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 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The article beginning each lettered clause (a,b and c in claim 1; a in claim 9) should not be capitalized
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
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. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“referencing means” in claim 7.
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.
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
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 9-14 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.
The way all the method claims 9-14 are written makes it unclear as to whether or not they are method claims or apparatus claims.
claims 9-14 are directed to a method, yet each step recited is phrased as a description of what a component of the apparatus of claim 1 automatically does, rather than as the positive recitation of an affirmative step performed by a user practicing the method. This mixing of apparatus and method language renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether infringement occurs. MPEP 2173.05(p).
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:
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, 5-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibata (US 3590258 A) in view of Mueller (US20050089210A1).
Regarding claim 1, Shibata teaches a device for checking the flatness of a metal sheet or strip moving in a direction X (Abstract, col.1, lines 49-56), comprising: a) A light source (12) illuminating a field of observation of the sheet or strip substantially homogeneously (fig. 2, col.1, lines 49-56), b), camera (14), which is disposed so as to record, in the field of observation, at least one photograph of a deformed image of the light source formed by the sheet or strip (col.1, lines 49-56, lines 65-66), but fails to disclose the camera is a 2D digital camera, a computing device for comparing at least one photograph of the deformed image of the light source with a photograph of a reference image of the light source and for continuously computing at least one coefficient correlated with the flatness of the sheet or strip.
However, Mueller, which is related to a device for checking the flatness of a metal sheet or strip, thus from the same field of endeavor as Shibata, teaches a camera which is a 2D digital camera ([0033]), a computing device for comparing at least one photograph of the deformed image of the light source with a photograph of a reference image of the light source and for continuously computing at least one coefficient correlated with the flatness of the sheet or strip ([0018], [0033]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shibata by incorporating a camera which is a 2D digital camera, a computing device for comparing at least one photograph of the deformed image of the light source with a photograph of a reference image of the light source and for continuously computing at least one coefficient correlated with the flatness of the sheet or strip to make possible a rapid determination of the actual height differences of the strip surface and in this way permits measurement of continuous lengths of strip in real time ([0018]).
Regarding claim 2, Shibata, when modified by Muller, teaches the flatness-checking device according to claim 1, wherein the light source is substantially linear and straight in form, optionally substantially perpendicular to the direction of the movement X (Shibata: (fig. 2, col.1, lines 49-56)
Regarding claim 5, Shibata, when modified by Muller, teaches the flatness-checking device according to claim 1, wherein the camera is substantially centered with respect to the field of observation (Shibata: fig. 1, col. 1, lines 52-54, lines 65-66 ).
Regarding claim 6, Shibata, when modified by Muller, teaches the flatness-checking device according to claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the images of the ends of the light source in the perpendicular direction are not in the field of observation, and optionally in that the images of the ends of the light source in the perpendicular direction are not visible to the camera.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shibata and Muller by arranging for the images of the ends of the light source in the perpendicular direction to not be in the field of observation, and optionally in that the images of the ends of the light source in the perpendicular direction are not visible to the camera so light source’s ends do no fall within, and therefore do not corrupt the imaged inspection region.
Regarding claim 7, Shibata, when modified by Muller, teaches the device for checking flatness of a strip according to claim 1, wherein the device comprises referencing means (17 and 18) that optionally are spaced apart by at least the width of the sheet or strip (Shibata: col. 2, lines 37-40).
Regarding claim 8, Shibata, when modified by Muller, teaches a sheet or strip production machine comprising the device according to claim 1 (Shibata: Abstract, col. 2, lines 37-38).
Regarding claim 9, Shibata, when modified by Muller, teaches a method for checking flatness with the device according to claim 1, comprising the following successive steps: a) The camera transmits a photograph of the deformed image of the light source to the computing device (Muller: [0033]), b) a predetermined model implemented in the computing device determines the photograph of the reference image of the light source (Muller: [0033]), c) the predetermined model compares the photograph of the deformed image of the light source with the photograph of the reference image of the light source (Muller: [0033]), d) the predetermined model computes at least one coefficient correlated with the flatness of the sheet or strip (Muller: [0018]).
Regarding claim 11, Shibata, when modified by Muller, teaches the continuous flatness-checking method according to claim 9, wherein the camera transmits a photograph of the deformed image of the light source to the computing device according to a predetermined period (Shibata: col. 2, lines 3-5; Muller: [0018]).
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibata (US 3590258 A) in view of Mueller (US20050089210A1), and further in view of Valerio (EP1327852).
Regarding claim 3, Shibata, when modified by Muller, teaches the flatness-checking device according to claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the light source is in a plane substantially parallel to the plane of the sheet or strip.
However, Valerio, which is related to a device for checking the flatness of a metal sheet or strip, thus from the same field of endeavor as Shibata, teaches the light source is in a plane substantially parallel to the plane of the sheet or strip ([0014]-[0015]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shibata and Muller by incorporating the light source is in a plane substantially parallel to the plane of the sheet or strip for improved measurement.
Regarding claim 4, Shibata, when modified by Muller, teaches the device according to claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the light source consists of light-emitting diodes (LEDs).
However, Valerio teaches the light source consists of light-emitting diodes (LEDs) ([0014]-[0017]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shibata and Muller by incorporating wherein the light source consists of light-emitting diodes (LEDs) for improved measurement.
11. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibata (US 3590258 A) in view of Mueller (US20050089210A1), and further in view of Isei (US20140007634A1).
Regarding claim 12, Shibata, when modified by Muller, teaches the continuous checking method according to claim 11, but fails to disclose wherein at least one coefficient correlated with the flatness of the sheet or strip is a mean on a predetermined plurality of sliding photographs.
However, Isei, which is related to a device for checking the flatness of a metal sheet or strip, thus from the same field of endeavor as Shibata, teaches wherein at least one coefficient correlated with the flatness of the sheet or strip is a mean on a predetermined plurality of sliding photographs ([0051], [0053]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shibata and muller by incorporating wherein at least one coefficient correlated with the flatness of the sheet or strip is a mean on a predetermined plurality of sliding photographs in order to reduce noise measurement.
12. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibata (US 3590258 A) in view of Mueller (US20050089210A1), and further in view Scheid (US 20130114878 A1)
Regarding claim 13, Shibata, when modified by Muller, teaches the method according to claim 11, but fails to disclose further including the step e) the predetermined model compares the photograph of the deformed image of the light source with respect to the photographs of the deformed images of the light sources that were previously transmitted by the camera.
However, Scheid, which relates to defect detection, thus from the same field of endeavor as Shibata, teaches compares the photograph of the deformed image of the light source with respect to the photographs of the deformed images of the light sources that were previously transmitted by the camera ([0015]-[0016]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shibata and Muller by incorporating further including the step e) the predetermined model compares the photograph of the deformed image of the light source with respect to the photographs of the deformed images of the light sources that were previously transmitted by the camera for a more robust diagnostic (Scheid [0030]).
13. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibata (US 3590258 A) in view of Mueller (US20050089210A1), further in view of Isei (US20140007634A1), and further in view of Keiji (JP,2015-094666,A).
Regarding claim 14, Shibata, when modified by Muller and Isei, teaches the method according to claim 12, but fails to disclose wherein the predetermined model identifies the repetitive flatness defects.
However, Keiji, which is related to a device for checking the flatness of a metal sheet or strip, thus from the same field of endeavor as Shibata, teaches the predetermined model identifies the repetitive flatness defects ([0059]-[0061])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shibata, Isei and Muller by incorporating wherein the predetermined model identifies the repetitive flatness defects for improvement in accuracy of detection (Keiji [0001]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 is 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, and if the 112 (b) rejection is overcome.
The prior art of record, whether considered individually or in combination, do not render obvious the claim subject matter: “wherein steps b to d comprise the following successive steps :i) the predetermined model analyzes the photograph of the deformed image of the light source as a deformed line ii) a reference line is preferentially estimated by the linear regression of a deformed line, iii) a distance to the reference line is obtained by calculating the mean of the Euclidean distance of each point on the deformed line to the reference line, and/or the following successive steps iv) the predetermined model analyzes the photograph of the deformed image of the light source as a deformed line, v) the deformed line is segmented into a plurality of elements, vi) a segmented reference line is calculated by the linear regression of each segment of the deformed line, vii)for at least one element of the segmented deformed line, a distance to the segmented reference line is obtained by calculating the mean of the Euclidean distance of each point of the element of the deformed line to the segmented reference line.”
None of the cited references teach using linear regression to derive the reference line from the deformed line itself, or measuring flatness by calculating the mean Euclidean distance between the deformed line and that regression-derived reference line.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Blanchard(US 6995838 B2).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED DOUMBIA whose telephone number is (571)272-8266. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00 PM ET.
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 571-272-3995. 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.
/MOHAMED DOUMBIA/ Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/MICHELLE M IACOLETTI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
