DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
2. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
As for paragraph [0036] of applicant’s specification, on line 2 it appears that ‘in a near-dark field mode’ should read -in a dark field mode-. The examiner notes that FIGS. 2A-2C appear to show a dark field mode of imaging.
As for paragraph [0054] of applicant’s specification, on line 1 ‘FIG. 6C’ should read -FIG. 6D-.
As for paragraph [0079] of applicant’s specification, on line 8 ‘FIG. 10’ should read -FIG. 11-.
As for paragraph [0091] of applicant’s specification, on line 6 ‘ad an angle’ should read -and an angle-.
As for paragraph [00123] of applicant’s specification, on line 6 ‘system 510’ should read -system 1510-.
As for paragraphs [00131]-[00137] of applicant’s specification, all four digit numerals beginning with ‘16’ such as 1616, 1613, 1615, … should begin with -17-. Please see FIG. 17.
As for paragraph [00138] of applicant’s specification, all four digit numerals beginning with ‘17’ such as 1701, 1771, and 1775 should begin with -18-(1801, 1871, and 1875). Please see FIG. 18.
As for paragraphs [00141]-[00149] of applicant’s specification, all four digit numerals beginning with ‘18’ such as 1810, 1820, 1830, … should begin with -19-. Please see FIG. 19.
As for paragraph [00149] of applicant’s specification, on line 2 ‘LAN 1271’ should read -LAN 1971- and on line 6 ‘FIG. 18’ should read -FIG. 19-.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Drawings
3. 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 image capturing device configured to capture a near dark field image of the surface of 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.
4. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 350 of FIG. 3A; 2000 of FIG. 9A-1; 1024 of FIG. 11; 212, 214, and 216 of FIG. 13; and 1900 of FIG. 19. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
5. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 1250 of FIG. 13. 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. 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.
6. The drawings are objected to because in FIG. 3B, ‘504’ should read -304-; in FIG. 6F, ‘686’ should read -676-, ‘684’ should read -674-, and ‘688’ should read -678-; in FIG. 13, ‘200’ should read -1200- and ‘210’ should read -1210-; in FIG. 15, ‘Other 1554’ should read -Other 1454-; in FIG. 16, ‘Surface Inspecvtion System (1510)’ should read -Surface Inspection System (1510)- and ‘152’ should read -1522-; in FIG. 18, ‘1800’ should read -1801-, and in FIG. 19, just above 1956 ‘1945’ should read -1955-. 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
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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: image capturing device in claims 13, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, and 23 and movement mechanism in claims 13, 16, and 22.
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
10. 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.
11. Claims 1-21 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As for claim 1 and ‘the image data is captured in a near dark field mode (lines 7-8),’ there does not appear to be any description of what constitutes a ‘near dark field mode.’ As well there does not appear any description of how to perform or accomplish a ‘near dark field mode.’ Applicant’s disclosure appears to only describe a ‘dark field mode.’ See FIGS. 2A-2C, 3A and 3B; wherein, a dark field configuration occurs when an image capturing device forms a right angle with a surface to be imaged and the light source (paragraph 0041). There does not appear to be any description of what would constitute a ‘different configuration’ for a near dark field mode of imaging from a dark field configuration. See paragraph 0036.
Claims 2-8 are rejected by virtue of their dependency from claim 1.
As for claim 9 and ‘the image data is captured in a near dark field mode (lines 9-10),’ there does not appear to be any description of what constitutes a ‘near dark field mode.’ As well there does not appear any description of how to perform or accomplish a ‘near dark field mode.’ Applicant’s disclosure appears to only describe a ‘dark field mode.’ See FIGS. 2A-2C, 3A and 3B; wherein, a dark field configuration occurs when an image capturing device forms a right angle with a surface to be imaged and the light source (paragraph 0041). There does not appear to be any description of what would constitute a ‘different configuration’ for a near dark field mode of imaging from a dark field configuration. See paragraph 0036.
Claims 10-12 are rejected by virtue of their dependency from claim 9.
As for claim 13 and ‘an image capturing device configured to capture a near dark field or dark field image of the surface (lines 5-6),’ there does not appear to be any description of what constitutes a near dark field image. As well there does not appear any description of how to perform or accomplish the capture of a near dark field image. Applicant’s disclosure appears to only describe a ‘dark field mode’ which would appear to be used to capture a dark field image. See FIGS. 2A-2C, 3A and 3B; wherein, a dark field configuration occurs when an image capturing device forms a right angle with a surface to be imaged and the light source (paragraph 0041). There does not appear to be any description of what would constitute a ‘different configuration’ for a near dark field mode of imaging for capturing a near dark field image from a dark field configuration. See paragraph 0036.
Claims 14-21 are rejected by virtue of their dependency from claim 13.
As for claim 34 and ‘the imaging system is in a near dark field configuration’ there does not appear to be any description of what constitutes a ‘near dark field configuration.’ As well there does not appear any description of how to perform or accomplish a ‘near dark field configuration.’ Applicant’s disclosure appears to only describe a ‘dark field configuration.’ See FIGS. 2A-2C, 3A and 3B; wherein, a dark field configuration occurs when an image capturing device forms a right angle with a surface to be imaged and the light source (paragraph 0041). There does not appear to be any description of what would constitute a ‘different configuration’ for a near dark field configuration from a dark field configuration. See paragraph 0036.
12. 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.
13. Claims 1-25 and 34 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.
The term “proximate” in claims 1 and 9 (see line 3 of claim 1 and line 5 of claim 9)is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “proximate” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. ‘Proximate’ renders the location of the imaging system relative to the surface indefinite.
The term “near (of ‘near dark field mode’)” in claims 1, 3, 4, and 9 (see lines 7-8 of claim 1, line 2 of claim 3, line 5 of claim 4, and lines 9-10 of claim 9) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “near” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. ‘Near’ renders the degree of similarity or the degree of difference of the mode relative to a dark field mode indefinite.
Claims 2-8 and 10-12 are rejected by virtue of their dependency from claims 1 and 9.
The term “near (of ‘near dark field or dark field image’)” in claim 13 (see lines 5-6 of claim 13) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “near” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. ‘Near’ renders the degree of similarity or the degree of difference of the image relative to a dark field image indefinite.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the curved surface" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 14-21 are rejected by virtue of their dependency from claim 13.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the motive robotic arm" in line 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 23-25 are rejected by virtue of their dependency from claim 22.
The term “near (of ‘near dark field configuration’)” in claim 34 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “near” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. ‘Near’ renders the degree of similarity or the degree of difference of the configuration relative to a dark field configuration indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
14. 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
15. Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Raspone et al. (WO 2021/176389 A1).
As for claim 1, Raspone in a scanning head for the detection of defects on surfaces and detection station with said head discloses/suggests the following: a method of evaluating a surface (Figs. 1-4; abstract; page 4, lines 20-24; page 5, last paragraph to page 6, line 2; page 10, lines 9-16), the method comprising: imaging the surface, with an imaging system (page 5, last paragraph to page 6, line 10; Fig. 1: 15 with 13 and Fig. 2: 15 with 20 and 21-23; FIG. 3: 13 (20-23) and 24; Fig. 4: 20, 23, 24, 15), wherein imaging comprises: providing a camera of the imaging system proximate the surface (Figs. 2 and 4: 20 relative to 15; page 6, line 11 to page 7, line 9); causing the imaging system and the surface to move relative to each other (Fig. 1: 12 with 15 with 13 and 16 and 17; page 6, lines 11-23; page 10, line 17 to page 12, last line) such that a distance between the imaging system and the surface is substantially maintained (page 6, lines 11-23 with page 9, line 17 to page 10, line 8); and capturing image data of the surface page 6, line 11 to page 7, line 9), wherein the image data is captured in a near dark field mode or a dark field image mode (page 7, lines 10-14); and analyzing the image data and detecting a topography and/or appearance of the surface (page 5, line 16 to page 6, line 2; page 7, lines 5-10; page 10, lines 12-16; page 11, line 20 to page 12) and generating an evaluation regarding the surface based on the detected topography and/or surface appearance (page 1, lines 19-22; page 13, lines 2-3 with page 5, line 16 to page 6, line 2; page 7, lines 5-10; page 10, lines 12-16; page 11, line 20 to page 12).
As for claim 2, Raspone discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 1). In addition, Raspone discloses/suggests wherein camera comprises a line-scan array or an area-scan array (page 6, lines 11-20 with page 11, line 20 to page 12, line 9; noting: page 13, lines 16-19).
As for claim 3, Raspone discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 2). In addition, Raspone discloses/suggests the imaging system comprises a light source (Figs. 2-3: 21-23) and wherein the near-dark field mode comprises the light source and the line-scan array in a first configuration with respect to the surface, and the dark field mode comprises the light source and the line-scan array in a second configuration (Fig. 2: 23 or 22 relative to 20 and 21 relative to 20 are two modes performed simultaneously; page 7, line 10 to page 8, last line; noting: page 13, lines 16-19).
As for claim 4, Raspone discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 1). In addition, Raspone discloses/suggests causing the imaging system and the surface to move relative to each other a second time; and capturing second image data of the surface, wherein the second image data is captured in the near dark field mode or the dark field image mode such that the second image data is captured in a different mode than the image data (page 11, line 20 to page 12, line 16: noting low resolution mode vs a high resolution mode; noting: page 13, lines 16-19 which demonstrate a plurality of modes appear to be possible by having a plurality of cameras and illuminators as well as longer and/or shorter recording segments).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
16. 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.
17. Claims 5, 6, 9-15, and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raspone et al. (WO 2021/176389 A1).
As for claim 5, Raspone discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 1). Raspone is silent concerning comparing the detected topography to an expected topography. Nevertheless, Raspone teaches that defects present on painted surfaces such as complex surfaces as a motor vehicle body often have a three-dimensional character (page 1, lines 4-17) and teaches to use a stereoscopic camera so as to supply three-dimensional images for processing and classifying the defects to allow easier classification of defects which involve variations in height of the surface for a clearer distinction between raised blisters and recesses in the painted surface (page 7, lines 5-9). And the examiner takes official notice that it is well known in the art of defect inspection to compare data collected such as an image collected by the inspection device with reference data such as a defect-free image of the object being inspected in order to determine if there are actual defects on the surface being inspected for identification and classification. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention compare the detected topography to an expected topography to determine if there are defects present on the inspected painted surface of varying height such as raised blisters and recesses in the painted surface by comparing the inspected painted surface to a defect free painted surface.
As for claim 6, Raspone discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 5). In addition, Raspone suggests that the comparing comprises detecting a change in height of the topography (see claim 5 above: ‘compare the detected topography to an expected topography to determine if there are defects present on the inspected painted surface of varying height such as raised blisters and recesses in the painted surface by comparing the inspected painted surface to a defect free painted surface.’)
As for claim 9, Raspone in a scanning head for the detection of defects on surfaces and detection station with said head discloses/suggests the following a method of dispensing adhesive (which includes evaluation of the surface having had adhesive dispensed on it by treating paint as an adhesive)(page 1, lines 4-8; page 4, lines 20-24 with Figs. 1-4; abstract; page 4, lines 20-24; page 5, last paragraph to page 6, line 2; page 10, lines 9-16), the method comprising: dispensing an adhesive onto a surface (page 1, lines 4-8; page 4, lines 20-24: treating a painted surface as necessarily having had an adhesive dispensed onto it, paint); imaging the surface, with an imaging system (page 5, last paragraph to page 6, line 10; Fig. 1: 15 with 13 and Fig. 2: 15 with 20 and 21-23; FIG. 3: 13 (20-23) and 24; Fig. 4: 20, 23, 24, 15), wherein imaging comprises: providing a camera of the imaging system proximate the surface (Figs. 2 and 4: 20 relative to 15; page 6, line 11 to page 7, line 9); causing the imaging system and the surface to move relative to each other (Fig. 1: 12 with 15 with 13 and 16 and 17; page 6, lines 11-23; page 10, line 17 to page 12, last line) such that a distance between the imaging system and the surface is substantially maintained (page 6, lines 11-23 with page 9, line 17 to page 10, line 8); and capturing image data of the surface page 6, line 11 to page 7, line 9), wherein the image data is captured in a near dark field mode or a dark field image mode (page 7, lines 10-14); and analyzing the image data and detecting a topography and/or appearance of the surface (page 5, line 16 to page 6, line 2; page 7, lines 5-10; page 10, lines 12-16; page 11, line 20 to page 12) and generating an evaluation regarding the surface based on the detected topography and/or surface appearance (page 1, lines 19-22; page 13, lines 2-3 with page 5, line 16 to page 6, line 2; page 7, lines 5-10; page 10, lines 12-16; page 11, line 20 to page 12).
As for the adhesive is dispensed at a speed and temperature, Raspone is silent. Nevertheless, as stated above Raspone refers to a painted surface (page 1, lines 4-8; page 4, lines 20-24). The examiner takes official notice that it is well known in painting surfaces such as in spray painting surfaces the application of the paint would necessarily be at ambient temperature, room temperature, and that the time that it takes to paint the entire surface would necessarily depend on the rate of painting the surface thereby the rate of application of the paint to the surface. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the adhesive is dispensed at a speed and temperature for the painted surface would most likely had been painted at room temperature and the time it took to paint the whole surface would have depended on the rate or speed at which the paint was applied to the surface.
As for claim 10, Raspone discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 9). In addition, Raspone discloses/suggests the topography is indicative of the dispensed adhesive (page 4, lines 20-24).
As for claim 11, Raspone discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 10). In addition, Raspone discloses/suggests generating a quality indication of the dispensed adhesive, wherein the quality indication comprises an indication of a gap in dispensed adhesive or an indication of too much dispensed adhesive (page 4, lines 20-24; page 10, lines 12-16).
As for claim 12, Raspone discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 11). As for
adjusting the speed based on the quality indication, Raspone does not explicitly state this. However, he mentions that removal of the defects is rapid, precise, and efficient by having localization and classification of defects (page 13, lines 2-3) and as stated above blisters, areas which are not uniformly painted or having missing paint may be distinguished and classified (page 10, lines 12-16). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the speed based on the quality indication in order to potentially slow the painting when trying to repair areas of missing paint or areas that are not uniformly painted.
As for claim 13, Raspone in a scanning head for the detection of defects on surfaces and detection station with said head discloses/suggests a surface evaluation system (Figs. 1-4) comprising: an image capturing system that captures an image of a surface (Figs. 1-4: 13, wherein the image capturing system comprises: a light source (Figs. 2-3: 21-23); an image capturing device configured to capture a near dark field or dark field image of the surface (Figs. 2-4: 20 with page 7, lines 10-14); and a movement mechanism configured to move the image capturing device with respect to the curved surface, wherein the movement mechanism maintains a substantially fixed distance between the image capturing system and the surface while the image capturing device moves with respect to the surface (Fig. 1: 12 with 15 with 13 and 16 and 17; page 6, lines 11-23 with page 9, line 17 to page 10, line 8; page 10, line 17 to page 12, last line); a surface evaluator that receives the captured image and, based on the captured image, generates a surface quality indication (page 1, lines 19-22; page 13, lines 2-3 with page 5, line 16 to page 6, line 2; page 7, lines 5-10; page 10, lines 12-16; page 11, line 20 to page 12).
As for a process parameter adjuster that adjusts a process parameter based on the surface quality indication, Raspone does not explicitly state this. However, Raspone mentions that removal of the defects is rapid, precise, and efficient by having localization and classification of defects (page 13, lines 2-3) and as stated above blisters, areas which are not uniformly painted or having missing paint may be distinguished and classified (page 10, lines 12-16). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a process parameter adjuster that adjusts a process parameter based on the surface quality indication to adjust paint application or other repair parameter to correct a defect such as a blister in order to repair areas of missing paint, areas that are not uniformly painted, or areas with blisters.
As for claim 14, Raspone discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 13). In addition, Raspone discloses/suggests wherein the surface quality indication indicates an air bubble, and wherein the process parameter is a location of the air bubble; and a repair command generator that generates a repair command comprising the location of the air bubble (see claim 13 above: ‘Raspone mentions that removal of the defects is rapid, precise, and efficient by having localization and classification of defects (page 13, lines 2-3) and as stated above blisters, areas which are not uniformly painted or having missing paint may be distinguished and classified (page 10, lines 12-16). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a process parameter adjuster that adjusts a process parameter based on the surface quality indication to adjust paint application or other repair parameter to correct a defect such as a blister in order to repair areas of missing paint, areas that are not uniformly painted, or areas with blisters.)
As for claim 15, Raspone discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 13). In addition, Raspone discloses/suggests wherein the surface quality indication indicates an amount of material added or removed from the surface, and wherein the process parameter is a location of too much or too little material (see claim 13 above: Raspone mentions that removal of the defects is rapid, precise, and efficient by having localization and classification of defects (page 13, lines 2-3) and as stated above blisters, areas which are not uniformly painted or having missing paint may be distinguished and classified (page 10, lines 12-16). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a process parameter adjuster that adjusts a process parameter based on the surface quality indication to adjust paint application or other repair parameter to correct a defect such as a blister in order to repair areas of missing paint, areas that are not uniformly painted, or areas with blisters.)
As for claim 18, Raspone discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 13). In addition, Raspone discloses/suggests the image capturing device is a line-scan array or a 3D camera (page 6, lines 11-20; page 7: lines 5-9; noting: page 13, lines 16-19).
As for claim 19, Raspone discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 13). In addition, Raspone suggests that there is a lens between the image capturing device and the light source (Figs. 2-4: 20 a camera would necessarily have a lens in front of the light sensors; page 6, lines 11-20).
As for claim 20, Raspone discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 13). In addition, Raspone suggests a knife edge between the image capturing device and the light source (page 7: lines 10-15: ‘excluding the area not examined by the sensor’ suggests the presence of a knife edge; page 8: lines 1-5: refer to a ‘blade’ of light).
As for claim 21, Raspone discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 13). In addition, Raspone discloses/suggests wherein the surface is a curved surface (page 1: lines 13-16) and Raspone suggests wherein maintaining the distance comprises adjusting a position of the imaging system to follow a curvature of the curved surface (page 6, lines 11-23 with page 9, line 17 to page 10, line 8)
18. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raspone et al. (WO 2021/176389 A1) in view of Imanishi et al. (JP H0979988 A)-using machine translation.
As for claim 7, Raspone discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 1). As for the imaging system comprises: a distance sensor that travels ahead of the camera and detects a distance between the distance sensor and the surface, Raspone is silent. Nevertheless, Imanishi in a surface defect inspecting device teaches having an imaging system comprising a distance sensor that travels ahead of the camera and detects a distance between the distance sensor and the surface to obtain curvature of surface and determines the direction of the curved surface in order to control the lighting position for inspection based on the curvature (Fig. 10: 1, 2, 15 with 3; page 7: fourth paragraph beginning ‘In the present embodiment, as shown in FIG. 10…’). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the imaging system comprise: a distance sensor that travels ahead of the camera and detects a distance between the distance sensor and the surface in order to control the illumination position when inspecting a curved surface by adjusting the illumination position to optimize the illumination for inspection based on the inspected surface’s curvature.
Double Patenting
19. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
19. Claims 22-25 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 19-24 of copending Application No. 18/856,804. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 19-24 of ‘804 appear to anticipate claims 22-25.
The claims of ‘830 are unpatentable over the claims of ‘804 as such:
Claims of ‘830
Claims of ‘804
22
19-24
23
20
24
22
25
23-24
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Allowable Subject Matter
20. Claims 26-33, 35, and 36 are allowed.
Claims 8, 16, 17, and 34 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and if the rejection(s) under 35 USC 112(a) are overcome and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
21. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: please refer to the attached PTO-892.
22. Several facts have been relied upon from the personal knowledge of the examiner about which the examiner took Official Notice. Applicant must seasonably challenge well known statements and statements based on personal knowledge when they are made by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. In re Selmi, 156 F.2d 96, 70 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1946); In re Fischer, 125 F.2d 725, 52 USPQ 473 (CCPA 1942). See also In re Boon, 439 F.2d 724, 169 USPQ 231 (CCPA 1971) (a challenge to the taking of judicial notice must contain adequate information or argument to create on its face a reasonable doubt regarding the circumstances justifying the judicial notice). If applicant does not seasonably traverse the well-known statement during examination, then the object of the well known statement is taken to be admitted prior art. In re Chevenard, 139 F.2d 71, 60 USPQ 239 (CCPA 1943). A seasonable challenge constitutes a demand for evidence made as soon as practicable during prosecution. Thus, applicant is charged with rebutting the well-known statement in the next reply after the Office action in which the well known statement was made.
Fax/Telephone Numbers
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Gordon J. Stock, Jr. whose telephone number is (571) 272-2431.
The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 10:00 a.m. - 6:30 p.m.
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.
/GORDON J STOCK JR/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights