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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/22/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues, regarding the cited sections of Villarraga pertinent to the claim feature of “wherein the positional relationship is a positional distance between a first inspection target including a first one of the measurement spots and a second inspection target including a second one of the measurement spots. “, that the Villarraga reference “is fundamentally a point-wise or surface-wise comparison between an actual surface and a nominal (CAD surface).” It is unclear why this is would not fall within the scope of the claim language. The reference is a comparison of numerous separately defined inspection target/measurement spots, each of which results in the surface or point that the color coding is mapped onto, for example in Fig. 1. This teaching of Villarraga is maintained to render obvious the claim language when taken in combination with Cannon. Applicant’s argument is respectfully not persuasive, and the prior grounds of rejection are maintained.
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.
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.
Claims 1-9, 11, 16, 17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Canon (US 20050225551 A1) in view of Villarraga (Villarraga, H., Lee, C., Corbett, T., Tarbutton, J. A., & Smith, S. T. (2015, April). Assessing additive manufacturing processes with X-ray CT metrology. In ASPE spring topical meeting: achieving precision tolerances in additive manufacturing (pp. 116-121). ASPE.).
Regarding Claim 1, Canon teaches:
a processor configured to: (¶49 When a computer transmits alteration information as operating change procedures to other computers to which it is connected via a network, the altered content is reflected in the data originally held by the receiving computers.)
display, on a three-dimensional model of a molded product, a relationship object indicating a positional relationship of at least two or more measurement spots (Figs. 8-11 illustrate features falling within the scope of these features; ¶297 In the two-dimensional drawing, rules are provided for the allocation of views (a plan view, a front view and a side view) obtained in the individual visual directions in FIG. 32. This is because the positional relationship viewed in each visual direction must be easily understood in order to represent the actual three-dimensional geometry on a two-dimensional plane; ¶299 display the plan view; ¶316 measurement plan categorization means and measurement navigation means according to the embodiment.)
in the molded product (¶20 A three-dimensional measuring instrument measures (for each plan) a molded product in each of several directions; ¶311 In the molded product inspection step at S109 in FIG. 1, a portion of the 3D model is measured using several measurement instruments)
in a shape at a position on the three-dimensional model corresponding to positions of the measurement spots in the molded product. (Figs. 8-11)
Canon does not teach in particular, but Villarraga teaches:
measurement spots that is actually measured or inspected (Figs. 1 and 10; p. 116, CT METROLOGY ANALYSIS Figure 1 shows the variance analysis for the AM1 and AM2 flexures against the CAD model for the parts. )
display the relationship object in a color that represents at least one of a quantity of a difference or a direction of the difference, the difference being obtained as a result of comparing the positional relationship with design information on a design of the molded product. (Figs. 1 and 10; p. 116, CT METROLOGY ANALYSIS Figure 1 shows the variance analysis for the AM1 and AM2 flexures against the CAD model for the parts. )
wherein the positional relationship is a positional distance between a first inspection target including a first one of the measurement spots and a second inspection target including a second one of the measurement spots. (Figs. 1 and 10; p. 116, CT METROLOGY ANALYSIS Figure 1 shows the variance analysis for the AM1 and AM2 flexures against the CAD model for the parts. )
It would have been obvious to include the color coded visualization and measurement of actual production products of Villaraga in the display system of Canon, in order to improve the function of an inspection/metrology tool for actually produced products (Villarraga p.116).
Regarding Claim 2, Canon teaches:
display, as the relationship object, a first relationship object indicating a positional relationship of at least two or more measurement spots in the molded product, and (Figs. 8-11 illustrate features falling within the scope of these features; ¶297 In the two-dimensional drawing, rules are provided for the allocation of views (a plan view, a front view and a side view) obtained in the individual visual directions in FIG. 32. This is because the positional relationship viewed in each visual direction must be easily understood in order to represent the actual three-dimensional geometry on a two-dimensional plane; ¶299 display the plan view; ¶316 measurement plan categorization means and measurement navigation means according to the embodiment.)
a second relationship object indicating a positional relationship between the first relationship object and at least one or more measurement spots in the molded product, (See Figs. 8 and 9, which illustrate numerous such relationships, such as in Fig. 8 the far left vertical text indicating a distance of 30 +/- 0.2 vertically between the two horizontal distances of 50 +/- 0.3 and 50 +/- 0.2)
at positions corresponding to the relationships on the three-dimensional model of the molded product. (Figs. 8-11)
Regarding Claim 3, Canon teaches:
display, as the relationship object, a third relationship object indicating a positional relationship of at least two or more measurement spots in the molded product, (Figs. 8-11 illustrate features falling within the scope of these features; ¶297 In the two-dimensional drawing, rules are provided for the allocation of views (a plan view, a front view and a side view) obtained in the individual visual directions in FIG. 32. This is because the positional relationship viewed in each visual direction must be easily understood in order to represent the actual three-dimensional geometry on a two-dimensional plane; ¶299 display the plan view; ¶316 measurement plan categorization means and measurement navigation means according to the embodiment.)
a fourth relationship object indicating a positional relationship of at least two or more measurement spots in the molded product separately from the third relationship object, and (Figs. 8-11 illustrate features falling within the scope of these features; ¶297 In the two-dimensional drawing, rules are provided for the allocation of views (a plan view, a front view and a side view) obtained in the individual visual directions in FIG. 32. This is because the positional relationship viewed in each visual direction must be easily understood in order to represent the actual three-dimensional geometry on a two-dimensional plane; ¶299 display the plan view; ¶316 measurement plan categorization means and measurement navigation means according to the embodiment.)
a fifth relationship object indicating a positional relationship between the third relationship object and the fourth relationship object, (See Figs. 8 and 9, which illustrate numerous such relationships, such as in Fig. 8 the far left vertical text indicating a distance of 30 +/- 0.2 vertically between the two horizontal distances of 50 +/- 0.3 and 50 +/- 0.2)
at positions corresponding to the relationships on the three-dimensional model of the molded product. (Figs. 8-11)
Regarding Claim 4, Canon teaches:
wherein the relationship object displays the positional relationship by forming a line or face including two or more measurement spots. (Figs. 8-11 illustrate features falling within the scope of these features, and utilize an arrowed line between the two points.)
Regarding Claim 5, Canon teaches:
wherein the relationship object displays the positional relationship by forming a line or face including two or more measurement spots. (Figs. 8-11 illustrate features falling within the scope of these features, and utilize an arrowed line between the two points.)
Regarding Claim 6, Canon teaches:
wherein the relationship object displays the positional relationship by forming a line or face including two or more measurement spots. (Figs. 8-11 illustrate features falling within the scope of these features, and utilize an arrowed line between the two points.)
Regarding Claim 7, Canon teaches:
wherein the positional relationship is acquired from a coordinate position obtained by measuring two or more measurement spots in the molded product. (¶183 FIG. 67 is a diagram showing an example where measurement points are added by designating coordinates; ¶400 The measurement data entries are an identifier, a measurement point ID, the coordinates of a measurement point; ¶404; ¶513-515)
Regarding Claim 8, Canon teaches:
acquire design information on a design of the molded product, and (¶617 comparison means for comparing attribution information for two sets of CAD data, i.e., old data and new data)
acquire comparison information obtained by comparing the design information with the positional relationship. (¶617 wherein the attribution information comparison means includes dimensional information comparison means for comparing dimensional information for each dimension of the two sets of CAD data)
Regarding Claim 9, Canon teaches:
display the relationship object in an arrow that represents the direction of the difference, which is a result obtained by comparing the positional relationship with the design information, in a color or an arrow that is the relationship object. (Figs. 8-11 illustrate features falling within the scope of these features, and utilize arrows.)
Regarding Claim 11, Canon teaches:
independently display a plurality of the relationship objects on the first inspection target for every plurality of corresponding measurement spots of the first inspection target and the second inspection target in a case where a plurality of the measurement spots are present in each of a first inspection target and a second inspection target in the molded product. (¶617 comparison means for comparing attribution information for two sets of CAD data, i.e., old data and new data … wherein the attribution information comparison means includes dimensional information comparison means for comparing dimensional information for each dimension of the two sets of CAD data; ¶627 changed element teaching means for displaying, e.g., highlighting, the elements (Face, Edge and Vertex) of the CAD model that is referred to by a dimension, so that the elements can be distinguished from other elements. Therefore, the portion of a model that has been changed can be easily discerned visually.)
Regarding Claim 16, Canon teaches:
filter and display the relationship object to be displayed on the three-dimensional model among all the relationship objects related to the molded product. (¶257 for the geometry that is not correlated with the displayed attribution information, visibility is improved by changing the method used to display the geometry; ¶260 Since only a desired range is displayed, an operator can remove unnecessary information, improve the visibility, and efficiently perform the operation.)
Regarding Claim 17, Canon teaches:
display the three-dimensional model as a simplified model by combining a plurality of planes, and display the relationship object with an arrow at a corresponding position of the simplified model. (¶256-257 When the attribution information is confirmed by referring to the two-dimensional partial detailed drawing, the other ridge lines are complex and their visibility may be deteriorated, as is shown in FIG. 21B ... Thus, as is shown in FIG. 22, for the geometry that is not correlated with the displayed attribution information, visibility is improved by changing the method used to display the geometry. In FIG. 22, chain lines are used to represent the ridge lines of the non-correlated geometry.)
Regarding Claims 19 and 20:
Claims 19 and 20 are substantially similar to claim 1, and are rejected under the same grounds as those set forth above for claim 1.
Claims 10, 12-15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Canon (US 20050225551 A1) in view of Villarraga (Villarraga, H., Lee, C., Corbett, T., Tarbutton, J. A., & Smith, S. T. (2015, April). Assessing additive manufacturing processes with X-ray CT metrology. In ASPE spring topical meeting: achieving precision tolerances in additive manufacturing (pp. 116-121). ASPE.) and Kodak (US 20190258225 A1).
Regarding Claim 10:
Canon does not teach in particular, but Kodak teaches:
wherein the measurement spots are acquired from a position of a center of gravity of a shape element that is an inspection target in the molded product. (Abstract, real-time quality inspection of objects is disclosed; ¶183 the system receives a reference 3D mesh model 1820 representing the whole geometry of a rigid object. Then, the various rest positions of the rigid object are calculated based on the convex hull and center of gravity of the reference mesh model 1821. The rest positions of a rigid object are position where the object is stable on a horizontal plane. For each of these rest positions of the rigid object, a library of views from a number of rotated versions (e.g., 360 at 1-degree increment) of the reference mesh model is generated 1822.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize the inspection and measurement system and features of Kodak, as well as the point cloud and modeling analysis features of Kodak, in the display system of Canon, in order to provide an easy-to-use inspection system that can inspect parts and products regardless of orientation and that does not require that the parts or products being inspected are first put into any jig or other mechanism to hold them during inspection (Kodak, ¶6).
Regarding Claim 12:
Canon teaches:
compare the first inspection target with the second inspection target, and (¶617 comparison means for comparing attribution information for two sets of CAD data, i.e., old data and new data … wherein the attribution information comparison means includes dimensional information comparison means for comparing dimensional information for each dimension of the two sets of CAD data; ¶627 changed element teaching means for displaying, e.g., highlighting, the elements (Face, Edge and Vertex) of the CAD model that is referred to by a dimension, so that the elements can be distinguished from other elements. Therefore, the portion of a model that has been changed can be easily discerned visually.)
Canon does not teach in particular, but Kodak teaches:
determine a display position of the relationship object in accordance with a position of a center of gravity of the smaller inspection target in a case where a plurality of the second inspection targets corresponding to the first inspection target are present. (Abstract, real-time quality inspection of objects is disclosed; ¶183 the system receives a reference 3D mesh model 1820 representing the whole geometry of a rigid object. Then, the various rest positions of the rigid object are calculated based on the convex hull and center of gravity of the reference mesh model 1821. The rest positions of a rigid object are position where the object is stable on a horizontal plane. For each of these rest positions of the rigid object, a library of views from a number of rotated versions (e.g., 360 at 1-degree increment) of the reference mesh model is generated 1822.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize the inspection and measurement system and features of Kodak, as well as the point cloud and modeling analysis features of Kodak, in the display system of Canon, in order to provide an easy-to-use inspection system that can inspect parts and products regardless of orientation and that does not require that the parts or products being inspected are first put into any jig or other mechanism to hold them during inspection (Kodak, ¶6).
Regarding Claim 13, Canon teaches:
display at least one of the design information or the comparison information possessed by the relationship object in a case where the relationship object is selected. (¶617 comparison means for comparing attribution information for two sets of CAD data, i.e., old data and new data … wherein the attribution information comparison means includes dimensional information comparison means for comparing dimensional information for each dimension of the two sets of CAD data; ¶627 changed element teaching means for displaying, e.g., highlighting, the elements (Face, Edge and Vertex) of the CAD model that is referred to by a dimension, so that the elements can be distinguished from other elements. Therefore, the portion of a model that has been changed can be easily discerned visually.)
Regarding Claim 14, Canon teaches:
display, simultaneously with the relationship object, another relationship object related to another inspection, which is performed on the inspection target and are also related to the comparison information. (¶617 comparison means for comparing attribution information for two sets of CAD data, i.e., old data and new data … wherein the attribution information comparison means includes dimensional information comparison means for comparing dimensional information for each dimension of the two sets of CAD data; ¶627 changed element teaching means for displaying, e.g., highlighting, the elements (Face, Edge and Vertex) of the CAD model that is referred to by a dimension, so that the elements can be distinguished from other elements. Therefore, the portion of a model that has been changed can be easily discerned visually.)
Regarding Claim 15, Canon teaches:
display a plurality of the relationship objects in a manner that the relationship objects are capable of being distinguished from each other. (Fig. 62; ¶617 comparison means for comparing attribution information for two sets of CAD data, i.e., old data and new data … wherein the attribution information comparison means includes dimensional information comparison means for comparing dimensional information for each dimension of the two sets of CAD data; ¶627 changed element teaching means for displaying, e.g., highlighting, the elements (Face, Edge and Vertex) of the CAD model that is referred to by a dimension, so that the elements can be distinguished from other elements. Therefore, the portion of a model that has been changed can be easily discerned visually.)
Regarding Claim 18:
Canon teaches:
determine a reference value used for an acceptance/rejection determination of the molded product, which is calculated on the basis of the design information, in correspondence with a user's selection or attribute information possessed by the user. (¶359 Then, again as needed, the operator can add to the 3D model, as attribution information, the inspection, measurement and evaluation results that are thus provided. The operation can provide, for example, measurement results corresponding to the dimensions. In addition, the operator enters marks or symbols for the attribution information or for portions of the 3D model for which the dimensional tolerances are exceeded)
Kodak further teaches:
an acceptance/rejection determination (Abstract, the object is determined to be acceptable or defective based on the extent of deviation between the point cloud and the CAD model.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize the inspection and measurement system and features of Kodak, as well as the point cloud and modeling analysis features of Kodak, in the display system of Canon, in order to provide an easy-to-use inspection system that can inspect parts and products regardless of orientation and that does not require that the parts or products being inspected are first put into any jig or other mechanism to hold them during inspection (Kodak, ¶6).
Conclusion
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BIJAN MAPAR whose telephone number is (571)270-3674. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 11:00-8:30.
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, Rehana Perveen can be reached at 571-272-3676. 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.
/BIJAN MAPAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2189
Prosecution Insights