DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1–6 are pending in the instant application.
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s arguments filed on 06/02/2026.
THIS OFFICE ACTION IS MADE FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/28/2026 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
1. In re Applicant’s amendment, Examiner thanks Applicant expedited patent prosecution to overcome the 102 rejection. Further, upon completion of a search of the pertinent prior art, Examiner determined that the instant application is not in condition for allowance as a new ground(s) of rejection has been arisen in view of Hiroshi (JP 2012079251 A).
2. In re independent claims 2 and 5, Examiner determined that the Applicant’s argument is persuasive. Therefore, claims 2–3 and 5–6 are indicated as containing allowable subject matter.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 1 and 4 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hiroyuki (JP 5437679 B2) in view of Hiroshi (JP 2012079251 A).
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…)
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.)
However, Hiroyuki fails to specifically disclose an image processing device comprising: sets a boundary line based on a contour of a reference image captured during a preliminary inspection which is at least a predetermined distance away from a tool center.
In related art, Hiroshi discloses an image processing device comprising: sets a boundary line based on a contour of a reference image captured during a preliminary inspection which is at least a predetermined distance away from a tool center. (Per Fig. 2, Hiroshi’s boundary line extraction unit 30 discloses a boundary line in a reference image as a contour of a subject is detected in a certain distance. Hiroshi Spec. ¶85. [a] virtual boundary line is set in the first distance image D1 at a position corresponding to the boundary line extracted by the boundary line extraction unit 30 in the reference image SG.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date incorporate the teachings of Hiroshi into the teachings of Hiroyuki to correct a distance of the object in images. Ibid.
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…)
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.)
However, Hiroyuki fails to specifically disclose a machine tool comprising: sets a boundary line based on a contour of a reference image captured during a preliminary inspection which is at least a predetermined distance away from a tool center.
In related art, Hiroshi discloses a machine tool comprising: sets a boundary line based on a contour of a reference image captured during a preliminary inspection which is at least a predetermined distance away from a tool center. (Per Fig. 2, Hiroshi’s boundary line extraction unit 30 discloses a boundary line in a reference image as a contour of a subject is detected in a certain distance. Hiroshi Spec. ¶85. [a] virtual boundary line is set in the first distance image D1 at a position corresponding to the boundary line extracted by the boundary line extraction unit 30 in the reference image SG.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date incorporate the teachings of Hiroshi into the teachings of Hiroyuki to correct a distance of the object in images. Ibid.
Allowable Subject Matter
Examiner concluded that the Applicant’s argument regarding claims 2–3 and 5–6 overcomes the prior art.
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.
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
Prosecution Insights