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 .
Receipt is acknowledged that application is a continuation of the International Application No. PCT/JP2022/034919, filed on September 20, 2022. As well as acknowledgement of Applicant’s claim of priority to and the benefit of JP2022-107560, filed on July 4, 2022, and JP2021-158845, filed on September 29, 2021. Copies of certified papers required by 37 CFR 1.55 have been received. Priority is acknowledged under 35 USC 119(a)-(d) or (f).
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office Action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 November 10, 2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-7 and 9-10 are pending. Claim 8 is cancelled.
Response to Amendments
In light of Applicant’s amendments, the objections of record with respect to claims 1, 6, and 9 are withdrawn.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9 recites “…where the the workpiece is place…” should be “where the workpiece is placed…”
Appropriate corrections are required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment of independent claims 1, 9, and addition of claim 10, which altered the scope of the claims of the instant application, has necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this office action with respect to the claims of the instant application. Accordingly, in response to Applicant’s arguments that are merely directed to the amended portions of the claims, including the argument for the rationale of combining Lessing, Chen, or Lao references to Inaba and Takahashi, new analysis has been presented below, which makes Applicant’s arguments moot.
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.
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, 4, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inaba et al. (US 2018/0250783 A1) in view of Yamazaki (US 2017 /0017226 A1) and in further view of Stack Overflow ( “Measuring the diameter pictures of holes in metal parts, photographed with telecentric, monochrome camera with opencv” – Published 2019).
Regarding claim 1, Inaba teaches “An information processing device (Inaba paragraph [0016] "This information processing apparatus 14 may be a controller (e.g., a numerical control device) that controls the machine tool main body 12, or may be a controller other than the controller that controls the machine tool main body 12") comprising:
a memory storing an NC (numerical control) program; and a processor processing a machine tool based on the NC program (Inaba paragraph [0032] "The information processing apparatus 14 includes a processor such as a CPU and a storage medium, and the processor executes a program stored in the storage medium to provide the functions of the information processing apparatus 14 of the present embodiment"),
where (Inaba paragraph [0035] "geometric feature calculating unit (3-dimensional information calculating unit) 62 calculates the shapes (3-dimensional shapes) of multiple members in the machining area 12a and the arrangement state of the members from the image data concerning the multiple images acquired from the image acquisition unit 60") based on the NC program (Inaba paragraph [0052] "the workpiece determination unit 82 retrieves the information (predetermined attachment state information) on the attachment state of the fixing jig to the table 28 from the reference information storage unit 68, and makes this determination based on the retrieved attachment state information and the 3-dimensional information of the table 28 and the fixing jig, which is calculated by the geometric feature calculating unit 62. For example, if the fixing jig is attached to a position deviated from the predetermined attachment position, or if the fixing jig is attached in a direction deviated from the predetermined attachment direction, or in some other cases, then the workpiece determination unit 82 determines that the fixing jig is not attached in the predetermined attachment state"),
(Inaba paragraph [0063] "Alternatively, by imaging during movement of the table 28, the image pickup device 50 can obtain multiple pieces of image data concerning the images, taken from different angles, of the table 28, the fixing jig and the workpiece in the machining area 12a. In this case, the 3-dimensional information only on the table 28, the fixing jig and the workpiece can be obtained. By performing image-capturing while the posture of the imaging unit 56 is being changed, it is possible to obtain the 3-dimensional information on the other multiple members inside the machining area 12a"), and the camera images a second two-dimensional image of a hole in the workpiece imaged at the hole imaging position (Inaba paragraph [0063] "Alternatively, by imaging during movement of the table 28, the image pickup device 50 can obtain multiple pieces of image data concerning the images, taken from different angles, of the table 28, the fixing jig and the workpiece in the machining area 12a. In this case, the 3-dimensional information only on the table 28, the fixing jig and the workpiece can be obtained. By performing image-capturing while the posture of the imaging unit 56 is being changed, it is possible to obtain the 3-dimensional information on the other multiple members inside the machining area 12a")
“
However, Inaba is not relied on to teach “wherein the processor controls an attachment unit of the machine tool to automatically attach and detach a tool for a process of machining to a workpiece, and the tool is automatically replaced with a camera after the process of machining to the workpiece based on the NC program, the processor controls the camera to move to a first imaging position including a machine-processing origin where is placed in a machining space of the machine tool in a predetermined position based on machine coordinates of the machine tool at the first time, the camera images a first two-dimensional image wherein the processor converts image coordinates of the hole imaging position to machine coordinates based on the second two-dimensional image of the hole and calculates a diameter of the hole in the workpiece by using the machine coordinates of the hole based on the NC program.”
In an analogous field of endeavor, Yamazaki teaches “wherein the processor controls an attachment unit of the machine tool to automatically attach and detach a tool for a process of machining to a workpiece, and the tool is automatically replaced with a camera after the process of machining to the workpiece based on the NC program (Yamazaki paragraph [0091] "As illustrated in FIG. 4, when the machine tool 11 is a machining center with a turret-type automatic tool changer 36, the imaging apparatus 15 may be attached to a turret 36a on the automatic tool changer 36"), the processor controls the camera to move to a first imaging position (Yamazaki paragraph [0091] "Thus, images of the workpiece W can be taken from two different directions by attaching a two-dimensional camera, as the imaging apparatus 15, on the turret 36a and rotating the turret 36a to move the two-dimensional camera to two positions in sequence") including a machine-processing origin (Yamazaki paragraph [0093] "Attaching the imaging apparatus 15 to the turret 36a as described above achieves the workpiece origin setting according to the present invention, without the need for the machine tool control system 1 involving the robot 14 disposed alongside the machine tool 11, as illustrated in FIG.1") where is placed in a machining space of the machine tool in a predetermined position based on machine coordinates of the machine tool at the first time (Yamazaki paragraph [0056] "as illustrated in FIG. 1, on the machining table 18 are disposed a seat 21 for mounting a workpiece W thereon and a fixture 22 for positioning and fixing the workpiece W mounted on the seat 21. The fixture 22 includes a clamp mechanism for clamping the workpiece W onto the seat 21"), the camera images a first two-dimensional image (Yamazaki paragraph [0092] "Determining the height of a surface of the workpiece W based on two pieces of image data taken by the imaging apparatus 15 whose camera position has been moved by the turret 36a in sequence makes it possible to obtain three-dimensional coordinates of the surface of the workpiece W. Obviously, three-dimensional coordinates of the workpiece W can also be obtained in a configuration where a three-dimensional camera, instead of a two-dimensional camera, is attached to the turret 36a")”.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to combine a device for analyzing image of a workpiece to determine a position as taught by Inaba to use an automatic tool changer and imaging apparatus that adjust position according to a sequence as taught by Yamazaki.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been that there is a need to improve workpiece positioning in the art of numeric control machines because current method such as " in Japanese Examined Patent Application Publication No. 08-00350 is problematic in that a lot of time and labor are needed because the machine operator needs to attach a touch detector, such as a touch sensor, to the main spindle and bring the touch detector and the workpiece into contact with each other. The method disclosed in Japanese Utility Model Application Laid-open Publication No. 62-085343 is also problematic in that it takes time to obtain a workpiece origin because the operator needs to control the cursor on the camera while watching an image taken by the camera" as noted by the Yamazaki disclosure in paragraphs 10 and 11.
However, the combination of Inaba and Yamazaki is not relied on to teach ““wherein the processor converts image coordinates of the hole imaging position to machine coordinates based on the second two-dimensional image of the hole and calculates a diameter of the hole in the workpiece by using the machine coordinates of the hole based on the NC program.”
Stack Overflow teaches “wherein the processor converts image coordinates of the hole imaging position to machine coordinates based on the second two-dimensional image of the hole (Stack Overflow page 4 paragraph 2 "Because there is no pixel size information in the image files, I've imposed 1 micron per pixel. This is likely not correct, you will have to do a calibration to obtain pixel size information") and calculates a diameter of the hole in the workpiece by using the machine coordinates of the hole based on the NC program (Stack Overflow page 7 paragraph 3 "There are several ways to get the diameter, one way to find the bounding rectangle of the contour and use its width. Another way is to calculate it from the centroid coordinates").”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to modify a device for capturing images of a machined workpiece as taught by Inaba and Yamazaki to include analysis of workpiece image for calculating diameter as taught by Stack Overflow because such a modification is the result of applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. More specifically, translating image coordinates to machine coordinates and calculating diameter using an image of a workpiece permits an operator to not make contact with the workpiece after it is machined. Analysis of the machined workpiece can be done in a contactless manor and if adjustments are required to the workpiece the machine can further continue machining the workpiece without need to realign position of the workpiece, which can be time consuming. This known benefit is applicable to a device for capturing images of a machine workpiece as it would further “improve the flexibility in imaging by an image pickup device and shorten the preparation time before the start of machining” as disclosed in Inaba paragraph 5. The device for capturing images of a machined workpiece as taught by Inaba and Yamazaki and the analysis for calculating a diameter of a workpiece as taught by Stack Overflow both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed towards contactless analysis of a workpiece. Therefore, it would have been recognized that modifying a device for capturing images of a machined workpiece to include image analysis of calculating a diameter of a workpiece would have yielded predictable results because (i) the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate image analysis for calculating diameter of a workpiece in contactless analysis of a workpiece and (ii) the benefits of such a combination would have been recognized by those ordinary skilled in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the disclosure of Inaba and Takahashi with the Stack Overflow disclosure to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1 as there is a reasonable expectation of success and/or because doing so merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Inaba, Yamazaki, and Stack Overflow teaches “The information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the processor calculates a deviation of placement position of the workpiece based on the position of the machine-processing origin (Inaba paragraph [0052] "the workpiece determination unit 82 retrieves the information (predetermined attachment state information) on the attachment state of the fixing jig to the table 28 from the reference information storage unit 68, and makes this determination based on the retrieved attachment state information and the 3-dimensional information of the table 28 and the fixing jig, which is calculated by the geometric feature calculating unit 62. For example, if the fixing jig is attached to a position deviated from the predetermined attachment position, or if the fixing jig is attached in a direction deviated from the predetermined attachment direction, or in some other cases, then the workpiece determination unit 82 determines that the fixing jig is not attached in the predetermined attachment state").”
Claim 7 recites a system with elements corresponding to the device elements
recited in claim 1. Therefore, the recited elements of this claim are mapped to the
proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding elements of device
claim 1. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Inaba, Yamazaki, and Stack Overflow references, presented in rejection of claim 1 apply to this claim. Finally, the combination of Inaba, Yamazaki, and Stack Overflow teaches “A machining system comprising (Inaba paragraph [0016] "The machine tool system 10"): a machine tool including an attachment unit to which the imaging unit camera is attachable (Inaba paragraph [0026] "Instead of attaching the image pickup device 50 to the tool magazine 36 via the tool holder 32 and the grip 36a, the image pickup device 50 may be attached directly to the tool magazine 36"), the attachment unit being movable to image the image of the workpiece positioned in the machine tool (Inaba paragraph [0029] "the posture changing unit 54 can change the image-taking direction (the direction of the optical axis) of the imaging unit 56")”.
Claim 9 recites a computer readable medium including computer executable instructions corresponding to the elements of the device recited in claim 1. Therefore, the recited instructions of the computer readable medium of claim 9 are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding elements of the device claim 1. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine Inaba, Yamazaki, and Stack Overflow presented in rejection of claim 1, apply to this claim. In addition, the combination of Inaba, Yamazaki, and Stack Overflow discloses “a non-transitory computer readable medium to store computer-executable instructions (Inaba paragraph [0032]: “The information processing apparatus 14 includes a processor such as a CPU and a storage medium, and the processor executes a program stored in the storage medium to provide the functions of the information processing apparatus 14 of the present embodiment”) including an NC (numeric control) program (Inaba paragraph [0016] "This information processing apparatus 14 may be a controller (e.g., a numerical control device) that controls the machine tool main body 12, or may be a controller other than the controller that controls the machine tool main body 12")”.
Claims 2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inaba, Yamazaki, and Stack Overflow in view of Takahashi (US 2018/0003487 A1).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Inaba, Yamazaki, and Stack Overflow teaches “The information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the processor calculates a center of the hole in the workpiece (Stack overflow page 7 paragraph 3 "There are several ways to get the diameter, one way to find the bounding rectangle of the contour and use its width. Another way is to calculate it from the centroid coordinates"),
However, the combination of Inaba, Yamazaki, and Stack Overflow is not relied on to teach “calculates a diameter of the hole from any two edge points intersecting a straight line passing through the center.”
Takahashi “calculates a diameter of the hole from any two edge points intersecting a straight line passing through the center (Takahashi paragraph [0159] "As measurement positions, a distance between left and right side surfaces of the base member w1, a distance between front and rear side surfaces, a distance between two through holes w3 and an inner, diameter of the protruding portion w2 are designated. The distance between the left and right side surfaces of the base member w1 and the distance between two through holes w3, are measured by extracting edges from edge extraction regions R designated with respect to a contour line of the workpiece W").”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to combine a device for capturing images of a machined workpiece and calculating diameter of a workpiece as taught by Inaba, Yamazaki, and Stack Overflow to use the method of edge points to calculate the diameter as taught by Takahashi.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been that it is known in the art that " Edge extraction is performed by analyzing a change in brightness in the workpiece image and detecting edge points, and by fitting a geometric figure such as a straight line, a circle or an arc with a plurality of detected edge points, and a boundary between the workpiece and a background, a contour of a recessed portion or a protruding portion of the workpiece, or the like is determined as an edge. A dimension of the workpiece is determined as the distance or the angle between edges determined in the above manner. Furthermore, the quality of the workpiece is determined by comparing a difference (an error) between a determined dimension value and a design value against a tolerance" as disclosed by the Takahashi disclosure in paragraph 4.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the disclosure of Inaba, Yamazaki, and Stack Overflow with the Takahashi disclosure to obtain the invention as specified in claim 2 as there is a reasonable expectation of success and/or because doing so merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Inaba, Yamazaki, Stack Overflow, and Takahashi teaches “The information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the processor calculates a length on the workpiece from a plurality of edges detected from an image of the workpiece (Takahashi paragraph [0159] "As measurement positions, a distance between left and right side surfaces of the base member w1, a distance between front and rear side surfaces, a distance between two through holes w3 and an inner, diameter of the protruding portion w2 are designated. The distance between the left and right side surfaces of the base member w1 and the distance between two through holes w3, are measured by extracting edges from edge extraction regions R designated with respect to a contour line of the workpiece W"), and outputs an alert (Inaba paragraph [0091] "a notification unit (66) configured to notify the determination result obtained from the determination processing unit (64). This enables the operator to recognize the determination result of the determination processing unit") when the computation unit processor determines (Takahashi paragraph [0215] "The result of determination of quality is displayed in the workpiece image Iw in association with the measurement position") , based on the length on the workpiece, that the workpiece placed in the machine tool does not have a predetermined size or a predetermined shape (Takahashi paragraph [0215] "the quality of the workpiece W is determined by comparing the determined dimension value against the design value, and by comparing an error from the design value against the tolerance").”
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining Inaba, Yamazaki, Stack Overflow, and Takahashi references presented in the rejection of claim 2, applies to claim 6. Finally the device recited in claim 6 is met by Inaba, Yamazaki, Stack Overflow, and Takahashi.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inaba, Yamazaki, Stack Overflow, and Takahashi in view of Takashi et al. (JP 2010038772 A – using machine translation from Espacenet).
Regarding claim 3, the combination for Inaba, Yamazaki, Stack Overflow, and Takahashi teaches “The information processing device according to claim 1, (Takahashi paragraph [0159] "As measurement positions, a distance between left and right side surfaces of the base member w1, a distance between front and rear side surfaces, a distance between two through holes w3 and an inner, diameter of the protruding portion w2 are designated. The distance between the left and right side surfaces of the base member w1 and the distance between two through holes w3, are measured by extracting edges from edge extraction regions R designated with respect to a contour line of the workpiece W").”
The combination of Inaba, Yamazaki, Stack Overflow, and Takahashi is not relied on to teach “wherein the processor detects a first edge from a first image in which a portion of the hole is imaged by the camera, and detects a second edge from a second image in which another portion of the hole is imaged by the camera by moving the camera”.
However, Takashi teaches “wherein the processor detects a first edge from a first image in which a portion of the hole is imaged by the imaging unit camera, and detects a second edge from a second image in which another portion of the hole is imaged by the imaging unit camera by moving the imaging unit camera (Takashi paragraph [0004] "first camera that collects a first image including an image of at least a part of the front end side and the front end detection sensor detects the front end side, at least a part of the rear end side of the plate member A second camera for collecting a second image including an image")”.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to combine device for capturing images of a machined workpiece and calculating diameter of a workpiece as taught by Inaba, Yamazaki, Stack Overflow, and Takahashi to image portions of the workpiece for edge length measurements as taught by Takashi.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been that, " If the edge is misidentified, there is a disadvantage that the calculated distance from the downstream edge to the upstream edge of the workpiece is completely different from the actual distance" as noted by the Takashi disclosure in paragraph 3.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the disclosure of Inaba, Yamazaki, Stack Overflow, and Takahashi with the Takashi disclosure to obtain the invention as specified in claim 3 as there is a reasonable expectation of success and/or because doing so merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Inaba, Yamazaki, and Stack Overflow in view of Lao et al. (CN 109636849 A – using machine translation from Espacenet).
Regarding claim 5, the combination for Inaba, Yamazaki, and Stack Overflow teaches “The information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the processor (Inaba paragraph [0052] "the workpiece determination unit 82 retrieves the information (predetermined attachment state information) on the attachment state of the fixing jig to the table 28 from the reference information storage unit 68, and makes this determination based on the retrieved attachment state information and the 3-dimensional information of the table 28 and the fixing jig, which is calculated by the geometric feature calculating unit 62. For example, if the fixing jig is attached to a position deviated from the predetermined attachment position, or if the fixing jig is attached in a direction deviated from the predetermined attachment direction, or in some other cases, then the workpiece determination unit 82 determines that the fixing jig is not attached in the predetermined attachment state").”
The combination of Inaba, Yamazaki, and Stack Overflow is not relied on to teach “calculates first coordinates of a first reference point of the workpiece from a first edge of the workpiece, calculates second coordinates of a second reference point of the workpiece from a second edge of the workpiece”.
However, in an analogous field of endeavor, Lao teaches “calculates first coordinates of a first reference point of the workpiece from a first edge of the workpiece (Lao page 6 paragraph 3 "a first acquiring module 100, configured to acquire first pixel coordinates of a first point of the workpiece, where the first point is located at a first edge of the workpiece"), calculates second coordinates of a second reference point of the workpiece from a second edge of the workpiece (Lao page 6 paragraph 4 "a second acquiring module 300, configured to acquire second pixel coordinates of the second point of the workpiece, where the second point is located at a second edge of the workpiece")”.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to combine the device for capturing images of a machined workpiece and calculating diameter of a workpiece as taught by Inaba, Yamazaki, and Stack Overflow with the strategy of calculating first and second coordinates of a workpiece as taught by Lao.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been that it is known in the art that accurate positioning of a workpiece is required "In industrial production, the application of the robot arm is more and more extensive, which frees people from the labor intensity of high-precision pick-and-place and high-load handling of workpieces. Obtaining the position of the workpiece in the coordinate system is the most critical step and requires machine vision to provide an accurate positioning method" as noted by the Lao disclosure in paragraph 3.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the disclosure of Inaba, Yamazaki, and Stack Overflow with the Lao disclosures to obtain the invention as specified in claim 5 as there is a reasonable expectation of success and/or because doing so merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Inaba, Yamazaki, and Stack Overflow in view of Matsuoka (JP 2011-194498 A– using machine translation from IP.com), in further view of Hayashi (US 2004/0004729 A1).
Regarding claim 10, the combination for Inaba, Yamazaki, and Stack Overflow teaches the information process device of claim 1. The combination of Inaba, Yamazaki, and Stack Overflow is not relied on to teach “wherein the processor processes a first image imaged by the imaging unit moved to a first position at a predetermined height from an upper surface of the workpiece to calculate an outer diameter of a chamfered part at an edge of the hole , and processes a second image imaged by the imaging unit moved to a second position below the first position to calculate an inner diameter of the chamfered part.”
However, in an analogous field of endeavor, Matsuoka teaches “wherein the processor processes a first image imaged by the imaging unit moved to a first position at a predetermined height from an upper surface of the workpiece (Matsuoka page 7 paragraph 3" This visual inspection is performed by controlling the movement of the XY robot 3 and the rotary table 4 on which the workpiece W to be inspected is set, so that the camera 7 is moved to the inspection position taught in advance, and a predetermined position") (Matsuoka page 7 paragraph 6 "the camera 7 is simply moved by a desired amount in the front-rear (Y-axis) direction, and the camera 7 is moved by the desired amount in the vertical (Z-axis) direction")”.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to combine the device for capturing images of a machined workpiece and calculating diameter of a workpiece as taught by Inaba, Yamazaki, and Stack Overflow with the imaging unit being moveable to any desired position as taught by Matsuoka.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been that, " The present invention has been made in view of the above circumstances, and an object of the present invention is to perform visual inspection while moving the camera to an arbitrary position and posture with respect to the workpiece, and to reduce the size of the entire equipment. It is in providing the visual inspection system which can plan" as noted by the Matsuoka disclosure in page 3 paragraph 5.
However, the combination of Inaba, Yamazaki, Stack Overflow, and Matsuoka does not teach “calculate[ing] an outer diameter of a chamfered part at an edge of the hole” and “calculate[ing] an inner diameter of the chamfered part”.
Hayashi teaches “to calculate an outer diameter of a chamfered part at an edge of the hole (Hayashi Figure 8B and paragraph [0088] "distance D2 between the flanges 42, 43 on the outer diameter side of the flanges 42, 43 is obtained by calculation based on the positions of the measuring points P3, P4 of the image (FIG. 7B) photoed by the light receiver (CCD camera) 23")” and “to calculate an inner diameter of the chamfered part (Hayashi Figure 8A and paragraph [0088] "distance D1 between the flanges 42, 43 on the inner diameter side of the flanges 42, 43 is obtained by calculation based on the positions of the measuring points Pl, P2 of the image (FIG. 7 A) photoed by the light receiver (CCD camera) 13").”
PNG
media_image1.png
291
431
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Hayashi Figure 8B
PNG
media_image2.png
283
423
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Hayashi Figure 8A
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to combine the device for capturing images of a machined workpiece and calculating diameter of a workpiece as taught by Inaba, Yamazaki, Stack Overflow, and Matsuoka with the process of calculating inner and outer diameter as taught by Hayashi.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been that, " when a miniaturized tape reel is inspected in order to hold a tape with narrow width, distance between flanges becomes short. Thereby it becomes difficult to insert the probe between flanges" as noted by the Hayashi disclosure in paragraph 9, is also true for holes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the disclosure of Inaba, Yamazaki, Stack Overflow, and Matsuoka with the Hayashi disclosures to obtain the invention as specified in claim 10 as there is a reasonable expectation of success and/or because doing so merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASPREET KAUR whose telephone number is (571)272-5534. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30 am - 5:30 pm.
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, Amandeep Saini can be reached at (571)272-3382. 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.
/JASPREET KAUR/Examiner, Art Unit 2662
/AMANDEEP SAINI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2662