DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/23/2025. The submission is following the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
3. 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:
“means to move the object and the DVS camera relative to each other” recited in claim 13 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 “means” that is coupled with functional language “to move the object and the DVS camera relative to each other” without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
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.
With regards to the corresponding structure of the claimed “means”, Applicant' s Specification, page 18 discloses: “The stations 110, 120 might be machines or other components of the mass production facility 100... In between the stations 110, 120 a DVS camera 210 of an inspection system 200 for camera-based inspection of the object10 is installed. The inspection system 200 is configured to detect irregularities IRR of the object 10, e.g. defects or any production errors, while the object 10 moves along and relative to, respectively, the DVS camera 210”.
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
4. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
5. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 10,the scope of the limitation is unclear because “relationship” is not identified. It is unclear what quantity is required to reach the expectation value X. Also, “the momentary threshold” and “the set threshold” lack clear antecedent basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. 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)(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- 3, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Taamazyan et al. (US 2023/0084807 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Taamazyan discloses a method for camera based inspection of an object ([0041], “the use of a defect detection system to analyze specific instances of objects for defects”), wherein the object and a DVS camera (“dynamic vision sensors (DVS)/ an event camera”, [0047]) with a plurality of sensor elements SE(j) (see Fig. 2, and [0047], “an event camera includes an image sensor 21 with an array of pixels 22 thereon”) are moving relative to each other during the inspection in a transport direction (Fig. 6A, [0089], “a moving object (e.g., an object on a conveyor belt), and [0091], “ an event camera 620… is directed at a conveyor belt 640… moves or conveys the objects 650 along a direction of motion”), the method comprising:
generating an event signal SIG (j) for each sensor element SE(j) from a group of event types including a positive event (“on/ increased brightness ”, see [0047], “generate a pixel-level ON event 29A in response to detecting an increase in detected intensity that exceeds a threshold value”, and [0093], “some pixels report increased brightness events”) and a negative event (“off/ decreased brightness”, [0047], “generate a pixel-level OFF event 29B in response to detecting a decrease in detected intensity that exceeds a threshold value”, and [0093], “some pixels report decreased brightness events”),
if a light flux (“change in the received light”, see [0043]) impinging onto the respective sensor element SE(j) changes by more than a given threshold ([0043], “when a given pixel detects a change in the received light that exceeds a threshold value”), and
identifying an irregularity of the object ([0089], “defect detection (e.g., detecting surface defects in the object)”) if one or more event signals SIG(j) (42/642) generated by the DVS camera ([0048], “each camera-level change event 42 corresponds to a pixel-level event 29 and includes the row and column of the pixel that generated the event … whether the pixel-level event 29 was an ON event 29A or an OFF event 29B, and a timestamp of the pixel-level event 29”, or [0093], “the camera-level events 642 generated by the event camera due to the changes in detected brightness between the first time period and the second time period”)
during the relative movement of a section of the object through a field of view FOV of the DVS camera ([0091], “the objects 650 along a direction of motion, as indicated by the arrow in FIG. 6 , where the objects 650 are moved into, and then out of, the field of view 620A of the event camera 620) fulfills a predefined condition (“the locations of the events correspond to the edges or outline”, [0093], “the locations of the events correspond to the edges or outline of the moving objects in the scene, and the silhouettes of the objects can be detected accordingly”, showing that the silhouettes of the objects can be detected accordingly which indicates as the fulfills, then the defect detection is performed on segmented object, see [0089], “for performing computations on single, segmented objects within the captured images… defect detection (e.g., detecting surface defects in the object)”, indicating that the defect detection inherently uses the same signal SIG).
Regarding claim 2, Taamazyan as discussed in claim 1, discloses an irregularity ([0041], “a defect detection system to analyze specific instances of objects for defects that are specific to a particular category of object “ and para.[0089], “defect detection (e.g., detecting surface defects in the object)”) if an event signal SIG(j) being generated for any sensor element SE(j) ([0048], “each camera-level change event 42 corresponds to a pixel-level event 29 and includes the row and column of the pixel that generated the event (e.g., the (x, y) coordinates of the pixel 22 within the image sensor 21”), whether the pixel-level event 29 was an ON event 29A or an OFF event 29B, and a timestamp of the pixel-level event 29”, and/or [0093], “some pixels report increased brightness events, corresponding to a portion (e.g., an edge) of an object entering into the view of that pixel, and some pixels report decreased brightness events, corresponding to a portion of an object exiting the view of that pixel”).
Regarding claim 3, Taamazyan as discussed in claim 1, further comprising assuming an irregularity ([0089], “defect detection (e.g., detecting surface defects in the object)”, showing identifying/assuming defects on inspected object) if a constellation of those one or more sensor elements SE(j), for which respective event signals SIG(j) are generated during the irregularity detection stage INSPECT (see Fig.6B and [0093], “Grid 680 depicts the camera-level events 642 generated by the event camera due to the changes in detected brightness… some pixels report increased brightness events, corresponding to a portion (e.g., an edge) of an object entering… and some pixels report decreased brightness events, corresponding to a portion of an object exiting the view of that pixel”. This indicates as the constellation of sensor elements during conveyor pass), forms a pattern in time and/or in space (see Fig.6B, the events forms a 3D pattern (x,y,t) cross pixel overtime as objects move) which either corresponds to or deviates from a predefined reference pattern (“known pattern”, see [0092], “a conveyor belt having a fixed, known pattern on its surface can be automatically detected and removed (e.g. subtracted) from the event camera image to leave the events associated with the objects on the conveyor belt”).
Regarding claim 13, Taamazyan discloses a system for camera based inspection of an object to detect an irregularity (Fig.6, a computer vision system including an event camera imaging a conveyor belt with a plurality of different objects, and [0089], “These object-level computations may include, for example, defect detection (e.g., detecting surface defects in the object), the system comprising: a DVS camera (“dynamic vision sensors (DVS)”/ “an event camera”, see [0047]) including a plurality of sensor elements SE (j) (see Figs. 2, 6A, and [0047], “an event camera includes an image sensor 21 with an array of pixels 22 thereon”); and means to move the object and the DVS camera relative to each other during the inspection in a transport direction (Fig. 6A, [0089], “a moving object (e.g., an object on a conveyor belt), and [0091], “ an event camera 620… is directed at a conveyor belt 640… moves or conveys the objects 650 along a direction of motion”); wherein the DVS camera generates an event signal SIG(j) for each sensor element SE(j) from a group of event types including a positive event (“on/ increased brightness ”, see [0047], “generate a pixel-level ON event 29A in response to detecting an increase in detected intensity that exceeds a threshold value”, and [0093], “some pixels report increased brightness events”) and a negative event (“off/ decreased brightness”, [0047], “generate a pixel-level OFF event 29B in response to detecting a decrease in detected intensity that exceeds a threshold value”, and [0093], “some pixels report decreased brightness events”), if a light flux (“change in the received light”, see [0043]) impinging onto the respective sensor element SE(j) changes by more than a given threshold ([0043], “when a given pixel detects a change in the received light that exceeds a threshold value”); and identifies an irregularity of the object ([0089], “defect detection (e.g., detecting surface defects in the object)”) if one or more event signals SIG(j) (42/642) generated by the DVS camera (the event camera, see [0048], “each camera-level change event 42 corresponds to a pixel-level event 29 and includes the row and column of the pixel that generated the event … whether the pixel-level event 29 was an ON event 29A or an OFF event 29B, and a timestamp of the pixel-level event 29”, or [0093], “the camera-level events 642 generated by the event camera due to the changes in detected brightness between the first time period and the second time period”)
during the relative movement of a section of the object through a field of view of the DVS camera ([0091], “the objects 650 along a direction of motion, as indicated by the arrow in FIG. 6 , where the objects 650 are moved into, and then out of, the field of view 620A of the event camera 620) fulfills a predefined condition (“the locations of the events correspond to the edges or outline”, see [0093], “the locations of the events correspond to the edges or outline of the moving objects in the scene, and the silhouettes of the objects can be detected accordingly”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taamazyan in view of Sano (US 2016/0335781 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Taamazyan as discussed in claim 1, does not disclose the object having essentially homogeneous, the given threshold being set based on a roughness of a texture at the surface as claimed. Sano discloses an object having essentially homogeneous (“the surface includes a substantially smooth material”, [0081]), a given threshold Fig. 8 being set based on a roughness of a texture at the surface (Fig.8 , glossiness G corresponding to each frequency f of the surface roughness is specified, and [0073], “determine in advance the predetermined frequency fth that serves as a reference”). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Taamazyan, by utilizing the teaching of Sano, to set the threshold based on the surface roughness to reduce false positives caused by normal texture.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taamazyan.
Regarding claim 14, Taamazyan as discussed in claim 13, discloses rows of sensor elements SE(j) ([0047], “an event camera includes an image sensor 21 with an array of pixels 22, and see Fig.5, an arrangement containing rows and columns of sensor elements) with regard to the transportation direction (see Figs.5-6). Although Taamazyan does not explicitly disclose the angle 0 °<ALPHA<90 ° as claimed, this could be inherently. When the object moves across a pixel array, angle rows can alter from 0 to 90 °. However, if not, selecting a specific angle to improve detection would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Taamazyan accordingly, to improve detection of particular irregular patterns.
Claims 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taamazyan in view of Zhu et al., (US 2023/0009071 A1).
Regarding claims 11 and 15, Taamazyan as discussed above, do not disclose a plurality of light sources to illuminate the field of view as claimed. Zhu et al., disclose a plurality of light sources (FIGS. 7 a to 7 d , two light sources are distributed in a height direction), to illuminate a field of view (see Fig.7a, illuminate the object on the surface side), the light sources arranged so different light sources illuminate different zones of the field of view ([0120], as shown in FIG. 7 c , the lower light source illuminates on the bearing surface side, while the upper light source illuminates an upper surface of the object) and/or illuminate single zone of the field of view with different angles of incidence on the object. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Taamazyan, by utilizing the teaching of Zhu et al., to improve the quality of the image acquired.
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claim 10 would be allowed once the 112b rejection is overcome.
Regarding claim 10, the prior art fails to disclose before detecting irregularities, automatically setting the given threshold, wherein the threshold is varied until a relationship depending on a number of generated event signals related to a reference parameter reaches an expectation value X; the momentary threshold is the set threshold when such relationship reaches the expectation value X.
9. Claims 4-8, 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 4, the prior art fails to disclose the reference pattern being a pattern in space, the reference pattern is such a spatial constellation of sensor elements SE(j) momentarily generating an event signal SIG(j) , which would be caused by a certain section of the object momentarily positioned in the field of view in case no irregularities of the object are present in the certain section; the presence of an irregularity is assumed if a constellation of the one or more sensor elements SE(j) , for which respective event signals SIG(j) are momentarily generated, forms a pattern in space, which deviates from the predefined reference pattern.
Claim 5 depends on claim 4.
Regarding claim 6, the prior art fails to disclose assuming presence of an irregularity if, during a given time span for the same sensor element SE ( j ) the generated event signal SIG(j) changes from a first event type of the group to a second, different event type of the group.
Regarding claim 7, the prior art fails to disclose assuming presence of an irregularity if, during a time span, event signals SIG(jl) , SIG(j2) , SIG(j3) of a single event type are generated for a plurality of N>2 different sensor elements SE(jl) , SE(j2) , SE(j3) for different points in time, wherein the different sensor elements SE(jl) , SE(j2) , SE(j3) are lying on an essentially straight line.
Regarding claim 8, the prior art fails to disclose assuming presence of an irregularity if, for a first sensor element SE(jl) an event signal SIG(jl) of a first event type of the group is generated and, essentially at the same time t0, for a second sensor element SE(j2) , which is located adjacent to the first sensor element SE(jl) , an event signal SIG(j2) of a different, second event type of the group is generated.
Regarding claim 12, the prior art fails to disclose if a first event signal of a first event type of the group is generated for a first sensor element SE(jl) in a first one of the differently illuminated zones at a first point in time, presence of an irregularity is assumed in case a second event signal of the corresponding event type as the first event type is generated for a second sensor element SE(j2) at a second point in time and if the second sensor element is located in a second one of the differently illuminated zones and corresponds to the first sensor element wherein sensor elements in different zones correspond to each other in case their mutual distance from each other in transport direction is essentially proportional to the distance, which a point on the surface of the object moves relative to the field of view between the points in time.
Conclusion
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAI THI NGOC TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272- 3456. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9:00-5:30pm.
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, GEORGIA EPPS can be reached on (571)272-2328. 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. Visithttps://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.
/M.T.T./Examiner, Art Unit 2878
/GEORGIA Y EPPS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2878
Prosecution Insights