DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
1- This office action is a response to an application filed on 4/09/2025, in which claims 1-21 are currently pending. The Application is a National Stage entry of PCT/IB2023/059291 , International Filing Date: 09/20/2023, and claims foreign priority to 102022000021021, filed 10/12/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
2- The submitted information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) is(are) in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is(are) being considered by the examiner.
Specification
3- The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which application may become aware in the specification.
Drawings
4- The drawings were received on 4/09/2025. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112
5- 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.
6- 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:
Illuminating apparatus/unit in claims 1, 5-6, 13-14, 17,
Movement apparatus in claim 20,
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
7- 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.
8- Claims 1-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
As to claim 1, which reads “…comprising at least one filtering septum and at least one device for the acquisition … wherein said device comprises a support frame… and wherein said device…”, the underlined clauses appear to present antecedence issues.
Claims 2-21 are similarly rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
Similar issues are encountered with “the camera” in claims 3-4, 7-8, 10-14 and the other claims, since “at least one camera” is introduced in claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 (MPEP 706.02(m)).
9- 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.
10- Claims 1-5, 7-19 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Asae et al. (JP 2016/99135; cited by Applicants)
As to claim 1, Asae teaches a filtration apparatus (Abstract, Figs. 1-11) comprising at least one filtering septum (a mere article acted upon which “does not limit apparatus claims”, See MPEP §2115. Asae uses its optical inspection to detect defects/cracks on an equivalent surface; ¶ 1-2) and at least one device for the acquisition of optical images of filtering septa (4 in system 2), wherein said device comprises a support frame (support of module 4 as detailed in Figs. 1-7) on which the following are in-stalled: at least one mirror (12) with a reflective surface, at least one camera (11) having an optical axis adapted to intercept said reflecting surface at an angle of incidence other than a right angle (Fig. 3 showing angle q between normal of mirror and axis of camera 11), generating an inclined reflected optical axis not coincident with the optical axis itself (downward axis of mirror in Fig. 3), and at least one illuminating apparatus (illumination means 14/14A) adapted to illuminate at least one point on the reflected optical axis spaced from the reflecting surface, and wherein said device is arranged so that the reflected optical axis intersects said filtering septum (Abstract, Figs. 2-4 for ex).
Moreover, Asae teaches:
(claim 2) wherein the reflecting surface is chosen from the group consisting of: a flat reflecting surface, a concave reflecting surface and a convex reflecting surface (Fig. 3, ¶ 19-20 for ex).
(claim 3) wherein the reflecting surface extends predominantly along a predetermined longitudinal direction orthogonal to the optical axis of the camera (Fig. 2; major axis of mirror 12).
(claim 4) wherein the camera is chosen from the group consisting of: a matrix camera and a linear camera (¶ 17-18; CCD camera).
(claim 5) wherein the illuminating apparatus is adapted to emit light having a wavelength comprised between 10 nm and 1 mm (¶ 20-21; LEDs being used and images, Figs. 9-11, in the visible range which is contained in the claimed spectral range).
(claim 7) wherein the illuminating apparatus comprises one or more illuminators positioned between the mirror and the camera and/or one or more illuminators positioned on the opposite side of the mirror with respect to the camera (Fig. 3 for ex).
(claim 8) wherein each illuminator may provide a spot light or extend predominantly in a predetermined longitudinal direction orthogonal to the optical axis of the camera (¶ 20 for ex; LEDs providing light spots).
(claim 9) wherein the illuminating apparatus comprises one or more lenses adapted to diffuse and/or focus the light generated thereby (¶ 18-20; LED lenses and/or bar shape light, i.e. collimated i.e. focused light).
(claim 10) wherein the mirror can be oriented on the support frame by rotating about an axis of rotation orthogonal to the optical axis of the camera (during installing, the mirror necessarily is rotated about its axis, which is perpendicular to the camera axis, Figs. 2-3, to set its angle).
(claim 11) wherein the camera can be oriented on the support frame by rotating about an axis of rotation orthogonal to the optical axis thereof (during installing, the camera necessarily is rotated about its axis, which is perpendicular to the camera optical axis, Figs. 2-3, to align it towards the mirror).
(claims 12-13) wherein a second mirror having a reflecting surface adapted to be intercepted by the optical axis of the camera at an angle of incidence different from the right angle, following a rotation of the latter about its axis of rotation, generating a second reflected optical axis directed on the opposite side with respect to the reflected optical axis, is installed on the support frame, a second illuminating unit being provided to illuminate at least one point on the second reflected optical axis spaced from the reflecting surface of the second mirror; (claim 13) wherein on the support frame the following are installed: a second mirror with a reflective surface, a second camera with an optical axis adapted to intercept the reflective surface of the second mirror at an angle of incidence different from the right angle, generating a second reflected optical axis directed on the opposite side from the reflected optical axis, and a second illuminating apparatus adapted to illuminate at least one point on the second reflected optical axis spaced from the reflecting surface of the second mirror (Given the 112 issues here above, another mirror from another module 4 can be associated with the camera system formed by all the cameras. This mirror generates a second reflected light with respect to the optical axis of the cameras, in association with the illuminating units of the corresponding module(s)).
(claims 14-15) wherein the frame is provided with paneling adapted to define a closed casing containing said at least one mirror, said at least one camera and said at least one illuminating apparatus, said casing comprising at least one slit positioned so as to be crossed by the reflected optical axis of the camera and the light generated by the illuminating apparatus; (claim 15) wherein said slit is closed by at least one protective glass pane (¶ 26 for ex; windows 34 in frame 6 with corresponding apertures/openings allowing light to travel from illuminating means towards mirror, and that towards the cameras).
(claim 16) wherein said protective glass pane is substantially orthogonal to the reflected optical axis (Figs. 2-3; surface 6).
(claim 17) wherein said slit is closed by one or more further protective glass panes, each of which is substantially orthogonal to an emission axis of the light generated by the illuminating apparatus (Figs. 2-3; ¶ 26).
(claim 18) comprising movement members (90/90A) adapted to move said device along a translation direction parallel to the filtering septum (¶ 30-31 for ex.)
(claim 19) comprising a plurality of devices side-by-side along a direction perpendicular to the optical axes of the respective cameras (Fig. 1; rack 2 with modules 4).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
11- 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 of this title, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
12- Claims 20-21 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asae in view of Bassi et al. (Patent No. 12589337)
In addition, the functional recitation in the claims (e.g. "configured to" or "adapted to" or the like) that does not limit a claim limitation to a particular structure does not limit the scope of the claim. It has been held that the recitation that an element is "adapted to", "configured to", "designed to", or "operable to" perform a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform and may not constitute a limitation in a patentable sense. In re Hutchinson, 69 USPQ 139. (See MPEP 2111.04); see also In In re Giannelli, 739 F.3d 1375, 1378, 109 USPQ2d 1333, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Also, it should be noted that it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed device is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed device from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations Ex-parte Masham 2 USPQ2d 1647 1987).
The claimed system in the instant application is capable of performing the claimed functionality, as is the prior art used in the present office action. The Examiner notes that where the patent office has reason to believe that a functional limitation asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in the claimed subject matter may, in fact, be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, it possesses the authority to require the applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on. In re Swinehart and sfiligoj, 169 USPQ 226 (C.C.P.A. 1971).
As to claim 20, Asae teaches the apparatus according to claim 1.
Asae does not teach expressly the apparatus comprising: a plurality of filtration chambers aligned along a predetermined longitudinal direction, each of which is delimited by two mutually facing filtering septa interposed between a pair of containment plates, a movement apparatus adapted to move each pair of containment plates along said longitudinal direction, between a closed configuration, in which the containment plates are clamped into a pack on the respective filtering septa, closing the filtration chamber, and an open configuration, in which the containment plates are spaced apart so as to separate the respective filtering septa laterally opening the filtration chamber, an inlet hydraulic circuit adapted to feed a liquid to be filtered inside each filtration chamber, when all the pairs of containment plates are in the closed configuration, and an outlet hydraulic circuit adapted to discharge the filtered liquid leaving each filtration chamber through the respective filtering septa, when all the pairs of containment plates are in the closed configuration, wherein said at least one device is adapted to be interposed between each pair of containment plates in the open configuration.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Bassi teaches a filter septa with monitoring and controlling thereof (Abstract and Figs. 1-15) wherein a plurality of filtration chambers aligned along a predetermined longitudinal direction (Figs. 1-5; alignment of filtration chambers 105), each of which is delimited by two mutually facing filtering septa interposed between a pair of containment plates (Figs. 2, 5, 10), a movement apparatus adapted to move each pair of containment plates along said longitudinal direction, between a closed configuration(Col/ll. 18/4-29; 19/56-60; movement means of bars 445), in which the containment plates are clamped into a pack on the respective filtering septa, closing the filtration chamber, and an open configuration, in which the containment plates are spaced apart so as to separate the respective filtering septa laterally opening the filtration chamber (Figs. 2, 5, 10), an inlet hydraulic circuit adapted to feed a liquid to be filtered inside each filtration chamber, when all the pairs of containment plates are in the closed configuration, and an outlet hydraulic circuit adapted to discharge the filtered liquid leaving each filtration chamber through the respective filtering septa, when all the pairs of containment plates are in the closed configuration (Col/ll. 2/59-3/27; hydraulic inlet/outlet circuits are necessary to the liquid circulation), wherein said at least one device is adapted to be interposed between each pair of containment plates in the open configuration (Figs. 2, 5, 10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the apparatus of Asae in view of Bassi’s suggestions so that the apparatus comprising: a plurality of filtration chambers aligned along a predetermined longitudinal direction, each of which is delimited by two mutually facing filtering septa interposed between a pair of containment plates, a movement apparatus adapted to move each pair of containment plates along said longitudinal direction, between a closed configuration, in which the containment plates are clamped into a pack on the respective filtering septa, closing the filtration chamber, and an open configuration, in which the containment plates are spaced apart so as to separate the respective filtering septa laterally opening the filtration chamber, an inlet hydraulic circuit adapted to feed a liquid to be filtered inside each filtration chamber, when all the pairs of containment plates are in the closed configuration, and an outlet hydraulic circuit adapted to discharge the filtered liquid leaving each filtration chamber through the respective filtering septa, when all the pairs of containment plates are in the closed configuration, wherein said at least one device is adapted to be interposed between each pair of containment plates in the open configuration, with the advantage of effectively optimizing the monitoring of the filtering septa.
As to claim 21, the combination of Asae and teaches the apparatus according to claim 20.
Moreover, Asae does suggest the apparatus comprising: a trolley adapted to move along said longitudinal direction with respect to the containment plates, and a bar installed on the trolley and movable relative thereto in a transverse direction with respect to the longitudinal direction, in order to slide between the filtering septa interposed between each pair of containment plates in the open configuration, wherein said at least one device is installed on said bar (movement members (90/90A) adapted to move said device along a translation direction parallel to the filtering septum; ¶ 30-31 for ex.)
13- Claim 6 is rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asae in view of Hatahori et al. (PGPUB N. 20170350690)
As to claim 6, Asae teaches the apparatus according to claim 1.
Asae does not teach expressly wherein the illuminating apparatus is adapted to emit continuous or stroboscopic light.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Hatahori teaches a defect detection apparatus and method (Abstract and Figs. 1-4) wherein the illuminating apparatus is adapted to emit continuous or stroboscopic light (Abstract, ¶ 1-2, 42, 60 for ex; stroboscoping/pulsing a laser light is used to inspect a concrete surface).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the apparatus of Asae in view of Hatahori’s suggestions so that the apparatus comprising: the illuminating apparatus is adapted to emit continuous or stroboscopic light, with the advantage of effectively optimizing the monitoring of the filtering septa with optical lock-in filtering for ex.
Relevant Prior art
US 4249808, US 20040146295 appear relevant to the use of pulsing light inspection apparatuses and methods.
CN 212236135 , JP H0763566, US 20260227339 appear to teach also elements of the claimed apparatus and its method of use but fail to disclose the optical detection structure/method as a whole.
Conclusion
The Applicants are invited to contact the Examiner to examine options of overcoming the prior art used and cited, before filing a new reconsideration request.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicants’ disclosure:
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED K AMARA whose telephone number is (571)272-7847. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday: 9:00-17:00
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached on (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 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/Mohamed K AMARA/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights