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 .
Notice to Applicants
This action is in response to the amendments and remarks filed on 05/13/2026.
Claims 1-6 and 14-16 are pending.
Corrective Actions by Applicant
Claims 1 and 4-16 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
The examiner has fully considered Applicant’s presented arguments.
On pages 5-7 of the remarks, Applicant argues that Nahum in view of Nienhuys fails to disclose or reasonably suggest every element of amended claims 1 and 14-16. This is persuasive. All previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been withdrawn. However, the claim amendments necessitate new 101, 102 and 103 rejections presented below.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract ideas without significantly more.
Analysis for claim 1 is provided in the following. Claim 1 is reproduced in the following (annotation added):
A measurement apparatus comprising a controller that comprises a memory storing instructions and a processor executing the instructions causing the controller to:
obtain a measurement value with respect to a measurement target by using a cross-correlation function of two images of the measurement target captured by an image capturing element,
correct the obtained measurement value in a case in which a ratio of components lower than a predetermined frequency in a distribution of the spatial frequency component of the two images is equal to or greater than a predetermined ratio.
Step 1: Does the claim belong to one of the statutory categories? Claim 1 is directed to a machine, which is a statutory category of invention (YES).
Step 2A Prong One: Does the claim recite a judicial exception? Parts b and c are regarded as reciting abstract ideas including mathematical calculations. Part b requires the measurement value to be obtained by using a cross-correlation function of two images, which is directed to mathematical calculations. Part c requires the correction to be performed in cases where a ratio of components lower than a predetermined frequency is equal to or greater than a predetermined ratio in the distribution of the spatial frequency component, all of which are also directed to mathematical calculations (YES).
Step 2A Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? Part a recites a computerized system at a high level of generality. The correction of part c could be argued to be a separate, additional element, where then only the condition for performing it would be an abstract idea. However, the correction itself is still recited broadly such that it does not specifically reflect the improvements discussed in the originally-filed specification (NO).
Step 2B: Does the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the recited exception? The claim as a whole recites a computerized system at a high level of generality, that obtains and corrects measurement values via mathematical calculations. The correction could be argued to be an additional element, but would still be recited so broadly that it amounts to merely generally linking the use of the mathematical calculations to a field of use of measurement correction (NO). Claim 1 is not eligible.
Similar analysis is applicable to independent claim 14, which also recites a computerized system at a high level of generality. Claim 14 is not eligible.
Claim 15 recites similar elements to claim 1 above, but also recites “a robot configured to hold and move the measurement target based on the measurement value”. This limitation is not directed to any judicial exceptions and integrates the corrected measurement value into a practical application. Claim 15 is eligible.
Claim 16 recites similar elements to claim 1 above, but also recites “a step of manufacturing an article by processing the measurement target based on the measurement value that has been corrected by the correction step”. This limitation is also not directed to any judicial exceptions and also integrates the corrected measurement value into a practical application. Claim 16 is eligible.
Claims 2 and 3 narrow the measurement value calculation to include sub-pixel estimation, such as by fitting a linear or quadratic function to the cross-correlation function, both of which are also directed to mathematical calculations. Claims 2 and 3 are not eligible.
Claim 4 recites that “a spread of a peak shape of the cross-correlation function changes according to the configuration of the spatial frequency component”, which is regarded as a natural mathematical relationship. The claim further recites that the correction is performed “in a case in which the spread of the peak shape is equal to or greater than a predetermined value”, which is interpreted similarly to the correction condition of claim 1. Thus, claim 4 is not eligible.
Claim 5 recites that the peak spread is calculated based on the maximum value and its position, as well as values of positions before and after thereof, which is also directed to mathematical calculations. Claim 5 is not eligible.
Claim 6 narrows the correction to be based on an approximate expression, or a table based on a relationship between the spread of the peak shape and a measurement error value; these are directed to mathematical relationships. Claim 6 is not eligible.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4-6, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ishihara (U.S. Publ. US-2014/0055577-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ishihara discloses a measurement apparatus (see figure 1, image pickup apparatus 100 and paragraph 0024) comprising a controller (see figure 1, depth information acquisition unit 110 and paragraph 0025) that comprises a memory storing instructions and a processor executing the instructions causing the controller to (see figure 1, each of the functional units 111-115 are implemented by a CPU executing a program stored in a memory; also see paragraph 0116):
obtain a measurement value with respect to a measurement target by using a cross-correlation function of two images of the measurement target captured by an image capturing element (first see figure 1, Imaging optical system 101, imaging element 102 & paragraphs 0026-0028 for the image capturing elements; then see paragraph 0031, where the imaging optical system and element are used to obtain two images of a measurement target using different optical parameters; finally see paragraphs 0042-0044, where the two images are converted into the frequency space, then phase-correlated to generate "phase image correlation value information" PCC, where phase correlation is regarded as a more specific version of cross-correlation; this is done to ultimately extract depth information / a measurement value on the target),
correct the obtained measurement value in a case in which a ratio of components lower than a predetermined frequency in a distribution of the spatial frequency component of the two images is equal to or greater than a predetermined ratio (see figure 6 and paragraphs 0092-0102, where a peak width/spread of the PCC is first determined in steps S2151-S2154; then, in step S2155, a depth correction table is used to correlate the peak width with the magnitude of image blur, and thus to obtain a corrected depth measurement; notes that paragraph 0071 specifies how a blurrier image has a lower ratio/proportion of high-frequency components; thus, the various entries of table 2 in paragraph 0099 are regarded as different cases of frequency distributions, where a larger peak width indicates a larger ratio/proportion of low frequencies; any of these entries could be designated as the claimed "case").
Regarding claim 4, Ishihara discloses wherein a spread of a peak shape of the cross-correlation function changes according to the configuration of the spatial frequency component (see figure 6, step S2155 and paragraphs 0098-0102, where a depth correction table is used to correlate the peak width with the magnitude of image blur, and thus to obtain a corrected depth measurement; note that paragraph 0071 specifies has a blurrier image has a lower ratio/proportion of high-frequency components; thus, the width/spread of the peak is directly related to the configuration of the spatial frequency components),
and in a case in which the spread of the peak shape is equal to or greater than a predetermined value, the controller corrects the measurement value (see figure 6, step S2155 and paragraphs 0098-0102, where the various entries of table 2 represent different depth corrections based on the respective peak widths/spreads).
Regarding claim 5, Ishihara discloses wherein the controller calculates the spread of the peak shape based on a maximum value of the cross-correlation function, a position of the maximum value, and values of positions before and after thereof (see figure 6, steps S2151-S2154 and paragraphs 0092-0097, where the maximum value is multiplied by a preset ratio, then intersections with the function at this multiplied value are found before and after the position of the maximum).
Regarding claim 6, Ishihara discloses wherein the controller performs a correction by an approximate expression, or a table based on a relationship between the spread of the peak shape and an error in the measurement value (see figure 6, step S2155 and paragraphs 0098-0102, where the various entries of table 2 represent different depth corrections based on the respective peak widths/spreads).
Regarding claim 14, Ishihara discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium configured to store a computer program comprising instructions for executing the following steps (see paragraph 0116).
The remainder of claim 14 recites steps identical to those of claim 1. Therefore, Ishihara anticipates claim 14 as applied to claim 1 above.
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.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishihara (U.S. Publ. US-2014/0055577-A1) in view of Nahum (U.S. Publ. US-2002/0179819-A1).
Regarding claim 2, Ishihara fails to disclose the limitations of claim 2.
Pertaining to the same field of endeavor, Nahum discloses wherein the measurement value is calculated based on a sub-pixel estimation value calculated based on the cross-correlation function (see paragraphs 0007 and 0101-0102, where sub-pixel resolution is achieved by fitting a cross-correlation function to a numerical function "f(x)").
Ishihara and Nahum are considered analogous art, as they are both directed to object measurement via correlation methods. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have integrated the teachings of Nahum into Ishihara by using sub-pixel estimation because using sub-pixel estimation generates a periodic error curve that can be used to reduce or avoid said measurement errors (see Nahum figure 6 and paragraph 0103).
Regarding claim 3, Ishihara fails to disclose the limitations of claim 3.
Pertaining to the same field of endeavor, Nahum discloses wherein the sub-pixel estimation value is calculated by performing a fitting by a linear function or a quadratic function based on the cross-correlation function (paragraph 0008 specifies that the fitting function can be linear, quadratic, or Gaussian, for example).
Ishihara and Nahum are considered analogous art, as they are both directed to object measurement via correlation methods. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have integrated the teachings of Nahum into Ishihara by using sub-pixel estimation because using sub-pixel estimation generates a periodic error curve that can be used to reduce or avoid said measurement errors (see Nahum figure 6 and paragraph 0103).
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishihara (U.S. Publ. US-2014/0055577-A1) in view of Nienhuys et al. (WIPO Publ. WO-2021/121906-A1).
Regarding claim 15, Ishihara discloses a system (see figure 1, image pickup apparatus 100) including:
a controller that comprises a memory storing instructions and a processor executing the instructions causing the controller to (see figure 1, each of the functional units 111-115 are implemented by a CPU executing a program stored in a memory; also see paragraph 0116):
obtain a measurement value with respect to a measurement target by using a cross-correlation function of two images of the measurement target captured by an image capturing element (see citations to claim 1 above),
correct the obtained measurement value in a case in which a ratio of components lower than a predetermined frequency in a distribution of the spatial frequency component of the two images is equal to or greater than a predetermined ratio (see citations to claim 1 above),
Ishihara fails to disclose a robot configured to hold and move the measurement target based on the measurement value.
Pertaining to the same field of endeavor, Nienhuys discloses a robot configured to hold and move the measurement target based on the measurement value (see paragraph 0026).
Ishihara and Nienhuys are considered analogous art, as they are both directed to object measurement via correlation methods. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have integrated the teachings of Nienhuys into Ishihara by using a robot to hold and move the target because doing so allows for moving the measurement target across different manufacturing apparatuses (see Nienhuys paragraph 0026).
Regarding claim 16, Ishihara discloses a method of manufacturing an article (see figures 1 and 6) that executes the following steps:
a light receiving step of receiving light from a measurement target by an image capturing element (see figure 1, imaging optical system 101 and paragraph 0026, where the optical system focuses light from a measurement target to create an image),
a measurement step of obtaining a measurement value with respect to the measurement target by using a cross-correlation function of two images captured by the image capturing element (see citations to claim 1 above),
a step of correcting the obtained measurement value in a case in which a ratio of components lower than a predetermined frequency in a distribution of the spatial frequency component of the two images is equal to or greater than a predetermined ratio (see citations to claim 1 above),
Ishihara fails to disclose a step of manufacturing an article by processing the measurement target based on the measurement value that has been corrected by the correction step.
Pertaining to the same field of endeavor, Nienhuys discloses a step of manufacturing an article by processing the measurement target based on the measurement value that has been corrected by the correction step (see paragraph 0029, where the inspection apparatus can identify defects in the article through analyzing images of the article).
Ishihara and Nienhuys are considered analogous art, as they are both directed to object measurement via correlation methods. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have integrated the teachings of Nienhuys into Ishihara by manufacturing using the corrected measurement value because doing so allows for detection of absence of needed structures or presence of unwanted structures (see Nienhuys paragraph 0277).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS JOHN HELCO whose telephone number is (703)756-5539. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Bella, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-7778. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/NICHOLAS JOHN HELCO/Examiner, Art Unit 2667 /MATTHEW C BELLA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2667
Prosecution Insights