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
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2 and 4-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cote (US 20210063274 A1) in view of Wigger (EP 3840289 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Cote teaches a visual inspection system comprising: a memory configured to store machine executable instructions (“Much of the software application that is used to implement the herein-described methods resides on and runs on a computer system, which in one embodiment, is a personal computer, workstation, or server. FIG. 13 is a block diagram of a computer system 800 which may embody, e.g., the server 114 used in to implement the server-based system of FIG. 1. In terms of hardware architecture, the computer system 800 generally includes a processor 802, input/output (I/O) interfaces 804, a network interface 806, a data store 808, and memory 810.” Paragraph 0139); and a processor in communication with the memory (“Much of the software application that is used to implement the herein-described methods resides on and runs on a computer system, which in one embodiment, is a personal computer, workstation, or server. FIG. 13 is a block diagram of a computer system 800 which may embody, e.g., the server 114 used in to implement the server-based system of FIG. 1. In terms of hardware architecture, the computer system 800 generally includes a processor 802, input/output (I/O) interfaces 804, a network interface 806, a data store 808, and memory 810.” Paragraph 0139),
the processor configured to execute the machine executable instructions to cause the processor to: receive a captured image of a connector, the connector included in a fiber component (see figure 4 element 402 and “FIG. 4 illustrates a method for determining if inspection images of optical-fiber connector endfaces are acquired on a same optical-fiber connector” paragraph 0088); compute a signature of the captured image to produce an identifier for the fiber component (see figure 404); access a stored identifier (see figure 4 element 404 and “The signature can be stored to help detection of inadvertent or fraudulent duplicate or repetitive measurements made on a same optical-fiber connector.” Paragraph 0010); compare the identifier with the stored identifier to determine whether there is a match between the identifier and the stored identifier (see figure 4 element 408); and approve an assignment of an identification reference to the fiber component when the identifier and the stored identifier are determined to match (see figure 4 element 410).
Cote does not explicitly teach receiving a captured image of a connector at a field-side location, computing a hash function on the captured image to produce a field-side identifier for the fiber component and a production-side identifier.
Wigger teaches receiving a captured image of a component at a field-side location (see element 120 in figures 1-3b), computing a hash function on the captured image to produce a field-side identifier for the component (see figure 4 and “In this application scenario the objects, e.g. parts are photographed at the beginning and at the end of the production chain only.” Paragraph 0147 page 18) and comparing it against a production-side identifier (see figure 4 element 430 and “In this application scenario the objects, e.g. parts are photographed at the beginning and at the end of the production chain only.” Paragraph 0147 page 18) to approve an assignment of an identification reference to the component when the field-side identifier and the production-side identifier are determined to match (“Each captured image was rotated or shifted via image processing and, subsequently, was identified by comparing the corresponding hash value of the processed image to the entire database.” Page 19 paragraph 0155).
Wigger is analogous art in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Wigger is directed towards a system and method for tracking products through the entire production chain as prevention against counterfeiting (“Embodiments according to the invention can be used, for example, for secure protection of objects against counterfeiting, for example by obtaining an unclonable hash value associated with the object” page 23 paragraph 0174). A person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to combine the teachings of Cote and Wigger by utilizing the hash based teaching of Wigger to code the signatures of Cote with the expectation that doing so would lead to more resistant and reliable identifiers that are useable in the presence of debris or some other surface alteration (“Therefore, embodiments according to the invention enable the identification and/or tracking of objects whose surfaces are altered e.g. due to the impact of manufacturing” page 23 paragraph 0173).
With respect to claim 2, Cote and Wigger teach the visual inspection system of claim 1. Cote teaches wherein the captured image of the connector includes at least a portion of a connector end face of the connector (“The present description generally relates to optical-fiber connector endface inspection, and more particularly, to analysis of optical-fiber connector endface inspection images.” Paragraph 0001), however Wigger teaches the image captured at a field-side location (see figure 4 and “In this application scenario the objects, e.g. parts are photographed at the beginning and at the end of the production chain only.” Paragraph 0147 page 18).
With respect to claim 4, Cote and Wigger teaches the visual inspection system of claim 1. Cote further teaches wherein the captured image of the connector includes at least a portion of a connector housing of the connector (“The present description generally relates to optical-fiber connector endface inspection, and more particularly, to analysis of optical-fiber connector endface inspection images.” Paragraph 0001 and figures 1-3B), however Wigger teaches the image captured at a field-side location (see figure 4 and “In this application scenario the objects, e.g. parts are photographed at the beginning and at the end of the production chain only.” Paragraph 0147 page 18).
With respect to claim 5, Cote and Wigger teach the visual inspection system of claim 1. Cote further teaches wherein the captured image of the connector includes an identifying feature added to the connector (see figure 12), however Wigger teaches the image captured at a field-side location (see figure 4 and “In this application scenario the objects, e.g. parts are photographed at the beginning and at the end of the production chain only.” Paragraph 0147 page 18).
With respect to claim 6, Cote and Wigger teach the visual inspection system of claim 1. Wigger further teaches wherein the hash function includes a hashing of the captured image with at least one additional information, the additional information including at least one of a fiber component attribute (“Applying the multi-dimensional transform may be used as a first information extraction step, in order to characterize the object or the surface of the object. The multi-dimensional array of transform coefficients, for example being coefficients in the spatial frequency domain, may contain an information about characteristic features of the object or the surface of the object, that can be used to distinguish one object from other objects. Determination of the hash value based on these transform coefficients may be interpreted as a further information extraction, to characterize or identify the object. In order to improve efficiency, only specific coefficients of the array of transform coefficients may be selected in order to calculate the hash value.” Page 5 paragraph 0034).
With respect to claim 7, Cote and Wigger teach the visual inspection system of claim 1. Wigger further teaches wherein the production-side identifier is a product of the hash function computed at a production-side location (see figure 4 and “In this application scenario the objects, e.g. parts are photographed at the beginning and at the end of the production chain only.” Paragraph 0147 page 18), wherein the hash function computed on the production-side includes an earlier captured image of the connector captured at the production-side location (“Embodiments according to the invention comprise a method for identifying an object, wherein the method comprises obtaining a hash value, according to embodiments, e.g. in this section, of the invention, and comparing the obtained hash value with one or more reference hash values, e.g. from a hash value database, and providing an object identification information on the basis of the comparison.” Page 5 paragraph 0040 and see figure 4 and “In this application scenario the objects, e.g. parts are photographed at the beginning and at the end of the production chain only.” Paragraph 0147 page 18).
With respect to claim 8, Cote and Wigger teach the visual inspection system of claim 1. Wigger further teaches wherein the field-side identifier is a numerical identifier (see figures 4, 11 and 12).
With respect to claim 9, Cote and Wigger teach the visual inspection system of claim 1, wherein the production-side identifier is one of a numerical identifier (see figures 11 and 12).
With respect to claim 10, Cote and Wigger teach the visual inspection system of claim 1. Wigger further teaches wherein the production-side identifier is accessed from a database (“Embodiments according to the invention comprise a method for identifying an object, wherein the method comprises obtaining a hash value, according to embodiments, e.g. in this section, of the invention, and comparing the obtained hash value with one or more reference hash values, e.g. from a hash value database, and providing an object identification information on the basis of the comparison.” Page 5 paragraph 0040 and see figure 4 and “In this application scenario the objects, e.g. parts are photographed at the beginning and at the end of the production chain only.” Paragraph 0147 page 18)
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious that requiring credentials for access, a known technique, would improve the overall security of the processes and prevent against unwanted access by people such as counterfeiters (“Embodiments according to the invention can be used, for example, for secure protection of objects against counterfeiting, for example by obtaining an unclonable hash value associated with the object” page 23 paragraph 0174).
Claims 11-12, 14-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cote, Wigger, and Zou (CN 116189220 A).
With respect to claim 11, Cote teaches a visual inspection system comprising: a memory configured to store machine executable instructions (“Much of the software application that is used to implement the herein-described methods resides on and runs on a computer system, which in one embodiment, is a personal computer, workstation, or server. FIG. 13 is a block diagram of a computer system 800 which may embody, e.g., the server 114 used in to implement the server-based system of FIG. 1. In terms of hardware architecture, the computer system 800 generally includes a processor 802, input/output (I/O) interfaces 804, a network interface 806, a data store 808, and memory 810.” Paragraph 0139); and a processor in communication with the memory (“Much of the software application that is used to implement the herein-described methods resides on and runs on a computer system, which in one embodiment, is a personal computer, workstation, or server. FIG. 13 is a block diagram of a computer system 800 which may embody, e.g., the server 114 used in to implement the server-based system of FIG. 1. In terms of hardware architecture, the computer system 800 generally includes a processor 802, input/output (I/O) interfaces 804, a network interface 806, a data store 808, and memory 810.” Paragraph 0139),
the processor configured to execute the machine executable instructions to cause the processor to: receive a captured image of a connector, the connector included in a fiber component (see figure 4 element 402 and “FIG. 4 illustrates a method for determining if inspection images of optical-fiber connector endfaces are acquired on a same optical-fiber connector” paragraph 0088);
execute a vector image analysis to identify physical attributes on the field-side captured image corresponding to physical attributes on the connector(see figure 4 element 402 and 404 and “FIG. 4 illustrates a method for determining if inspection images of optical-fiber connector endfaces are acquired on a same optical-fiber connector” paragraph 0088); access a stored image attributes (see figure 4 element 404 and “The signature can be stored to help detection of inadvertent or fraudulent duplicate or repetitive measurements made on a same optical-fiber connector.” Paragraph 0010);
compare the captured image with the stored captured image to determine whether there is a match between the physical attributes identified on the captured image and physical attributes identified on the stored captured image (see figure 4)
approve an assignment of an identification reference to the fiber component when the field-side captured image and the production-side captured image are determined to match (see figure 4 FLAG).
Cote does not explicitly teach receiving a captured image of a connector at a field-side location, and a production-side image, nor vector image analysis.
Wigger teaches receiving a captured image of a component at a field-side location (“In this application scenario the objects, e.g. parts are photographed at the beginning and at the end of the production chain only.” Paragraph 0147 page 18 and “Embodiments according to the invention can be used, for example, for secure protection of objects against counterfeiting, for example by obtaining an unclonable hash value associated with the object” page 23 paragraph 0174), and an image captured at the production-side (“In this application scenario the objects, e.g. parts are photographed at the beginning and at the end of the production chain only.” Paragraph 0147 page 18 and “Embodiments according to the invention can be used, for example, for secure protection of objects against counterfeiting, for example by obtaining an unclonable hash value associated with the object” page 23 paragraph 0174) for the purpose of comparing them to prevent counterfeiting (“In this application scenario the objects, e.g. parts are photographed at the beginning and at the end of the production chain only.” Paragraph 0147 page 18 and “Embodiments according to the invention can be used, for example, for secure protection of objects against counterfeiting, for example by obtaining an unclonable hash value associated with the object” page 23 paragraph 0174) .
Wigger is analogous art in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Wigger is directed towards a system and method for tracking products through the entire production chain as prevention against counterfeiting (“Embodiments according to the invention can be used, for example, for secure protection of objects against counterfeiting, for example by obtaining an unclonable hash value associated with the object” page 23 paragraph 0174). A person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to combine the teachings of Cote and Wigger by utilizing the production chain based teaching of Wigger to organize the signature based identification of Cote with the expectation that doing so would lead to more reliable and consistent identification that would help prevent counterfeiting (“Embodiments according to the invention can be used, for example, for secure protection of objects against counterfeiting…” page 23 paragraph 0174).
Zou teaches vector image analysis for component detection and identification (“…obtaining the vector graph to be tested, classifying the vector graph to be tested according to the graph paper name, identifying and obtaining the vector graph to be measured; performing room segmentation to the vector plan to be measured to obtain the vector diagram of each room; respectively amplifying the vector diagram of each room to the set window size; deriving the size according to the set drawing; deriving the bitmap image of the current room to be tested, intercepting the bitmap image of the building component to be tested from the bitmap image of the current room to be tested; extracting the diagram information of the building component in the to-be-measured vector drawing, the image information comprises the bitmap image of the building component and the component type; based on the bitmap image of the building component to be tested and the drawing information of each of the drawn building component, detecting and identifying the building component to be tested to obtain the component type.” Pages 2-3 Content of invention lines 4-15).
Zou is analogous art pertinent to the problem of small component identification faced by the inventor. Zou is directed towards the identification of a small component in a large space (“In order to solve the problem that the current mainstream detection algorithm for small target component is easy to leak or not high accuracy, the application claims a building component detection identification method, a device, a computer device and a storage medium.” Page 2 contents of the invention lines 1-3). A person of ordinary skill, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine the teachings of Cote and Wigger, with Zou by utilizing Zou’s teachings of small component identification in combination with the combined systems production chain based component authentication process, incorporating its vector graph and bitmap techniques to preprocess input mages with the expectation that doing so would lead to a more accurate identification of small components (“by using the technical solution, firstly performing sub-graph identification fine classification to the to-be measured vector graph, determining the to-be-measured vector graph, then aiming at the to-be-measured vector graph, taking the room as the object to be divided, obtaining the vector graph of each room; further respectively aiming at the vector diagram of each room, amplifying processing to the set window size, so that the building component in the room is clearly shown; so as to lead out the room vector diagram in the window to the set size of the drawing, the image feature of the small target component on the derived bitmap image is more clearly embodied, avoiding the problem that the small target component feature information is easy to lose or cannot be detected and identified, It is good for improving the identification accuracy of the small target component.” Page 3 lines 9-17).
With respect to claim 12, Cote, Wigger, and Zou teach the visual inspection system of claim 11. Cote teaches wherein the captured image of the connector includes at least a portion of a connector end face of the connector (“The present description generally relates to optical-fiber connector endface inspection, and more particularly, to analysis of optical-fiber connector endface inspection images.” Paragraph 0001), however Wigger teaches the image captured at a field-side location (see figure 4 and “In this application scenario the objects, e.g. parts are photographed at the beginning and at the end of the production chain only.” Paragraph 0147 page 18).
With respect to claim 14, Cote, Wigger, and Zou teach the visual inspection system of claim 11. Cote further teaches wherein the captured image of the connector includes at least a portion of a connector housing of the connector (“The present description generally relates to optical-fiber connector endface inspection, and more particularly, to analysis of optical-fiber connector endface inspection images.” Paragraph 0001 and figures 1-3B), however Wigger teaches the image captured at a field-side location (see figure 4 and “In this application scenario the objects, e.g. parts are photographed at the beginning and at the end of the production chain only.” Paragraph 0147 page 18).
With respect to claim 15, Cote, Wigger, and Zou teach the visual inspection system of claim 11, Cote further teaches wherein the captured image of the connector includes an identifying feature added to the connector (see figure 12), however Wigger teaches the image captured at a field-side location (see figure 4 and “In this application scenario the objects, e.g. parts are photographed at the beginning and at the end of the production chain only.” Paragraph 0147 page 18).
With respect to claim 16, Cote, Wigger, and Zou teach the visual inspection system of claim 11. Cote further teaches wherein the captured image is partitioned into a plurality of regions of interest (ROI) (“extracting a first rim profile from said first inspection image and a second rim profile from said second inspection image, the first and second rim profiles being each extracted from a portion of the first and second inspection images that corresponds to a circumferential area of an optical fiber within the first and second inspection images” paragraph 0018); and wherein the processor is configured to execute the machine executable instructions to cause the processor to compare the captured image with another captured image by comparing a ROI included in the image with a ROI included in the other image (“determining if the first and second inspection images are likely to have been acquired over the same optical-fiber connector at least from a comparison of the first and second rim profiles.” Paragraph 0019), however Wigger teaches the images being captured at a field-side location and production side location (see figure 4 and “In this application scenario the objects, e.g. parts are photographed at the beginning and at the end of the production chain only.” Paragraph 0147 page 18).
With respect to claim 17, Cote, Wigger, and Zou teach the visual inspection system of claim 11, Cote further teaches wherein the captured image is partitioned into a plurality of regions of interest (ROI) (“extracting a first rim profile from said first inspection image and a second rim profile from said second inspection image, the first and second rim profiles being each extracted from a portion of the first and second inspection images that corresponds to a circumferential area of an optical fiber within the first and second inspection images” paragraph 0018), and each region of interest includes at least one feature-region of interest (“extracting a first rim profile from said first inspection image and a second rim profile from said second inspection image, the first and second rim profiles being each extracted from a portion of the first and second inspection images that corresponds to a circumferential area of an optical fiber within the first and second inspection images” paragraph 0018, rim profile); and wherein the processor is configured to execute the machine executable instructions to cause the processor to compare the captured image with another captured image by comparing a feature-ROI included in the image with a feature-ROI included in the other image (“determining if the first and second inspection images are likely to have been acquired over the same optical-fiber connector at least from a comparison of the first and second rim profiles.” Paragraph 0019), however Wigger teaches the images being captured at a field-side location and production side location (see figure 4 and “In this application scenario the objects, e.g. parts are photographed at the beginning and at the end of the production chain only.” Paragraph 0147 page 18).
With respect to claim 18, Cote, Wigger, and Zou teach the visual inspection system of claim 11, Cote teaches wherein the captured image of the connector includes at least a portion of a connector end face of the connector (“The present description generally relates to optical-fiber connector endface inspection, and more particularly, to analysis of optical-fiber connector endface inspection images.” Paragraph 0001), however Wigger teaches the image captured at a field-side location (see figure 4 and “In this application scenario the objects, e.g. parts are photographed at the beginning and at the end of the production chain only.” Paragraph 0147 page 18) and a physical identifier added to the connector end face (“Since the parts are plated in a barrel, individual part tracking would not be possible in this step if neither a unique reference number is used nor inherent surface patterns are exploited for identification.” Paragraph 0130).
With respect to claim 20, Cote, Wigger, and Zou teach the visual inspection system of claim 11, Cote further teaches wherein the captured image is accessed from a database (see figure 5), however Wigger teaches the images captured at a production-side location (see figure 4 and “In this application scenario the objects, e.g. parts are photographed at the beginning and at the end of the production chain only.” Paragraph 0147 page 18)
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious that requiring credentials for access, a known technique, would improve the overall security of the processes and prevent against unwanted access by people such as counterfeiters (“Embodiments according to the invention can be used, for example, for secure protection of objects against counterfeiting, for example by obtaining an unclonable hash value associated with the object” page 23 paragraph 0174).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cote, Wigger, and Zou as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Wang (US 20240029276 A1).
With respect to claim 19, Cote, Wigger, and Zou teach the visual inspection system of claim 11, Cote further teaches wherein the captured image is partitioned into a plurality of regions of interest (ROI) (“extracting a first rim profile from said first inspection image and a second rim profile from said second inspection image, the first and second rim profiles being each extracted from a portion of the first and second inspection images that corresponds to a circumferential area of an optical fiber within the first and second inspection images” paragraph 0018), and Wigger teaches the images being captured at a field-side location and production side location (see figure 4 and “In this application scenario the objects, e.g. parts are photographed at the beginning and at the end of the production chain only.” Paragraph 0147 page 18), however neither Cote, Wigger nor Zou explicitly teach wherein each ROI corresponds to a vector ID for the fiber component.
Wang teaches ROI corresponds to a vector ID for an item (“In general, certain embodiments of the present disclosure describe improved techniques for identifying an item placed on a platform of an imaging device. In response to detecting a placement of an item on the platform, a plurality of item identifiers are selected for the item from an encoded vector library, based on a plurality of images of the item. Each item identifier selected from the encoded vector library based on a corresponding image of the item is associated with a similarity value that is indicative of a degree of confidence that the item identifier correctly identifies the item depicted in the image. A particular item identifier is selected from the plurality of item identifiers based on the similarity values associated with the plurality of item identifiers.” Paragraph 0511).
Wang is analogous art in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Wang is directed towards item identification and tracking (“This process provides a practical application of image detection and tracking by improving the system's ability to quickly identify multiple items.” Paragraph 0004). A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to combine the system of Cote, Wigger, and Zou, with Wang by utilizing Wang’s teachings of image based item detection and tracking in concert with the combined system’s region of interest based system, substituting the system’s ROI for Wangs vector ID methodology, with the expectation that doing so would lead to faster and improved item identification (“This process provides a practical application of image detection and tracking by improving the system's ability to quickly identify multiple items. These practical applications not only improve the system's ability to identify items but also improve the underlying network and the devices within the network.” Paragraph 0004).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REBECCA C WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-7074. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am - 4:00pm.
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, Andrew W Bee can be reached at (571)270-5183. 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.
/REBECCA COLETTE WILLIAMS/Examiner, Art Unit 2677
/ANDREW W BEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2677
Prosecution Insights