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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on June 17, 2026, in response to the previous Office Action (03/17/2026) is acknowledged and has been entered.
Claims 1 – 6 are currently pending.
Claim 6 is cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 – 4 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed June 17, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim 5, Applicant submits that the arguments for claim 5 are the same as those for claim 1.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant’s arguments for claim 1 refer to the added limitations. Claim 5 does not include the added limitations. Thus, the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., control unit preset target grayscale value) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou (CN 112505056A) in view of Wang (WO 2020/051779).
Regarding claim 1, Zhou discloses, in at least figures 2, a visual inspection method of a curved object executed by a visual inspection system, the visual inspection system including a robotic arm (L1), a camera (B) mounted at a tail end of the robotic arm, a fixing unit mounted under the camera (see fig. 2) (¶24), and a control unit electrically connected to the robotic arm and the camera, when the visual inspection method of the curved object is performed by the control unit, the visual inspection method of the curved object comprising steps of: fixing a curved object which is to be inspected by the fixing unit (fig. 2); capturing the curved object which is to be inspected with a plurality of groups of preset parameters by the camera to obtain a plurality of groups of object images (¶24). Zhou fails to explicitly disclose the control unit counting a quantity of pixels occupied by each grayscale value in the object images; presetting a target grayscale value by the control unit; and using the control unit to calculate a better shooting parameter by way of maximizing the quantity of pixels occupied by the target grayscale value across the object images, and the better shooting parameter being used for an inspection; and using the better shooting parameter for the inspection by the camera to proceed with visual inspections of the curved objects which are to be inspected in batches.
In the same field of endeavor, Wang teaches a surface object defect detection system that calculates the frequency at which a gray value appears for each pixel (fig. 2;¶56-58). In light of the teaching of Wang, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to use Wang’s teaching in Zhou’s system because an artisan of ordinarily skill would recognize that this would result in optimal settings for images with curved objects with uniform grayscale distribution.
Regarding claim 2, Zhou in view of Wang disclose the limitations of claim 1. Wang also teaches wherein the step of capturing the curved object which is to be inspected with the plurality of the groups of the preset parameters further includes following steps: photograph the curved object which is to be inspected with a first exposure setting to obtain a first object image, and the control unit counts the quantity of pixels occupied by each grayscale value in the first object image, keep the same photographing angle and position by the camera, use an exposure which is different from the first exposure setting to photograph the object which is to be inspected for several times to obtain the plurality of the object images with different exposures, and the control unit counts the quantity of pixels occupied by each grayscale value in the object images with the different exposures (¶58-59: ).
Claim(s) 3 – 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou (CN 112505056A) in view of Wang (WO 2020/051779) in view of Long (US 10,593,007).
Regarding claim 3, Zhou in view of Wang disclose the limitations of claim 2. The combination fails to explicitly disclose wherein in the step of using the exposure which is different from the first exposure setting to photograph the object which is to be inspected for several times, use the exposure which is lower than the first exposure setting by the camera to photograph the object which is to be inspected to obtain a lower exposure object image, then the control unit counts the quantity of the pixels occupied by each grayscale value which is in the lower exposure object image, use the exposure which is higher than the first exposure setting by the camera to photograph the object which is to be inspected to obtain a higher exposure object image, then the control unit counts the quantity of the pixels occupied by each grayscale value which is in the higher exposure object image.
In the same field of endeavor, Long teaches an inspection system that probe a sensor's responses across a variety of different imaging parameters, such as exposure interval, exposure (lens) aperture, and camera gain; count grayscale values, wherein some sets of parameters will lead to over-exposure of the imagery, washing out image highlights; and some sets of parameters will lead to under-exposure, losing detail in the resulting shadows (fig. 6, 7; c.3, ll.45-555; c.5, ll.54-65). In light of the teaching of Long, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to use Long’s teaching in Zhou’s system because an artisan of ordinarily skill would recognize that this would result in optimal settings for images with curved objects with uniform grayscale distribution.
Regarding claim 4, Zhou in view of Wang disclose the limitations of claim 2. The combination fails to explicitly disclose wherein the step of using the control unit to calculate the better shooting parameter includes following steps, preset a target grayscale value by the control unit, compare the quantity of the pixels occupied by the target grayscale values in the first object image with the quantity of the pixels occupied by the target grayscale values in the object images with the different exposures, and set an exposure setting of the object image that has a larger quantity of the pixels occupied by the target grayscale values as the better shooting parameters for the inspection.
In the same field of endeavor, Long teaches an inspection system that probe a sensor's responses across a variety of different imaging parameters, such as exposure interval, exposure (lens) aperture, and camera gain; count grayscale values, wherein some sets of parameters will lead to over-exposure of the imagery, washing out image highlights; and some sets of parameters will lead to under-exposure, losing detail in the resulting shadows, and use the parameter that resulted in best entropy (fig. 6, 7; c.3, ll.45-555; c.5, ll.54-65). In light of the teaching of Long, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to use Long’s teaching in Zhou’s system because an artisan of ordinarily skill would recognize that this would result in optimal settings for images with curved objects with uniform grayscale distribution.
Claim(s) 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long (US 10,593,007) in view of Sieracki (US 10,235,588).
Regarding claim 5, Long discloses a visual inspection method of a curved object executed by a visual inspection system, the visual inspection system including a camera, a fixing unit mounted under the camera, and a control unit electrically connected to the camera, when the visual inspection method of the curved object is performed by the control unit, the visual inspection method of the curved object comprising steps of: fixing a curved object which is to be inspected by the fixing unit (c.6, ll.27-36: packages on a production line); capturing the curved object which is to be inspected with a plurality of groups of preset parameters by the camera to obtain a plurality of groups of object images (fig. 6-7; c.6, ll.27-36: images of the packages are captured under different combinations of imaging parameters, as described above in connection with gradient targets, and entropy metrics are computed. After such data collection and analysis, the parameters that are found to yield the maximum metric are selected for further, ongoing operation of the production line), and then the control unit counting a quantity of pixels occupied by each grayscale value in the object images (fig. 6, 7; step 61); using the control unit to calculate a better shooting parameter according to the quantity of the pixels occupied by the grayscale values in the object images, and the better shooting parameter being used for an inspection (fig. 6-8; c.6, ll.27-36: images of the packages are captured under different combinations of imaging parameters, as described above in connection with gradient targets, and entropy metrics are computed. After such data collection and analysis, the parameters that are found to yield the maximum metric are selected for further, ongoing operation of the production line); and using the better shooting parameter for the inspection by the camera to proceed with visual inspections of the curved objects which are to be inspected in batches (fig. 6-7; c.6, ll.27-36: images of the packages are captured under different combinations of imaging parameters, as described above in connection with gradient targets, and entropy metrics are computed. After such data collection and analysis, the parameters that are found to yield the maximum metric are selected for further, ongoing operation of the production line); wherein when exposure time is shortened, the object images cause underexposure, and the overall grayscale values of the object images are reduced, relatively, direct accepting surface or light-colored region of the object images are avoided from an overexposure; and wherein when the exposure time is lengthened, the object images cause the overexposure and the overall grayscale values of the object images are increased, relatively, a backlight surface or a dark region of the object images are avoided from the underexposure (fig. 6, 7; c.3, ll.45-555; c.5, ll.54-65: probe a sensor's responses across a variety of different imaging parameters, such as exposure interval, exposure (lens) aperture, and camera gain; count grayscale values… Some sets of parameters will lead to over-exposure of the imagery, washing out image highlights. Some sets of parameters will lead to under-exposure, losing detail in the resulting shadows). Long fails to explicitly disclose the camera connected to a robotic arm.
In a similar field of endeavor, Sieracki teaches system for adaptively conformed imaging of work pieces having disparate configurations, which comprises a camera-in-motion set up for the system, where the camera or other imaging unit is held and manipulated by the robot arm manipulator relative to a stationary specimen work piece (fig. 3(b); c.17, ll.40-48). In light of the teaching of Sieracki, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to use Sieracki teaching in Longs system because an artisan of ordinarily skill would recognize that this would result in flexible imaging options without needing to manipulate the imaged object.
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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTOINETTE SPINKS whose telephone number is (571)270-3749. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7am - 5pm EST.
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, Twyler Haskins can be reached at 571-272-7406. 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.
/ANTOINETTE T SPINKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2639
Prosecution Insights