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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2021-014083, filed on 02/01/2021.
Response to Arguments
Examiner thanks Applicant filed a Request for Continued Examination (RCE) to expedite patent prosecution. As part of an in-depth search, Examiner found that Applicant’s arguments 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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 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.
Claims 1–2 and 4–5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hiroyuki (JP5437679B2).
Regarding claim 1, Hiroyuki discloses an image processing device for a machine tool comprising:
a processor (Fig. 2, 350 a processing unit) and a memory (Fig. 2, 367 a memory),
wherein the processor receives a captured image of a tool from a camera; (Per Fig. 2, Hiroyuki discloses a camera unit 310 to capture a tool image in a field view. Hiroyuki para. ¶0029. [a]nd forms an image with a field of view…)
sets a boundary line based on a tool contour which is at least a predetermined distance away from a tool center1; (Per Fig. 4A, Hiroyuki discloses an outer shape of the tool in the image 508. Id. para. ¶0038. The black and white boundary line of this binary image 508 is used to obtain the maximum outer shape (contour) 510 of the tool including the residual image.)
binarizes the captured image into black and white pixels; (Per Fig. 4B, Hiroyuki’s binarization processing unit 362A discloses a binarized tool image in black and white. Id. The binarization processing unit 362A converts the tool image 500 into a binarized tool image 508 of white (0) and black (256), as shown in FIG. 4(B))
calculates an excess area (an excess area construed as a density of areas) that is a total number of black pixels in a region corresponding to the tool that is located outside the boundary line; and (Per Fig. 4A, Hiroyuki discloses whether pixel density in the tool image 500 exceeds predetermined threshold such that specific area indicates black or white. Id. [t]he tool image 500 is remapped in grayscale to generate a grayscale image, and each pixel in this grayscale image is multiplied by a predetermined multiplier to increase the density of areas other than white (0), i.e., pixels where even the slightest afterimage appears.)
judges a suitability of the tool for continuous use based on a size of the excess area. (Through Figs. 5A–5B, Hiroyuki’s error determination processing unit 368 estimates whether the machine work should continue based on a maximum outer shape 510 analyzing the binarized tool image 508. Id. para. ¶0040. The error determination processing unit 368 is an optional function in this machining center 1, and estimates the machining error using the tool maximum outer shape 510 of the binarized tool image 508, etc.)
PNG
media_image1.png
463
712
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
622
321
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Hiroyuki discloses an image processing device for a machine tool comprising:
a processor (Fig. 2, 350 a processing unit) and a memory (Fig. 2, 367 a memory),
wherein the processor receives a plurality of captured images of a tool from a camera, the camera and the tool being moved relative to each other along a longitudinal direction of the tool to acquire the plurality of captured images; (Per Fig. 6, Hiroyuki discloses that the images are taken as the tool 140 is rotated on the spindle 131. Hiroyuki para. ¶0043. [t]he tool 140 is set on the spindle 131 from the tool changer 150 and rotated, … all of these images are binarized to generate a reference tool image 600 and stored in memory 367.)
calculates, for each of the plurality of captured images, a number of different points defined as a difference in a number of black pixels between a first region of a captured image corresponding to the tool and a second region of a reference image corresponding to the tool captured during a preliminary inspection, wherein the first region includes the second region2 and has an area equal to or larger than an area of the second region, and (Through Figs. 11A–11B, Hiroyuki discloses measurement points between the reference image and the after image of the tool to evaluate tool outer shape in multiple categories, e.g., maximum outer shape G1, minimum outer shape G2, and intermediate outer shape G3. These areas are mapped using grayscale values. Id. para. ¶0053. For example, when a tool image such as that shown in Figure 12 (A) is obtained, it is also possible to determine the type of tool 140 by determining whether the ideal maximum outer shape conditions fall between the tool maximum outer shape G1 including the afterimage and the tool minimum outer shape G2 obtained from the low-brightness area that is pre-set to black (256) when mapped using grayscale, as shown in Figure 12 (B).)
judges a suitability of the tool for continuous use based on a size of the excess area. (Through Figs. 5A–5B, Hiroyuki’s error determination processing unit 368 estimates whether the machine work should continue based on a maximum outer shape 510 analyzing the binarized tool image 508. Id. para. ¶0040. The error determination processing unit 368 is an optional function in this machining center 1, and estimates the machining error using the tool maximum outer shape 510 of the binarized tool image 508, etc.)
Regarding claim 4, Hiroyuki discloses a machine tool comprising:
a holding part holding a workpiece; (Fig. 1, 115 an arm)
a tool attached to a spindle (Fig. 1, 131 a spindle) for machining the workpiece wherein chips of the workpiece are produced during machining and the chips are entangled around the tool;
a camera (Fig. 2, 310 a camera unit) capturing an image of the tool; and
an operation panel connected to an image processing device including a processor (Fig. 2, 350 a processing unit) and a memory (Fig. 2, 367 a memory),
wherein the processor receives the image of the tool captured by the camera, (Per Fig. 2, Hiroyuki discloses a camera unit 310 to capture a tool image in a field view. Hiroyuki para. ¶0029. [a]nd forms an image with a field of view…)
sets a boundary line based on a tool contour which is at least a predetermined distance away from a tool center; (Per Fig. 4A, Hiroyuki discloses an outer shape of the tool in the image 508. Id. para. ¶0038. The black and white boundary line of this binary image 508 is used to obtain the maximum outer shape (contour) 510 of the tool including the residual image.)
binarizes the captured image into black and white pixels; (Per Fig. 4B, Hiroyuki’s binarization processing unit 362A discloses a binarized tool image in black and white. Id. The binarization processing unit 362A converts the tool image 500 into a binarized tool image 508 of white (0) and black (256), as shown in FIG. 4(B))
calculates an excess area that is a total number of black pixels in a region corresponding to the tool that is located outside the boundary line; and (Per Fig. 4A, Hiroyuki discloses whether pixel density in the tool image 500 exceeds predetermined threshold such that specific area indicates black or white. Id. [t]he tool image 500 is remapped in grayscale to generate a grayscale image, and each pixel in this grayscale image is multiplied by a predetermined multiplier to increase the density of areas other than white (0), i.e., pixels where even the slightest afterimage appears.)
judges a suitability of the tool for continuous use based on a size of the excess area. (Through Figs. 5A–5B, Hiroyuki’s error determination processing unit 368 estimates whether the machine work should continue based on a maximum outer shape 510 analyzing the binarized tool image 508. Id. para. ¶0040. The error determination processing unit 368 is an optional function in this machining center 1, and estimates the machining error using the tool maximum outer shape 510 of the binarized tool image 508, etc.)
Regarding claim 5, Hiroyuki discloses a machine tool comprising:
a holding part holding a workpiece; (Fig. 1, 115 an arm)
a tool attached to a spindle (Fig. 1, 131 a spindle) for machining the workpiece wherein chips of the workpiece are produced during machining and the chips are entangled around the tool;
a camera (Fig. 2, 310 a camera unit) capturing an image of the tool; and
an operation panel connected to an image processing device including a processor (Fig. 2, 350 a processing unit) and a memory (Fig. 2, 367 a memory),
wherein the processor receives a plurality of captured images of a tool from a camera, the camera and the tool being moved relative to each other along a longitudinal direction of the tool to acquire the plurality of captured images; (Per Fig. 6, Hiroyuki discloses that the images are taken as the tool 140 is rotated on the spindle 131. Hiroyuki para. ¶0043. [t]he tool 140 is set on the spindle 131 from the tool changer 150 and rotated, … all of these images are binarized to generate a reference tool image 600 and stored in memory 367.)
calculates, for each of the plurality of captured images, a number of different points defined as a difference in a number of black pixels between a first region of a captured image corresponding to the tool and a second region of a reference image corresponding to the tool captured during a preliminary inspection, wherein the first region includes the second region and has an area equal to or larger than an area of the second region, and (Through Figs. 11A–11B, Hiroyuki discloses measurement points between the reference image and the after image of the tool to evaluate tool outer shape in multiple categories, e.g., maximum outer shape G1, minimum outer shape G2, and intermediate outer shape G3. These areas are mapped using grayscale values. Id. para. ¶0053. For example, when a tool image such as that shown in Figure 12 (A) is obtained, it is also possible to determine the type of tool 140 by determining whether the ideal maximum outer shape conditions fall between the tool maximum outer shape G1 including the afterimage and the tool minimum outer shape G2 obtained from the low-brightness area that is pre-set to black (256) when mapped using grayscale, as shown in Figure 12 (B).)
judges a suitability of the tool for continuous use based on a size of the excess area. (Through Figs. 5A–5B, Hiroyuki’s error determination processing unit 368 estimates whether the machine work should continue based on a maximum outer shape 510 analyzing the binarized tool image 508. Id. para. ¶0040. The error determination processing unit 368 is an optional function in this machining center 1, and estimates the machining error using the tool maximum outer shape 510 of the binarized tool image 508, etc.)
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.
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.
Claims 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Hiroyuki in view of Teruhiko (JP2014055915A).
Regarding claim 3, Hiroyuki fails to specifically disclose a processor, accepts a specification of detection sensitivity from a user, and alerts that chips are entangled around the tool being inspected when the number of different points in any of the plurality of captured images exceeds a threshold that is preassigned to the specified detection sensitivity.
In related art, Teruhiko discloses the image processing device for a machine tool, wherein the processor
accepts a specification of detection sensitivity from a user, and (Per Fig. 1, Teruhiko’s PLC 3 processes signal inputs while taking an image from his camera 4. Teruhiko para. ¶0015. An image of the inspection object 8 is captured based on a control signal input from the PLC 3, for example an imaging trigger signal that defines the timing of capturing image data from the camera 4.)
alerts that chips are entangled around the tool being inspected when the number of different points in any of the plurality of captured images exceeds a threshold that is preassigned to the specified detection sensitivity. (Teruhiko’s UI control unit 310 determines a threshold in his setting unit 313 so that how much the appearance of the inspection object 8 is in good condition. For example, his threshold setting unit 313 evaluates when the object is defective if the threshold exceeds the limit. Id. para. ¶0138. [i]f the pin heights calculated for multiple pins by the dimension calculation unit 302 exceed the upper limit calculated by the threshold setting unit 313 from the tolerance or standard value, the quality determination unit 303 determines that the pins are defective.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Hiroyuki into the teachings of Kido to reduce burden of visual inspection. Id. para. ¶[0007].
Regarding claim 6, it has been rejected in the same manner as claim 3.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ogawa (U.S. 9,659,363 B2) discloses a positioning apparatus.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENEDICT LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-0390. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00-16:00 (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, Stephen R. Koziol can be reached at (408) 918-7630. 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.
/BENEDICT E LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2665
/Stephen R Koziol/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2665
1 See his Figs. 1–2. Hiroyuki discloses that the tool 140 is placed from a distance to process a workpiece 200. Id. para. ¶0027. See also Fig. 8. He specifically measures the workpiece 200 while the machine work is done in X-Z direction. Id. para. ¶0049. The measurement of the workpiece 200 is performed by moving the workpiece 200 itself in a planar direction (X-Z axis direction) and the touch probe in a vertical direction (Y axis direction) and bringing them into contact with each other. This is analogous to the Applicant’s disclosure. See Applicant’s para. ¶0066.
2 In this case, Examiner construes a first region as a low brightness area and a second region as either medium brightness area or a high brightness area; and believes that these are ordinary skill of the art in binarization image processing.