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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments, see Page 7, Objection to Drawings, filed 07/24/2026, with respect to Figures 1 and 2 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to said figures in Office Action of 04/28/2026 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments, see Pages 7-8, Objection to Claims, filed 07/24/2026, with respect to claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to said claims in Office Action of 04/28/2026 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments, see Page 8, 35 U.S.C. §102 REJECTION OVER SICK, filed 07/24/2026, with respect to claims 18-19 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection of said claims in Office Action of 04/28/2026 has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of JP-2004-138400-A.
Applicant’s amendments, see Pages 9-10, 35 U.S.C. §103 REJECTIONS, filed 07/24/2026, with respect to claims 1-17 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection of said claims in Office Action of 04/28/2026 has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of JP-2004-138400-A.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 8-10, filed 07/24/2026, with respect to claims 1-19 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of said claims in Office Action of 04/28/2026 has been withdrawn.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of informalities indicated in an attached, marked-up copy of the specification. For clarification, Examiner respectfully points out that the attached, marked-up copy of the specification identifies informalities to assist the Applicant, and as such, Applicant is requested to make appropriate corrections and submit a substitute specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 2, the only sentence therein will be read as “The system according to claim 1, wherein[[,]] the light source is configured such that substantially all of the light from the light source is oriented toward the material seam.”
In Claim 18, lines 2-4 will be read as “providing a light source on a first side of a material having the tube seam formed therein, the light source being aligned with the tube seam and enclosed on lateral sides by a side wall configured to prevent light transfer past the side wall;”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Frontier System KK (JP 2004-138400 A, hereinafter "Frontier"; English translation provided in Office Action of 04/28/2026).
Regarding independent Claim 18, Frontier discloses a method for inspecting a tube seam, comprising:
providing a light source (Figure 7; [0003] “fluorescent lamps 1, 1”) on a first side of a material (Figure 7; [0003] “below the resin sheet 2”) having the tube seam formed therein ([0004] “the resin sheet 2 can be formed into a cylindrical shape by butt-joining the two side ends or overlapping the two side ends and welding them by ultrasonic welding or the like”), the light source being aligned with the tube seam (Figure 7: fluorescent lamps 1, 1 are below resin sheet 2) and enclosed on lateral sides by a side wall (Figure 7; [0003] “covers 4 of the fluorescent lamps 1, 1”) configured to prevent light transfer past the side wall (Figure 7: shows light from fluorescent lamps 1, 1 restricted within covers 4);
providing an imaging device (Figure 7; [0003] “imaging device 3”) on a second side of the tube seam (Figure 7: imaging device 3 is above resin sheet 2; [0004] “the resin sheet 2 can be formed into a cylindrical shape by butt-joining the two side ends or overlapping the two side ends and welding them by ultrasonic welding or the like”), the second side being located opposite the first side (Figure 7: above resin sheet 2 is opposite below resin sheet 2);
capturing an image of the seam as it advances past the imaging device (Figure 7; [0003] “when a defect-free resin sheet 2 passes, most of the light from the fluorescent lamps 1, 1 before and after in the conveying direction T transmits obliquely through the resin sheet 2 as is, so only the dark background of the covers 4 is captured by the imaging device 3. However, when there is a defect in the resin sheet 2, the light from the fluorescent lamps 1, 1 causes irregular reflection and refraction as it passes through the defective part of the resin sheet 2, and part of the scattered light generated by these irregular reflections and refractions is received by the imaging device 3”);
transmitting the image to a processor ([0014] “appropriately processing the images captured by this imaging device”, wherein “processing the images captured by this imaging device” implies images transmitted to a processor for processing); and
analyzing, by the processor ([0014] “by appropriately processing the images captured by this imaging device and automatically determining seam defects based on them, inspection can also be conducted unmanned”), the amount of light transmitted through the material and the tube seam (Figure 7; [0003] “when there is a defect in the resin sheet 2, the light from the fluorescent lamps 1, 1 causes irregular reflection and refraction as it passes through the defective part of the resin sheet 2, and part of the scattered light generated by these irregular reflections and refractions is received by the imaging device 3”).
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, 13 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frontier System KK (JP 2004-138400 A, hereinafter "Frontier"; English translation provided in Office Action of 04/28/2026).
Regarding independent Claim 1, Frontier discloses a system for imaging a material seam, comprising:
a camera (Figure 1; [0018] “imaging device 3”) having a lens (implicit for an imaging device to have a lens) positioned to image the material seam ([0013] “seam defects are detected based on image signals near the seam captured by this imaging device”), the camera being positioned on a first side of the material seam ([0013] “an imaging device is arranged outside the seam”);
a light source (Figure 1; [0018] “a transmitted illumination device 8”) for illuminating the material seam (Figure 1; [0022] “light from the LED 8d of the transmission illumination device 8 is irradiated onto this seam 6a”), the light source being located on a second side of the material seam ([0010] “a transmissive illumination device is arranged in the resin tube”) opposite the first side (Figure 1: inside resin tube 6 is opposite outside resin tube 6); and
a processor ([0014] “by appropriately processing the images captured by this imaging device and automatically determining seam defects based on them, inspection can also be conducted unmanned”, wherein “processing the images” implies a processor) configured to determine an intensity of light ([0026] “a light-receiving element that detects only the light intensity within a predetermined range”) transmitted through the material seam ([0022] “when a defect occurs in the seam 6a in this manner, the light from LED 8d becomes scattered light due to diffuse reflection and refraction, and a portion of this light is also received by the imaging device 3”, implying that light is transmitted through a defect in seam 6a); but does not specifically teach:
wherein, the light source is enclosed on lateral sides by a side wall configured to prevent light transfer past the side wall.
However, Frontier, in a different embodiment – see Figure 7 – teaches that the light source (Figure 7; [0003] “fluorescent lamps 1, 1”) is enclosed on lateral sides by a side wall (Figure 7; [0003] “covers 4 of the fluorescent lamps 1, 1”) configured to prevent light transfer past the side wall (Figure 7: shows light from fluorescent lamps 1, 1 restricted within covers 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Frontier with teachings of Figure 7, wherein, the light source is enclosed on lateral sides by a side wall configured to prevent light transfer past the side wall, because “when a defect-free resin sheet 2 passes, most of the light from the fluorescent lamps 1, 1 before and after in the conveying direction T transmits obliquely through the resin sheet 2 as is, so only the dark background of the covers 4 is captured by the imaging device 3. However, when there is a defect in the resin sheet 2, the light from the fluorescent lamps 1, 1 causes irregular reflection and refraction as it passes through the defective part of the resin sheet 2, and part of the scattered light generated by these irregular reflections and refractions is received by the imaging device 3, allowing the defect to be detected.” (Frontier, [0003])
Regarding Claim 2, modified Frontier discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein the light source is configured such that substantially all of the light from the light source is oriented toward the material seam (Figure 4; [0022] “light from the LED 8d of the transmission illumination device 8 is irradiated onto this seam 6a”).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Frontier discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein the processor ([0014] “by appropriately processing the images captured by this imaging device and automatically determining seam defects based on them, inspection can also be conducted unmanned”, wherein “processing the images” implies a processor) is further configured to determine, based on the intensity of light transmitted through the material seam (Figure 4; [0022] “when a defect occurs in the seam 6a in this manner, the light from LED 8d becomes scattered light due to diffuse reflection and refraction, and a portion of this light is also received by the imaging device 3”, implying that light is transmitted through a defect in seam 6a), one or more of a material degradation of a material forming a tube, a variation in thickness of the seam, a width of the seam and an irregularity in the seam (Figure 4; [0022] “the captured image shows the seam 6a area as particularly bright compared to the surrounding area, which enables the defect in the seam to be detected”).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Frontier discloses the system according to claim 4, wherein the irregularity may include one or more of a crack, a tear, and an insufficient weld (Figure 4; [0022] “when the welding of the seam 6a is incomplete, resulting in peeling or gaps at the joining surface”).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Frontier discloses the system according to claim 1, further comprising a power source (Figure 1; [0019] “LED lighting power supply 10”).
Regarding Claim 13, modified Frontier discloses the system according to claim 1, further comprising an elongated shaft (Figure 1: element 5 is a stainless-steel spindle; [0017) couplable to a tube forming device (Figure 1: element 6 is a cylindrical resin tube; [0017), the elongated shaft housing the light source therein (Figure 1: element 8 is a transmitted illumination device; [0018).
Regarding Claim 17, modified Frontier discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein the seam is a seam of a tube (Figure 1; [0017] “the resin sheet 2 becomes the resin tube 6 as the wrapped side edges are fused together by ultrasonic welding, and the welded portion at the upper end of the resin tube 6 becomes the seam 6a”).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frontier System KK (JP 2004-138400 A, hereinafter "Frontier"; English translation provided in Office Action of 04/28/2026) in view of McMurrough et al. (US 2021/0150661 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Frontier discloses the system according to claim 1, but does not specifically teach a wireless transmitter.
However, McMurrough, in the same field of industrial inspection, teaches a wireless transmitter (Figures 3, 5, 6, 7A, 11: element 44 is one or more wireless 802.11 radio antennae; [0032]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Frontier with the teachings of McMurrough, for a wireless transmitter, because “It is not necessary to use an external computer or server to perform calculations on the data/signals from the cameras” (McMurrough, [0032]) when using a wireless transmitter.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frontier System KK (JP 2004-138400 A, hereinafter "Frontier"; English translation provided in Office Action of 04/28/2026) in view of Patel et al. (US 2019/0133424 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Frontier discloses the system according to claim 1, but does not specifically teach a wireless charger.
However, Patel, in the same field of inspecting the interior of cavities or tubes, teaches a wireless charger ([0041] “The power supply battery may be charged by modalities such as, …, induction charger via wireless electromagnetic fields”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Frontier with the teachings of Patel, for a wireless charger, because wireless chargers offer more flexibility than close-range induction, allowing for slightly further distances between the charger and the inspection light source.
Claim(s) 9-10, 14-16 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frontier System KK (JP 2004-138400 A, hereinafter "Frontier"; English translation provided in Office Action of 04/28/2026) in view of Sick AG (DE 202019106722 U1, hereinafter "Sick"; English translation provided in Office Action of 04/28/2026).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Frontier discloses the system according to claim 1, but does not specifically teach that an image length of an image captured by the imaging device is equal to a length of the light source.
However, Sick, in the same field of weld seam detection, teaches that an image length of an image (Figure 3; [0048] “the line sensor 2 has a field of view of 25 mm to 50 mm”) captured by the imaging device (Figure 3: element 2 is a line sensor; [0042]) is equal to a length of the light source (Figure 3: element 3 is a light source; [0044] “the light-emitting diodes are spaced in a row in a grid of 1 mm to 5 mm, especially in a grid of 2 mm to 4 mm”; since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. (MPEP 2144.05)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Frontier with the teachings of Sick, such that an image length of an image captured by the imaging device is equal to a length of the light source, because a "life-size" reproduction ratio, commonly referred to as 1:1 or 1x magnification, is a critical setting in quality inspection where the image of an object projected onto a camera sensor is exactly the same size as the actual object, which ensures the highest possible resolution for small subjects, such as identifying micro-fractures in industrial components.
Regarding Claim 10, modified Frontier discloses the system according to claim 1, but does not specifically teach that the imaging device is vertically separated from the seam by 30 mm.
However, Sick, in the same field of weld seam detection, teaches that the imaging device (Figure 3: element 2 is a line sensor; [0042]) is vertically separated from the seam by 30 mm (Figure 3; [0047] “line sensor 2 has a sensing range of 20 mm to 30 mm”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Frontier with the teachings of Sick, wherein the imaging device is vertically separated from the seam by 30 mm, because using line sensors at close range is a highly effective, non-contact method for high-speed, high-precision industrial quality inspection.
Regarding Claim 14, modified Frontier discloses the system according to claim 9, and the light source (see claim 1 rejection), but does not specifically teach a light cover positioned over the light source, the light cover being clear.
However, Sick, in the same field of weld seam detection, teaches a light cover positioned over the light source ([0021] “a diffuse windscreen is arranged in front of the light-emitting diodes”), the light cover being clear ([0021] “The windshield can be made of transparent or semi-transparent plastic or glass”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Frontier with the teachings of Sick, for a light cover positioned over the light source, the light cover being clear, because “The diffuse windshield homogenizes the light, creating uniform illumination from the light source.” (Sick, [0021])
Regarding Claim 15, modified Frontier discloses the system according to claim 13, the light source (see claim 1 rejection), and the elongated shaft (see claim 13 rejection), but does not specifically teach a chassis configured to house the light source therein, the chassis configured for insertion into the elongated shaft.
However, Sick, in the same field of weld seam detection, teaches a chassis configured to house the light source therein (Figure 3; [0036] “light source 3 is arranged in a second housing).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Frontier with the teachings of Sick, for a chassis configured to house the light source therein, the chassis configured for insertion into the elongated shaft, to ensure system survival, optical alignment, and measurement accuracy in the harshest industrial environments.
Regarding Claim 16, modified Frontier discloses the system according to claim 13, but does not specifically teach a roller attached to the elongated shaft, the roller configured to aid in movement of the material past the roller.
However, Sick, in the same field of weld seam detection, teaches a roller (Figure 3: element 18 is a transport device; [0053]), the roller configured to aid in movement of the material past the roller (Figure 3; [0053] “object 4 is moved past line sensor 2 by a transport device 18”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Frontier with the teachings of Sick, for a roller attached to the elongated shaft, the roller configured to aid in movement of the material past the roller, because rollers support, move, and guide materials, which aids in speeding up inspection processes.
Regarding Claim 19, Frontier discloses the method of claim 18, but does not specifically teach:
comparing, by the processor, the light transmittal data to baseline data correlated with one or more of a sufficiently welded seam, an insufficiently welded side seam, and a damaged side seam.
However, Sick, in the same field of weld seam detection, teaches comparing, by the processor (Figure 3: element 6 is a control and evaluation unit; [0054]), the light transmittal data to baseline data correlated with one or more of a sufficiently welded seam, an insufficiently welded side seam, and a damaged side seam (Figure 3; [0033] “the control and evaluation unit 6 compares the luminous intensity of the first area 10 and the second area 11 detected by the line sensor 2, whereby the weld seam 9 is detected by the control and evaluation unit 6 by the fact that the detected luminous intensity, i.e. the transmission in the first area 10, is higher than in the second area 11”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Frontier with the teachings of Sick, for comparing, by the processor, the light transmittal data to baseline data correlated with one or more of a sufficiently welded seam, an insufficiently welded side seam, and a damaged side seam, because using a digital processor to compare light transmittal data against established baseline data is essential for achieving high speed, automation, and objective accuracy in quality control.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-2022/0291137-A1 discloses a surface inspection apparatus including an imaging device that images a portion of an object to be inspected, a first light source that is included in multiple light sources that illuminate the portion and that is configured such that a light component that is included in light emitted from the first light source and that is reflected by specular reflection from the portion to be inspected is a principal light component that is incident on the imaging device, and a second light source that is included in the multiple light sources and that is disposed opposite the first light source with an optical axis of the imaging device interposed therebetween such that a light component that is reflected by diffuse reflection from the portion to be inspected is a principal light component that is incident on the imaging device.
US-2016/0274034-A1 discloses a can body inspection apparatus which prevents a drop in resistance to noise while enabling high speed inspection. It is comprised of a light source control means (21, 22) for turning on the light source unit a predetermined number of times of two times or more at predetermined timings at which light can be taken in by the light-detection unit through the open end face of the can body W which is moving along the path of conveyance W, a detection signal integrating means 23 for integrating signal values based on the detection signal which is output from the light-detection unit 15 due to on operations of the light source unit 10, and a condition judging means 24 for using an integrated value which is obtained by the detection signal integrating means 23 as the basis to judge the condition of the can body.
US-2002/0154811-A1 discloses that an image input can be executed without any influence of physical conditions of an inspection object and environment such as installation area by utilizing a cordless type image pickup apparatus in the excellent portability combining a lighting apparatus to a digital camera. On the occasion of picking up an image of such inspection object, marks of the shape such as the rectangular shape, circular shape and linear line shape and marks of the shape combining the linear lines (plus sign (+), capital letter L or cross (+)) of known size are allocated within the same image and these marks are extracted simultaneously. Thereby, compensation process for the magnifying factor, position and tilt is conducted using the marks allocated in the image with the equal interval. Input data is continuously applied depending on the inspection object to generate a total inspection map by combining such input data. A computer executes a flaw detection process and stores the processing result in the form of a file together with the inspection images. Thereby, an inspection management system for search using information and inspection result of the inspection object as the characteristics element can be established.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Akbar H Rizvi whose telephone number is (571) 272-5085. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:30 am - 6:30 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, Tarifur R Chowdhury can be reached at (571) 272-2287. 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.
/AKBAR H. RIZVI/
Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights