DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-11, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takashi et al. (JP 6778754 B2, where the examiner has provided a machine translation hereinwith for citations) in view of Pryor (U.S. Patent No. 6,161,055, Pryor1 hereinafter for citations) in view of Pyror (U.S. Patent No. 5,871,391, Pryor2 hereinafter for citations).
As to claims 1 and 10, Takashi discloses and shows in figures 1, 2, 5 and 7, a device (32) for inspecting cylindrical containers (10), comprising
a transport device (34) [90, 92 and 96] for transporting the containers (10) [10] in a transport direction (16) [i.e. the path shown by arrows in figure 7] ([0073]),
at least one rotation device [30] (36) for rotating the containers (10) [shown as arrow R in figure 2] and/or a liquid (18) accommodated in the containers (10) about a longitudinal axis (20) [i.e. along axis 12] of the respective container (10) in a direction of rotation (22) ([0064]),
an area scan camera (12) [40] having a coverage (14), wherein the area scan camera (12) and/or the transport device (34) are configured and arranged such that the containers pass through the coverage (14) of the area scan camera (12) [shown explicitly in figures 1, 2 and 7], wherein the device (32) is configured to capture at least one sequence of pixel rows (26) [the examiner notes that “pixel rows” under the broadest reasonable interpretation merely mean a row of pixels that can be any varying amount wide or tall, as long as the pixel row rectangular (I.e. a row)] by the area scan camera (12) [i.e. rows 60 or 62 shown in figure 5, of which many sequences are shown], wherein the pixel rows (26) are aligned with a specified area of a container (10) or a specified area of a container (10) from different rotational positions of the container (10) [explicitly shown in figure 4, with areas 60 and 62], wherein the device (32) further is configured to assemble the captured sequence of pixel rows (26) to form a row image (28) [shown in figure 5], wherein the pixel rows are captured in temporal and spatial succession [inherently as they are taken as the container rotates] ([0049]-[0050]; [0052]; where the examiner notes that almost the entirety of the noted limitation is non-limiting in the apparatus claim as it is merely an intended use of an area scan camera, the way in which is assembles and processes images is a function of a computing structure, not a camera, as such the prior art only need be capable of any computing based function as claimed in the limitation above).
Takashi does not explicitly disclose where each pixel row is one-dimensional.
However, Pryor1 does disclose in (col. 7, ll. 46-62) that linear arrays (i.e. one-dimensional detectors) are well-known in the art and that they provide a multitude of advantages such rapid readings of a sample under test while having the capability of use at large ranges. As such obviously if Takashi can improve measurement times in using a common linear array to allow more rapid analysis of a plurality of cylindrical sample containers under test. Further as evidenced by Pryor2 in (col. 6, ll. 33-36; col. 22, ll. 19-46) linear arrays for scanning samples under tests are again known and measure shape and length of a tool/object in a rapid manner. Further the example of a RL 1728 H in Pyror2 is explicitly a “one-dimensional” detector as known in the art.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Takashi where each pixel row is one-dimensional in order to provide the advantage of increased efficiency and versatility in using common linear detector (one-dimensional detector) one can obviously perform measurements at greater ranges and in a more rapid manner.
As to claim 2, Takashi does not explicitly disclose a method, wherein at least two sequences of pixel rows (26) are captured at least partially simultaneously by the area scan camera (12), wherein the pixel rows (26) of each sequence are aligned with a specified area of another container (10) or with a specified area of another container (10) from different rotational positions of the respective container (10).
However, Takashi does disclose and show in figures 4 and 7 and in ([0028]; [0032]) does disclose and show two imaging areas 60 and 62. Further although not explicitly labeled in figure 7, there is shown two detectors 42. Obviously each of these could be pointed at varying containers 10, and thus produced a sequence of aligned images of “another container” in addition to the container in a simultaneous manner.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Takashi does not explicitly disclose a method, wherein at least two sequences of pixel rows (26) are captured at least partially simultaneously by the area scan camera (12), wherein the pixel rows (26) of each sequence are aligned with a specified area of another container (10) or with a specified area of another container (10) from different rotational positions of the respective container (10) in order to provide the advantage of increased efficiency, by using two cameras set to simultaneously image multiple containers under test obviously one can move the containers more rapidly through the inspection system.
As to claim 3, Takashi discloses a method, wherein the specified area of a container (10) to which the pixel rows (26) of a sequence are aligned is a longitudinal axis (20) of the container (10) [alignment is explicitly shown in figure 5] ([0058])
As to claim 4, Takashi discloses a method, wherein at least one row image (28) is created from a captured sequence of pixel rows (26) (Fig. 5, image 100 or 102) ([0058]).
As to claim 5, Takashi discloses a method, wherein the method further comprises: aligning the area scan camera (12), the coverage (14) and/or the transported containers (10) to maximize a time that the containers (10) remain in the coverage (14) of the area scan camera (12) during transport through the coverage (14) [where the examiner is interpreting “maximum” as 6.6 degrees with 65 shots which is 429 degrees total, or more than one revolution and the corresponding time to meet the limitation until which point applicant puts a more clear limitation on “maximize a time”, further since the prior art has performed the same step aligning, the prior art is being interpreted as achieving the result of “maximize a time”] ([0052]).
As to claim 7, Takashi discloses a method, wherein the method further comprises : generating a trigger signal [i.e. timing which as disclosed is a function or rotation position and the control unit 50] dependent on movement of the containers (10), wherein the trigger signal is used to synchronize a sequence of pixel rows (26) with a moving container (10) ([0052]).
As to claim 8, Takashi discloses a method, wherein the capturing of at least one pixel row (26) is carried out by fading in the pixels of the area scan camera (12) that contribute to the pixel row (26) and fading out the pixels of the area scan camera (12) that do not contribute to the pixel row (26) ([0052]; [0079]; where the examiner notes that the “fading in/out” is an inherent result of light moving across the detector during scanning of the mirror 44, and rotation of the container 10).
As to claim 9, Takashi discloses a method, wherein the fading in and/or fading out of the pixels of the area scan camera (12) for generating at least one pixel row (26) is synchronized by a trigger signal with movement of the corresponding container (10) (([0052]; [0079]; where the examiner notes that the “fading in/out” is an inherent result of light moving across the detector during scanning of the mirror 44, and rotation of the container 10, as disclosed this is synchronized to the trigger signal so that the aligned images shown in figure 5 can be generated).
As to claim 11, Takashi disclose a device (32), wherein the area scan camera (12) is arranged immovably in the device (32) ([0026], ll. 4-6, as disclosed the imaging device is fixed).
As to claim 15, Takashi discloses a method according to claim 7, wherein the trigger signal is dependent on a position of the containers (10) ([0052], i.e. whether the container has rotated 6.6 degrees or not).
As to claim 16, Takashi discloses a method, wherein the trigger signal is used to synchronize a sequence of pixel rows (26) with a moving container (10) temporally and spatially ([0052], i.e. to align temporally and spatially the images as shown in figure 5).
Claim(s) 6, 12, 14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takashi et al in view of Pryor (U.S. Patent No. 6,161,055, Pryor1 hereinafter for citations) in view of Pyror (U.S. Patent No. 5,871,391u, Pryor2 hereinafter for citations) further in view of Milne et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2014/0177932 A1).
As to claims 6, 12, 14 and 17, Takashi in view of Pryor1 further in view of Pryor2 does not explicitly disclose a method, wherein the method further comprises: providing an optical lens system to avoid image distortions when capturing the sequence of pixel rows (26) by the area scan camera or wherein the optical lens system includes at least one telecentric, one bi-telecentric and/or one endocentric lens (30).
However, Milne does disclose and show in figure 4 and in ([0148]) the basic concept of using a telecentric lens (1140 in combination with container (10) inspection. Specifically that doing so allows one to image at varying distances from the imager, so that particles in the front or back of the container can both be imaged, further it reduces detection of ambient light.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Takashi in view of Pryor1 further in view of Pryor2 does not explicitly disclose a method, wherein the method further comprises: providing an optical lens system to avoid image distortions when capturing the sequence of pixel rows (26) by the area scan camera or wherein the optical lens system includes at least one telecentric, one bi-telecentric and/or one endocentric lens (30) in order to provide the advantage of increased versatility and expected results in using a common lens type one can image the container now containing a fluid to ensure it also is defect free at varying depths while reducing the amount of ambient light detected improving the signal to noise ratio.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-12 and 14-17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Prior art made of record
Graff et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2006/0092410 A1) discloses in ([0012]) explicitly that it is known to use either 2D or 1D sensors for measuring containers.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL P LAPAGE whose telephone number is (571)270-3833. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5:30.
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, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached at 571-272-2287. 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.
/Michael P LaPage/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights