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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/07/2026 has been entered.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita et al. [US 2015/0336209 A1] in view of Natori [US 2021/0041229 A1] and further in view of Tanaka et al. [US 2002/0154283 A1].
Regarding claim 1, Yamashita et al. discloses a measuring device (Fig. 1), comprising:
a table (20, 30) having a mounting surface on which a workpiece (W) is to be mounted, the mounting surface being parallel to a plane including an X-axis and a Y-axis, with respect to the X-axis, the Y-axis, and a Z-axis which are orthogonal to each other (as shown in Fig. 1);
a first imaging unit (Fig. 2, first of 55) configured to image a surface of the workpiece (W) on the table (as shown in Fig. 2, see also paragraph [0044]);
a second imaging unit (second of 55) configured to image the surface of the workpiece (W) on the table (20, 30), the second imaging unit allowing measurement of a shape and/or roughness of the surface of the workpiece according to a plurality of images taken by scanning the surface of the workpiece in a Z-axis direction (paragraphs [0049]-[0050], see also Fig. 2);
a driving part configured to move the first imaging unit (55) and the second imaging unit (55) relative to the table (20, 30) along directions of the X-axis, the Y-axis and the Z-axis (paragraphs [0049]-[0050], see also Fig. 2);
an imaging control unit configured to control the first imaging unit, the second imaging unit, and the driving part so as to control imaging of the workpiece by the first imaging unit and the second imaging unit (paragraphs [0044], [0049], [0060]-[0061]); and
an image processing unit configured to reflect a detection result of a position using the image of the surface of the workpiece taken by the first imaging unit upon a measurement result of the shape of the surface of the workpiece (paragraphs [0044], [0049], [0060]-[0061], see also Fig. 2).
Yamashita et al. does not teach an image processing unit configured to reflect a detection result of a position using the image of the surface of the workpiece taken by the first imaging unit upon a measurement result of the shape and/or the roughness of the surface of the workpiece using the plurality of images taken by scanning the surface of the workpiece in the Z-axis direction by the second imaging unit, so as to extract an original shape of the surface of the workpiece.
However, Natori discloses a three-dimensional shape measuring apparatus wherein a plurality of capture images are combined to provide an original shape of the surface of the workpiece (paragraphs [0101]-[0106], see also Fig. 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide an original shape of the surface of the workpiece, as taught by Natori in the system of Yamashita et al. because such a modification allows for processing images captured by the optical systems can be performed in parallel so that the processing speed can be improved and optical coupling can be simplified (paragraph [0142] of Natori).
The combination of Yamashita et al. and Natori does not teach eliminating influence of noise generated in a vicinity of the surface of the workpiece and influence of interference fringes reflected on an inside of a cut groove in a vicinity of an edge of the workpiece, so as to extract an original shape of the surface of the workpiece.
However, Tanaka et al. discloses wherein in order to eliminate image noise the image may be sensed and summed n times (n≥2) (paragraph [0054]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to eliminate influence of noise generated in a vicinity of the surface of the workpiece, as taught by Tanaka et al. in the system of Yamashita et al. and Natori wherein noise in the reconstructed original shape of the workpiece is eliminated because such a modification makes it possible to manufacture a highly precise devices (paragraph [0027] of Tanaka et al.).
Regarding claims 2-4, Yamashita et al. discloses wherein the image processing unit includes a first image processing unit configured to process a plurality of images, taken by scanning the surface of the workpiece in the Z-axis direction by the first imaging unit, so as to detect a position and/or an edge of the surface of the workpiece in the Z-axis direction, a second image processing unit configured to process the plurality of images, taken by scanning the surface of the workpiece in the Z-axis direction by the second imaging unit, so as to measure the position and/or the roughness of the surface of the workpiece, and an integration processing unit configured to integrate processing results of the first image processing unit and the second image processing unit to calculate a final shape and/or roughness, wherein the integration processing unit specifies the position and/or the edge of the surface of the workpiece in the Z-axis direction, based on at least a detection result of the position and/or the edge of the surface of the workpiece in the Z-axis direction by the first image processing unit, wherein the imaging control unit sets a scanning range in the Z-axis direction by the second imaging unit, based on information on the position of the surface of the workpiece in the Z-axis direction which is detected by the first image processing unit (paragraphs [0044], [0049], [0060]-[0061], see also Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 5, Yamashita et al. discloses wherein the first imaging unit images the surface of the workpiece with a wider visual field than the second imaging unit, and the image processing unit detects a measurement position based on the image taken by the first imaging unit (paragraphs [0049] and [0060]-[0061]).
Regarding claims 6 and 10-12, Yamashita et al. in view of Natori discloses wherein the first imaging unit has a function to switch an imaging magnification, wherein the second imaging unit images the surface of the workpiece using an optical interference system or a confocal system, wherein the driving part independently moves the second imaging unit and the first imaging unit with respect to the table at least in the direction of the Z-axis, wherein the driving part independently moves the second imaging unit and the first imaging unit with respect to the table at least in the directions of the Z-axis and the Y-axis (paragraphs [0076] and [0142], see also Figs. 1-3 and 12 of Natori).
Regarding claims 7-9, Yamashita et al. discloses wherein the first image processing unit processes a plurality of images different in focal position, taken by scanning the surface of the workpiece in the Z-axis direction by the first imaging unit, so as to measure the shape and/or the roughness of the surface of the workpiece, wherein the integration processing unit specifies the position and/or the edge of the surface of the workpiece in the Z-axis direction, based on at least a processing result by the first image processing unit, wherein when the surface of the workpiece includes an area constituted of a smooth surface, the integration processing unit calculates a shape and/or roughness of the area constituted of the smooth surface, based on a processing result by the second image processing unit, and calculates a shape and/or roughness of areas other than the area constituted of the smooth surface, based on the processing result by the first image processing unit (paragraphs [0044], [0049], [0060]-[0061], see also Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 13, Yamashita et al. discloses wherein the driving part further rotates the table (paragraph [0044]).
Regarding claim 14 and 15, Yamashita et al. discloses a machining device, comprising: the measuring device; a machining part configured to machine the workpiece on the table; and a machining control unit configured to control machining by the machining part, wherein the machining control unit performs alignment of the workpiece based on the image taken by the first imaging unit (as shown in Figs. 1 and 2).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-15 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEORAM PERSAUD whose telephone number is (571)270-5476. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5PM.
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, Minh-Toan Ton can be reached at 571-272-2303. 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.
/DEORAM PERSAUD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882
Prosecution Insights