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 .
The Applicant’s Remarks filed 10/30/2025 have been received and considered.
The IDS’s filed 08 November 2024 and 30 March 2025 have been received and considered.
The Preliminary Amendment filed 08 November 2024 has been received and considered.
Claims 1 – 23 are pending.
Claims 1 – 23, all of the claims pending in this application, have been rejected.
Double Patenting
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.
Claims 1 – 23 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of copending Application No. 18/864,217 (reference application). In particular, claim 1 corresponds to claims 1, 3 and 5 and claim 15 corresponds to claims 11, 13, and 17 of copending application 18/864,217 as shown below in table form. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following reasons.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Listed in the following table is a limitation-to-limitation comparison of present claims 1 and 15.
Application being examined 18/864,223 (hereafter ‘223 application)
Conflicting Copending Application 18/864,217 (hereafter ‘217 application)
Claim 1:
1. A method for dynamic testing of a machine vision system, the machine vision system including a tunnel system having a conveyor and at least one imaging device, the method comprising: receiving a set of testing parameters and a selection of a tunnel system;
(See claim 3 and 5 of ‘217 application)
validating the testing parameters;
controlling the at least one imaging device to acquire a set of image data of a testing target positioned at a predetermined justification on the conveyor, wherein the testing target includes a plurality of target symbols
determining a test result by analyzing the set of image data to determine if the at least one imaging device reads a target symbol associated with the at least one imaging device; and
generating a report including the test result.
Claim 1:
1. A method for three-dimensional (3D) field calibration of a machine vision system comprising: receiving a set of calibration parameters and an identification of at least one imaging device of the machine vision system;
validating the set of calibration parameters and the camera acquisition parameter;
controlling the at least one imaging device to collect image data of a calibration target, wherein the image data is collected using the determined camera acquisition parameter;
determining a camera acquisition parameter for calibration based on the set of calibration parameters;
generating a report including the set of calibration data for the at least one imaging device and an indication of whether the maximum error for the at least one imaging device is within an acceptable tolerance.
Claim 3:
3. The method according to claim 1, wherein the machine vision system is configured as a tunnel comprising one imaging device.
Claim 5:
5. The method according to claim 1, wherein the set of calibration data includes one or more of a runtime conveyor speed, a calibration conveyor speed, a connection address associated with the at least one imaging device, a type of calibration target, or a dimension for the calibration target.
Claim 15:
15. A system for dynamic testing of a machine vision system, the machine vision system including a tunnel system having a conveyor and at least one imaging device, the system for dynamic testing comprising: an input for receiving a set of testing parameters and a selection of a tunnel system;
(See claim 13 and 17 of ‘217 application)
at least one processor device coupled to the input, the at least one processor device configured to: validate the testing parameters;
control the at least one imaging device to acquire a set of image data of a testing target positioned at a predetermined justification on the conveyor, wherein the testing target includes a plurality of target symbols;
determine a test result by analyzing the set of image data to determine if the at least one imaging device reads a target symbol associated with the at least one imaging device; and
generate a report including the test result.
Claim 11:
11. A system for three-dimensional (3D) field calibration of a machine vision system comprising: an input configured to receive a set of calibration parameters and an identification of at least one imaging device of the machine vision system;
at least one processor device coupled to the input, the at least one processor device configured to: validate the set of calibration parameters and the camera acquisition parameter;
control the at least one imaging device to collect image data of a calibration target, wherein the image data is collected using the determined camera acquisition parameter;
determine a camera acquisition parameter for calibration based on the set of calibration parameters;
generate a report including the set of calibration data for the at least one imaging device and an indication of whether the maximum error for the at least one imaging device is within an acceptable tolerance.
Claim 13:
13. The system according to claim 11, wherein the set of calibration data includes one or more of a runtime conveyor speed, a calibration conveyor speed, a connection address associated with the at least one imaging device, a type of calibration target, or a dimension for the calibration target.
Claim 17:
17. The system according to claim 11, wherein the machine vision system is configured as a tunnel comprising one imaging device.
Therefore, claims 1, 3, and 5 of the copending ‘217 application teach every limitation recited in claim 1 of the ‘223 application and claims 11, 13, and 17 of the copending ‘217 application patent teach every limitation recited in claim 15 of the ‘233 application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claims 1 – 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US Patent No. 11127130 B1 to Jain et al. (hereinafter Jain).
Claim 1
Regarding claim 1, an independent method claim, Jain teaches a method for dynamic testing of a machine vision system, the machine vision system including a tunnel system having a conveyor and at least one imaging device, the method comprising: receiving a set of testing parameters and a selection of a tunnel system ("Embodiments of the present disclosure relate to machine vision devices, sensors, systems, and methods that allow for image acquisition and processing…methods that provide interactive graphical user interfaces for interfacing with and configuring machine vision devices, sensors, and systems.", Column 1, lines 25-31; "A machine vision system enables monitoring of subject parts and workpieces, either at stationary locations or on moving lines…", Column 1, lines 44 -46; "Machine vision systems generally employ a camera with an image-acquisition sensor.", Column 1, lines 48-50; "In general, the machine vision device 150 comprises a housing including processor(s), memory, camera(s), light source(s), controller(s), etc. that may be affixed to, or positioned near, e.g., a manufacturing line.", Column 9, lines 48-51; "The optional additional device(s) 180 may comprise various components of a manufacturing line or process, e.g., tower lights, conveyor belts, rejection systems, sensors, and/or the like. The machine vision device(s) 150 may communicate with the additional device(s) 180 to receive information from the additional device(s) 180, and/or to provide outputs/controls to the additional device(s) 180.", Column 10, lines 50-56; "In particular, various embodiments rely on detection of user inputs via graphical user interfaces, operation and configuration of machine vision devices, calculation of updates to displayed electronic data based on user inputs, automatic processing of image data, and presentation of updates to displayed images and analyses via interactive graphical user interfaces.", Column 4, lines 64 - 67 - Column 5, lines 1 - 3; " The configuration provides information to the controller module 320 regarding image filtering and processing/analysis, and may further provide other information regarding image acquisition, local and remote storage of image and analysis data, and/or the like. Configurations may be received from, e.g., the management server 140, human machine interface device(s) 170, and the user device(s) 120.", Column 25, lines 49-55);
With particular regard to the “tunnel system”, in [0024] the tunnel system appears to be defined as “As used herein, "machine vision tunnel" (or simply "tunnel" or "tunnel system") may refer to a system that includes and supports one or more imaging devices to acquire image data relative to a common scene. In some embodiments, the common scene can include a relatively small area such as, for example, a tabletop or a discrete section of a conveyor.” This corresponds to Jain’s [Col. 9 lines 37+] “In general, the machine vision device 150 comprises a housing including processor(s), memory, camera(s), light source(s), controller(s), etc. that may be affixed to, or positioned near, e.g., a manufacturing line. The machine vision device 150 captures images of items/articles of a manufacturing process, and analyzes the images based on a configuration of the machine vision device 150.”
validating the testing parameters (Figure 8, #814; "At block 814, the management server 140 optionally runs the configuration (including the camera adjustments, master image selection and associated fixture and inspection steps, etc.) on further images obtained by the machine vision device 150, and provide inspection results for review by the user (e.g., to enable the user to immediately and rapidly see the effectiveness of the configuration)", Column 27, lines 12-19);
controlling the at least one imaging device to acquire a set of image data of a testing target positioned at a predetermined justification on the conveyor, wherein the testing target includes a plurality of target symbols ("For example, machine vision can be employed to decode symbology, such as barcodes and two-dimensional data matrices (e.g., QR codes, etc.)", Column 1, lines 53-55; "The machine vision device 150 captures images of items/articles of a manufacturing process, and analyzes the images based on a configuration of the machine vision device 150.", Column 9, lines 51-54);
determining a test result by analyzing the set of image data to determine if the at least one imaging device reads a target symbol associated with the at least one imaging device ("For example, machine vision can be employed to decode symbology, such as barcodes and two-dimensional data matrices (e.g., QR codes, etc.)", Column 1, lines 53-55; "Processing/analyzing may include, for example, feature detection and matching, optical character/feature recognition (“OCR”) (e.g., for detection of words, dates/expiration dates, etc.), detection/decoding of symbology features (such as barcodes, two-dimensional data matrices, Universal Product Codes, International Article Numbers, European Article Numbers, Interleaved-Two-of-Five (ITF), Code 32 Italian Pharmacode, Code 39, Code 93, Code 128, Code 25, Code 11, DotCode, MSI Plessey, GS1 Databar, QR Code, Micro QR Code, Data Matrix, PDF417, MicroPDF417, Codabar, Aztec Code, MaxiCode, GS1 Composite Codes, KIX, RM4SCC, etc.), blob detection, fixture detection, shape detection, edge detection, contour detection, measurement tools (e.g., distance, angle, etc.) and/or the like. Processing/analyzing may further include decision making, e.g., based on information obtained from the images.", Column 22, lines 1-17); and
generating a report including the test result ("…for providing further analyses, insights, alerts, summaries, etc. to users via interactive graphical user interfaces.", Column 3, lines 39-40).
Claim 2
Regarding Claim 2, dependent on claim 1, Jain teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1.
Jain further teaches displaying the test result using a display ("…for providing further analyses, insights, alerts, summaries, etc. to users via interactive graphical user interfaces.", Column 3, lines 39-40).
Claim 3
Regarding Claim 3, dependent on claim 1, Jain teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1.
Jain further teaches wherein the set of image data of the testing target includes image data of the testing target positioned at the predetermined justification corresponding to a right side of the conveyor ("As mentioned above, according to various embodiments, the present disclosure includes one or more machine vision devices that include at least an image sensor for acquiring image data, e.g., associated with a manufacturing line or process. The image data may be processed or analyzed by the machine vision device, based on a configuration of the machine vision device, e.g., to detect features, defects, characteristics, position, etc. associated with articles in the manufacturing line or process.", Column 6, lines 61-67 - Column 7, lines 1-2), wherein the position would be anywhere on a conveyor belt/manufacturing line.
Claim 4
Regarding Claim 4, dependent on claim 1, Jain teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1.
Jain further teaches wherein the set of image data of the testing target includes image data of the testing target positioned at the predetermined justification corresponding to a left side of the conveyor (Rejected as applied to claim 3).
Claim 5
Regarding Claim 5, dependent on claim 1, Jain teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1.
Jain further teaches wherein the testing parameters include one or more of a height of the testing target or a test type indicating a size of the plurality of target symbols of the testing target (Rejected as applied to claim 3), wherein it is inherent that height and size are considered "features/characteristics".
Claim 6
Regarding Claim 6, dependent on claim 5, Jain teaches the invention as claimed in claim 5.
Jain further teaches wherein the height of the testing target is a pre-specified maximum height supported by the tunnel system (Rejected as applied to claim 1 and 5), wherein it is inherent that that the tunnel system would need to have dimensions that would allow for the conveying of the object and one skilled in the art would know that if the visual size of the object looks like it would not fit, then a different tunnel system would need to be configured to support the objects needing to be analyzed.
Claim 7
Regarding Claim 7, dependent on claim 1, Jain teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1.
Jain further teaches before acquiring the set of image data, storing a set of existing customer system settings for the at least one imaging device ("In operation, the configurations database 256 may store information regarding configurations of the machine vision devices 150, human machine interface devices 170, and additional devices 180.", Column 14, lines 29-32).
Claim 8
Regarding Claim 8, dependent on claim 7, Jain teaches the invention as claimed in claim 7.
Jain further teaches after storing the set of existing customer system settings for the at least one imaging device, reconfiguring the at least one imaging device based on the testing parameters ("The machine vision devices may be remotely and centrally monitored and configured via the management server, e.g., via an interactive graphical user interface accessible from a user computing device. The machine vision devices may include on-board image data processing/analysis capabilities such that they may operate autonomously based on a current configuration.", Column 3, lines 26-33; "The management server 140 may communicate with the machine vision device(s) 150 to enable remote, rapid configuration of the machine vision device(s) 150. Such configuration may be accomplished via interactive graphical user interfaces provided by the management server 140 and accessible by the user device(s) 120, for example. Via the management server 140, and/or directly by communication with the machine vision device(s) 150, user device(s) 120 may access real-time views of status, image analysis, etc. of the machine vision device(s) 150.", Column 10, lines 6-15; "At block 818, the management server 140 implements and/or duplicates the configuration. For example, the management server 140 may write the configuration to one or more machine vision devices 150 via wireless communication with the machine vision devices 150. Advantageously, the management server 140 may enable users to centrally access, copy, duplicate, modify, etc. configurations for multiple machine vision devices 150, making updating one or multiple machine vision devices 150 rapid and efficient.", Column 27, lines 27-35).
Claim 9
Regarding Claim 9, dependent on claim 8, Jain teaches the invention as claimed in claim 8.
Jain further teaches after determining the test result, restoring the at least one imaging device to the set of existing customer system settings ("The machine vision devices may be remotely and centrally monitored and configured via the management server, e.g., via an interactive graphical user interface accessible from a user computing device. The machine vision devices may include on-board image data processing/analysis capabilities such that they may operate autonomously based on a current configuration.", Column 3, lines 26-33; User Input (also referred to as “Input”): Any interaction, data, indication, etc., received by a system/device from a user, a representative of a user, an entity associated with a user, and/or any other entity. Inputs may include any interactions that are intended to be received and/or stored by the system/device; to cause the system/device to access and/or store data items; to cause the system to analyze, integrate, and/or otherwise use data items; to cause the system to update to data that is displayed; to cause the system to update a way that data is displayed; and/or the like. Non-limiting examples of user inputs include keyboard inputs, mouse inputs, digital pen inputs, voice inputs, finger touch inputs (e.g., via touch sensitive display), gesture inputs (e.g., hand movements, finger movements, arm movements, movements of any other appendage, and/or body movements), and/or the like. Additionally, user inputs to the system may include inputs via tools and/or other objects manipulated by the user. For example, the user may move an object, such as a tool, stylus, or wand, to provide inputs. Further, user inputs may include motion, position, rotation, angle, alignment, orientation, configuration (e.g., fist, hand flat, one finger extended, etc.), and/or the like. For example, user inputs may comprise a position, orientation, and/or motion of a hand or other appendage, a body, a 3D mouse, and/or the like.", Column 8, lines 46-67 - Column 9, lines 1-3).
Claim 10
Regarding Claim 10, dependent on claim 1, Jain teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1.
Jain further teaches wherein the at least one imaging device comprises a plurality of imaging devices ("As mentioned above, according to various embodiments, the present disclosure includes one or more machine vision devices that include at least an image sensor for acquiring image data, e.g., associated with a manufacturing line or process.", Column 6, lines 61-65; "The camera module 310 may include one or more cameras 312, one or more lights 314, and an optional controller and input/output interface 316.", Column 16, lines 15-18).
Claim 11
Regarding Claim 11, dependent on claim 10, Jain teaches the invention as claimed in claim 10.
Jain further teaches wherein the plurality of imaging devices are divided into a plurality of banks (Rejected as applied to claim 10), wherein one skilled in the art would know that the one or more cameras/lights would be the "banks".
Claim 12
Regarding Claim 12, dependent on claim 11, Jain teaches the invention as claimed in claim 11.
Jain further wherein determining a test result further comprises analyzing the set of image data to determine if at least one imaging device in the bank reads a target symbol associated with the bank (Rejected as applied to 9 and 10; further rejected by Column 9, lines 65-67 - Column 10, lines 1-5 "The images and analysis results may also be automatically transmitted from the machine vision device 150, e.g., to management server 140. The management server 140 may thereby receive images and analysis results from multiple machine vision devices 150, and may aggregate and perform further analyses on the images and analysis results from multiple machine vision devices 150.), wherein the analysis is received by the one or more machine vision devices, each having their own image imaging sensor/module; as already disclosed, the camera system may include one or more cameras/lights, i.e. "banks". It is inherent that the any acquired image or image analysis by one of those cameras in the bank would be associated with that respective bank.
Claim 13
Regarding Claim 13, dependent on claim 1, Jain teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1.
Jain further wherein the at least one imaging device comprises one imaging device (Rejected as applied to claim 10).
Claim 14
Regarding Claim 14, dependent on claim 1, Jain teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1.
Jain further determining if the at least one imaging device correctly received motion data based on the set of image data ("As the image data 402 may comprise a continuous stream of image data, a trigger input 406 may be used to obtain individual images from the image data 402. Trigger input 406 may be received by the controller module 320 via communications interface(s) 324 from, e.g., an opto-electric presence sensor, break beam, or other sensor (or additional device 180), that may, e.g., detect the presence or movement of items or articles on a manufacturing line. Alternatively, trigger input 406 may be provided based on a timing of a moving line (which may be signaled by, e.g., an encoder, counter, etc.), and/or other suitable source.", Column 21, lines 44 - 55).
Claim 15, an independent system claim, is rejected for the same reasons as applied to claim 1.
Claims 16 – 23 are rejected for the same reasons as applied to the above claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ronde Miller whose telephone number is (703) 756-5686 The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:00.
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 Gregory Morse can be reached on (571) 272-3838. 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.
/RONDE LEE MILLER/Examiner, Art Unit 2663
/GREGORY A MORSE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2698
Prosecution Insights