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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2, 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LUCAS (US 6,089,108 A1) in view of in view of Windheuser (DE 102004025666 also published as EP1600762 and cited in the IDS filed with the instant application on 06/02/2005).
As of Claim 1:LUCAS teaches a camera device for a glassware forming machine, comprising a camera, an objective and a lens system ( Col. 10, lines 50-67 and note that Referring again to FIG. 13, it can be seen that the image generating device 104 may include a body portion 119 and a lens assembly 107 located at the forward end of the housing portion 119, in a conventional manner. The lens 118 may be located within the lens assembly cylindrical passageway 137 in a conventional manner, and may be spaced a distance "o" of about 1/4 inch from the lens assembly front annular surface 131 as shown.)
Windheuser is a similar or analogous system to the claimed invention as evidenced Windheuser teaches optical system operating exposed for different contaminants and how to reduce the damage that would have prompted a predictable variation of LUCAS by applying Windheuser’s known principal of wherein the lens system defines an entrance pupil on its side facing away from the objective, that the camera device has a diaphragm between the lens system and the object and a stream of blocking air is directed away from the lens system through a diaphragm opening of the diaphragm (Abstract).
In view of the motivations such as reducing contamination of the optical path and maintain reliable imaging of the hot glass article thereby improving the inspection process and one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art system of LUCAS.
Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
As of Claim 2: LUCAS in view of Windheuser further teaches the objective is arranged between the camera and the lens system (LUCAS and Col. 10, lines 50-67).
As of Claim 22: LUCAS in view of Windheuser further teaches a glassware forming machine comprising one or more camera devices according to claim 1 (LUCAS and Col. 7, lines 24-40 and note that a data connection 106 is provided for transmitting the images acquired by first imaging device 102 and second imaging device 104 to remote computer 66. ).
Claims 3-21, 23,24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LUCAS (US 6,089,108 A1) in view of in view of Windheuser (DE 102004025666 also published as EP1600762 and cited in the IDS filed with the instant application on 06/02/2005), and further in view of Mann (US 20080024746 A1).
As of Claim 3: Mann is a similar or analogous system to the claimed invention as evidenced Mann diaphragm plane is a plane which is situated in or near a conjugated plane to the exit pupil plane of the projection system in general by the diaphragm the pupil-image in the exit pupil can be influenced that would have prompted a predictable variation of LUCAS by applying Mann’s known principal of the distance between the entrance pupil and the lens system is from 40 mm to 150 mmf (paragraphs 0099, 0106).
In view of the motivations such as an accessible diaphragm plane, into which for instance an iris diaphragm can be introduced thereby allowing different configurations and one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art system of LUCAS.
Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
As of Claim 4: LUCAS in view of Windheuser in view of Mann further teaches the camera device has a device housing in which at least the camera, the lens, the lens system and the diaphragm are arranged (Mann paragraphs 0096,0099, 0106,0117,0119).
As of Claim 5: LUCAS in view of Windheuser in view of Mann further teaches a distance between the camera and the objective and/or between the objective and the lens system and/or between the lens system and the diaphragm is variable (LUCAS Col. 14, lines 20-35 and note that FIG. 13, increasing the length "l" of the sleeve member 390 will cause the imaging device lens 118 to be further spaced from the exterior environment. Increasing the distance "l" too much, however, may cause the sleeve member inner surface 394 to interfere with the imaging ability of the lens 118. It has been found that the exemplary distance "l" of about 1.0 inch, as set forth above, provides adequate spacing of the lens 118 from the exterior environment while causing little if any interference with the optical ability of the lens.).
As of Claim 6: LUCAS in view of Windheuser in view of Mann further teaches the distance can be varied by arranging one or more intermediate rings in the device housing (LUCAS and Col. 14, lines 20-35).
As of Claim 7: LUCAS in view of Windheuser in view of Mann further teaches an insert part with an inner cone is arranged between the lens system and the diaphragm, wherein an inner side of the inner cone is optically neutral (LUCAS and Col. 14, lines 20-35) .
As of Claim 8: LUCAS in view of Windheuser in view of Mann further teaches the insert part comprises at least one air outlet directed substantially towards the diaphragm opening (Mann paragraphs 0102-0105 and note that the diaphragm B is arranged in a diaphragm plane 2000 between the mirror S1 in the first group of mirrors SG1, with said mirror located at the shortest distance A1 from the image plane 102, and the mirror S6 in the second group of mirrors SG2, with said mirror located at the greatest geometric-physical distance A2 from the image plane 102).
As of Claim 9: LUCAS in view of Windheuser in view of Mann further teaches a number of air outlets are formed at a distance from one another in the peripheral direction of the insert part (LUCAS and Col. 14, lines 20-35).
As of Claim 10: LUCAS in view of Windheuser in view of Mann further teaches the at least one air outlet is formed between the outer side of the inner cone and a substantially cylindrical end section of the insert part (LUCAS and Col. 14, lines 20-35).
As of Claim 11: LUCAS in view of Windheuser in view of Mann further teaches the diaphragm is a pinhole diaphragm (LUCAS and Col. 14, lines 20-35 and note that.
As of Claim 12: LUCAS in view of Windheuser in view of Mann further teaches the device housing has first and second substantially parallel receiving sections and a deflecting section connecting the latter,wherein at least the camera and the lens are arranged in the first receiving section and at least the lens system, the insert part and the diaphragm are arranged in the second receiving section (Mann paragraphs 0102-0105 and note that the FIG. 4b shows the diaphragm plane 1000 of the projection lens in accordance with FIG. 4. Clearly evident is the boundary 1030 of the diaphragm B, which lies in the diaphragm plane, and also the rays of light 1020.1, 1020.2, 1020.3 extending below the diaphragm B in FIG. 4a from the used area N2 of the second mirror S2 to the third used area N3 of the mirror S3.. The radial distance RA2 of the rays of light 1020.1 from the boundary 1030 of the diaphragm B, developed here as a circle, is greater than 50 mm. The radial distance RA2 in the present application is defined as a distance between the beam of light 1020.1 closest to the boundary 1030 of the aperture stop and the actual boundary 1030 of the aperture stop.).
As of Claim 13: LUCAS in view of Windheuser in view of Mann further teaches the deflecting section has at least two deflecting walls that are arranged essentially at a right angle to one another and each have an internal mirror surface (Mann paragraphs 0081, 0091 and note that the projection lenses or projection systems comprising at least four mirrors, with the rays of a beam of light passing through the lens from the object plane to the image plane impinge upon a used area of each of the said mirrors, with provision being made for a diaphragm at a position in a diaphragm plane in a second section of the optical path from a second used area to a third used area, with the location of the diaphragm or aperture stop being at a first distance from a first section of the optical path extending from a first used area to a second used area that is greater than 12% of the construction length of the lens or projection system, and the location of the diaphragm being at a second distance from a third section of the optical path extending from the third used area to a fourth used area that is greater than 16% of the construction length of the projection system, where the construction length of the projection system is defined as the distance from the object field to be imaged to the image field along the optical axis.).
As of Claim 14: LUCAS in view of Windheuser in view of Mann further teaches all parts of the camera device are detachably mounted in the device housing and can be varied in their position and in their mutual spacing (LUCAS and Col. 14, lines 20-35 ).
As of Claim 15: LUCAS in view of Windheuser in view of Mann further teaches the camera is a camera sensitive in at least the near infrared range (LUCAS and Col. 20, lines 34-67 ).
As of Claim 16: LUCAS in view of Windheuser in view of Mann further teaches the camera is a CMOS camera with a blocking filter for the essentially visible spectrum (Windheuser abstract).
As of Claim 17: LUCAS in view of Windheuser in view of Mann further teaches the device housing is pivotally mounted(LUCAS and Col. 10, lines 50-67 and note that FIG. 12, it can be seen that the housing 350 may comprise a two-piece assembly comprising a unitarily formed box portion 360 and a cover member 366 which, when assembled, together form a generally parallelepiped shaped structure.).
As of Claim 18: LUCAS in view of Windheuser in view of Mann further teaches the diaphragm opening is variable in its opening area and/or opening shape (LUCAS and Col. 14, lines 20-35).
As of Claim 19: LUCAS in view of Windheuser in view of Mann further teaches the camera is connected to an evaluation device (LUCAS and Col. 8, lines 50-60 and note that because of the configuration of imaging devices 102 and 104 described above, each imaging device will image a different bottle at any given time. In order to combine the proper images from imaging devices 102 and 104, the remote computer 66 stores image data for a particular bottle from imaging device 104 until the same bottle moves into a position where it is imaged by imaging device 102. The computer then assembles the image data from the two imaging devices 102 and 104 to obtain complete data for each bottle.).
As of Claim 20: LUCAS in view of Windheuser in view of Mann further teaches the device housing has a compressed air connection (LUCAS and Col. 9, lines 9-20 and note that opening 122 may measure about 1" inch by 1 inch. In operation, cooling fluid is introduced through fluid line 108 at a rate great enough to prevent dirt and outside air from the bottle hot end 80 from entering the housing 120. The fluid entering the housing 120 maintains the interior of the housing at a pressure higher than that of the outside atmosphere.).
As of Claim 21: LUCAS in view of Windheuser in view of Mann further teaches the blocking air flow is used as a cooling air flow inside the device housing for cooling the camera or other electrical/electronic devices in the device housing before exiting through the diaphragm (LUCAS and Col. 10, lines 50-67 and note that FIG. 3 illustrates an alternative embodiment of the invention in which a single opening 122 is provided in a housing 120 to accommodate both lines of sight 103 and 105. Providing only one opening is advantageous since less cooling air escapes from one opening than escapes from two openings. Since less cooling air escapes, less cooling air needs to be supplied to the housing 120.).
As of Claim 23: LUCAS in view of Windheuser in view of Mann further teaches the distance between the entrance pupil and the lens system is from 50 mm to 80 mm (LUCAS and Col. 10, lines 54-65 ).
As of Claim 24: LUCAS in view of Windheuser in view of Mann further teaches the blocking air flow is used as a cooling air flow inside the device housing for cooling electrical/electronic devices in the device housing before exiting through the diaphragm (LUCAS and Col. 10, lines 50-67 and note that although the pressurized housings described above generally function well, it has been found that, due to the size of the openings 110, 112 and 122, a relatively large amount of compressed cooling air must be supplied to the housings via the line 108 in order to maintain an adequate pressure differential and air flow through the openings. It has also been found that eddy currents sometimes form near the edges of the openings 110, 112 and 122, causing a small amount of outside air, dirt and other contaminants to be drawn into the housings 100, 120.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEKONNEN D DAGNEW whose telephone number is (571)270-5092. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00AM-5:00PM M-Th.
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, Lin Ye can be reached on 571-272-7372. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MEKONNEN D DAGNEW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2638
