DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 3 are objected to because of the following informalities
Claim 1, 3rd limitation, “wherein each the detect detector associates” is confusingly worded.
Claims 3 and 4, “the defect priority is a location of a defect” is oddly worded. Perhaps change to “the defect priority is based on a location of a defect”.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
The combination of claims 1 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of the combination of claims 1 and 9 of prior U.S. Patent No. 12,181862 B2. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of non statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the combination of claims 1 and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,181,862 B2.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the combination includes each limitation of pending claim 1, including providing the prioritized list of defects and receiving user feedback that alters a position of a defect in the prioritized list. Patented claim 9 further requires that the output device includes an input device configured to receive the user feedback, and pending claim 1 omits this feature, and therefore pending claim 1 is broader than, and anticipated by, the subject matter of the combination of patented claims 1 and 9.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 7, 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0096057 A1 (‘057), in view of Kulkarni, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0301630 A1 (‘630).
As per claim 1, ‘057 in view of ‘630 discloses a defect detection and ranking system for a vehicle assembly line, the defect detection and ranking system comprising (e.g., See ‘057; [0150] – [0152] and [0192], which disclose an object inspection system used in line during vehicular production to inspect an object, sort defects, and create a schedule of defects. It is noted that ‘630 discloses defect prioritization, as further discussed below):
an image capture device that captures a plurality of images of a vehicle on the vehicle assembly line (e.g., See ‘057; [0157], which discloses activating a plurality of cameras to capture image data along a surface of the object as the object moves);
a data store containing a vehicle specification, for the vehicle on the vehicle assembly line, and a defect priority based on the vehicle specification (e.g., See ‘057; [0219], which discloses a tracked object configuration group identifying configuration data for the object, the configuration data organized and stored by a tracked object model number, a tracked object version number, and surface characteristics. Under BRI, this stored configuration data is interpreted to correspond to the claimed vehicle specification. However, ‘057 does not expressly disclose a stored defect priority based on that vehicle specification. ‘630 discloses a similar prioritization feature in [0072], [0077] – [0078], and [0096], by determining defect location criticality from design, re prioritizing defects, generating subsequent samples based on a priority score, and storing results);
a defect detector that analyzes the plurality of captured images and, based on the analysis, detects a plurality of defects on the surface of the vehicle, wherein each the detect detector associates, for each of the plurality of defects, an x- y-z coordinate location, a defect type, and a defect severity (e.g., See ‘057; [0183], [0189] and [0404], which disclose an image processing server and a post processing server that identify a plurality of actual defects, determine a three dimensional location and a type classification for each actual defect, and provide severity information for the actual defects);
a defect prioritization generator configured to receive the plurality of defects from the defect detector, retrieve the vehicle specification and the defect priority, apply the defect priority to the plurality of defects, and generate a prioritized list of defects (e.g., See ‘057; [0189], [0192] and [0219], which disclose receiving a log of defects found by image processing, loading the configuration data for the tracked object configuration group, sorting the respective defects, and creating a schedule of defects. Also See ‘630; [0043], and [0077] – [0078], which disclose an adaptive sampling module that generates a list of defect locations, applies a learned dictionary to a set of non sampled defects, re prioritizes the set of non sampled defects, and generates subsequent samples based on the priority score, and stores and accesses results. Together, these teachings are interpreted to disclose receiving the logged defects, loading the configuration data for the tracked object configuration group, applying the priority score when re prioritizing the defects, and generating a prioritized list or schedule of defects); and
wherein the defect prioritization generator outputs the prioritized list of defects to an output device associated with the vehicle assembly line, and wherein a position of a defect in the prioritized list of defects is altered based on an indication of user feedback (e.g., See ‘057; [0192], which discloses transmitting the schedule of defects to a robot or other automated assembly. However, ‘057 does not expressly disclose altering a defect’s position in the prioritized list based on user feedback. ‘630 discloses this missing feature by disclosing, in [0077] – [0078] and [0081], re prioritizing the defects, generating the next set of samples based on the priority score, and allowing input from a user to modify an objective function used to select the locations).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have incorporated the teachings of ‘630 into ‘057 for the purpose of using new defect review information to focus repair efforts on defects that are the most important, thereby improving repair efficiency and reducing unnecessary work.
As per claim 2, ‘057 in view of ‘630 further discloses that the defect type is one of a scratch, a dent or an excess paint (e.g., See ‘057; [0397], which discloses defining defect categories including scratches).
As per claim 3, ‘057 in view of ‘630 further discloses that the plurality of defects includes a first defect with a first defect location, and a second defect with a second defect location, wherein the defect priority is a location of a defect, and wherein the first defect is prioritized higher than the second defect (e.g., See ‘630; [0072] and [0077] – [0078], which disclose determining criticality for defect locations from design, re prioritizing the defects based on whether the defects are in critical areas, and generating subsequent samples based on the priority score. These teachings are interpreted to correspond to assigning a higher priority to a defect at a more critical location than to a defect at a less critical location).
As per claim 7, ‘057 in view of ‘630 further discloses that the defect prioritization generator automatically applies the vehicle specification and defect priority when the plurality of defects is received (e.g., See ‘057; [0219], which discloses loading the configuration data for the tracked object configuration group before inspection. Also See ‘630; [0077] – [0078], which discloses that after automatically analyzing a sample of defects, applying a learned dictionary to non sampled defects, re prioritizing the non sampled defects, and generating a next set of samples based on the priority score. Together, these teachings are interpreted to correspond to automatically applying the configuration data for the tracked object configuration group and the priority score during defect processing).
As per claim 12, ‘057 in view of ‘630 further discloses that the captured plurality of images are stored in a repair lineage database, and wherein the defect prioritization generator retrieves an image of a defect from the repair lineage database, and wherein the defect prioritization generator prioritizes the defect based at least in part on the retrieved image (e.g., See ‘057; [0185] and [0396], which disclose saving the acquired images to memory and storing a contextual defect image as part of a cluster defect record in a database. Under BRI, these storage teachings are interpreted to correspond to the claimed repair lineage database. Also See ‘630; [0037] – [0038] and [0077] – [0078], which disclose a patch image for a potential defect that may be retrieved from a stored high resolution image, using analysis of the retrieved image to influence subsequent event selection, re prioritizing the set of non sampled defects, and generating a next set of samples based on the priority score. Together, these teachings are interpreted to correspond to retrieving an image of a defect and prioritizing the defect based at least in part of the retrieved image).
As per claim 15, ‘057 in view of ‘630 further discloses that the vehicle specification comprises a three-dimensional map of a surface of the vehicle (e.g., See ‘057; [0197] and [0219], which discloses a three-dimensional tracked object mesh file used to simulate the surfaces of the tracked object and the configuration data for the tracked object configuration group. Under BRI, these teachings are interpreted to disclose the vehicle specification comprising a three-dimensional map of a surface of the vehicle).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Allen, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0096057 A1 (‘057), in view of Kulkarni, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0301630 A1 (‘630), as applied to claim 3, from above, and further in view of Hirata, JP H09329401 A (‘401A).
NOTE: It is noted that a machine translation has been relied upon for rejection purposes and it has been included herein for the applicant’s convenience.
As per claim 4, although ‘057 in view of ’630 discloses a vehicle being a car, per se, ‘057 in view of ‘630 does not expressly disclose that the first defect is located on a driver door of the car and the second defect is located on a roof of the car.
‘401A appears to adequately disclose this location based visibility concept by disclosing that the appearance grade of painted automobile panels varies depending on the location of a defect, that portions more visible to the human eye are subject to stricter judgment criteria than the roof, and that the hood is subject to stricter judgment among the painted panels (e.g., See ‘401A; [0003] and [0012]).
In the opinion of the examiner, it would have been to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to apply this location based visibility concept to the defect prioritization of ‘057 in view of ‘630 such that a defect on a more visible vehicle panel (the driver door) would be more highly prioritized than a defect on the roof since the door is more easily visible than the roof.
It would have been to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have incorporated the teachings of ‘401A into ‘057 in view of ‘630 for the purpose of prioritizing defects according to the visual significance of their locations on the vehicle.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Allen, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0096057 A1 (‘057), in view of Kulkarni, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0301630 A1 (‘630), as applied to claim 1, from above, and further in view of Sinha, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0107077 A1 (‘077).
As per claim 5, although ‘057 in view of ‘630 discloses that surface variations such as color may be coded as part of the configuration data and that the defect may be a scratch (e.g., See ‘057; [0219] and [0397]), ‘057 in view of ‘630 does not expressly disclose that the defect priority for a scratch is higher for the first vehicle color than for a second vehicle color.
‘077 appears to disclose this missing feature by disclosing, in [0035] and [0040], that sample color has a strong effect on the perceived visual quality of a scratch, that scratch visibility varies with the lightness of the color, and that a change in surface color affects scratch perception (e.g., See ‘077; [0035] and [0040).
It would have been to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have incorporated the teachings of ‘077 into ‘057 in view of ‘630 for the purpose of making defect priorities better match scratches people are most likely to notice, so that repair efforts can focus on the most visually important scratches for the color of the tracked object.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Allen, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0096057 A1 (‘057), in view of Kulkarni, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0301630 A1 (‘630), as applied to claim 1, from above, and further in view of Madden, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0198618 A1 (‘618).
As per claim 6, ‘057 in view of ‘630 does not expressly disclose a sensor configured to identify the vehicle, and wherein the defect prioritization generator automatically retrieves the vehicle specification and the defect priority based on the identified vehicle.
‘618 appears to adequately disclose this missing feature by disclosing a vehicle identifier (VID), such as a SmartEye or bar-code reader, that identifies a particular vehicle, a database that stores data for the particular vehicle, and a manufacturing priority that is determined from information associated with the particular vehicle (e.g., See ‘618; [0036], [0051] and [0064]). These teachings, taken together with ‘057 in view of ‘630 are interpreted to disclose identifying the particular vehicle and automatically retrieving the configuration data for the tracked object configuration group and the priority score for the identified vehicle.
It would have been to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have incorporated the teachings of ‘618 into ‘057 in view of ‘630 for the purpose of automatically matching each vehicle with the correct stored information, so that the system can use the right information when prioritizing defects for that vehicle.
Claims 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Allen, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0096057 A1 (‘057), in view of Kulkarni, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0301630 A1 (‘630), as applied to claim 1, from above, and further in view of Maloney, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0220194 A1 (‘194).
As per claim 8, although ‘057 in view of ‘630 discloses corrective actions for the defects and directing an object having a defect to a separate defect correction location, ‘057 in view of ‘630 does not expressly disclose providing a repair recommendation with the prioritized list of defects in the manner claimed.
‘057 discloses a defect category action table that specifies a corrective action for the defects, including automated correction, human correction, report only, or no action, and a defect evaluator that determines the corrective action for the defects . ‘057 further discloses directing an object having a defect to a separate defect correction location (e.g., See ‘057; [0160] and [0402] – [0403]). These teachings are interpreted to correspond to providing a repair recommendation for the defects indicating whether repair is to be performed as part of the manufacturing process or at a separate defect correction location. ‘194 further discloses using a robotic surface finishing tool to perform automated sanding and polishing on a three dimensional surface, including an automative body panel (e.g., See ‘194; [0003] and [0031] – [0033]).
It would have been to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have incorporated the teachings of ‘194 into ‘057 in view of ‘630 for the purpose of making automated surface repairs more precise and consistent, so that defects selected for repair can be corrected with a more uniform surface finish.
As per claim 9, ‘057 in view of ‘630 further discloses that the repair recommendation also comprises an instruction to not repair a subset of the plurality of defects (e.g., See ‘057; [0402] – [0403]).
As per claim 10, ‘057 in view of ‘630, in further view of ‘194 further discloses that the repair recommendation also comprises instructions for a repair robot to repair at least one defect, and wherein the instructions include a telemetry for the repair robot (e.g., See ‘057; [0192]).
‘194 further discloses controlling a robotic surface finishing tool using a three dimensional motion path having position and orientation information for controlling movement of the tool (e.g., See ‘194; [0033] – [0034] and [0066]).
These teachings are interpreted to correspond to the repair recommendation including instructions for a repair robot, including telemetry for controlling movement of the repair robot.
As per claim 11, ‘057 in view of ‘630, in further view of ‘194 further discloses that the instructions also include an abrasive product, a force to apply, trajectory and a dwell time for the at least one defect by ‘194 disclosing using abrasive material for sanding or polishing, specifying pressure or force applied by a surface finishing tool, providing a three dimensional motion path for movement of the tool, and specifying dwell time along the motion path (e.g., See ‘194; [0031], [0062] and [0066]).
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Allen, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0096057 A1 (‘057), in view of Kulkarni, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0301630 A1 (‘630), as applied to claim 1, from above, and further in view of Cookson, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0241380 A1 (‘380).
As per claim 13, although ‘057 in view of ‘630 discloses receiving user input during defect processing that can change the prioritization of the defects, ‘057 in view of ‘630 does not expressly disclose that the output device includes an input device configured to receive the user feedback.
‘630 discloses that an objective function used to select defects may be modified by a user during the adaptive process based on the defects being observed, and that the objective function may be modified based on input received from the user (e.g., See ‘630; [0081), which is interpreted to correspond to the claimed user feedback that changes the prioritization of the defects. Further, ‘380 discloses a remote touch screen device that displays defect information and allows a user to enter information about defects, with the touch screen device communicating with a computer processing unit (e.g., See ‘380; [0019]). Together these teachings, together with ‘057 in view of ‘630, are interpreted to correspond to the claimed output device including an input device that receives user feedback, wherein the user feedback changes a position of a defect in the prioritized list or schedule of defects.
It would have been to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have incorporated the teachings of ‘380 into ‘057 in view of ‘630 for the purpose of allowing an operator to enter feedback directly through the device displaying the defect information, so that the defect priorities can be easily changed based on the operators’ review.
As per claim 14, ‘057 in view of ‘630, in further view of ‘380 further discloses that the indication of user feedback is stored in the datastore by ‘380 disclosing that information entered by a user through the touch screen device is communicated to the computer processing unit and stored in a database (e.g., See ‘380; [0019] and [0031] – [0032]).
References Considered but Not Relied Upon
The following references were considered but were not relied upon with respect to any prior art rejections:
(1) US 6320654 A1, which discloses automatically finding vehicle body surface defects, using vehicle type data and stored defect patterns, and sending relevant defect locations for rework;
(2) US 6714831 B2, which discloses using vehicle images and CAD data to locate paint defects, building a repair strategy, and guide automated repairs;
(3) US 2005/0008213 A1, which discloses finding flaws from images, mapping them to 3D part locations, and controlling a tool to perform selected repair or rework actions;
(4) US 5844801 A, which discloses inspecting vehicle body surface distortion, comparing the results with reference data, displaying defect severity, and planning repairs before painting; and
(5) US 2006/0114531 A1, which discloses capturing and analyzing vehicle images, using vehicle identification data, storing damage information, and outputting automated damage reports.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RONALD D HARTMAN JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3684. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 - 4:30 EST.
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, Mohammad Ali can be reached at (571) 272-4105. 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.
/RONALD D HARTMAN JR/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2119 August 13, 2026
/RDH/
Prosecution Insights