of claim 1. For example, the person can perform topographic measurements by visually observing the change in surface of the braille tools and estimate a height or depth of embossing protrusion and cavities. This claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a further limitation of the same abstract idea identified in the analysis of claim 1. For example, the person can capture and observe images of braille sequences on a blank passing through the converting machine, such as by observing the manufacturing process. This claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a further limitation of the same abstract idea identified in the analysis of claim 1. For example, the person can visually observe the change in surface of the blank and estimate a depth of embossed braille sequences. This claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a further limitation of the same abstract idea identified in the analysis of claim 1. For example, a single person can capture and observe images of multiple braille tools and embossed braille sequences on a blank. This claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a further limitation of the same abstract idea identified in the analysis of claim 1. For example, the person can capture and observe images from various rotated positions. This claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim recites additional elements recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to merely implementing the abstract idea using a generic camera configuration. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. This claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 15 corresponds to claim 1, with the addition of additional elements “entering a desired braille lettering sequence into a main control system of the converting machine” and “generating a control signal to either start or suspend the converting machine”. These additional elements amount to mere insignificant extra-solution activities. For example, entering a desired braille sequence and generating a control signal correspond to well-understood and conventional data inputting and outputting, respectively. Accordingly, these additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 15 is similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a further limitation of the same abstract idea identified in the analysis of claim 1. For example, the person can move positions to capture and observe images of a second braille tool. This claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a further limitation of the same abstract idea identified in the analysis of claim 1. For example, the person can observe multiple images, such as observing the braille tool over time or from multiple angles, to identify braille sequences. This claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a further limitation of the same abstract idea identified in the analysis of claim 1. For example, the person can visually observe the change in surface of the braille tools and estimate a depth of embossed braille sequences. The person can further set and apply tolerance ranges to the depth estimations. This claim is not patent eligible.
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.
Claims 1-4, 8-9, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carron et al. (US 20150126350 A1), (hereinafter Carron), in view of Youngha et al. (KR 101732820 B1), (hereinafter Youngha).
Regarding claim 1, Carron teaches an inspection system for checking braille characters in a converting machine, the inspection system comprising: a first braille tool provided with embossing protrusions, the first braille tool being provided on a circumference of a first embossing roller (Carron, “The embossing device 14 comprises in particular a first male upper rotating embossing tool 16 and a second female lower rotating embossing tool 17, the two tools 16 and 17 being rotatably mounted and cooperating with each other. The male tool 16 is comprised of a cylinder 18 whose peripheral surface is a metal plate which is provided with pins and which is wound on the cylinder 18. During the embossing operation, the pins are introduced into the thickness of the cardboard in order to form the Braille characters. The female tool 17 is comprised of a cylinder whose peripheral surface is provided with hollow members that receive the embossments in the underside of that cardboard that are produced by the pins. The blanks move between the two tools 16 and 17.”, pg. 3, paragraph 0039, “In order to begin an operation for embossing Braille characters, the tools 16 and 17 are correctly positioned relative to each other, on their respective shaft… The embossing device 14 comprises a pushing member 34 which is carried by the armature 19 and 21 in order to carry out a first adjustment of the radial spacing between the upper tool 16 and the lower tool 17.”, pg. 3, paragraphs 0049-0050, see Fig. 1).
Carron does not teach the inspection system comprising: an image sensor configured to capture at least one image of a first braille tool provided with embossing protrusions, the first braille tool being provided on a circumference of a first embossing roller, a memory configured to store a program and a desired braille lettering sequence, and a control unit configured to execute the program which enables the control unit to retrieve the at least one image from the image sensor, determine an actual braille lettering sequence from the at least one image, and to compare the actual braille lettering sequence to the desired braille lettering sequence stored in the memory.
However, Youngha teaches the inspection system comprising: an image sensor configured to capture at least one image of a first braille tool provided with embossing protrusions, the first braille tool being provided on a circumference of a first embossing roller, a memory configured to store a program and a desired braille lettering sequence, and a control unit configured to execute the program which enables the control unit to retrieve the at least one image from the image sensor, determine an actual braille lettering sequence from the at least one image, and to compare the actual braille lettering sequence to the desired braille lettering sequence stored in the memory (Youngha, “The present invention relates to a vision system for inspecting surface defects of a gravure printing roller, and more particularly, to a vision system including an optical system and an algorithm capable of inspecting the entire surface area of the roller at a high resolution in a shorter time.”, pg. 2, lines 3-5, “The optical system 140 is disposed in the linear stage 130 and includes a linear image scanner 141 for photographing the entire area of the gravure roller and a frame image scanner 142 for magnifying and observing an area of interest such as a defect part.”, pg. 6, lines 27-29, “The present invention relates to a defect determination module that processes a video signal 20 acquired by a linear image scanner 141 and detects a defect in a margin portion between patterns of the roller 110 and a defect inherent in the pattern itself Respectively. In order to find a defect in a margin portion between a pattern and a pattern, a pattern composed of a plurality of cells is processed to be recognized as one object, and a pattern of one object and a size of an image object To identify defects in the margins.… In addition, the discovery of defects inherent in the gravure print roller 110 pattern itself can be accomplished by signaling an image of a standard pattern with no defect at all, signaling the image 5 of the actually photographed pattern, and judged the defect as a defect when a pixel having a difference value equal to or greater than a given threshold value exists in a certain region in a certain number or more.”, pgs. 7 and 8, lines 20-25 and 4-8, respectively).
Carron teaches an inspection system for a converting machine which includes braille rollers configured for embossing blanks and adjusting the position of the braille rollers with respect to each other to accurately emboss braille characters (Carron, pg. 3, paragraph 0039 and pg. 3, paragraphs 0049-0050, see Fig. 1). Carron does not teach imaging the braille rollers and executing a program to compare a determined braille lettering sequence from the image to a stored desired braille lettering sequence. Youngha teaches performing defect detection for a gravure printing roller, including imaging a roller, identifying a corresponding pattern, and comparing the pattern to defect-free, or desired patterns (see above). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the inspection system of Carron to include the roller defect detection as taught by Youngha (Youngha, pg. 6, lines 27-29 and pgs. 7 and 8, lines 20-25 and 4-8, respectively) for the braille rollers. The motivation for doing so would have been to automatically inspect the roller prior to printing, thereby decreasing the labor required by workers and the risk of printing errors (as suggested by Youngha, “To prevent this problem, before the printing, the inspector visually inspects the roller with a cylindrical vision showing an enlarged pattern of the pattern formed on the roller surface. This is a very hard work, and it takes a lot of time to inspect one roller. Therefore, there is a need for a new inspection system because the operation is slow and the worker's work fatigue is high and the defect may be missing.”, pg. 3, lines 11-15). The combination of Carron in view of Youngha would perform pattern comparisons corresponding to imaged braille patterns, such as the pin arrangement of Carron (Carron, pg. 3, paragraph 0039), against defect-free patterns. This process reasonably can be interpreted as comparing an actual braille lettering sequence with a desired braille lettering sequence, as a “sequence” in braille is defined by the specific arrangement of dots within a cell, which Youngha’s pattern comparison is designed to verify. Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Carron with Youngha to obtain the invention according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Carron in view of Youngha teaches the inspection system according to claim 1, wherein the control unit is configured to issue a control signal based on a correspondence between the actual braille lettering sequence and the desired braille lettering sequence (Youngha, “On the other hand, the display design module 202 is provided so that the observer can view images of the gravure print roller 110 surface provided by the vision system of the present invention. Providing the screen continuously with respect to the portion of the roller 110 that is photographed by the image sensor, and when a specific screen is selected, provides an enlarged view thereof, and when a specific portion of the enlarged view is clicked, Lt; / RTI & gt; Since the roller 110 has a cylindrical shape, a cylindrical coordinate system can be used to specify the position of each image in terms of coordinates. In the case of an image for a defect, it is easy to determine at which point on the roller 110 a defect exists, which is specified in this coordinate system together with the serial number.”, pg. 11, lines 19-28, After comparing the defect-free pattern to the image of the roller’s pattern, the system issues control signals to display and identify defect areas for the image.)
Regarding claim 3, Carron in view of Youngha teaches the inspection system according to claim, wherein the image sensor is further configured to capture images of a second braille tool provided on a circumference of a second embossing roller and provided with embossing cavities. (Carron, “The embossing device 14 comprises in particular a first male upper rotating embossing tool 16 and a second female lower rotating embossing tool 17, the two tools 16 and 17 being rotatably mounted and cooperating with each other. The male tool 16 is comprised of a cylinder 18 whose peripheral surface is a metal plate which is provided with pins and which is wound on the cylinder 18. During the embossing operation, the pins are introduced into the thickness of the cardboard in order to form the Braille characters.”, pg. 3, paragraph 0039, lines 1-9, The combination of Carron in view of Youngha would perform defect detection for both the lower and upper rotating embossing tools of Carron.)
Regarding claim 4, Carron in view of Youngha teaches the inspection system according to claim 3, wherein the first braille tool and the second braille tool are respectively provided on the circumferences of cooperating embossing rollers (Carron, “Carron, “The embossing device 14 comprises in particular a first male upper rotating embossing tool 16 and a second female lower rotating embossing tool 17, the two tools 16 and 17 being rotatably mounted and cooperating with each other.”, pg. 3, paragraph 0039, lines 1-4, see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8, Carron in view of Youngha teaches the inspection system according to claim 3, wherein the image sensor is configured to capture a plurality of images, and wherein the control unit is enabled to retrieve the plurality of images from the image sensor and determine an actual braille lettering sequence from the plurality of captured images. (Youngha, “In the image acquisition, the linear image scanner 141 applies a method of stacking images photographed on a line-by-line basis and synthesizing the photographed images into an entire image. Therefore, the entire image of the periphery of the roller 110 can be photographed only by rotating the rollers.”, pg. 8, lines 18-21, Multiple sequential images are captures of the roller and synthesized to one image for braille pattern recognition and comparison.)
Regarding claim 9, Carron in view Youngha teaches the inspection system according to claim 8, wherein the program further comprises instructions for performing a first topographic measurement of the embossing protrusions of the first embossing roller and a second topographic measurement of the embossing cavities of the second embossing roller. (Youngha, “In addition, the system can additionally include a three-dimensional microscope capable of measuring the cell depth in the pattern, and a pen marking device capable of marking a defective area for inspection of non-conforming products after inspection.”, pg. 11, lines 30-32, Additional 3D data can be captured to measure cell/pin depth on the pattern of the roller for defect detection.)
Claim 15 corresponds to claim 1, reciting a method for inspecting braille characters in a converting machine. Carron in view of Youngha teaches a method for inspecting braille characters in a converting machine (see analysis of claim 1). Claim 15 differs from claim 1 by additionally recites “entering a desired braille lettering sequence into a main control system of the converting machine” and “generating a control signal to either start or suspend the converting machine”. Carron in view of Youngha teaches the addition of “entering a desired braille lettering sequence into a main control system of the converting machine” and “generating a control signal to either start or suspend the converting machine” (Youngha, “Further, the defect found in the roller pattern itself can be detected by inputting an image of a standard pattern having no defect at all, inputting the image of the actually photographed pattern, and then processing the standard pattern image and the subtraction process, When a pixel having a value equal to or greater than a given threshold is present in a certain region, a defect is judged to exist. The standard pattern image may be directly registered by the user or may be generated by automatically recognizing an image of a standard pattern by averaging a plurality of patterns in the case of a pattern that is periodically repeated in one image.”, pgs. 3 and 4, lines 35-36 and 1-5, respectively, Defect-free patterns can be entered by a user prior to image comparison and defect detection. This process also functions to generating a control signal to start the converting machine, as it corresponds to a start condition for the detection process within the converting machine.). As indicated in the analysis of claim 1, Carron in view of Youngha teaches all the limitations according to claim 1. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as claim 1.
Regarding claim 17, Carron in view of Youngha teaches the method according to claim 15, wherein the image sensor captures a plurality of images, the plurality of images is retrieved from the image sensor and an actual braille lettering sequence is determined from the plurality of captured images (Youngha, “In the image acquisition, the linear image scanner 141 applies a method of stacking images photographed on a line-by-line basis and synthesizing the photographed images into an entire image. Therefore, the entire image of the periphery of the roller 110 can be photographed only by rotating the rollers.”, pg. 8, lines 18-21, Multiple sequential images are captures of the roller and synthesized to one image for braille pattern recognition and comparison.).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carron et al. (US 20150126350 A1) in view of Youngha et al. (KR 101732820 B1) and further in view of Panchani et al. (US 20220215154 A1), (hereinafter Panchani).
Regarding claim 5, Carron in view of Youngha teaches the inspection system according to claim 1. Carron in view of Youngha does not teach wherein the program further comprises instructions enabling the control unit to perform a translation of the actual braille lettering into plain text.
However, Panchani teaches wherein the program further comprises instructions enabling the control unit to perform a translation of the actual braille lettering into plain text (Panchani, “The apparatuses and methods herein provide hand held devices that can be utilized to scan either printed visible text or Braille and convert the same into text or Braille. The systems and methods herein are very useful for providing non-sight-impaired users with translations of Braille into visible text.”, pg. 2, paragraph 0022, lines 1-6, “In the example shown in FIG . 1 , the portable Braille scanner apparatus 100 can be oriented/held by a user so that the scanner camera 114 is aimed toward an item (such as a book or sign 130) that contains Braille 132, 134, 136. When the user presses the activation button 108, the scanner/camera 114 can capture/scan the Braille characters 132, 134,136 within the field of view 150 of the scanner camera 114. The processor 112 translates the Braille into text (e.g., using OBR processing) and the display 104 instantly displays the translated text 140 visibly.”, pg. 2, paragraph 0029, see Fig. 1).
Carron in view of Youngha teaches an inspection system for braille printing which determines an actual braille lettering sequence from a captured image of braille embossing rollers (Youngha, pg. 6, lines 27-29 and pgs. 7 and 8, lines 20-25 and 4-8, respectively). Carron in view of Youngha does not teach translating this determined braille lettering sequence. Panchani teaches a portable scanning device which determines braille sequences from images and performs translation into plan text for display to a user (see above). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the inspection system of Carron in view of Youngha to include braille translation as taught by Panchani (Panchani, pg. 2, paragraph 0029, see Fig. 1). The motivation for doing so would have been to allow non-sight-impaired users to proofread braille patterns (as suggested by Panchani, “This allows non-sight-impaired users to check the position and location of Braille characters to ensure their proper utilization . In other words, these systems and methods allow non-sight-impaired users to proofread various Braille books and signs, whether the user understands Braille or not.”, pg. 2, paragraph 0022, lines 6-11), thereby improving the quality control of the braille printing. Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Carron in view of Youngha with Panchani to obtain the invention according to claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, Carron in view of Youngha and further in view of Panchani teaches the inspection system according to claim 5, wherein the control unit is configured to display the translated braille lettering in plain text on a user interface (Panchani, “The processor 112 translates the Braille into text (e.g., using OBR processing) and the display 104 instantly displays the translated text 140 visibly.”, pg. 2, paragraph 0029, lines 8-10, see Fig. 1).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carron et al. (US 20150126350 A1) in view of Youngha et al. (KR 101732820 B1) and further in view of Panchani et al. (US 20220215154 A1) and Smolnikov et al. (RU 172882 U1), (hereinafter Smolnikov).
Regarding claim 7, Carron in view of Youngha and further in view of Panchani teaches the inspection system according to claim 5. Carron in view of Youngha and further in view of Panchani does not teach wherein the control unit is configured to compare the plain text to a validated master text stored in the memory.
However, Smolnikov teaches wherein the control unit is configured to compare the plain text to a validated master text stored in the memory (Smolnikov, “The storage module 106 may be involved in one or more structural modules 102-105 for 15 pre-processing and translation of text, in which case, a request is made to this storage module 106, which is associated with the processing module 102. The glossaries and source text stored in the storage unit 106 can be used to validate recognized fragments of the text by matching them with existing segments and finding fuzzy matches. In machine translation, glossaries can be used to remove the ambiguity of word translation and specify a specific translation option, the translation 20 memory can be used to substitute for existing text fragments (then only the remaining untranslated fragments are translated using machine translation, which improves text quality), as well as for typing statistics for the translation of persistent phrases and constructions, and individual terms.”, pg. 6, lines 15-23).
Carron in view of Youngha and further in view of Panchani teaches an inspection system which translates determined braille lettering sequences from braille roller images to plan text (Panchani, pg. 2, paragraph 0029, see Fig. 1). Carron in view of Youngha and further in view of Panchani does not teach comparing this plan text to a validated master text. Smolnikov teaches a device for processing scanned documents that validates recognized text by comparing it against a storage module containing glossaries and previously translated text segments (see above). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the inspection system of Carron in view of Youngha and further in view of Panchani to include the validation step as taught by Smolnikov (Smolnikov, pg. 6, lines 15-23). The motivation for doing so would have been to automatically verify that the translated braille text matches a validated master text (i.e. glossary), thereby improving translation quality. Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Carron in view of Youngha and further in view of Panchani with Smolnikov to obtain the invention according to claim 7.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carron et al. (US 20150126350 A1) in view of Youngha et al. (KR 101732820 B1) and further in view of Diehr et al. (US 20120053031 A1), (hereinafter Diehr).
Regarding claim 10, Carron in view of Youngha teaches the inspection system of claim 3. Carron in view of Youngha does not teach wherein the inspection system is further configured to capture images of a braille lettering sequence on a blank passing through the converting machine.
However, Diehr teaches wherein the inspection system is further configured to capture images of a braille lettering sequence on a blank passing through the converting machine (Diehr, “With the foregoing and other objects in view there is provided, in accordance with the invention, a folder gluer, comprising at least one monitoring device for checking qualitative aspects during folding-box manufacture. This at least one monitoring device is constructed as an optical Braille embossing monitoring device and evaluates the Braille embossments at least with regard to position, height and Volume. The Braille embossing monitoring device is dis posed downstream of a Braille embossing device inside the folder gluer.”, pg. 2, paragraph 0034, lines 1-10, “FIG. 4 shows a monitoring device 17. Sheet-shaped material 24 Such as, for example, folding-box blanks, that is to be monitored, is transported in a conveying direction 25 through the device 17 by a transport device 20… The monitoring system 72 has a camera and a light Source. The camera and the light source are illustrated purely diagrammatically for greater clarity. They serve to detect two-dimensional defects on the folding box. The monitoring system 72 according to the invention can, of course, also be formed into an inspection module with other transport devices 20. FIG. 5 shows a Braille embossing monitoring device 19. In the present exemplary embodiment, the structure thereof is the same as the structure of the monitoring device 17 of FIG. 4. The difference resides in the use of a 3D sensor 73 for topographic defect monitoring. The 3D sensor 73 supplies signals regarding the following: height, surface and volume of individual Braille dots; position of the Braille embossment relative to a box edge; and testing whether or not all dots of the embossment are present and whether or not the correct embossment has been used.”, pgs. 3-4, paragraphs 0077-0083).
Carron in view of Youngha teaches an inspection system for a converting machine that includes capturing images of braille embossing rollers to perform defect detection (Youngha, pg. 6, lines 27-29, and pgs. 7 and 8, lines 20-25 and 4-8, respectively). Carron in view of Youngha teaches conveying blanks through the machine but does not teach capturing images of the embossed blanks. Diehr teaches capturing 3D data of blanks passing through the converting machine to monitor the quality of the braille embossing on those blanks (see above). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the inspection system of Carron in view of Youngha to include the blank monitoring as taught by Diehr (Diehr, pgs. 3-4, paragraphs 0077-0083). The motivation for doing so would have been to adjust the braille embossing rollers based on real-time print results, thereby improving subsequent braille printing. Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Carron in view of Youngha with Diehr to obtain the invention according to claim 10.
Regarding claim 11, Carron in view of Youngha and further in view of Diehr teaches the inspection system according to claim 10, therein the inspection system is configured to measure an embossing depth of the braille lettering sequence formed on the blank (Diehr, “FIG. 5 shows a Braille embossing monitoring device 19. In the present exemplary embodiment, the structure thereof is the same as the structure of the monitoring device 17 of FIG. 4. The difference resides in the use of a 3D sensor 73 for topographic defect monitoring. The 3D sensor 73 supplies signals regarding the following: height, surface and volume of individual Braille dots; position of the Braille embossment relative to a box edge; and testing whether or not all dots of the embossment are present and whether or not the correct embossment has been used.”, pg. 4, paragraphs 0079-0083).
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carron et al. (US 20150126350 A1) in view of Youngha et al. (KR 101732820 B1) and further in view of Diehr et al. (US 20120053031 A1) and Wang et al. (US 20190073760 A1), (hereinafter Wang).
Regarding claim 12, Carron in view of Youngha and further in view of Diehr teaches the inspection system according to claim 10, wherein an image sensor is configured to capture images of the first braille tool and the second braille tool (Carron, “The embossing device 14 comprises in particular a first male upper rotating embossing tool 16 and a second female lower rotating embossing tool 17, the two tools 16 and 17 being rotatably mounted and cooperating with each other.”, pg. 3, paragraph 0039, lines 1-9, The combination of Carron in view of Youngha would perform defect detection for both the lower and upper rotating embossing tools of Carron.) and the embossing braille lettering sequence on the blank (Diehr, “With the foregoing and other objects in view there is provided, in accordance with the invention, a folder gluer, comprising at least one monitoring device for checking qualitative aspects during folding-box manufacture. This at least one monitoring device is constructed as an optical Braille embossing monitoring device and evaluates the Braille embossments at least with regard to position, height and Volume. The Braille embossing monitoring device is disposed downstream of a Braille embossing device inside the folder gluer.”, pg. 2, paragraph 0034, lines 1-10).
Carron in view of Youngha and further in view of Diehr does not teach wherein the same image sensor is configured to capture images of the first braille tool and the second braille tool and the embossing braille lettering sequence on the blank.
However, Wang teaches wherein the same image sensor is configured to capture images of the first braille tool and the second braille tool and the embossing braille lettering sequence on the blank (Wang, “FIG. 3 is a block diagram illustrating an exemplary robotic arm 300, in accordance with some implementations. The robotic arm 300 is an example of one of the one or more edge devices 102-1, 102-2, ... 102-n (FIG. 1). The robotic arm 300 typically includes one or more processing units (processors or cores) 302, one or more network or other communications interfaces 304, memory 306, one or more communication buses 308 for interconnecting these components, and actuators 309 (e.g., rotatable joints 406-A-406-D, FIG. 4A)… The robotic arm 300 also includes one or more capture devices 312, such as a camera, an infrared camera, an X-ray camera, a depth camera, a three-dimensional camera, and the like.”, pg. 4, paragraph 0055, “FIGS. 5C-5D show the robotic arm capturing a second image 530 of the product and a result of the capturing, in accordance with some implementations. In response to identifying the defect 502 in the first image 500, the robotic arm 402 moves (e.g., repositions) itself from a first position 520-A (dotted lines) to a second position 520-B. The robotic arm 402 in FIG. 5A is positioned at the first position 520-A, and therefore, the robotic arm 402 captures the first image 500 when positioned at the first position 520-A.”, pg. 8, paragraphs 0105-0106, see Fig. 4B).
Carron in view of Youngha and further in view of Diehr teaches the use of image sensors for capturing images corresponding to both braille embossing rollers (Carron, pg. 3, paragraph 0039, lines 1-9) and braille printed blanks (Diehr, pg. 2, paragraph 0034, lines 1-10), but does not teach using the same image sensor for capturing these images. Wang teaches capturing multiple images for quality inspection using a single, routable camera that can be positioned for various surface detection tasks (see above). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the image sensors of Carron in view of Youngha and further in view of Diehr to be a single, rotatable camera as taught by Wang (Wang, pg. 4, paragraph 0055 and pg. 8, paragraphs 0105-0106, see Fig. 4B). The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce the required hardware by utilizing a single camera, thereby reducing system cost and complexity. Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Carron in view of Youngha and further in view of Diehr with Wang to obtain the invention according to claim 12.
Regarding claim 13, Carron in view of Youngha and further in view of Diehr teaches the inspections system according to claim 11. Carron in view of Youngha and further in view of Diehr does not teach wherein the image sensor is rotatably arranged such that the image sensor can be rotated and positioned into a plurality of detection positions.
However, Wang teaches wherein the image sensor is rotatably arranged such that the image sensor can be rotated and positioned into a plurality of detection positions (Wang, “FIG. 3 is a block diagram illustrating an exemplary robotic arm 300, in accordance with some implementations. The robotic arm 300 is an example of one of the one or more edge devices 102-1, 102-2, ... 102-n (FIG. 1). The robotic arm 300 typically includes one or more processing units (processors or cores) 302, one or more network or other communications interfaces 304, memory 306, one or more communication buses 308 for interconnecting these components, and actuators 309 (e.g., rotatable joints 406-A-406-D, FIG. 4A)… The robotic arm 300 also includes one or more capture devices 312, such as a camera, an infrared camera, an X-ray camera, a depth camera, a three-dimensional camera, and the like.”, pg. 4, paragraph 0055, “FIGS. 5C-5D show the robotic arm capturing a second image 530 of the product and a result of the capturing, in accordance with some implementations. In response to identifying the defect 502 in the first image 500, the robotic arm 402 moves (e.g., repositions) itself from a first position 520-A (dotted lines) to a second position 520-B. The robotic arm 402 in FIG. 5A is positioned at the first position 520-A, and therefore, the robotic arm 402 captures the first image 500 when positioned at the first position 520-A.”, pg. 8, paragraphs 0105-0106, see Fig. 4B).
Carron in view of Youngha and further in view of Diehr teaches the use of image sensors for capturing images corresponding to both braille embossing rollers (Carron, pg. 3, paragraph 0039, lines 1-9) and braille printed blanks (Diehr, pg. 2, paragraph 0034, lines 1-10), but does not teach using a rotatably arranged image sensor to capturing these images. Wang teaches capturing multiple images for quality inspection using a single, routable camera that can be positioned for various surface detection tasks (see above). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the image sensors of Carron in view of Youngha and further in view of Diehr to be a single, rotatable camera as taught by Wang (Wang, pg. 4, paragraph 0055 and pg. 8, paragraphs 0105-0106, see Fig. 4B). The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce the required hardware by utilizing a single camera, thereby reducing system cost and complexity. Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Carron in view of Youngha and further in view of Diehr with Wang to obtain the invention according to claim 13.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carron et al. (US 20150126350 A1) in view of Youngha et al. (KR 101732820 B1) and further in view of Pilloud et al. (US 20120127480 A1), (hereinafter Pilloud).
Regarding claim 14, Carron in view of Youngha teaches the inspection system according to claim 1. Carron in view of Youngha does not teach wherein the image sensor comprises a laser profiler and a camera.
However, Pilloud teaches wherein the image sensor comprises a laser profiler and a camera (Pilloud, “The device comprises a light source 10 able to project obliquely, through an exit pupil 11, onto the Surface 2 of the substrate 1, a light beam F adapted for forming a structured lighting according to a determined illumination profile. Preferably, the light source 10 comprises a coherent light Source, typically a laser.”, pgs. 1 and 2, paragraph 0027, lines 1-6, “The device according to the invention also comprises means for measuring the lighting of the Surface 2 by said streaks S, means consisting of a linear camera 20 comprising a linear sensor and a lens (neither of which are represented)”, pg. 2, paragraph 0032, lines 1-5, “The camera 20 is for example a linear camera with a single line of 2048 pixels. The unidimensional image acquired by the camera 20 is stored in a memory 26. The data of the memory 26 are used by a triangulation algorithm described further on. Thus, for a speed of acquisition of forty thousand lines per second and for a speed of travel of the substrate of 8 meters per second, a resolution along the axis X of 0.2 mm is obtained, corresponding to the distance of displacement of the Substrate between two Successive measurement lines, this being Sufficient to deduce in a reliable manner the topography of a surface of a Substrate passing through the observation Zone, such as for example the topography of a surface exhibiting Braille characters or glue spots or any other relief on the surface of a substrate, notably a substrate used for the manufacture of packaging.”, pgs. 2 and 3, paragraph 0039).
Carron in view of Youngha teaches an inspection system in a converting machine which includes a camera for determining braille lettering sequences for embossing rollers (Youngha, pg. 6, lines 27-32). Carron in view of Youngha does not teach including a laser profiler. Pilloud teaches obtaining topography measurements for the surface of a substrate by using a camera coupled with a laser profiler (see above). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the inspection system of Carron in view of Youngha to include a laser profiler coupled to the camera as taught by Pilloud (Pilloud, pgs. 1 and 2, paragraph 0027, lines 1-6, pg. 2, paragraph 0032, lines 1-5, and pgs. 2 and 3, paragraph 0039). The motivation for doing so would have been to measure 3D data of the braille lettering sequences for checking proper formation, thereby improving braille inspection (as suggested by Pilloud, “Within the framework of bulk production, it is necessary to be able to check these various conversions on-line so as to ensure that the quality standards in force are adhered to. In particular, when dealing with conversions producing reliefs, such as for example Braille characters or drops of glue, solutions exist which make it possible to detect the presence or otherwise of these reliefs as well as their location on blanks traveling at high speed. On the other hand, these solutions are incapable of checking the proper formation of the reliefs. To check the proper formation of the reliefs, it is also necessary to be able to measure the three-dimensional characteristics of the reliefs.”, pg. 1, paragraph 0009-0010). Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Carron in view of Youngha with Pilloud to obtain the invention according to claim 14.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, and claim 18 is further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). These claims would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the above rejections.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CONNOR LEVI HANSEN whose telephone number is (703)756-5533. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00 (ET).
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, Sumati Lefkowitz can be reached at (571) 272-3638. 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.
/CONNOR L HANSEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2672
/SUMATI LEFKOWITZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2672
Prosecution Insights