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 § 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.
Claims 1-20 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.
With respect to claims 1 and 12, the recitation of “a first camera and a second camera aligned to cooperatively examine a surface of an object” is ambiguous. It is not apparent whether the cameras: have overlapping field of view, image adjacent area, or merely capture images independently. Accordingly, the metes and bounds of the claimed alignment cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
Furthermore, the recitation of “first field of view and second field of view...encompassing distinct areas”. The term “distinct area” is indefinite since it is unclear whether ‘distinct” requires: non-overlapping areas, partially overlapping regions or merely different perspectives of the same regions. Therefore, the spatial relationship between the fields of view is ambiguous.
Also, the limitation of “when a first time stamp....matches” a second time stamp” is unclear since the term “matches” is indefinite. The claim does not specify whether matching requires: exact equality; threshold tolerance; interpolation or “clock drift compensation”. Please clarify.
As to claim 7, the limitation of “synchronized time error period” is not clearly understood since it is unclear whether it refers to : clock skew; synchronization latency, buffering delay or allowable timestamp offset.
As to claim 8, the recitation of “local communication network” renders the claim indefinite. While broad terminology is not per se indefinite., the claim relines on this network for functional synchronization without reciting structure or protocol, rendering the scope of interconnection unclear.
As to claim 10, the term “global communication network”/”global time sever” are vague since they are functions and relative in scope, failing to define the system boundaries or synchronization mechanism with reasonable certainty.
Notwithstanding the indefiniteness issues discussed above, and in order to advance prosecution, the following prior art rejection are set forth. For purposes of examination, the claim limitations have been interpreted under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) consistent with the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.
In particular, functional and relative terminology such as” cooperative examine”, “distinct areas”, “matching time stamps”, “similar time stamps”, “local communication network”, “global communication network” has been interpreted broadly to encompass any known multi-camera inspection, timestamp, synchronization, image correlation and motion analysis techniques disclosed in the prior art.
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.
Claims 1-7, 12-14, 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Astvatsaturov et al (US 2024/0292091 A1) in view of Crook et al (US. Pat. 8,711,238).
With respect to claims 1 and 12, Astvatsaturov discloses an inspection system (110) and a corresponding method comprising: an inspection controller (120);
PNG
media_image1.png
433
621
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a first camera (160a) and a second camera (160b) aligned to cooperatively examine a surface of an object (150); the first camera defining a first field of view of the object and the second camera defining a second field of view of the object with the first field of view and the second field of view encompassing distinct areas of the surface of the object (see figure 1, reproduced above); the first camera having a first clock and the second camera including a second clock, the first camera generating a plurality of first images of the object defined by the first field of view and the second camera generating a plurality of second images of the object defined by the second field of view (see paragraph [0021]). Astvatsaturov further discloses combining images to form composite inspection data (see figure 7, step 620). Thus, Astvatsaturov discloses substantially all limitations of the instant claims. Astvatsaturov does not expressly disclose synchronizing one of the plurality of first images by the first camera with one of the plurality of second images generated by the second camera using timestamps assigned by respective camera clocks, as recited in the claims. However, this feature is well known in the art. For example, Crook discloses systems (figures 1-2) and methods for synchronizing and controlling multiple images cameras and discloses synchronizing images capture using timestamps assigned by respectively camera clocks (see col.3, lines 20 thru col.4 line 11). In view of such teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Astvatsaturov and Crook to obtain the claimed invention as recited. It would have been obvious to as skilled artisan to incorporate time stamp synchronization of Crook into the inspection system of Astvatsaturov to ensure that images captured from multiple inspection cameras correspond temporally to the same inspection instance, thereby improving inspection accuracy and composite image fidelity.
As to claim 2 , Astvatsaturov teaches camera subsystem controlled by processing circuitry integrated (see paragraph [0061]) with a central inspection controller (120). Integration of camera controllers with a system controller is inherent in multi-camera inspection platforms.
As to claims 3 and 13-14, frame buffering for matching image frames is obvious in view of Astvatsaturov’s image processing pipelines and Crook’s frame transmission buffers used to coordinate synchronized capture events.
As to claims 4 and 15, Astvatsaturov teaches separate camera control modules (110) associated with each imaging device and coordinated by a system controller (120).
As to claims 5 and 16, wherein the first camera (160a) controller has a first image buffer for buffering a plurality of first images and the second camera (160b) controller has a second image buffer for buffering a plurality of second images (it is noted that image buffering for plural images is inherent in digital imaging systems (160a, 160b) and explicitly supported by frame storage and transfer operations).
As to claim 6, generation of composite views from multiple synchronized images is taught by Astvatsaturov combined output analysis and further enabled by synchronized frame pairing in Crook.
As to claim 17, master camera searching slave camera buffers for matching timestamps is directly analogous to master/slave synchronization and frame matching disclosed in Crook (see abstract).
As to claims 7 and 18-19, Crook discloses tracking movement of objects and associating time-encoded data with sequential images to determine changes (see col.3, lines 20-56). Therefore, velocity vector determination is obvious. It would have been obvious to calculate velocity vector from such temporally correlated inspection images.
As to claim 20, in view of teachings of Astvatsaturov and Crook, predicting next object location from velocity vector constitute routine motion extrapolation well known in image tracking system of Crook and would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and yielding the predictable result of improved composite inspection accuracy.
Claims 8-11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Astvatsaturov et al (US 2024/0292091 A1) in view of Crook et al (US. Pat. 8,711,238) and further in view of Chenoy et al (U.S.Pat. 9,984,354).
With respect to claims 8-11 and 15, Astvatsaturov as modified by Crook, discloses an inspection system and a corresponding method comprising substantially all limitations of the instant claims as demonstrated above except for the first camera and the second camera being electronically interconnected via a local communication network, as well as the local communication network being interconnected to a global time server via a global communication network, as recited in the instant claims. Chenoy discloses a camera time synchronization system (100) and teaches cameras (120, 124) interconnected through system communication networks enabling transfer of image data and timing information and network interfaces (202) and communication modules supporting synchronized imaging operations. For example, the system architecture includes servers (204), network interfaces and camera synchronization modules coordination data (see figure 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the multi-camera inspection system of Astvatsaturov, as modified by Crook with the networked time synchronization architectures of Chinoy in order to achieve temporally coordinate multi-view inspection imaging and improving the quality of the inspection system/method.
Prior Art Made of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bellis et al (U.S.Pat. 8,976,367 B2) discloses an inspection system and has been cited for technical background.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNG HENRY NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2124. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00AM-4:30PM.
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, Toan Minh Ton can be reached at 571-272-2303. 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.
HUNG HENRY NGUYEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2882
Hvn
2/16/26
/HUNG V NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882