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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/14/2024 has been acknowledged. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “compartment or supporting means” in claim 3; and the “a processing circuitry” the “a data collection function”, the “a data processing function”, and the “an outputting function” in claim 13 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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:
rotating means in claim 2 (paragraph [0219]: e.g., a group of rotating means comprising moving belts, rotatable wheels, rotatable rollers, rotatable platforms).
compartment or supporting means in claim 3 (paragraph [0219]: e.g., each compartment or supporting means is configured for transporting only one object or between 2-10 objects or between 2-50 objects or more objects passed said inspection area).
data collection function in claim 13 (see below under 112(b) & 112(a)).
data processing function in claim 13 (see below under 112(b) & 112(a)).
outputting function in claim 13 (see below under 112(b) & 112(a)).
transportation means in claims 16-17 (108 @ figure 1 and paragraph [0219]).
control unit in claim 18 (113 @ figure 1 and paragraph [0151]: e.g., The equipment typically includes a processing unit 113 or control unit for controlling the conveyor system 108).
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 2-3, 14-17, 20, 22, and 30 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.
Regarding claim 2, the recitation "wherein said rotating means is preferably selected from a group of rotating means comprising moving belts, rotatable wheels, rotatable rollers, rotatable platforms or the like, wherein said rotating means is preferably provided by a conveyor system" is indefinite, since it is unclear whether the limitation following the word "preferably" or “the like” is required by the claim. For the purpose of this action, the Examiner assumes that the word "preferably" or “the like” is deleted and is not part of the above limitation.
Regarding claim 3, the recitation "wherein the each compartment or supporting means is preferably arranged for rotating the objects carried by said compartment or supporting means when passing said inspection area" is indefinite, since it is unclear whether the limitation following the word "preferably" is required by the claim. For the purpose of this action, the Examiner assumes that the word "preferably" is deleted and is not part of the above limitation.
Regarding claim 14, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 20, the recitation "the inspection system comprises: at least one irradiation arrangement adapted to emit optical radiation towards the inspection area and/or said object, preferably by said optical radiation being reflected by said scanning element, wherein said at least one irradiation arrangement preferably comprises an illumination source selected from the group comprising LEDs, halogen lamps and/or lasers" is indefinite, since it is unclear whether the limitation following the word "preferably" is required by the claim. For the purpose of this action, the Examiner assumes that the word "preferably" is deleted and is not part of the above limitation.
Regarding claim 22, the recitation " the number of elongated inspection zones in said plurality of elongated inspection zones is selected from an interval of 4 to 24, preferably from an interval of 8 to 16" is indefinite, since it is unclear whether the limitation following the word "preferably" is required by the claim. For the purpose of this action, the Examiner assumes that the word "preferably from an interval of 8 to 16" is deleted and is not part of the above limitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claims 13; these claims invokes 112(f) as discussed above. The claims provide for the "a data collection function", "a data processing function", "an outputting function", but in the specification does not show clearly the structures for these "function" to perform the claimed inventions. While the paragraphs [0233]-[0235] of the specification discloses “a data collection function configured to collect spectral data associated with spectral characteristics of said objects (102) based on a signal from the spectrometer, which spectral data pertains to said optical radiation originating from said objects (102) when arranged in at least one of said first number of inspection zones (104a, 104b), a data processing function configured to provide an object (102) representation based on said spectral data, and an outputting function configured to output object information based on said object representation”, the specification fails to discloses structure that corresponds to these functions (such as means, software...) in claims. Therefore, there is no way to determine the metes and bounds of these limitations, since there are no limits imposed by structure, materials or acts, and can be performed by any means capable of performing the function, both known and unknown. Thus, the claims are rejected under 112 second paragraph because the claim scope is indefinite.
Regarding claim 30, the recitation "the method comprises: a step (S6) of measuring spectral characteristics of the objects passing through the inspection zone at different sides of the objects and preferably a step of creating a 3600 spectral representation of the object" is indefinite, since it is unclear whether the limitation following the word "preferably" is required by the claim. For the purpose of this action, the Examiner assumes that the word "preferably" is deleted and is not part of the above limitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims, which are dependent from rejected claims inherit the problems of these claims, and are therefore also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Regarding claims 13; the claim is rejected for a lack of written description for the reasons set forth above regarding 35 USC 112(b) and indefiniteness. This rejection is made because an indefinite, unbounded limitation would cover all structure that performs the claimed function. Because applicant has not clearly set forth the corresponding structure that would allow one having ordinary skill in the art to make the apparatus with the corresponding functionality, this indicates that applicant has not provide provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention.
Claims, which are dependent from rejected claims inherit the problems of these claims, and are therefore also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 8-14, 18-21, 24-25, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balthasar et al (US 2023/0213443 hereinafter “Balthasar”) in view of Ono (2008/0225299).
Regarding claims 1 and 24; Balthasar discloses an inspection system and method (100 @ figure 1) for inspecting objects (102 @ figure 1) passing through an inspection area (104, 106 @ figure 1), which inspection area is divided into a plurality of elongated inspection zones (104, 106 @ figure 1) having a longitudinal extension (figure 1), the inspection system (100 @ figure 1) comprising:
a detector system (120 @ figures 2 and 5) with at least one detector (128 @ figures 2 and 5) and an optical arrangement (134, 136 @ figures 2 and 5) for receiving optical radiation originating (122, 132 @ figures 2 and 5) from an object (102 @ figures 2 and 5) arranged in at least one of said plurality of inspection zones (104, 106 @ figures 1-2 and 5 as different inspection zones) and redirecting said optical radiation (122, 132 @ figures 2 and 5) towards said at least one detector (128, 120 @ figures 2 and 5), and providing said at least one detector (120, 128 @ figures 2 and 5) with a respective field of view (figures 2 and 5); and
a scanning element (136 @ figures 2 and 5) configured to rotate around a first rotation axis (paragraphs [0030 and [0090]: e.g., scanning element 136 of FIG. 2 is in the form of a rotational polygon mirror. Thus, by rotating the polygon mirror scanning of the first set of light beams 116 and the second set of light beams 118 in the first detection zone 104 will occur. The first set of light beams 116 and the second set of light beams 118 will hence be scanned across the first detection zone 104 and consequently be scanned across the conveyor 108.). See figures 1-6
PNG
media_image1.png
691
709
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
681
685
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Ono discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the scanning element comprising: a plurality of reflective surfaces arranged one after another around said first rotation axis, which plurality of reflective surfaces comprises a set of reflective surfaces, wherein each one of said reflective surfaces is adapted in size, shape and orientation to redirect the field of view of said at least one detector to each one of said plurality of elongated inspection zones once per revolution of said scanning element, and each one of said reflective surfaces are configured to redirect the field of view of said at least one detector to and along a respective one of said plurality of elongated inspection zones once per revolution of said scanning element. However, Ono teaches that it is known in the art to provide the scanning element (11 @ figure 2) comprising: a plurality of reflective surfaces (11c1-11c6 @ figures 2 and 4C) arranged one after another around said first rotation axis (11b @ figures 2 and 4C), which plurality of reflective surfaces (11c1-11c6 @ figures 2 and 4C) comprises a set of reflective surfaces (11c1-11c6 @ figures 2 and 4C), wherein each one of said reflective surfaces (11c1-11c6 @ figures 2 and 4A-4C) is adapted in size, shape and orientation (paragraph [0094]: e.g., the rotating polygon mirror 11 is formed in the shape (the number of mirror surfaces is six and an angle difference dλ between the mirror surfaces adjacent to each other is constant) shown in FIG. 4C. At least three surfaces are required for the number of mirror surfaces of the rotating polygon mirror 11) to redirect the field of view of said at least one detector (7 @ figure 2) to each one of said plurality of elongated inspection zones (3, 3A @ figure 1B and 2) once per revolution of said scanning element (11 @ figure 2), and each one of said reflective surfaces (11c1-11c6 @ figures 2 and 4C) are configured to redirect the field of view of said at least one detector (7 @ figure 2) to and along a respective one of said plurality of elongated inspection zones (3, 3A @ figures 2) once per revolution of said scanning element (11 @figure 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine inspection system and method of Balthasar with the scanning element comprising: a plurality of reflective surfaces arranged one after another around said first rotation axis, which plurality of reflective surfaces comprises a set of reflective surfaces, wherein each one of said reflective surfaces is adapted in size, shape and orientation to redirect the field of view of said at least one detector to each one of said plurality of elongated inspection zones once per revolution of said scanning element, and each one of said reflective surfaces are configured to redirect the field of view of said at least one detector to and along a respective one of said plurality of elongated inspection zones once per revolution of said scanning element as taught by Omo for the purpose of improving appearance inspection accuracy with the number of mirror surfaces is increased, therefore the number of positional coordinate samples for shifting the irradiating light collecting point P in the main scanning direction X to perform the appearance inspection to the inspection object.
Regarding claim 2; Balthasar discloses rotating means (figure 1) is provided by a conveyor system (108 @ figure 1).
Balthasar discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for rotating means adapted in size and shape for providing a rotation to the objects so the objects are rotating when passing through the inspection area, wherein said rotating means is selected from a group of rotating means comprising moving belts, rotatable wheels, rotatable rollers, rotatable platforms, wherein said rotating means is provided by a conveyor system. However, Ono teaches that it is known in the art to provide rotating means (12 @ figure 1A) adapted in size and shape for providing a rotation to the objects (3 @ figure 1B, 2) so the objects (3 @ figure 1B, 2) are rotating when passing through the inspection area (3A @ figures 1B, 2), wherein said rotating means (12 @ figure 1A and paragraph [0085]: e.g., the table feeding device 12 includes a drive shaft 12a, a nut member 12b, a table 12c, and a drive motor 12d. The drive shaft 12a is arranged so as to extending in a sub-scanning direction Y which is orthogonal to both a height direction Z and a main scanning direction X. The nut member 12b is screwed on the drive shaft 12a, and the nut member 12b can be traveled on the drive shaft 12a by normally and reversely rotating the drive shaft 12a) is selected from a group of rotating means comprising moving belts, rotatable wheels, rotatable rollers (drive motor 12d, drive shaft 12a @figure 1A), rotatable platforms, wherein said rotating means is provided by a conveyor system. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine inspection system and method of Balthasar with limitation above as taught by Ono for the purpose of improving appearance inspection accuracy with the number of mirror surfaces is increased, therefore the number of positional coordinate samples for shifting the irradiating light collecting point P in the main scanning direction X to perform the appearance inspection to the inspection object.
It is noted that the term “is selected from a group of” is alternative.
Regarding claim 4; Balthasar discloses inspection system (100 @ figure 1) further comprises a conveyor (108 @ figure 1) and wherein the inspection area (104, 106 @ figure 1) corresponds to a surface of said conveyor (108 @ figure 1), or which inspection system (100 @ figure 1) further comprises a free fall path (figure 1) and wherein the inspection area (104, 106 @ figure 1) corresponds to said free fall path (figure 1).
It is noted that the term “or” is alternative.
Regarding claim 5 and 25; Balthasar discloses an object (102 @ figures 1-2) and/or a conveyor surface (108 @ figures 1-2) in said inspection area (104, 106 @ figures 1-2), wherein each of objects (102 @ figure 1) is partially located in different inspection zones (figure 2: zone 104 is different zone 106).
Regarding claim 8; Balthasar discloses the optical radiation (114, 118 @ figure 2) originating from the object (102 @ figure 2) is at least one of emitted, reflected and scattered (122 @ figure 2) by and/or transmitted through said object (102 @ figure 2).
It is noted that the term “and/or” is alternative.
Regarding claim 9; Balthasar discloses said scanning element (11 @ figure 4C) has a set of surface normal (figure 4C), wherein each one of said surface normal (figure 4C) is a center surface normal of a respective one of said set of reflective surfaces (11C1-11C6 @figure 4C) and wherein each one of said surface normal (figure 4C) in said set of surface normal has a different inclination angle (figures 4B-4C) to said rotation axis (11b @ figure 4C) compared to the other surface normal in said set of surface normal (figures 4B-4C).
Regarding claim 10; Balthasar discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for each one of said set of reflective surfaces comprises an at least locally flat reflective surface representing a surface area of at least 80% of the whole surface area of said each one of said set of reflective surfaces. However, Ono teaches that it is known in the art to provide each one of said set of reflective surfaces (11c1, 11c2, 11c3, 11c4, 11c5, 11c6 @ figure 4C) comprises an at least locally flat reflective surface (paragraph [0093]: e.g., each mirror surface 11c is formed in the flat surface, there is a cross section in which two triangles are combined in a boundary with an adjacent mirror surface) representing a surface area of at least 80% (100% is whole flat surface) of the whole surface area (paragraph [0093]) of said each one of said set of reflective surfaces (11c1, 11c2, 11c3, 11c4, 11c5, 11c6 @ figure 4C). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine inspection system and method of Balthasar with limitation above as taught by Ono for the purpose of improving appearance inspection accuracy with the number of mirror surfaces is increased, therefore the number of positional coordinate samples for shifting the irradiating light collecting point P in the main scanning direction X to perform the appearance inspection to the inspection object.
Regarding claim 11; Balthasar discloses the reflective surfaces (11C1-11C6 @figure 4C) have substantially the same shape and surface area (figures 4A-4C), and the scanning element (11 @ figures 2 and 4C) optionally comprises an even number of reflective surfaces (11C2, 11C4, 11C6 @ figure 4C) and wherein each reflective surface (11C1-11C6 @figure 4C) has a corresponding reflective surface (11C3, 11C6 @ figure 4C) arranged on the opposite side of said scanning element (11 @figure 4C) and wherein the respective surface normal of said reflective surface (11C1-11C6 @ figure 4C) and the corresponding reflective surface are substantially parallel (11C3, 11C6 @ figure 4C).
Regarding claim 12; Balthasar discloses said at least one detector system (120, 128 @ figure 5) comprises at least one spectrometer (120 @ figure 5 and paragraph [0093]: e.g., The spectrometer may analyse visible light. The spectrometer may analyse NIR light. The spectrometer may analyse IR light. Different types of spectrometers may be used depending on characteristics of the matter 102 to be detected) for analyzing spectral characteristics of said objects (102 @ figure 5).
Regarding claim 13; Balthasar discloses all of feature of claimed invention except a processing circuitry configured to execute: a data collection function configured to collect spectral data associated with spectral characteristics of said objects based on a signal from the spectrometer, which spectral data pertains to said optical radiation originating from said objects when arranged in at least one of said first number of inspection zones, a data processing function configured to provide an object representation based on said spectral data, and an outputting function configured to output object information based on the object representation. However, Ono teaches that it is known in the art to provide a processing circuitry (control unit coupled to a computation unit @ figure 1A) configured to execute: a data collection function (data storage unit @ figure 1A) configured to collect spectral data associated with spectral characteristics of said objects (3 @ figure 1B-2) based on a signal from the spectrometer (7 @ figure 1A), which spectral data pertains to said optical radiation originating from said objects (3 @ figure 2) when arranged in at least one of said first number of inspection zones (3A @ figure 2), a data processing function (computation unit @ figure 1A comprises an extraction unit and appearance positional coordinate computation unit) configured to provide an object representation based on said spectral data, and an outputting function (output unit @ figure 1A) configured to output object information based on the object (3 @ figures 1B-2) representation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine inspection system and method of Balthasar with limitation above as taught by Ono for the purpose of improving appearance inspection accuracy with the number of mirror surfaces is increased, therefore the number of positional coordinate samples for shifting the irradiating light collecting point P in the main scanning direction X to perform the appearance inspection to the inspection object.
Regarding claim 14; Balthasar discloses the inspection system (100 @ figure 1) comprises a transportation means (108 @ figure 1), is a conveyor or a free fall path, configured to transport the objects (102 @ figure 1) through the inspection area (104, 106 @ figure 1-2).
Regarding claim 18; Balthasar discloses the inspection system (100 @ figure 1) comprises a control unit (111 @ figure 1) configured to estimate motion of the objects (102 @ figure 1) and/or tracking a trajectory of the objects when the objects (102 @ figure 1) are passing though the inspection zone (104, 106 @ figure 1).
It is noted that the term “and/or” is alternative.
Regarding claim 19; Balthasar discloses each one of said at least one detector (120, 128 @ figures 2 and 5-6) is configured to detect electromagnetic radiation (122, 132 @ figures 2 and 5-6) selected from the group comprising UV, visible light and NIR or a combination thereof (paragraph [0017]: e.g., the term set of light beams may be any type of light, visible or non-visible such as NIR, IR or UV, having an extension other than an infinite decimal beam or ray).
Regarding claim 20; Balthasar discloses the inspection system (100 @ figure 1) comprises: at least one irradiation arrangement (114, 126 @ figure 2) adapted to emit optical radiation (116, 118, 130 @ figure 2) towards the inspection area (104, 106 @ figure 2) and/or said object (102 @figure 2), by said optical radiation (116, 118 @ figure 2) being reflected by said scanning element (136 @ figure 2), wherein said at least one irradiation arrangement (114 @ figure 2) comprises an illumination source (138, 140 @ figures 3) selected from the group comprising LEDs, halogen lamps and/or lasers (paragraph [0122]: e.g., LED light sources or heating elements may be used for the first light source 138 and the second light source 140).
Regarding claim 21; Balthasar discloses said elongated inspection zones (104, 106 @ figures 1-2) comprises at least two elongated inspection zones (104, 106 @ figure 2) which are overlapping, and/or directly adjacent (figure 2), and/or separated by a distance.
Regarding claim 29; Balthasar discloses the spectrometer or detector (120, 128 @ figures 2 and 5-6) for measuring spectral characteristics of the objects (102 @ figures 2 and 5-6) passing through the inspection zone (104, 106 @ figures 2 and 5-6).
Claims 3 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balthasar in view of Ono as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Blanc (WO 2020254589 A1).
Regarding claim 3; Balthasar in view of Ono combination discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the inspection system further comprises a conveyor being provided with a set of compartments or supporting means, wherein each compartment or supporting means is configured for transporting only one object or between 2-10 objects or between 2-50 objects or more objects passed said inspection area; and wherein the each compartment or supporting means is arranged for rotating the objects carried by said compartment or supporting means when passing said inspection area. However, Blanc teaches that it is known in the art to provide the inspection system (10 @ figure 1A) further comprises a conveyor (12 @ figure 1A) being provided with a set of compartments or supporting means (16 @ figure 1A), wherein each compartment or supporting means (16 @ figure 1A) is configured for transporting only one object (18 @ figure 1A) or between 2-10 objects or between 2-50 objects or more objects passed said inspection area (figures 9B-9C); and wherein the each compartment or supporting means (16 @ figure 1A) is arranged for rotating the objects (18 @ figure 1A) carried by said compartment or supporting means (16 @ figure 1A) when passing said inspection area (figures 9B-9C). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine inspection system and method of Balthasar with limitation above as taught by Blanc for the purpose of detecting more accuracy defects on the object in order to sort the objects.
It is noted that the term “or” is alternative.
Regarding claim 6; Balthasar in view of Ono combination discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for a conveyor, said conveyor being one of: a conveyor belt and a conveyor being provided with a set of compartments for transporting at least one object passed said inspection area, wherein an object transporting surface of said conveyor extends over at least 3 inspection zones when said object transporting surface is arranged within said inspection area. However, Blanc teaches that it is known in the art to provide a conveyor (12 @ figure 1A), said conveyor being one of: a conveyor belt and a conveyor (12 @ figure 1A) being provided with a set of compartments (16 @ figure 1A) for transporting at least one object (18 @ figure 1A) passed said inspection area (figures 9B-9C), wherein an object (18 @ figure 1) transporting surface of said conveyor (12 @ figure 1) extends over at least 3 inspection zones (12a, 12b, 12c @ figure 1) when said object (18 @ figure 1A) transporting surface is arranged within said inspection area (figures 9B-9C). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine inspection system and method of Balthasar with limitation above as taught by Blanc for the purpose of detecting more accuracy defects on the object in order to sort the objects.
It is noted that the term “being one of:” is alternative.
Regarding claim 7; Balthasar discloses said object transporting surface (102 @ figure 1) extends over at least 60 % or over at least 75% or over all but two or over all of said inspection zones (104, 106 @ figure 1), when said object transporting surface (102 @ figure 1) is arranged within said inspection area (104, 106 @ figure 1).
It is noted that the term “or” is alternative.
Claims 15-17 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balthasar in view of Ono as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Blanc (WO 2020254589 A1).
Regarding claim 15; Balthasar in view of Ono combination discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for said transportation means are configured to provide a rotational movement of said objects and wherein the detector system is configured to establish a 3600 spectral representation of the object. However, Blanc teaches that it is known in the art to provide said transportation means (10 @ figure 1A) are configured to provide a rotational movement of said objects (18 @ figures 1 and 9A-9C) and wherein the detector system (figures 9B-9C) is configured to establish a 3600 spectral representation of the object (18 @ figure 9A and paragraph [0064]: e.g., The peduncle 18a of the object 18 being oriented in a generally transverse manner relative to the longitudinal direction of advance 14 of the conveying line, the generally transverse orientation of the peduncle is substantially retained during the rotation, following the anti-arrow, clockwise R4 (rotation 3600), of all the movable portions of the object support 16 around a horizontal transverse axis H). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine inspection system and method of Balthasar with limitation above as taught by Blanc for the purpose of detecting more accuracy defects on the object in order to sort the objects.
Regarding claim 16; Balthasar discloses the first rotation axis (figures 2 and 5-6) of the polygon mirror scanning (136 @ figure 2 and 5-6) is arranged transverse to said direction (paragraphs [0030] and [0090]-[0091]).
Balthasar in view of Ono combination discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for said transportation means are configured to transport the objects passing through the inspection area in a direction substantially along the longitudinal extension of said first number of elongated inspection zones. However, Blanc teaches that it is known in the art to provide said transportation means (10 @ figure 1A) are configured to transport the objects (18 @ figures 1A and 9A-9C) passing through the inspection area (figures 9A-9C) in a direction substantially along the longitudinal extension of said first number of elongated inspection zones (12a-12d @ figure 1A). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine inspection system and method of Balthasar with limitation above as taught by Blanc for the purpose of detecting more accuracy defects on the object in order to sort the objects.
Regarding claim 17; Balthasar discloses the first rotation axis (figures 2 and 5-6) of the polygon mirror scanning (136 @ figure 2 and 5-6) is arranged substantially parallel to said direction (paragraphs [0030] and [0090]-[0091]).
Balthasar in view of Ono combination discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for said transportation means are configured to transport the objects passing through the inspection area in a direction transverse to the longitudinal extension of said first number of elongated inspection zones. However, Blanc teaches that it is known in the art to provide said transportation means (10 @ figure 1A) are configured to transport the objects (18 @ figure 1A and 9B-9C) passing through the inspection area (figures 9A-9C) in a direction transverse to the longitudinal extension of said first number of elongated inspection zones (12a-12d @ figure 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine inspection system and method of Balthasar with limitation above as taught by Blanc for the purpose of detecting more accuracy defects on the object in order to sort the objects.
Regarding claim 22; Balthasar in view of Ono combination discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the number of elongated inspection zones in said plurality of elongated inspection zones is selected from an interval of 4 to 24. However, Blanc teaches that it is known in the art to provide the number of elongated inspection zones (12a, 12b, 12c, 12d @ figures 1 and 9B-9C) in said plurality of elongated inspection zones (12a-12d @ figures 1 and 9B-9C) is selected from an interval of 4 to 24. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine inspection system and method of Balthasar with limitation above as taught by Blanc for the purpose of detecting more accuracy defects on the object in order to sort the objects.
Claim 26-28 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balthasar in view of Ono as applied to claim 24 above, and further in view of Blanc (WO 2020254589 A1).
Regarding claim 26; Balthasar in view of Ono combination discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for transporting the objects though said inspection area in a direction transverse or substantially parallel to the longitudinal extension of the inspection zones, wherein each object simultaneously extends over at least 3 inspection zones while being transported trough said inspection area. However, Blanc teaches that it is known in the art to provide said transportation means (10 @ figure 1A) are configured to transport the objects (18 @ figure 1A and 9B-9C) passing through the inspection area (figures 9A-9C) in a direction transverse or substantially parallel to the longitudinal extension of elongated inspection zones (12a-12d @ figure 1A), wherein each object (18 @ figure 1A) simultaneously extends over at least 3 inspection zones (12a, 12b, 12c, 12d @ figures 1 and 9B-9C) while being transported trough said inspection area (figures 9B-9C). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine inspection system and method of Balthasar with limitation above as taught by Blanc for the purpose of detecting more accuracy defects on the object in order to sort the objects.
It is noted that the term “or” is alternative.
Regarding claim 27; Balthasar in view of Ono combination discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for transporting the objects through said inspection area in a direction transverse or substantially parallel to the longitudinal extension of the inspection zones by a conveyor being provided with a set of compartments each having a capacity of transporting at least one object passed said inspection area, wherein said at least one object when being transported by one of said compartments passed said inspection area extends over at least 3 inspection zones simultaneously. However, Blanc teaches that it is known in the art to provide transporting the objects (18 @ figure 1A) through said inspection area (figures 9B-9C and paragraphs [0010], and [0030]: e.g., The object supports are for example fixed to the transverse axes of the links or via another part. The transverse axes 23 of the links 21 extend transversely, projecting next to the endless chain 20 to allow the mounting on these axes of the object supports which will be described later. These object supports move longitudinally, parallel to the endless chain and next to it, along the same horizontal plane) in a direction transverse or substantially parallel to the longitudinal extension of the inspection zones (12a, 12b, 12c, 12d @ figure 1A) by a conveyor (12 @ figure 1A) being provided with a set of compartments (16 @ figure 1A-1C and 6) each having a capacity of transporting at least one object (18 @ figures 1 and 8) passed said inspection area (figures 9B-9C), wherein said at least one object (18 @ figures 1A and 9B-9C) when being transported by one of said compartments (16 @ figure 1) passed said inspection area (figures 9B-9C) extends over at least 3 inspection zones (12a,12b, 12c @ figure 1) simultaneously. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine inspection system and method of Balthasar with limitation above as taught by Blanc for the purpose of detecting more accuracy defects on the object in order to sort the objects.
Regarding claim 28; Balthasar in view of Ono combination discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for transporting the objects though said inspection area in a direction transverse or substantially parallel to the longitudinal extension of the inspection zones, comprises: rotating the objects when the objects are transported though said inspection area. However, Blanc teaches that it is known in the art to provide transporting the objects (18 @ figure 1A) though said inspection area (figures 9B-9C and paragraphs [0010, and [0030]: e.g., The object supports are for example fixed to the transverse axes of the links or via another part. The transverse axes 23 of the links 21 extend transversely, projecting next to the endless chain 20 to allow the mounting on these axes of the object supports which will be described later. These object supports move longitudinally, parallel to the endless chain and next to it, along the same horizontal plane) in a direction transverse or substantially parallel to the longitudinal extension of the inspection zones (figures 9B-9C), comprises: rotating the objects (18 @ figure 1A) when the objects (18 @ figure 1A) are transported though said inspection area (figures 9B-9C). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine inspection system and method of Balthasar with limitation above as taught by Blanc for the purpose of detecting more accuracy defects on the object in order to sort the objects.
Regarding claim 30; Balthasar in view of Ono combination discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for measuring spectral characteristics of the objects passing through the inspection zone at different sides of the objects and creating a 3600 spectral representation of the object. However, Blanc teaches that it is known in the art to provide the detector system (figures 9B-9C) for measuring spectral characteristics of the objects (18 @ figures 9B-9C) passing through the inspection zone (figures 9B-9C) at different sides of the objects (18 @ figures 9B-9C) and creating a 3600 spectral representation of the object (18 @ figure 9A and paragraph [0064]: e.g., The peduncle 18a of the object 18 being oriented in a generally transverse manner relative to the longitudinal direction of advance 14 of the conveying line, the generally transverse orientation of the peduncle is substantially retained during the rotation, following the anti-arrow, clockwise R4 (rotation 3600), of all the movable portions of the object support 16 around a horizontal transverse axis H). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine inspection system and method of Balthasar with limitation above as taught by Blanc for the purpose of detecting more accuracy defects on the object in order to sort the objects.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balthasar in view of Ono as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wallack et al (US 2020/0388053 hereinafter “Wallback”).
Regarding claim 23; Balthasar in view of Ono combination discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for a target calibration arrangement adapted in size and shape to provide a calibration surface provided with a geometric shape and/or pattern, and/or comprising one, two or more spectral calibration zones for enabling repeated calibration of the spectral data of the inspection system. However, Wallback teaches that it is known in the art to provide a target calibration arrangement (120 @ figure 1 and paragraph [0063]: e.g., The object 120 shown in FIG. 1 is a stable object (also generally termed herein as a “calibration object”) consisting of a plurality of individual, spaced apart frustum assemblies (also termed calibration “subobjects”) 150, 152, 154 and 156 that each define a discrete “feature set”, separated by (e.g.) a planar region of the calibration object base plate or underlying base frame, which is typically free of 3D features (other than the side edges of the overall object)) adapted in size and shape to provide a calibration surface (figure 1) provided with a geometric shape and/or pattern (150,152, 154, 156 @ figure 1), and/or comprising one, two or more spectral calibration zones (figures 1 and 4) for enabling repeated calibration of the spectral data of the inspection system (figure 1, paragraph [0013] and [0060]: e.g., a motion conveyance that acts along the y-axis direction between the sensor and the object 120 under inspection to provide a range image (also termed herein a “3D image”) of the object 120.). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine inspection system and method of Balthasar with limitation above as taught by Wallack for the purpose of improving accuracy by repeating this process so that an average measurement is obtained from multiple scans/measurements.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1) Balthasar et al (US 2016/0252461) discloses an apparatus for inspecting a stream of matter including: a first and a second light source for emitting a first and a second light beam; a first and a second detector; a first scanning element adapted to redirect the detection area of the second detector from side to side across said stream.
2) Katzie et al (US 2002/0166983) discloses scanner system acquires images of articles using a sensor acquiring an image of a portion of an article and defining a field of view, a displacer operative to provide mutual relative displacement between the article the sensor at a generally uniform rate of displacement, and a field of view freezer operative to provide a generally motionless image during image acquisition. The scanner system is particularly useful in the field of automated optical inspection.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANG H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2425. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at 571-270-5789. 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.
/SN/
June 6, 2026
/SANG H NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights