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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “capturing apparatus for generating”, “illumination apparatus”, “capturing units”, “illumination units”, “adjusting apparatus” in claims 12-15 for example.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends i.e., claim 12, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 15 does not further limit “the inspection device” of claim 12 as recited. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 5-6 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Numazu (PCT Patent Pub. No.: WO 2012043618 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Numazu teaches method for optically inspecting at least partially transparent objects (The present invention relates to an inspection device for a glass bottle, which can detect a defect in a specified position such as the mouth of the glass bottle by capturing an image. Abstract), comprising the steps of:
capturing a first (An inspection device for a glass bottle is provided with an inspection unit comprising one or multiple lighting units (LED1-6) and at least one camera (CAM1-4 ), and detects a defect in a specified portion of a glass bottle (1) by illuminating the glass bottle (1) by the lighting unit (LED1-6) and capturing an image of reflected light from the glass bottle by the camera (CAM1-4). Abstract) and a second image (It is to be noted that an image photographed by the cameras CAM1 to CAM4 while the illumination LEDs 1 to 6 are pulsed is obtained first, and then a bubble is extracted from the images photographed by the cameras CAM1 to CAM4 while the illumination LED7 dedicated to the bubble inspection is lit. Page 6 5th paragraph) of an object to be inspected (INSPECTION DEVICE AND METHOD FOR GLASS BOTTLE. Title), wherein, for this purpose, the object is captured and/or illuminated from different angles and the images differ from one another on the basis of the angular offset (
PNG
media_image1.png
576
486
media_image1.png
Greyscale
),
identifying an abnormality in the second image (It is to be noted that an image photographed by the cameras CAM1 to CAM4 while the illumination LEDs 1 to 6 are pulsed is obtained first, and then a bubble is extracted from the images photographed by the cameras CAM1 to CAM4 while the illumination LED7 dedicated to the bubble inspection is lit. Page 6 5th paragraph),
calculating a mask based on the identified abnormality (By masking the image portion corresponding to the position of the bubble defect from the images photographed by the cameras CAM 1 to CAM4 during lighting, only the billiform defect can be detected. Page 6 4th paragraph),
applying the mask to the first image in order to obtain a masked image of the object (By masking the image portion corresponding to the position of the bubble defect from the images photographed by the cameras CAM 1 to CAM4 during lighting, only the billiform defect can be detected. Page 6 4th paragraph), and
analysing the masked image to identify abnormalities in an inspection region of the object (By masking the image portion corresponding to the position of the bubble defect from the images photographed by the cameras CAM 1 to CAM4 during lighting, only the billiform defect can be detected. Page 6 4th paragraph).
Regarding claim 2, Numazu teaches method according to claim 1, wherein at least one masked-out region of the masked image is excluded from the further analysis for identifying abnormalities (By masking the image portion corresponding to the position of the bubble defect from the images photographed by the cameras CAM 1 to CAM4 during lighting, only the billiform defect can be detected. Page 6 4th paragraph).
Regarding claim 5, Numazu teaches method according to claim 1, wherein the first image (Alternatively, images captured by cameras CAM1 to CAM4 while illumination LEDs 1 to 6 are pulsed on may be obtained first. Page 10 3rd paragraph) comprises a representation of the inspection region (and then the image portion corresponding to the location of the bubble defect may be masked and excluded from the inspection area in the images captured by cameras CAM1 to CAM4 while illumination LEDs 1 to 6 are pulsed on, thereby detecting only burr defects. Page 10 3rd paragraph) and a representation of the control region (and then the image portion corresponding to the location of the bubble defect may be masked and excluded from the inspection area in the images captured by cameras CAM1 to CAM4 while illumination LEDs 1 to 6 are pulsed on, thereby detecting only burr defects. Page 10 3rd paragraph), wherein the second image (then bubble defects may be detected from the images captured by cameras CAM1 to CAM4 while illumination LED 7 (dedicated to bubble inspection) is pulsed on. Page 10 3rd paragraph.
PNG
media_image2.png
606
472
media_image2.png
Greyscale
) likewise comprises a representation of the control region (and then the image portion corresponding to the location of the bubble defect may be masked and excluded from the inspection area in the images captured by cameras CAM1 to CAM4 while illumination LEDs 1 to 6 are pulsed on, thereby detecting only burr defects. Page 10 3rd paragraph), which differs from that of the first image (Alternatively, images captured by cameras CAM1 to CAM4 while illumination LEDs 1 to 6 are pulsed on may be obtained first, then bubble defects may be detected from the images captured by cameras CAM1 to CAM4 while illumination LED 7 (dedicated to bubble inspection) is pulsed on, and then the image portion corresponding to the location of the bubble defect may be masked and excluded from the inspection area in the images captured by cameras CAM1 to CAM4 while illumination LEDs 1 to 6 are pulsed on, thereby detecting only burr defects. Page 10 3rd paragraph).
Regarding claim 6, Numazu teaches method according to claim 5, wherein the object is captured from different angles (During these cycles, the bottle stand 3 rotates, causing the glass bottle 1 to rotate around its axis 1x. As the glass bottle 1 completes one rotation, the bottle neck 2 is photographed around its entire circumference by cameras CAM 1 to 4. Page 10 1st paragraph.
PNG
media_image1.png
576
486
media_image1.png
Greyscale
), wherein the second image is captured at such an angle (As shown in Figure 9, the LED 7, which is specifically for bubble inspection, is positioned above the neck 2 of the glass bottle 1. The lighting LED 7 has a disc shape and is positioned so that its center coincides with the axis 1x of the glass bottle 1. Page 9 last paragraph.
PNG
media_image3.png
606
472
media_image3.png
Greyscale
) that the second image does not comprise a representation of the inspection region (According to the present invention, a dedicated illumination LED 7 for bubble inspection (which reads on “the second image does not comprise a representation of the inspection region”) is provided, bubble defects are detected from images captured by cameras CAM1 to 4 while the dedicated illumination LED 7 is pulse-lit, and the portion of the image corresponding to the location of the bubble defect is masked from the image captured by cameras CAM1 to 4 while the illumination LEDs 1 to 6 are pulse-lit, thereby excluding it from the inspection area and enabling the detection of only bubble defects. Page 10 3rd paragraph).
Regarding claim 17, Numazu teaches method according to claim 2, wherein the masked-out region is optionally at least partially in a representation of the inspection region (According to the present invention, a dedicated illumination LED 7 for bubble inspection is provided, bubble defects are detected from images captured by cameras CAM1 to 4 while the dedicated illumination LED 7 is pulse-lit, and the portion of the image corresponding to the location of the bubble defect (which reads on “the masked-out region”) is masked from the image captured by cameras CAM1 to 4 while the illumination LEDs 1 to 6 are pulse-lit (which reads on “a representation of the inspection region”), thereby excluding it from the inspection area and enabling the detection of only bubble defects. Page 10 3rd paragraph. As is shown in Fig. 9, due to the locations and the angles of LEDs 1 to 6 and LED 7, the masked-out region is at least partially in a representation of the inspection region.
PNG
media_image4.png
606
472
media_image4.png
Greyscale
).
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 16, 3-4, 8 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Numazu (PCT Patent Pub. No.: WO 2012043618 A1) hereinafter Numazu, in view of Niedermeier (European Patent Pub. No.: EP3180135B1), hereinafter Niedermeier.
Regarding claim 16, Numazu teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated in claim 1 except for the following limitations as further recited. However, Niedermeier teaches wherein partially transparent objects (A container (2) is at least partly illuminated or transilluminated with light of an illuminating device (3) and captured from different viewing directions (R4 - R6) as a camera image in each case by means of at least one camera (4 - 6). Abstract) are pharmaceutical containers (The containers can be designed to hold beverages, hygiene products, pastes, chemical, biological and/or pharmaceutical products. [0013]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Numazu to incorporate the teachings of Niedermeier to develop an optical inspection method for containers that works more efficiently and is therefore less expensive for pharmaceutical containers.
Regarding claim 3, Niedermeier in the combination teaches method according to claim 1, wherein the first and second images are captured simultaneously by means of a capturing apparatus (First, the three cameras 4, 5 and 6 essentially simultaneously take a camera image of the container 2 from the illustrated viewing directions R4 - R6, whereby the container is illuminated by the lighting device 3. [0053]).
Regarding claim 4, Niedermeier in the combination teaches method according to claim 1, wherein the control region and the inspection region constitute different and non-overlapping portions of the object to be inspected (
PNG
media_image5.png
406
574
media_image5.png
Greyscale
).
Regarding claim 8, Numazu in the combination teaches method according to claim 1, wherein a plurality of pairs of first and second images of the object to be inspected are captured and analysed (Figure 10 is a timing chart that adds the operation timing of camera CAM1-4 and lighting LED7 to the timing chart showing the operation timing of camera CAM1-4 and lighting LED1-6 shown in Figure 7. As shown in Figure 10, cameras CAM1, CAM2, CAM3, and CAM4 are turned ON (exposure begins), and the illumination LED 7 is pulsed on at the same time. When imaging is complete, cameras CAM1, CAM2, CAM3, and CAM4 are turned OFF (exposure ends), and the illumination LED 7 is turned OFF at the same time. The subsequent operating timing of cameras CAM1-4 and lighting LEDs 1-6 is the same as the operating timing shown in Figure 7. Then, as explained in Figure 7, when camera CAM4 completes imaging and turns off, and at the same time the illumination LED6 turns off, one cycle of the inspection process is completed, and this cycle is then repeated. Page 10 1st paragraph.
PNG
media_image6.png
614
492
media_image6.png
Greyscale
), wherein the object is moved, optionally rotated, particularly optionally continuously rotated, between the shots of the image pairs (During these cycles, the bottle stand 3 rotates, causing the glass bottle 1 to rotate around its axis 1x. As the glass bottle 1 completes one rotation, the bottle neck 2 is photographed around its entire circumference by cameras CAM 1 to 4. Page 10 1st paragraph).
Regarding claim 18, Niedermeier in the combination teaches method according to claim 3, wherein the capturing apparatus comprises at least two separate capturing units (First, the three cameras 4, 5 and 6 essentially simultaneously take a camera image of the container 2 from the illustrated viewing directions R4 - R6, whereby the container is illuminated by the lighting device 3. [0053]).
Regarding claim 19, Niedermeier in the combination teaches method according to claim 4, wherein the control region is formed by a transparent portion of the object which lies in front of the inspection region in the viewing direction of the first image (When the two camera images are superimposed, the contamination 10 appears at the expected image locations within inspection zone A (which reads on “the control region”). [0046]. In other words, the pollution 10 is visible in the lower area of both sub-image fields O2 and U1. [0046]. In the second image evaluation step, only the camera image from the second camera 5 is used. In part U1 of the image field of the second camera 5, both the contamination 10 and the crack 11 can be seen. In contrast, no pollution is recorded in the second part, U2. Since the contamination 10 was already detected in the first image evaluation step, its first image information is initially deleted from the camera image or marked as detected. The camera image is now further evaluated using known image analysis algorithms. For example, using a threshold value, crack 11 is detected as a darkening. Since it is further known that container 2 is empty, the detected crack 11 can be assigned to the second inspection zone B (which reads on “the inspection region”). The type, location and size of crack 11 are now stored as second image information in memory. [0047].
PNG
media_image5.png
406
574
media_image5.png
Greyscale
).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Numazu (PCT Patent Pub. No.: WO 2012043618 A1) hereinafter Numazu, in view of Lindner (US Patent Pub. No.: US 2019/0005678 A1), hereinafter Lindner.
Regarding claim 7, Numazu teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated in claim 1 except for the following limitations as further recited. However, Lindner teaches comprising the following steps:
generating a transformed image from the second image by means of a coordinate
transformation, which brings the representation of the object in the second image into line with the representation of the object in the first image (The method 600 includes, at 608, transforming the one or more first keypoints within the first image from a first coordinate system associated with the first camera or the first image to a second coordinate system. [0118].
PNG
media_image7.png
722
880
media_image7.png
Greyscale
), and
calculating the mask based on the transformed image (The method 600 includes, at
608, transforming the one or more first keypoints within the first image from a first coordinate system associated with the first camera or the first image to a second coordinate system. [0118]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Numazu to incorporate the teachings of Lindner to generate a transformed image from the second image by means of a coordinate transformation, which brings the representation of the object in the second image into line with the representation of the object in the first image and calculate the mask based on the transformed image in order to use images generated by multiple cameras in object detection.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Numazu (PCT Patent Pub. No.: WO 2012043618 A1) hereinafter Numazu, in view of Beck (US Patent Pub. No.: US 2018/0172602 A1), hereinafter Beck.
Regarding claim 9, Numazu teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated in claim 1 except for the following limitations as further recited. However, Beck teaches wherein the object is illuminated from different angles (
PNG
media_image8.png
696
644
media_image8.png
Greyscale
), wherein a first illumination of the object is performed at a first angle and a second illumination of the object is performed at a second angle (One or more beams of radiation are projected upon the container 102 by the radiation source 106. A second radiation source 107 radiates the container 102. The radiation sources 106, 107 may include any suitable type of device, including a plurality of light emitting diodes (LEDs), incandescent bulbs, fluorescent bulbs, or any other suitable type of source. The beam(s) of light include a combination of at least two radiation wavelengths (e.g., visible spectrum light waves and infra-red waves). [0018]), wherein the first and second illuminations differ in their wavelength and/or polarization (One or more beams of radiation are projected upon the container 102 by the radiation source 106. A second radiation source 107 radiates the container 102. The radiation sources 106, 107 may include any suitable type of device, including a plurality of light emitting diodes (LEDs), incandescent bulbs, fluorescent bulbs, or any other suitable type of source. The beam(s) of light include a combination of at least two radiation wavelengths (e.g., visible spectrum light waves and infra-red waves). [0018]), wherein the first and second illuminations originate from a single illumination unit at different points in time or from different illumination units at the same time (In certain examples, a first source of radiation may emanate from a back or a front light source and a path of the radiation can be coaxial to the camera or sensor. A second source of radiation (e.g., above the container 102) should radiate the container 102 and then be directed to a camera or sensor 110. The radiation should generate multiple, simultaneous or near simultaneous images of the container at the same viewing angle. [0025]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Numazu to incorporate the teachings of Beck to illuminate the object from different angles, wherein the first and second illuminations differ in their wavelength and/or polarization, wherein the first and second illuminations originate from a single illumination unit at different points in time or from different illumination units at the same time in order to detect and differentiate foreign objects and bottle features with increased efficiency and limited human intervention.
Regarding claim 10, Numazu in the combination teaches method according to claim 9, wherein the inspection region and at least part of the control region of the object are illuminated by the first illumination (According to the present invention, a dedicated illumination LED 7 for bubble inspection (which reads on “the second image does not comprise a representation of the inspection region”) is provided, bubble defects are detected from images captured by cameras CAM1 to 4 while the dedicated illumination LED 7 is pulse-lit, and the portion of the image corresponding to the location of the bubble defect is masked from the image captured by cameras CAM1 to 4 while the illumination LEDs 1 to 6 are pulse-lit, thereby excluding it from the inspection area and enabling the detection of only bubble defects. Page 10 3rd paragraph) and at least part of the control region, but not the inspection region, of the object is illuminated by the second illumination (According to the present invention, a dedicated illumination LED 7 for bubble inspection (which reads on “the second image does not comprise a representation of the inspection region”) is provided, bubble defects are detected from images captured by cameras CAM1 to 4 while the dedicated illumination LED 7 is pulse-lit, and the portion of the image corresponding to the location of the bubble defect is masked from the image captured by cameras CAM1 to 4 while the illumination LEDs 1 to 6 are pulse-lit, thereby excluding it from the inspection area and enabling the detection of only bubble defects. Page 10 3rd paragraph).
Regarding claim 11, Numazu in the combination teaches method according to claim 9, wherein the second image comprises a representation of the object generated only by the second illumination (It is to be noted that an image photographed by the cameras CAM1 to CAM4 while the illumination LEDs 1 to 6 are pulsed is obtained first, and then a bubble is extracted from the images photographed by the cameras CAM1 to CAM4 while the illumination LED7 dedicated to the bubble inspection is lit. Page 6 5th paragraph), wherein the second image is generated using at least one filter that blocks the first illumination (Since the illumination LED 7 is positioned above the mouth portion 2 of the glass bottle 1, when the illumination LED 7 is pulsed on, reflected light from the bubble does not enter the cameras CAM1-4, and only the image portion corresponding to the bubble is formed in the images captured by cameras CAM1-4 (In other words, the second image is generated using LED 7, CAM1-4 and the bottle acting as a filter to selectively remove the first illumination.). Page 6 5th paragraph).
Claims 12-15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Numazu (PCT Patent Pub. No.: WO 2012043618 A1) hereinafter Numazu, in view of Beck (US Patent Pub. No.: US 2018/0172602 A1), hereinafter Beck, further in view of Niedermeier (European Patent Pub. No.: EP3180135B1), hereinafter Niedermeier.
Regarding claim 12, Numazu teaches inspection device for optically inspecting at least partially transparent objects (The present invention relates to an inspection device for a glass bottle, which can detect a defect in a specified position such as the mouth of the glass bottle by capturing an image. Abstract), by means of a method according to claim 9, comprising a capturing apparatus for generating a first (An inspection device for a glass bottle is provided with an inspection unit comprising one or multiple lighting units (LED1-6) and at least one camera (CAM1-4 ), and detects a defect in a specified portion of a glass bottle (1) by illuminating the glass bottle (1) by the lighting unit (LED1-6) and capturing an image of reflected light from the glass bottle by the camera (CAM1-4). Abstract) and a second image of an object to be inspected (It is to be noted that an image photographed by the cameras CAM1 to CAM4 while the illumination LEDs 1 to 6 are pulsed is obtained first, and then a bubble is extracted from the images photographed by the cameras CAM1 to CAM4 while the illumination LED7 dedicated to the bubble inspection is lit. Page 6 5th paragraph), an illumination apparatus (Fig. 1 LED1-6), an analysis means (The invention is characterized in that in a second image analysis step, an individual camera image of the two camera images is analyzed, wherein the first image information is first excluded and second image information of a second inspection zone (B) of the container (2), for example a crack (11) of a container rear face, is then ascertained. Abstract), wherein the object can be captured from different angles by means of the capturing apparatus and/or can be illuminated from different angles by means of the illumination apparatus (
PNG
media_image9.png
576
478
media_image9.png
Greyscale
), wherein the analysis means is configured to analyse the generated images, which differ from one another on the basis of the angular offset (During these cycles, the bottle stand 3 rotates, causing the glass bottle 1 to rotate around its axis 1x. As the glass bottle 1 completes one rotation, the bottle neck 2 is photographed around its entire circumference by cameras CAM 1 to 4. Page 10 1st paragraph.
PNG
media_image1.png
576
486
media_image1.png
Greyscale
), to identify an abnormality in the second image (It is to be noted that an image photographed by the cameras CAM1 to CAM4 while the illumination LEDs 1 to 6 are pulsed is obtained first, and then a bubble is extracted from the images photographed by the cameras CAM1 to CAM4 while the illumination LED7 dedicated to the bubble inspection is lit. Page 6 5th paragraph), to calculate a mask based on the identified abnormality (By masking the image portion corresponding to the position of the bubble defect from the images photographed by the cameras CAM 1 to CAM4 during lighting, only the billiform defect can be detected. Page 6 4th paragraph), to apply the mask to the first image (By masking the image portion corresponding to the position of the bubble defect from the images photographed by the cameras CAM 1 to CAM4 during lighting, only the billiform defect can be detected. Page 6 4th paragraph), and to analyse the thus obtained masked image for the presence of abnormalities in an inspection region of the object (By masking the image portion corresponding to the position of the bubble defect from the images photographed by the cameras CAM 1 to CAM4 during lighting, only the billiform defect can be detected. Page 6 4th paragraph).
The combination of Numazu and Beck does not teach the following limitations as further recited, but Niedermeier further teaches in particular pharmaceutical containers (The containers can be designed to hold beverages, hygiene products, pastes, chemical, biological and/or pharmaceutical products. [0013]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Numazu and Beck to incorporate the teachings of Niedermeier to develop an optical inspection method for containers that works more efficiently and is therefore less expensive for pharmaceutical containers.
Regarding claim 13, Niedermeier in the combination teaches inspection device according to claim 12, wherein the capturing apparatus comprises two separate capturing units by means of which the two images can be captured simultaneously from different angles (First, the three cameras 4, 5 and 6 essentially simultaneously take a camera image of the container 2 from the illustrated viewing directions R4 - R6, whereby the container is illuminated by the lighting device 3. [0053]).
Regarding claim 14, Niedermeier in the combination teaches inspection device according to claim 12, wherein the illumination apparatus comprises at least two separate illumination units, LED lights, by means of which the object can be illuminated simultaneously from different angles (First, the three cameras 4, 5 and 6 essentially simultaneously take a camera image of the container 2 from the illustrated viewing directions R4 - R6, whereby the container is illuminated by the lighting device 3. [0053]).
Beck in the combination further teaches wherein the illuminations generated by the illumination units on the object in particular differ from one another in their wavelength and/or polarization (Aspects of the present disclosure relate to a system for inspecting a container. Two or more radiation sources may be used. Alternatively, a single light source that generates a combination of radiation may be used. In one example, at least one radiation source generates visible light and at least one radiation source generates another wavelength of radiation ( e.g., infra-red light or gamma or another wavelength of radiation). [0007]).
Numazu in the combination further teaches wherein at least one illumination unit is movable relative to the object by means of an adjusting apparatus (The illumination LEDs 1 and LED2 and the camera CAM1 have a slider mechanism including a guide member 14 and a slider 15 and a plurality of guides so that the position can be adjusted in a vertical direction, a horizontal direction and an oblique direction with respect to the glass bottle 1 to be inspected. Page 5 2nd paragraph).
Regarding claim 15, Numazu in the combination teaches set comprising an analysis means and a capturing apparatus and/or an illumination apparatus of an inspection device according to claim 12 for retrofitting an existing inspection device (It is to be noted that an image photographed by the cameras CAM1 to CAM4 while the illumination LEDs 1 to 6 are pulsed is obtained first, and then a bubble is extracted from the images photographed by the cameras CAM1 to CAM4 while the illumination LED7 dedicated to the bubble inspection is lit. Page 6 5th paragraph. “An existing inspection device” can be considered as only containing CAM1, for example. Then adding CAM2-4 can be considered as “retrofitting an existing inspection device”.).
Regarding claim 20, Numazu in the combination teaches inspection device according to claim 13, wherein two separate capturing units are cameras (
PNG
media_image1.png
576
486
media_image1.png
Greyscale
), wherein at least one capturing unit is movable relative to the object by means of an adjusting apparatus (the camera CAM 1 are attached to the bracket 13 by a slider mechanism consisting of a guide member 14 and a slider 15, and a slider mechanism consisting of multiple guide rods 16 and multiple sliders 17, so that their positions can be adjusted vertically, horizontally, and diagonally relative to the glass bottle 1 to be inspected. Page 8 last paragraph).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEI ZHAO whose telephone number is (703)756-1922. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, VU LE can be reached at (571)272-7332. 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.
/LEI ZHAO/Examiner, Art Unit 2668
/VU LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2668
Prosecution Insights