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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. The current title is highly vague and provides little informative value for a person of ordinary skill in the art whether the document warrants further review. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. MPEP 606.01 guides that a descriptive title may result in slightly longer title, but the loss in brevity of title will be more than offset by the gain in its informative value in indexing, classifying, searching, etc.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-18 are 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.
Claim 1 recites a limitation “adjusted” relative to a color of a vehicle. The color of the vehicle has no defined limitation. As the color has no set limits and the term “adjusted” not limiting in the manner in which the color temperature and illuminance is adjusted nor what it is adjusted from, the limitation is indefinite. See MPEP 2173.05(b)(II). Dependent claims 2-18 are rejected for the same reason by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
The same applies to claims 11-14, 16, and 18 where limitations are defined relative to the vehicle. See also MPEP 2115 as the claimed vehicle and properties thereof do not serve to structurally distinguish. The infringement of the claims hinges on the vehicle chosen to be inspected.
Claim 2 recites that the light source is capable of adjusting the color temperature “according to the color of the body of the vehicle.” The only structure recited in the claim is a light source and the recitation of “adjusting….according to the color of the body of the vehicle” is not clear if it is merely a statement of intended use of the light source or if additional structure is imposed by the claim. If so, it is not clear what disclosed structure is to be imported into the claim because the function of adjusting does not appear to correspond to simply a light source. See MPEP 2173.05(g).
The same applies to claim 7 where the light source has a capability to “independently adjust” and no corresponding structure that independently adjusts is found in the claim.
For examination purposes, the claims will be interpreted to be stating the how the light source is intended to be used, rather than speculating what structures are to be imported into the claims.
Claim 19 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.
Claim 19 is directed to a method and it is unclear what acts are covered by the claim. The claim does not list any steps with an indented line. Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation. 37 C.F.R. 1.75(i). In addition, it is unclear if the limitations found in claim 19 are acts, or statements of intended use/purpose, or desired results. For instance, the limitation “used for inspection of an exterior of the vehicle” is not clear if it is statement of purpose or an act of using. An undisputable method claim has clauses that are designated by a present participle and separated with a comma (or a semicolon that includes a comma). See Credle v. Bond, 25 F.3d 1566, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 2, 4-6, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 2 is dependent on claim 1, the subject matter of which is directed to the structure of an inspection device. Under the assumption that claim 2 is reciting a statement of purpose or intended use (see rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)), the claim does not further limit the structure of claim 1.
Claims 4, 5, and 17 recite statements of how the light source is operated and no further structural limitation is found in the claim.
Claim 6 recites results from the operation of the light source, the result being stripe-shaped light) without reciting any additional structure to support the result. As such it is not clear if claim 6 is merely stating results from the manner of using the light source or if additional structure is required to be imported into the claim.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-9 and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Visomax (DE 202023102528 U1).
Visomax shows a light control system as follows:
1. An exterior inspection device comprising a light source configured to project, onto at least a side surface of a vehicle, inspection light used for inspection of an exterior of the vehicle (Para. [0006]: “an individual lighting scenario for lights of an arc of a light tunnel can be determined by a light control system depending on a color of a vehicle body, in particular motor vehicles”) and having a color temperature and illuminance adjusted to a color of a body of the vehicle (Para. [0006]: “This means that a lighting scenario, consisting of an adjusted light intensity and an adjusted color temperature, can be determined and implemented for each body individually depending on its color.”).
2. The exterior inspection device according to claim 1, wherein the light source is capable of adjusting the color temperature and the illuminance of the inspection light according to the color of the body of the vehicle (Para. [0023]: “Color temperatures can vary between 3000K, 4500K or 6500K. Equally, it is conceivable that the color temperature can be changed continuously. In addition, the light intensity of the lights 15 can be varied or dimmable.”).
3. The exterior inspection device according to claim 2, further comprising a control unit configured to control the color temperature and the illuminance of the inspection light according to the color of the body of the vehicle (Para. [0023]: “For the operation or control of the lighting units 14, they are connected to a control unit 19”).
4. The exterior inspection device according to claim 1, wherein
when the color of the body of the vehicle is white, the color temperature of the inspection light is within ranges of 2000 kelvin to 4000 kelvin and 10000 kelvin to 12000 kelvin and the illuminance of the inspection light is within a range of 25 lux to 100 lux, and
when the color of the body of the vehicle is gray, the color temperature of the inspection light is within a range of 3500 kelvin to 5000 kelvin and the illuminance of the inspection light is within a range of 25 lux to 100 lux, and
when the color of the body of the vehicle is black, the color temperature of the inspection light is within ranges of 2000 kelvin to 4000 kelvin and 10000 kelvin to 12000 kelvin and the illuminance of the inspection light is within a range of 1 lux to 100 lux (This claim is directed to the manner in which the device is intended to be operated and does not impart a structural limitation. See claim 2: “the color temperature of the lights (15) is continuously adjustable from 1000 K to 8000 K.”).
5. The exterior inspection device according to claim 4, wherein
when the color of the body of the vehicle is white, the color temperature of the inspection light is 3500 kelvin and the illuminance of the inspection light is within a range of 50 lux to 100 lux,
when the color of the body of the vehicle is gray, the color temperature of the inspection light is 5000 kelvin and the illuminance of the inspection light is within a range of 50 lux to 100 lux, and
when the color of the body of the vehicle is black, the color temperature of the inspection light is 4000 kelvin and the illuminance of the inspection light is within a range of 10 lux to 75 lux (This claim is directed to the manner in which the device is intended to be operated and does not impart a structural limitation. See claim 2: “the color temperature of the lights (15) is continuously adjustable from 1000 K to 8000 K.” As to the claimed luminance, the claimed range is implicit. See para. [0004]: “the light intensity is regulated to 100% in practice so that even dark vehicles can be inspected with a high degree of reliability”).
6. The exterior inspection device according to claim 1, wherein the inspection light includes stripe-shaped first inspection light extending in an up-down direction of the vehicle and stripe-shaped second inspection light extending in a front-rear direction of the vehicle (See Fig 1 where each lamp is vertical and a group of lamps forms a line front to rear).
7. The exterior inspection device according to claim 6, wherein the light source is capable of independently adjusting a color temperature and illuminance of the first inspection light and a color temperature and illuminance of the second inspection light (Para. [0014]: “each lighting unit can be controlled via one or two channels, with the luminosity of the lighting units being variable via a first channel and, if necessary, the color temperature of the lighting units being variable via a second channel.”).
8. The exterior inspection device according to claim 6, wherein the light source includes a first light source configured to project the first inspection light and a second light source configured to project the second inspection light (Para. [0014]: “each lighting unit can be controlled via one or two channels, with the luminosity of the lighting units being variable via a first channel and, if necessary, the color temperature of the lighting units being variable via a second channel.”).
9. The exterior inspection device according to claim 8, wherein
the first light source includes a plurality of first light emitting elements extending in the up-down direction (see Fig. 2) ,
the second light source includes a plurality of second light emitting elements extending in the front- rear direction of the vehicle (see Fig. 2),
the first light emitting elements are disposed, at a position separated from the side surface of the vehicle, at predetermined spacings in the front-rear direction of the vehicle, and
the second light emitting elements are disposed, at a position separated from the side surface of the vehicle, at predetermined spacings in the up-down direction. (the limitations that relate to the vehicle are not found to limit the inspection device because the limitations describe the manner in which the device is intended to be used with a vehicle. See MPEP 2115. In addition the vehicles is shown to be spaced from the light emitting elements in Fig. 1).
16. The exterior inspection device according to claim 9, further comprising:
a first inspection device including the first light source; and
a second inspection device including the second light source and disposed a spacing apart from the first inspection device in the front-rear direction of the vehicle (see the numerous light sources in Figs. 1 and 2).
17. The exterior inspection device according to claim 6, wherein
the first inspection light is used for inspection of painting of an outer surface of the vehicle, and
the second inspection light is used for inspection of continuity of the outer surface of the vehicle (This claim is directed to the manner in which the device is intended to be operated and does not impart a structural limitation, thus not serving to distinguish from ).
18. The exterior inspection device according to claim 6, wherein
a width of a stripe of the first inspection light on the side surface of the vehicle is 10 mm or less and a spacing between stripes is 60 mm to 80 mm, and
a width of a stripe of the second inspection light on the side surface of the vehicle is 10 mm or less and a spacing between stripes is 20 mm or less (the claim recites results from operating the light sources and the distance the vehicle is positioned from the light sources. The claim does not structurally distinguish from Visomax).
19. An inspection light control method comprising an information processing device controlling, according to a color of a body of a vehicle, a color temperature and illuminance of inspection light projected onto at least a side surface of the vehicle and used for inspection of an exterior of the vehicle (as interpreted by the Examiner, see citations for claims 1 and 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.
Claim(s) 10-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Visomax as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Willing (US 6,278,517).
Regarding claim 10, Visomax shows all the elements as recited in claim 9 but does not show the mirror surface on the floor as recited in claim 10.
Willing shows a device for inspecting the surface of large surfaces wherein mirrors are places on the floor in order to illuminate the side walls of a vehicle (column 2, lines 61-67).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious add mirrors on the floor of Visomax in order to illuminate the sides of the vehicles for inspection.
11. The exterior inspection device according to claim 10, wherein the second light emitting elements are longer than a length from a front end of a frontmost door to a rear end of a rearmost door of the side surface of the vehicle and are shorter than an entire length of the vehicle (the claim does not structurally distinguish from Visomax because the limitation set forth depends on properties, e.g. length, of the vehicle used. See MPEP 2115. See Figs. 1 and 2).
12. The exterior inspection device according to claim 10, wherein the second light emitting elements are disposed up to a position higher than the vehicle (the claim does not structurally distinguish from Visomax because the limitation set forth depends on properties, e.g. height of the vehicle used. See MPEP 2115. See Figs. 1 and 2).
13. The exterior inspection device according to claim 10, wherein the first light emitting elements extend in the up-down direction up to a position higher than the vehicle and are disposed in a range longer than an entire length of the vehicle (the claim does not structurally distinguish from Visomax because the limitation depends on properties, e.g. height and length, of the vehicle used. See MPEP 2115; however, Visomax shows the light elements extending in the up-down direction in Figs. 1 and 2).
14. The exterior inspection device according to claim 13, wherein the first light emitting elements further extend in a left-right direction of the vehicle above the vehicle (the claim does not structurally distinguish from Visomax because the limitation depends on properties, e.g. direction the vehicle facing. See MPEP 2115; however, Visomax shows the light elements extending in the left-right direction in Figs. 1 and 2).
15. The exterior inspection device according to claim 10, wherein frames supporting the first light emitting elements and the second light emitting elements and backgrounds of the first light emitting elements and the second light emitting elements are set to a dark color (the frames are not elements of the inspection device because the frames are not positively recited as such and thus the claim is merely stating how the light sources are intended to be supported and not serving to structurally distinguish from Visomax).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hwa Andrew S Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-2419. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at (571) 270-5789. 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.
/Hwa Andrew Lee/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
