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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/22/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings received on 10/22/2024 are accepted by the Examiner.
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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 recite capturing the “first image of first set of cable” and the “second image of second set of cable” are "captured by a single camera”. First and second sets of cables have different arrangements. It is unclear if the single camera captures both images either simultaneously or sequentially. If it captures them sequentially, the camera associated with the microscope or the cable would need to be moved, or the lens needs to be adjusted (zoomed/un-zoomed/changed) to select two different sets of cable to capture images. The claim does not define any intervening action between the capture of the two images, making the transition logical but physically unexplained. For the method claim 1 it’s being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The two images may have two FOV if the camera, or the cable is moved or the lens is adjusted, using the word "particular" without defining which field of view, it is not clear which FOV is “a particular field of view of the single camera”, and also not clear which FOV is adjusted by the phrase “adjust the particular field of view”, which makes the claims indefinite. Claim 1 further states that the "microscope" performs the comparison and determination. A microscope is a physical optical instrument, not a processing unit. It cannot perform calculations or logical comparisons. It should be performed by a "processor," "computing device," or "control system" associated with the microscope. Claims 8 and 15 disclosed the microscope comprising a processor. The Examiner interprets a microscope of claim 1 as a microscope with a processor, like claim 8.
The claims state a “single camera” captures “two different images” of “two different fiber sets”, but it later states the system adjusts the "particular field of view of the single camera" based on comparing those images. If the camera has already been moved or the FOV of the camera switched to capture the two distinct images, “adjusting the particular field of view” without clarifying the changes in the structural setup, makes the limitation confusing.
The logic defining the first set (fibers 1 and 2, silent about 3) and the second set (fibers 2 and 3, excluding fiber 1) is logically clear. But capturing first image of first set (fibers 1, 2 and 3, i.e. entire area) and the second image of second set (fibers 2 and 3, excluding fiber 1, i.e. entire area excluding fiber 1) will satisfy the limitations as claimed.
Claims 2-7, 9-15 and 17-20 are also rejected due to their dependencies on claim 1, 8 or 16. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-5, 8-12 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson et al (US 2013/0229650, of record) in view of Ryu et al. (US 2018/0053295, of record), and further in view of Juncosa et al. (US 6,309,601).
Regarding claim 1, Wilson disclosed a method (refer to US 2013/0229650), comprising: performing, by a camera with processor (Fig. 1, a wide field of view (FOV) camera and A narrow FOV camera, [0013]; a processor, [0014]; dual cameras 110 and 120; [0057];) a comparison of a first image, associated with a first set of optical fibers of an optical cable (a wide field of view (FOV) camera to image the ferrule, [abstract]; the first camera at a ferrule location based on part specific configuration data, [0015], a processor is included that is adapted to analyze a fiber image acquired by at least one of the first camera and the second camera, [0014]; a single image of an entire fiber array is captured, [0088]), and a second image, associated with a second set of optical fibers of the optical cable (a narrow FOV camera to provide detailed inspection of fiber ends, [abstract], second camera at the estimated fiber location, [0015]), captured by a single camera (FIG. 19 shows an illustration of a single camera inspection device assembly 1900 that includes: electronics 1905, a camera 1910, [0089], camera 1910 must be repositioned and possibly refocused between capturing the two sub-images. Where the positioning of the camera 1910 for the capture of each sub-image is done by the motion control system 1930 and the positioning is based on the known dimensions of the ferrule 683 and associated fiber array 682, [0090].camera 1910 is autofocused by moving the camera 1910 into focus by the motion control system 1930, [0095]) associated with the, processor (A wide field of view (FOV) camera is provided for imaging the ferrule so that the fiber ends, [0013]; “a first camera adapted to image a ferrule”, [0014], “the second camera is adapted to image at least one fiber of the ferrule”, [0014], “a processor is included that is adapted to analyze a fiber image acquired by at least one of the first camera and the second camera and determine the presence of a defect”, [0014]),
wherein the first set of optical fibers includes a first optical fiber and a second optical fiber, and the second set of optical fibers includes the second optical fiber and a third optical fiber and does not include the first optical fiber (the claimed logic define the first set (fibers 1 and 2, silent about 3) and the second set (fibers 2 and 3, excluding fiber 1) is logically clear. But capturing first image of first set (entire fibers 1, 2 and 3) and the second image of second set (fibers 2 and 3, excluding fiber 1) will also satisfy the limitation as claimed. Wilson teaches capturing the entire array of fibers or part of the array at a time. Capturing two images using one camera requires repositioning and possibly refocused between capturing the two sub-images capturing of each sub-image is done by the motion control system 1930 and the positioning is based on the known dimensions of the ferrule and associated fiber array, is described in [0090]),
determining, by the microscope and based on performing the comparison of the first image and the second image, an amount by which to adjust a particular field of view of the single camera (The processor may analyze the optical fiber images by segmenting the optical fiber images to distinguish the fiber from the surrounding material of the ferrule and re-assembling the segmented fibers for display as a fiber-by-fiber view, [0018]; A single higher resolution camera is provided with a lens that can image an entire fiber array, [abstract]; a single image of an entire fiber array is captured and analyzed … the camera and lens must have a large enough field of view to image the entire fiber array in a single image, …. a camera and lens with a smaller field of view and higher resolution, can be used, … fiber array are imaged in multiple rather than a single image, images are captured for each individual fiber in the fiber array, to just one or a few images, [0088]; Fig. 19, The camera 1910 and the lens 1920 capture high-resolution images of the entire fiber array on the ferrule. FIG. 6 is an illustration of a captured image of a ferrule 683 with a fiber optic array 682 .. that contains 72 fibers. After capturing, the image of ferrule 683 is then analyzed to identify the locations of the fibers in the fiber array, [0089]; camera 1910 and lens 1920 have sufficient resolution but doesn't have a large enough FOV to image the entire fiber array, In this case, the camera 1910 must be repositioned and possibly refocused between capturing the two sub-images. Where the positioning of the camera 1910 for the capture of each sub-image is done by the motion control system 1930 and the positioning is based on the known dimensions of the ferrule 683 and associated fiber array 682. [0090]); and performing, by the microscope and based on determining the amount by which to adjust the particular field of view, one or more actions associated with the microscope (Willson teaches in [0017], processing at least one fiber image acquired by at least one of the first camera and the second camera to determine the presence of a defect, The method may further include automatically focusing at least one of the first camera and the second camera with an autofocus facility, The method may further include determining a focus quality by evaluating the relative contrast within a series of captured images … and computing a total area of defects on the optical fiber end face, e.g. in order, for example, to calculate at least one of an insertion loss and a return loss; [0017]).
Wilson is silent about the camera including an optical microscope and capturing first and second images with one camera and imaging, and an interstitial material.
Wilson and Ryu are related to capturing microscopic images. Ryu teaches the apparatus is a microscope and capturing first and second images with the camera (Fig. 2 shows camera 150, “detector 150 may comprise an imaging detector such as a charge coupled device CCD, a CMOS device or an sCMOS device”, [0029], and “imaging unit 100 may include an optical microscope”, [0027], “the optical microscope may be made to obtain multiple images .. each under different, unique, inspection conditions”, [0032]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Wilson to use a microscope and capturing multiple images with the camera as taught by Ryu for the predictable result of capturing the images under different, unique, inspection conditions and allowing for in-line process monitoring as taught by Ryu in [0032] and [0024].
Wilson and Ryu do not teach images of an interstitial material. Wilson and Juncosa are related to optical detection systems. Juncosa teaches an interstitial material (“the interstitial regions 28 are formed of material having low or reduced emission at the wavelength which corresponds to the emission wavelength or is within the range of detection of the emission detector, [col. 6, lines 17-20]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the material of the unique visual signature of Ryu, by using an interstitial material as taught by Juncosa, for the predictable result of having low emission within that area for clearly recognize the unique visual signature, as Juncosa teaches in [col. 6, lines 17-20]).
Regarding claim 2, the method according to claim 1 is rejected (see above).
Modified Wilson teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first image is associated with a first field of view of the single camera, and wherein the second image is associated with a second field of view of the single camera that is the particular field of view (FIG. 19 shows an illustration of a single camera inspection device assembly 1900 that includes: electronics 1905, a camera 1910, a light 1912, a lens 1920. Imaged by the camera 1910 and lens 1920. The camera 1910 and the lens 1920 capture high-resolution images of the entire fiber array on the ferrule, [0089]; the camera 1910 must be repositioned and possibly refocused between capturing the two images. Where the positioning of the camera 1910 for the capture of each image is done by the motion control system 1930 and the positioning is based on the known dimensions of the ferrule 683 and associated fiber array 682. [0090]).
Regarding claim 3, the method according to claim 2 is rejected (see above).
Modified Wilson teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the first field of view is associated with a first position of the single camera, and wherein the second field of view is associated with a second position of the single camera that is different from the first position, (the camera 1910 must be repositioned and possibly refocused between capturing the two images. Where the positioning of the camera 1910 for the capture of each image is done by the motion control system 1930 and the positioning is based on the known dimensions of the ferrule 683 and associated fiber array 682. [0090]).
Regarding claim 4, the method according to claim 1 is rejected (see above).
Modified Wilson teaches the method, wherein the optical cable further comprises a fourth optical fiber, wherein the first set of optical fibers and the second set of optical fibers do not include the fourth optical fiber, (Wilson teaches, in addition, the camera and lens must have a large enough field of view to image the entire fiber array in a single image. Alternately, a camera and lens with a smaller field of view and higher resolution, can be used, however in this case, a series of adjacent images are captured such that all the fibers in the fiber array are imaged in multiple rather than a single image, [0088]). Wilson doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the first set of optical fibers and the second set of optical fibers do not include the fourth optical fiber, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the modified method of Wilson wherein the first set of optical fibers and the second set of optical fibers do not include the fourth optical fiber as Wilson taught a camera and lens with a smaller field of view and higher resolution, can be used, however in this case, a series of adjacent images for the predictable advantage of imaging individual segments to analyze for defects individually for each segments.
Regarding claim 5, the method according to claim 1 is rejected (see above).
Modified Wilson teaches the method of claim 1, wherein performing the comparison comprises: determining that a second set of optical fibers, shown in the second image, is missing an expected optical fiber (The processor may analyze the optical fiber images by segmenting the optical fiber images to distinguish the fiber from the surrounding material of the ferrule and re-assembling the segmented fibers for display as a fiber-by-fiber view [0018]; The system may then segment fibers and calculate the resolution of the acquired image as a function of the size of fiber relative to the number of pixels in the segmented fiber, [0084]; a segmented image of a ferrule showing the results of inspection for defects, [0051]).
Regarding claim 8, Wilson disclosed a device (refer to US 2013/0229650), comprising: one or more memories; and one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories (“The processor may include memory that stores methods, codes, instructions and programs”, [0111]), configured to: perform a comparison of a first image, associated with a first set of optical fibers of an optical cable (a wide field of view (FOV) camera to image the ferrule, [abstract]; the first camera at a ferrule location based on part specific configuration data, [0015], a processor is included that is adapted to analyze a fiber image acquired by at least one of the first camera and the second camera, [0014]; a single image of an entire fiber array is captured, [0088]), and a second image, associated with a second set of optical fibers of the optical cable (a narrow FOV camera to provide detailed inspection of fiber ends, [abstract], second camera at the estimated fiber location, [0015]), captured by a single camera (FIG. 19 shows an illustration of a single camera inspection device assembly 1900 that includes: electronics 1905, a camera 1910, [0089], camera 1910 must be repositioned and possibly refocused between capturing the two sub-images. Where the positioning of the camera 1910 for the capture of each sub-image is done by the motion control system 1930 and the positioning is based on the known dimensions of the ferrule 683 and associated fiber array 682, [0090].camera 1910 is autofocused by moving the camera 1910 into focus by the motion control system 1930, [0095]) associated with the device, (a wide field of view (FOV) camera is provided for imaging the ferrule so that the fiber ends, [0013]; “a first camera adapted to image a ferrule”, [0014], “the second camera is adapted to image at least one fiber of the ferrule”, [0014], “a processor is included that is adapted to analyze a fiber image acquired by at least one of the first camera and the second camera and determine the presence of a defect”, [0014],) wherein the first set of optical fibers includes a first optical fiber and a second optical fiber, and the second set of optical fibers includes the second optical fiber and a third optical fiber and does not include the first optical fiber (the claimed logic define the first set (fibers 1 and 2, silent about 3) and the second set (fibers 2 and 3, excluding fiber 1) is logically clear. But capturing first image of first set (entire fibers 1, 2 and 3) and the second image of second set (fibers 2 and 3, excluding fiber 1) will also satisfy the limitation as claimed. Wilson teaches capturing the entire array of fibers or part of the array at a time. Capturing two images using one camera requires repositioning and possibly refocused between capturing the two sub-images capturing of each sub-image is done by the motion control system 1930 and the positioning is based on the known dimensions of the ferrule and associated fiber array, is described in [0090]); determine, based on performing the comparison of the first image and the second image, an amount by which to adjust a particular field of view of the single camera, (The processor may analyze the optical fiber images by segmenting the optical fiber images to distinguish the fiber from the surrounding material of the ferrule and re-assembling the segmented fibers for display as a fiber-by-fiber view, [0018]; A single higher resolution camera is provided with a lens that can image an entire fiber array, [abstract]; a single image of an entire fiber array is captured and analyzed … the camera and lens must have a large enough field of view to image the entire fiber array in a single image, …. a camera and lens with a smaller field of view and higher resolution, can be used, … fiber array are imaged in multiple rather than a single image, images are captured for each individual fiber in the fiber array, to just one or a few images, [0088]; Fig. 19, The camera 1910 and the lens 1920 capture high-resolution images of the entire fiber array on the ferrule. FIG. 6 is an illustration of a captured image of a ferrule 683 with a fiber optic array 682 .. that contains 72 fibers. After capturing, the image of ferrule 683 is then analyzed to identify the locations of the fibers in the fiber array, [0089]; camera 1910 and lens 1920 have sufficient resolution but doesn't have a large enough FOV to image the entire fiber array, In this case, the camera 1910 must be repositioned and possibly refocused between capturing the two sub-images. Where the positioning of the camera 1910 for the capture of each sub-image is done by the motion control system 1930 and the positioning is based on the known dimensions of the ferrule 683 and associated fiber array 682. [0090]); and perform, based on determining the amount by which to adjust the particular field of view, one or more actions associated with the microscope, (Willson teaches in [0017], processing at least one fiber image acquired by at least one of the first camera and the second camera to determine the presence of a defect, The method may further include automatically focusing at least one of the first camera and the second camera with an autofocus facility, The method may further include determining a focus quality by evaluating the relative contrast within a series of captured images … and computing a total area of defects on the optical fiber end face, e.g. in order, for example, to calculate at least one of an insertion loss and a return loss; [0017]).
Wilson is silent about the camera including an optical microscope and capturing first and second images with one camera and imaging, and an interstitial material.
Wilson and Ryu are related to capturing microscopic images. Ryu teaches the apparatus is a microscope and capturing first and second images with the camera (Fig. 2 shows camera 150, “detector 150 may comprise an imaging detector such as a charge coupled device CCD, a CMOS device or an sCMOS device”, [0029], and “imaging unit 100 may include an optical microscope”, [0027], “the optical microscope may be made to obtain multiple images .. each under different, unique, inspection conditions”, [0032]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Wilson to use a microscope and capturing multiple images with the camera as taught by Ryu for the predictable result of capturing the images under different, unique, inspection conditions and allowing for in-line process monitoring as taught by Ryu in [0032] and [0024].
Wilson and Ryu do not teach images of an interstitial material. Wilson and Juncosa are related to optical detection systems. Juncosa teaches an interstitial material (“the interstitial regions 28 are formed of material having low or reduced emission at the wavelength which corresponds to the emission wavelength or is within the range of detection of the emission detector, [col. 6, lines 17-20]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the material of the unique visual signature of Ryu, by using an interstitial material as taught by Juncosa, for the predictable result of having low emission within that area for clearly recognize the unique visual signature, as Juncosa teaches in [col. 6, lines 17-20]).
Regarding claim 9, the microscope according to claim 8 is rejected (see above).
Modified Wilson teaches the microscope, wherein the first image is associated with a first field of view of the single camera (the system includes a wide field of view (FOV) camera to image the ferrule and rapidly locate the fiber ends and a narrow FOV camera to provide detailed inspection of fiber ends, [abstract]), and wherein the second image is associated with a second field of view of the single camera that is the particular field of view (FIG. 19 shows an illustration of a single camera inspection device assembly 1900 that includes: electronics 1905, a camera 1910, [0089]; the camera 1910 must be repositioned and possibly refocused between capturing the two sub-images. Where the positioning of the camera 1910 for the capture of each sub-image is done by the motion control system 1930 and the positioning is based on the known dimensions of the ferrule 683 and associated fiber array 682. [0090]);
Regarding claim 10, the microscope according to claim 9 is rejected (see above). Modified Wilson teaches the microscope, wherein the first field of view is associated with a first position of the single camera, and wherein the second field of view is associated with a second position of the single camera that is different from the first position, (the camera 1910 must be repositioned and possibly refocused between capturing the two images. Where the positioning of the camera 1910 for the capture of each image is done by the motion control system 1930 and the positioning is based on the known dimensions of the ferrule 683 and associated fiber array 682. [0090]).
Regarding claim 11, the microscope according to claim 8 is rejected (see above). Modified Wilson teaches the microscope, wherein the optical cable further comprises a fourth optical fiber, wherein the first set of optical fibers and the second set of optical fibers do not include the fourth optical fiber, (Wilson teaches, in addition, the camera and lens must have a large enough field of view to image the entire fiber array in a single image. Alternately, a camera and lens with a smaller field of view and higher resolution, can be used, however in this case, a series of adjacent images are captured such that all the fibers in the fiber array are imaged in multiple rather than a single image, [0088]). Wilson doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the first set of optical fibers and the second set of optical fibers do not include the fourth optical fiber, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the modified method of Wilson wherein the first set of optical fibers and the second set of optical fibers do not include the fourth optical fiber as Wilson taught a camera and lens with a smaller field of view and higher resolution, can be used, however in this case, a series of adjacent images for the predictable advantage of imaging individual segments to analyze for defects individually for each segments.
Regarding claim 12, the microscope according to claim 8 is rejected (see above).
Modified Wilson teaches the microscope, wherein performing the comparison comprises: determining that a second set of optical fibers, shown in the second image, is missing an expected optical fiber (The processor may analyze the optical fiber images by segmenting the optical fiber images to distinguish the fiber from the surrounding material of the ferrule and re-assembling the segmented fibers for display as a fiber-by-fiber view [0018]; The system may then segment fibers and calculate the resolution of the acquired image as a function of the size of fiber relative to the number of pixels in the segmented fiber, [0084]; a segmented image of a ferrule showing the results of inspection for defects, [0051]).
Regarding claim 15, Wilson disclosed a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a set of instructions, the set of instructions comprising: one or more instructions that, when executed by one or more processors (“The processor may include memory that stores methods, codes, instructions and programs, The processor may access a storage medium”, [0111];), cause the microscope to: perform a comparison of a first image (“a processor is included that is adapted to analyze a fiber image acquired by at least one of the first camera and the second camera and determine the presence of a defect”, [0014]), associated with a first set of optical fibers of an optical cable (a wide field of view (FOV) camera to image the ferrule, [abstract]; the first camera at a ferrule location based on part specific configuration data, [0015], a processor is included that is adapted to analyze a fiber image acquired by at least one of the first camera and the second camera, [0014]; a single image of an entire fiber array is captured, [0088]), and a second image, associated with a second set of optical fibers of the optical cable (a narrow FOV camera to provide detailed inspection of fiber ends, [abstract], second camera at the estimated fiber location, [0015]), captured by a single camera (FIG. 19 shows an illustration of a single camera inspection device assembly 1900 that includes: electronics 1905, a camera 1910, [0089], camera 1910 must be repositioned and possibly refocused between capturing the two sub-images. Where the positioning of the camera 1910 for the capture of each sub-image is done by the motion control system 1930 and the positioning is based on the known dimensions of the ferrule 683 and associated fiber array 682, [0090].camera 1910 is autofocused by moving the camera 1910 into focus by the motion control system 1930, [0095]) associated with the processor (A wide field of view (FOV) camera is provided for imaging the ferrule so that the fiber ends, [0013]; “a first camera adapted to image a ferrule”, [0014], “the second camera is adapted to image at least one fiber of the ferrule”, [0014], “a processor is included that is adapted to analyze a fiber image acquired by at least one of the first camera and the second camera and determine the presence of a defect”, [0014]), wherein the first set of optical fibers includes a first optical fiber and a second optical fiber, and the second set of optical fibers includes the second optical fiber and a third optical fiber and does not include the first optical fiber (the claimed logic define the first set (fibers 1 and 2, silent about 3) and the second set (fibers 2 and 3, excluding fiber 1) is logically clear. But capturing first image of first set (entire fibers 1, 2 and 3) and the second image of second set (fibers 2 and 3, excluding fiber 1) will also satisfy the limitation as claimed. Wilson teaches capturing the entire array of fibers or part of the array at a time. Capturing two images using one camera requires repositioning and possibly refocused between capturing the two sub-images capturing of each sub-image is done by the motion control system 1930 and the positioning is based on the known dimensions of the ferrule and associated fiber array, is described in [0090]); determine, based on performing the comparison of the first image and the second image, an amount by which to adjust a particular field of view of the single camera (The processor may analyze the optical fiber images by segmenting the optical fiber images to distinguish the fiber from the surrounding material of the ferrule and re-assembling the segmented fibers for display as a fiber-by-fiber view, [0018]; A single higher resolution camera is provided with a lens that can image an entire fiber array, [abstract]; a single image of an entire fiber array is captured and analyzed … the camera and lens must have a large enough field of view to image the entire fiber array in a single image, …. a camera and lens with a smaller field of view and higher resolution, can be used, … fiber array are imaged in multiple rather than a single image, images are captured for each individual fiber in the fiber array, to just one or a few images, [0088]; Fig. 19, The camera 1910 and the lens 1920 capture high-resolution images of the entire fiber array on the ferrule. FIG. 6 is an illustration of a captured image of a ferrule 683 with a fiber optic array 682 .. that contains 72 fibers. After capturing, the image of ferrule 683 is then analyzed to identify the locations of the fibers in the fiber array, [0089]; camera 1910 and lens 1920 have sufficient resolution but doesn't have a large enough FOV to image the entire fiber array, In this case, the camera 1910 must be repositioned and possibly refocused between capturing the two sub-images. Where the positioning of the camera 1910 for the capture of each sub-image is done by the motion control system 1930 and the positioning is based on the known dimensions of the ferrule 683 and associated fiber array 682. [0090]); and perform, based on determining the amount by which to adjust the particular field of view, one or more actions associated with the microscope (Willson teaches in [0017], processing at least one fiber image acquired by at least one of the first camera and the second camera to determine the presence of a defect, The method may further include automatically focusing at least one of the first camera and the second camera with an autofocus facility, The method may further include determining a focus quality by evaluating the relative contrast within a series of captured images … and computing a total area of defects on the optical fiber end face, e.g. in order, for example, to calculate at least one of an insertion loss and a return loss; [0017]).
Wilson is silent about the camera including an optical microscope and capturing first and second images with one camera and imaging, and an interstitial material.
Wilson and Ryu are related to capturing microscopic images. Ryu teaches the apparatus is a microscope and capturing first and second images with the camera (Fig. 2 shows camera 150, “detector 150 may comprise an imaging detector such as a charge coupled device CCD, a CMOS device or an sCMOS device”, [0029], and “imaging unit 100 may include an optical microscope”, [0027], “the optical microscope may be made to obtain multiple images .. each under different, unique, inspection conditions”, [0032]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Wilson to use a microscope and capturing multiple images with the camera as taught by Ryu for the predictable result of capturing the images under different, unique, inspection conditions and allowing for in-line process monitoring as taught by Ryu in [0032] and [0024].
Wilson and Ryu do not teach an interstitial material. Wilson and Juncosa are related to optical detection systems. Juncosa teaches an interstitial material (“the interstitial regions 28 are formed of material having low or reduced emission at the wavelength which corresponds to the emission wavelength or is within the range of detection of the emission detector, [col. 6, lines 17-20]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the material of the unique visual signature of Ryu, by using an interstitial material as taught by Juncosa, for the predictable result of having low emission within that area for clearly recognize the unique visual signature, as Juncosa teaches in [col. 6, lines 17-20]).
Regarding claim 16, the non-transitory computer-readable medium according to claim 15 is rejected (see above). Modified Wilson teaches the microscope, wherein the first image is associated with a first field of view of the single camera (the system includes a wide field of view (FOV) camera to image the ferrule and rapidly locate the fiber ends and a narrow FOV camera to provide detailed inspection of fiber ends, [abstract]), and wherein the second image is associated with a second field of view of the single camera that is the particular field of view (FIG. 19 shows an illustration of a single camera inspection device assembly 1900 that includes: electronics 1905, a camera 1910, [0089]; the camera 1910 must be repositioned and possibly refocused between capturing the two sub-images. Where the positioning of the camera 1910 for the capture of each sub-image is done by the motion control system 1930 and the positioning is based on the known dimensions of the ferrule 683 and associated fiber array 682. [0090]).
Regarding claim 17, Modified Wilson teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium according to claim 16 (see above), wherein the first field of view is associated with a first position of the single camera, and wherein the second field of view is associated with a second position of the single camera that is different from the first position, (the camera 1910 must be repositioned and possibly refocused between capturing the two images. Where the positioning of the camera 1910 for the capture of each image is done by the motion control system 1930 and the positioning is based on the known dimensions of the ferrule 683 and associated fiber array 682. [0090]).
Regarding claim 18, the non-transitory computer-readable medium according to claim 15 is rejected (see above). Modified Wilson teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium, wherein the optical cable further comprises a fourth optical fiber, wherein the first set of optical fibers and the second set of optical fibers do not include the fourth optical fiber, (Wilson teaches, in addition, the camera and lens must have a large enough field of view to image the entire fiber array in a single image. Alternately, a camera and lens with a smaller field of view and higher resolution, can be used, however in this case, a series of adjacent images are captured such that all the fibers in the fiber array are imaged in multiple rather than a single image, [0088]). Wilson doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the first set of optical fibers and the second set of optical fibers do not include the fourth optical fiber, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the modified method of Wilson wherein the first set of optical fibers and the second set of optical fibers do not include the fourth optical fiber as Wilson taught a camera and lens with a smaller field of view and higher resolution, can be used, however in this case, a series of adjacent images for the predictable advantage of imaging individual segments to analyze for defects individually for each segments.
Regarding claim 19, the non-transitory computer-readable medium according to claim 15 is rejected (see above). Modified Wilson teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium, wherein performing the comparison comprises: determining that a second set of optical fibers, shown in the second image, is missing an expected optical fiber (The processor may analyze the optical fiber images by segmenting the optical fiber images to distinguish the fiber from the surrounding material of the ferrule and re-assembling the segmented fibers for display as a fiber-by-fiber view [0018]; The system may then segment fibers and calculate the resolution of the acquired image as a function of the size of fiber relative to the number of pixels in the segmented fiber, [0084]; a segmented image of a ferrule showing the results of inspection for defects, [0051]).
Claims 6, 7, 13, 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson et al. in view of Ryu et al., and Juncosa et al. (US 6,309,601) as applied to claim 1, 8 or 15 and further in view of Yu (2014/0126778).
Regarding claim 6, the method according to claim 1 is rejected (see above).
Modified Wilson teaches the method of claim 1, wherein performing the comparison.
Wilson doesn’t explicitly teach, wherein performing the comparison comprises: determining whether an amount of overlap between the first image and the second image satisfies a threshold.
Wilson and Yu are related to optical detection systems. Yu teaches performing the comparison comprises: determining whether an amount of overlap between the first image and the second image satisfies a threshold (“the first image has a first specific region, and pixel data of each pixel in the first specific region is converted to a predetermined value; providing a second image, and overlapping the first image and the second image to form an overlapping region; comparing the predetermined value with pixel data of each pixel in the first image overlapped on the second image to generate a comparison result”, [0007] and Fig. 7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the method of Wilson performing the comparison comprises: determining whether an amount of overlap between the first image and the second image satisfies a threshold as Yu teaches for using only the images without background scene for the predictable result of better image quality, as Yu teaches in [0005].
Regarding claim 7, the method according to claim 6 is rejected (see above).
Modified Wilson teaches the method of claim 6, Yu teaches wherein the amount of overlap relates to a quantity or percentage of pixels. (for the predictable result of better image quality, [0005])
Regarding claim 13, the microscope according to claim 8 is rejected (see above).
Modified Wilson teaches the microscope, wherein performing the comparison.
Wilson doesn’t explicitly teach, wherein performing the comparison comprises: determining whether an amount of overlap between the first image and the second image satisfies a threshold. Wilson and Yu are related to optical detection systems. Yu teaches performing the comparison comprises: determining whether an amount of overlap between the first image and the second image satisfies a threshold (“the first image has a first specific region, and pixel data of each pixel in the first specific region is converted to a predetermined value; providing a second image, and overlapping the first image and the second image to form an overlapping region; comparing the predetermined value with pixel data of each pixel in the first image overlapped on the second image to generate a comparison result”, [0007] and Fig. 7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the method of Wilson performing the comparison comprises: determining whether an amount of overlap between the first image and the second image satisfies a threshold as Yu teaches for using only the images without background scene for the predictable result of better image quality, as Yu teaches in [0005].
Regarding claim 14, the microscope according to claim 13 is rejected (see above).
Modified Wilson teaches the method of claim 6, Yu teaches wherein the amount of overlap relates to a quantity or percentage of pixels. (for the predictable result of better image quality, [0005]).
Regarding claim 20, the non-transitory computer-readable medium according to claim 15 is rejected (see above). The modified Wilson teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium, wherein performing the comparison. Wilson doesn’t explicitly teach, wherein performing the comparison comprises: determining whether an amount of overlap between the first image and the second image satisfies a threshold. Wilson and Yu are related to optical detection systems. Yu teaches performing the comparison comprises: determining whether an amount of overlap between the first image and the second image satisfies a threshold (“the first image has a first specific region, and pixel data of each pixel in the first specific region is converted to a predetermined value; providing a second image, and overlapping the first image and the second image to form an overlapping region; comparing the predetermined value with pixel data of each pixel in the first image overlapped on the second image to generate a comparison result”, [0007] and Fig. 7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the method of Wilson performing the comparison comprises: determining whether an amount of overlap between the first image and the second image satisfies a threshold as Yu teaches for using only the images without background scene for the predictable result of better image quality, as Yu teaches in [0005].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Liu et al. (US 2014/0118500, of record), and Hattori. (US 6034718) disclose observing tip portion of optical fibers.
Clearly defining the structural details and status of the first, second, third, and fourth optical fibers in each set may overcome the current rejection.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAHMAN ABDUR whose telephone number is (571)270-0438. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am to 5:30 pm PST.
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at (571) 272-2713. 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.
/R.A/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BALRAM T PARBADIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights