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 .
Applicant(s) Response to Official Action
The response filed on 01/27/2026 has been entered and made of record.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Presented arguments have been fully considered, but some are rendered moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by amendment(s) initiated by the applicant(s). Examiner fully addresses below any arguments that were not rendered moot.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Summary of Arguments:
Regarding claims 8-9 Applicant argues that Schmidt fails to disclose "the recognition unit selects one second image on the basis of respective recognition scores of the second images of the at least two reflection devices and recognizes the recognition target on the basis of the selected one second image". The Office Action relies on Koenck to remedy this deficiency. However, Koenck (at column 4, lines 52-53) describes creating a complete barcode by stitching together multiple separately captured portions. The Examiner cites to this portion with regard to the subject matter of Claim 8. Claim 8 recites capturing two images of the same object and selecting one of them based on a recognition score. This is a fundamentally different process than what is disclosed in Koenck.
Examiner’s Response:
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Regarding claims 8-9, Examiner contends that Schmidt in view of Koenck teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 8-9. The limitation “processing circuitry selects one second image on the basis of respective recognition scores of the second images of the at least two reflection devices units and recognizes the recognition target on the basis of the selected one second image” conveys selecting “one second image on the basis of respective recognition scores” and recognizing “recognition target on the basis of the selected one second image”. The claim portion does not preclude several images being selected. The claim portion does not define a patentably distinguishable metric for the “respective recognition scores” used to select the “one second image”. The claim portion does not elaborate how the “respective recognition scores” are used to select an image. The claim portion does not preclude recognizing the “recognition target” based on more than one image being selected.
Koenck teaches selecting a single image given that complete barcode (i.e. a 100% completeness of the barcode) can be read from the single image or selecting multiple images in which part of the barcode is visible (i.e. the selected images together yield 100% completeness of the barcode) to form a complete barcode (i.e. select the respective image sensor or image sensors from which to select the pixels of a complete bar code reading- Koenck ¶ col 20, 36-67).
Accordingly, Examiner maintains the rejections.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anton Schmidt et al. [US 20130208105 A1: already of record] in view of Nam Ha-Van et al. [A Single-Feeding Port HF-UHF Dual-Band RFID Tag Antenna: already of record] and further in view of Tulley Steve et al. [US 20030028095 A1] in view of Steven E. Koenck [US 6889903 B1].
Regarding claim 2, Touseef teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and Touseef further teaches:
Regarding claim 1, Emin teaches:
[Claim 1] An image recognition device (i.e. An inspection apparatus for examining vessels fixedly arranged on a machine tool- Abstract…The inspection apparatus 1 according to the invention which is suitable for this purpose is shown in FIGS. 3, 4, 5, and 7- ¶0041) comprising:
an imaging device configured to image one imaging surface of a recognition target (i.e. The apparatus includes a camera having a first optical component. The camera is coupled to an image processing unit and is arranged in a positionally fixed manner with respect to a vessel to be inspected- Abstract);
a reflection device disposed to (i.e. the second optical component may be a mirror, in particular a mirror having a concave curvature or a parabolic mirror, having a central through opening. This mirror situated in the retaining tube advantageously allows the vessel to be imaged all the way around, i.e., also on its side walls. The mirror has a through opening, and during the image recording is pushed to the desired extent across the vessel together with the movable mounting. The curvature of the mirror is configured in such a way that the optical system of the camera may also record the undercuts and walls via the mirror- ¶0017…In the production unit according to the invention, the inspection apparatus is integrated by means of a stand in such a way that the camera, having an appropriate image processing device and an optical component which is connected to the camera, is able to suitably produce comprehensive images not only of the top view of the vessel neck, but preferably also of undercuts at inner or outer wall areas situated behind the neck- ¶0021… A circumferential mirror element 6- ¶0045, fig. 3-5) reflect another imaging surface of the recognition target to the imaging unit (i.e. The apparatus has a second, moveably mounted optical element, with the first, positionally fixed optical element and the second, moveably mounted optical element being operatively connected to the camera for image-recording at least one view in the direction of a vessel opening and at least one view in the direction of a side of the vessel to be inspected that faces away from the vessel opening- Abstract); and
a processing circuitry configured to (i.e. A manufacturing system for vessels, which includes an inspection apparatus, and a corresponding examination method, which can be carried out using the inspection apparatus, for testing the vessel quality after machining is also disclosed- Abstract- The invention relates to an inspection apparatus by means of which a vessel, such as a can, may be checked for shape and any production defects at the end of production- ¶0039) recognize the recognition target on the basis of a first image of the one imaging surface and a second image of the other imaging surface (i.e. The inspection apparatus of the present invention is used to determine damage of the surface of these types of vessels by image recording; scratches in a paint coating, as well as dents, flaked-off material particles, cracks or fissures, and other damage of the interior and exterior of the vessel may be understood as damage- ¶0012…The image processing unit may be connected, in a manner known to those skilled in the art, to further data-processing or image-processing units, for example for enlarging or storing recorded images or for making comparisons using data processing units, also possibly including coupling to a database in which comparative images of ideal or damage-free vessels are stored, so that when damage is detected and subsequent image comparison is carried out, the defective vessel may be immediately removed from the production unit or a conveying device coupled thereto- ¶0013),
wherein the reflection unit includes at least two reflection devices, wherein the at least two reflection devices are provided in the vicinity of the recognition target (i.e. The retaining tube together with the mirror element situated therein, as well as the jacket tube and the supporting element through opening, do not necessarily have to have circular cross sections. As a function of a cross-sectional shape of the vessels to be inspected, retaining tubes together with mirror elements having corresponding cross-sectional shapes may be selected, and the jacket tube and the corresponding through opening in the supporting element may also be adapted in a similar manner- ¶0046).
However, Anton does not teach explicitly:
wherein the at least two reflection devices are provided to reflect different second images of the recognition target to the imaging unit.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to construct the mirror element 6 as separate pieces to adapt it to the shape of the object being analyzed, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
However, Anton does not teach explicitly:
the processing circuitry selects one second image on the basis of respective recognition scores of the second images of the at least two reflection devices and recognizes the recognition target on the basis of the selected one second image.
In the same field of endeavor, Steven teaches:
the processing circuitry selects one second image on the basis of respective recognition scores (i.e. completeness of the bar code reading) of the second images of the at least two reflection devices and recognizes the recognition target on the basis of the selected one second image (i.e. In another example, a plurality of mirrors analogous to mirror 82 could be arranged at respective different distances from the window 33, such that all of the image paths would traverse the same lens barrel 90 but then would be focused onto respective different image sensors, for example, by means of multiple mirrors analogous to mirror 84 but located at respective different distances from the center of lens barrel 90. Such a multiple image path lens system would, for example, provide paths within the reader of length greater than the length of the image path at 64, 80, 81, 60 of FIG. 3, and also optical image paths in the housing 86 of length shorter than the length of the path 64, 80, 81, 60. The various image paths together could provide the result that the depth of field for each respective image path would overlap with the depth of field of other of the image paths, so that the single lens barrel such as 90 would cover images anywhere within a range in front of a window 33 corresponding to a multiple of the depth of field provided by the image path 64, 80, 81, 60 by itself. Thus, through proper multiple mirror placement and folding of the optical image paths, a common lens barrel assembly could focus on multiple depths in front of the reader, the processor component 10 selecting the respective image sensor or image sensors from which to assemble the pixels of a complete bar code reading. FIG. 14 diagrammatically illustrates the optical components of such a multiple image path single lens system, which includes a window 33C, flash tube housing 75C, mirror 83C, mirror 84C, lens barrel 90C and sensor housing 124C, corresponding to components 33, 75, 83, 84, 90 and 124 of FIG. 3, and components 33A, 75A, 83A, 84A, 90A and 124A of FIG. 13. The system of FIG. 14 further includes a plurality of mirrors 82C, 82D, 82E, 82F and 82G at respective different distances from the window 33C, such that all image paths traverse the same lens barrel 90C, to be focused on different image sensors of an array 13C which are within a housing 124C and which are connected to control and processing means 10C operative to select the respective image sensor or image sensors from which to select the pixels of a complete bar code reading. With such a multiple image path single lens system arrangement, the lens system arrangement could remain stationary, avoiding the requirement for a motor and movable parts, and also providing for instantaneous reading of a label whose various segments came within the depth of field of one or more of the respective image paths and associated image sensors. Further, distance measurement means 38 may be coupled with control and processor means 10C in order to provide range information to processor 10C such that the proper focal path C, D, E, F, or G may be selected. This may be accomplished by simply allowing the processor 10C to operatively select a particular line 13C of the two-dimensional array 124C- col 20, 36-67).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Anton with the teachings of Steven to obtain a complete bar code image reading (Steven- col 4, line 52-53).
Regarding claim 9, Anton and Steven teach all the limitations of claim 1 and Anton further teaches:
wherein the reflection units are provided at positions which face each other with respect to the recognition target (i.e. see figure 3).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 4, 6, 7 and 10 are allowed.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLIFFORD HILAIRE whose telephone number is (571)272-8397. The examiner can normally be reached 5:30-1400.
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, SATH V PERUNGAVOOR can be reached at (571)272-7455. 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.
CLIFFORD HILAIRE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2488
/CLIFFORD HILAIRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2488