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 .
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.
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 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shepard et al (US PG Pub # 2015/0083920) in view of Wang et al (US # 11,622,066).
The Shepard reference discloses a thermal inspection system for inspecting a sample (para. # 0075), the system comprising:
at least one reflector lamp (12) mounted at a base of a reflective dome (18);
an infrared (IR) camera (14); and
a processor (16) for controlling the at least one reflector lamp and the IR camera to inspect the sample (para. # 0073-0075).
The Shepard reference does not disclose that the lamp includes an array of light emitting diodes (LEDs). However, it was known to form a flash lamp from an array of LEDs as shown by the Wang reference (Col. 4, ll. 40-58), so it would have been obvious to the ordinary practioner to use an array of LEDs for the lamp (12) of Shepard motivated by its known use for its intended purpose.
With respect to claim 2, the Sheppard reference shows a pivoting reflector (20) for alternatively scanning or blocking the IR beam, but using a moving shutter1 would serve the same purpose, and would have been obvious to the ordinary practioner motivated by its known suitability for its intended use2.
With respect to claim 3, see Figures 1A-1D.
With respect to claim 4, if the object being inspected was translucent or transparent, it would have been obvious to place the lamp and the camera on opposite sides of the object to be inspected, as this would involve a mere rearrangement of parts, and the optimum angle of refraction for the IR radiation would have been an obvious parameter to optimize through routine trial and error.
With respect to claim 5, the exact spectral band of light from the LED array would have been an obvious parameter to optimize through routine trial and error.
With respect to claim 6, polycarbonate3 was a common material to form transparent devices from, so it would have been obvious to manufacture the reflector (20) of Shepard from a known material motivated by its intended use.
With respect to claim 7, the Shepard reference discloses a hood (34).
With respect to claim 8, the Sheppard reference discloses a viewing hole (40).
With respect to claim 9, placing protective acrylic4 layers over and/or inside the hood to protect the components of the system would have been obvious if the imaging system was used in a manufacturing environment that had corrosive gases.
With respect to claim 10, the Sheppard references shows the use of two lamps in one alternative embodiment (Fig. 7A).
With respect to claim 11, it would have been obvious to use the nondestructive testing system of Shepard in conjunction with a manufacturing system that had a manufacturing chamber because the testing system was obviously intended as a quality check for a manufacturing process.
Claims 12-14 simply repeat the same limitations already discussed, above.
With respect to claims 15-20, the method of use was inherent to the device disclosed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The other references cited show the general state of the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RANDY W GIBSON whose telephone number is (571)272-2103. The examiner can normally be reached Tue-Friday 10AM-6PM.
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571-272-2375. 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.
RANDY W. GIBSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2856
/RANDY W GIBSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
1 Slit-scan photography is a mechanical, frame-by-frame technique in which a narrow slit is moved across a subject during a long exposure, producing stretched, abstract, or “time-based” images
PNG
media_image1.png
16
16
media_image1.png
Greyscale
handsonfilmhistoryproject.uoregon.edu+1.
The method’s roots lie in 1850s panoramic cameras invented in Europe for mapping and scientific purposes
PNG
media_image1.png
16
16
media_image1.png
Greyscale
handsonfilmhistoryproject.uoregon.edu. These early “strip photography” systems recorded motion by moving film past a slit, a principle later adapted for horse and car race finish photography in the 1940s–50s, where the slit scanned across a horizontally transported film strip
PNG
media_image1.png
16
16
media_image1.png
Greyscale
handsonfilmhistoryproject.uoregon.edu+1. Photographer Eadweard Muybridge also used similar motion-capture principles in the late 1800s to study animal locomotion
PNG
media_image2.png
32
32
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Filmmaking Lifestyle.
The process involves a stop-motion camera, a transparent subject, and a slit mask positioned between them. The camera moves relative to the slit during a single long exposure, distorting the image into a “wall” of color
PNG
media_image1.png
16
16
media_image1.png
Greyscale
handsonfilmhistoryproject.uoregon.edu+1. Alternating slit positions can create double-wall effects
PNG
media_image1.png
16
16
media_image1.png
Greyscale
handsonfilmhistoryproject.uoregon.edu.
2 See column 4, lines 46-57 of US # 4,248,528 (Sahay); column 1, lines 50-60 of US # 4,688,904 (Hirose et al); the abstract of US PG Pub # 2005/0134797 (Grove); or, paragraph # 0007 of US PG Pub # 2003/0226973 (Beusch); for examples.
3 Polycarbonate (PC) is a thermoplastic polymer containing carbonate groups (−O−(C=O)−O−) in its chemical structure, typically synthesized using bisphenol A (BPA) and a carbonate source. It is amorphous, meaning its molecules are arranged randomly, which gives it excellent optical clarity and allows it to transmit light almost as effectively as glass. It has high impact resistance, heat resistance, is easily malleable without cracking, and is lightweight.
4 Acrylic is a transparent thermoplastic polymer known by its chemical name, polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA). As a thermoplastic, acrylic can be heated, shaped, and reformed multiple times without degrading — a property that makes it incredibly versatile for fabrication and manufacturing. Some of its popular brand names: Plexiglas®, Lucite®, Perspex®, or Acrylite®. Acrylic was first developed in 1928 and commercialized in 1933 in Germany. During World War II, it found its first major application in aircraft canopies and gun turrets, where its combination of clarity, light weight, and shatter resistance proved invaluable.
Prosecution Insights