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:
“an image processing unit” in claim 1.
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 § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takahashi et al. (US Pub 2009/0040533 A1)(hereinafter, “Takahashi”).
Regarding claim 1, Takahashi teaches a surface shape measurement device (shape measuring system W) that measures a three-dimensional shape of a measurement surface in an object to be measured in the shape of a rotating body (tire 1) by optical sectioning method ([0167] and [0193]), comprising:
a rotary table (2) that rotates the placed object to be measured in a circumferential direction(“tire rotator 2, such as a motor, for rotating the tire 1 about the rotation axis 1g”, [0195-0196]);
an encoder (5) that sequentially outputs signals according to the rotation angle of the rotary table (discloses the encoder 5 is mounted on a rotation shaft… detects the rotation angle”, [0199]);
an optical sectioning sensor (sensor unit 3 and camera 20) that irradiates a band-shaped light or a line-shaped light (discloses light projection device 10 emits a line of light, slit light, [0197] and [0200]) onto the measurement surface (discloses the surface of the rotating tire, [0197]) and acquires optical section line image data ([0197] and [0248]) for each rotation angle ([0215]) by sequentially capturing optical section lines generated by the band-shaped light or the line-shaped light, which move across the measurement surface as the rotary table rotates (discloses the rotating tire causes the illuminated section line location to move across the surface, [0193-0194]), triggered by a signal output from the encoder (“captures an image for one frame in synchronization with the detection signal (the reset signal RESET) of the encoder 5”, [0215]); and
an image processing unit (host computer 7 and image processing apparatus 6) that generates a three-dimensional image showing the surface shape of the measurement surface (discloses computes tire surface height distribution, [0167], [0188], and [0210]) by sequentially arranging the respective optical section line image data according to the corresponding rotation angle (discloses reconstructed according to tire rotation angle, “captures an image for one frame every time the encoder 5 detects that the tire 1 that is rotating at 60 rpm rotates at 0.09°, [0167], [0215], and [0248-0249]).
Regarding claim 2, Takahashi teaches wherein the optical sectioning sensor (sensor unit 3 and camera 20) irradiates the band-shaped light or the line-shaped light (discloses light projection device 10 emits a line of light, slit light, [0197] and [0200]) in the radial direction (tire radius direction, [0203]) of the object to be measured (discloses light section line extends along radial direction, [0203]) to the bottom surface when the measuring surface is the bottom surface (discloses tread surface measurement, [0197] and [0204]).
Regarding claim 3, Takahashi teaches wherein the optical sectioning sensor (sensor unit 3 and camera 20) irradiates the band-shaped light or the line-shaped light(discloses light projection device 10 emits a line of light, slit light, [0197] and [0200]) in the height direction of the object (discloses “radial direction of the tire 1 is parallel to the Y-axis direction”, [0203]) to be measured to the side surface (tire sidewall) when the measuring surface is the side surface (“two sensor units 3a and 3c for measuring the shapes of two sidewalls of the tire 1”, [0197]).
Regarding claim 5, Takahashi teaches wherein the image processing unit (sensor unit 3 and camera 20) generates a three-dimensional image (discloses 3D reconstruction, [0167]) of the object to be measured in which the surface shape of the bottom surface (trend surface) and the surface shape of the side surface (sidewall) are continuously expressed (discloses simultaneously measure shapes of sidewall surfaces and tread surface, [0171]) from the optical section line image data for each rotation angle in which the measurement surface is the bottom surface and the optical section line image data for each rotation angle in which the measurement surface is the side surface(discloses encoder triggers capture timing and captures image every 0.09° rotation, [0199] and [0215]).
Regarding claim 9, Takahashi teaches wherein the image processing unit(sensor unit 3 and camera 20):
generates a planar image of the object to be measured viewed from the upper side of the rotary table from the measured three-dimensional surface shape of the measured surface of the object to be measured (teaches 2D/3D height distribution can be re-projected into a top-view image, [0167] and [0220-0221]);
for the generated planar image, detects edges in the radial direction from the center to the periphery of the object to be measured W at predetermined center angle increments over the entire circumference of the object to be measured (discloses encoder provides angular sampling (e.g., 4000 frames per rotation) and coordinate-based pixel location extraction per frame, inherently provides angular indexed profiles and radial coordinate of surface points, [0215] and [0219-0221] ); and
calculates the sum of the distances between adjacent edges and uses the sum as the circumference length of the portion of the object to be measured in which the edges were detected (discloses distance computation between reconstructed boundary points, 3D coordinate point cloud of tire surface and sequential angular sampling, [0167], [0215], and [0221]).
Regarding claim 10, Takahashi teaches wherein the image processing unit(sensor unit 3 and camera 20):
obtains a plurality of cross-sectional profiles through the center of the object to be measured at each predetermined step in the circumferential direction of the cylindrical coordinate system from the measured three-dimensional surface shape of the measured surface of the object to be measured (teaches each light-section line as cross-sectional profile at one rotation angle, “light-section line coordinates detected in accordance with the rotation angle”, [0166-0167]);
obtains the minimum and/or maximum values in the radial direction in the height range of interest for each of the obtained cross-sectional profiles(disclose height distribution computation and detects pixel with highest luminance, inherently computes peak and spatial coordinate extremes, [0167] and [0221]); and
determines the minimum among the minimum values of all cross-sectional profiles to be the minimum value in the outer or inner diameter of interest, and determines the maximum among the maximum values of all profiles to be the maximum value in the outer or inner diameter of interest (teaches encoder synchronized full rotation scanning and full circumferential coverage of tire surface, [0215]).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. (US Pub 2009/0040533 A1)(hereinafter, “Takahashi”) in view of Mizutani et al. ( US Pub 2011/0288814 A1)(hereinafter, “Mizutani”).
Regarding claim 4, Takahashi teaches wherein when the image processing unit (host computer 7 and image processing apparatus 6) sequentially arranges the respective optical section line image data (“computes the distribution of the tire surface height on the basis of the plurality of light-section line coordinates detected in accordance with the rotation angle”, [0167]) according to the corresponding rotation angle (discloses angular synchronization, [0199] and [0215]).
However, Takahashi fails to disclose the image processing unit corrects and arranges the optical section line image data according to the regularity based on the misalignment between the center of rotation of the rotary table and the central axis of the object to be measured.
Mizutani teaches the image processing unit corrects and arranges the optical section line image data (discloses Fourier transform filtering, [0057]) according to the regularity (“can be represented sinusoidally”) based on the misalignment (“the center positions Sc of the sidewall-side arcs Arc2 … have considerable variation cyclically in the radial direction R”, [0057]) between the center of rotation of the rotary table and the central axis of the object to be measured ([0056-0057]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to add a misalignment compensation process of Mizutani to Takahashi to improve measurement accuracy.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. (US Pub 2009/0040533 A1)(hereinafter, “Takahashi”) in view of Boffa et al. (WO 2020129100 A1)(hereinafter, “Boffa”).
Regarding claim 6, Takahashi teaches further comprises:
on the distal end of which the optical sectioning sensor is attached(discloses a mechanical positioning system, [0198]); and
a control unit (4) that move the optical sectioning sensor (discloses “the unit driving apparatus 4… locates each of the sensor units 3 at a predetermined inspection position in the vicinity of the tire 1”, [0198]) to the position for acquiring the optical section line image data based on an instruction input(“in response to a predetermined operation of an operation unit or a control command”, [0198]).
However, Takahashi fails to discloses a robot having an articulated arm.
Boffa teaches a robot having an articulated arm (page 8, line 34 discloses a robotic arm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to integrate a robotic arm of Boffa to Takahashi to improve surface coverage and measurement accuracy.
Regarding claim 7, Takahashi teaches moves the optical sectioning sensor to acquire the optical section line image data for each rotation angle at two or more acquisition positions (sensor unit 3a, 3b, 3c, [0197]) in a common coordinate system (discloses coordinate based system, [0221]).
However, Takahashi fails to discloses the robot.
Boffa teaches a robot having an articulated arm (page 8, lines 36-37 discloses moving member of the apparatus is an anthropomorphic robotic arm with at least five axes.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to integrate a robotic arm of Boffa to Takahashi to improve surface coverage and measurement accuracy.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. (US Pub 2009/0040533 A1)(hereinafter, “Takahashi”) in view of Hassler et al. ( WO 2003023699 A1)(hereinafter, “Hassler”).
Regarding claim 8, Takahashi teaches wherein the image processing unit (sensor unit 3 and camera 20) extracts convex-concavity (reconstructs a height distribution of tire surface, which inherently includes convex/concave, [0167] and [0220-0221]) on the measurement surface of the object to be measured by subtracting a predetermined reference shape (discloses raw 3D surface data comparison to a reference model, [0215] and [0221]) from the three-dimensional surface shape of the measurement surface of the object to be measured (reconstructs surface height distribution, [0167] and [0250]).
However, Takahashi fails to discloses recognizes characters.
Hassler teaches recognizes characters (“OCR algorithms for recognizing and interpreting symbols, letters, numerals, etc.”, page 5, lines 29-31 ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to incorporate OCR-based recognition and character classification of Hassler to Takahashi to improve robustness of identification under difficult surface conditions (page 1, lines 58-60 and page 2, lines 5-6).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Fujii et al. (US Pub 2013/0120566 A1) teaches a tire inspection method that acquires 3D sidewall shape data during rotation, divides it into sections, estimates local inclination using straight-line approximation, and rotates each section to correct deflection-induced contour deformation for accurate automated visual inspection, and it appears to render obvious at least the independent claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINA XING whose telephone number is (571)270-7743. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9AM - 5 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kara Geisel can be reached at 571-272-2416. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/C.X./ Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/Kara E. Geisel/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights