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
Receipt is acknowledged that application claims priority to foreign application with application number JP2022-206091 dated 12/22/2022. Copies of certified papers required by 37 CFR 1.55 have been received. Priority is acknowledged under 35 USC 119(e) and 37 CFR 1.78.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS dated 12/22/2023 has been considered and placed in the application file.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“an image-data acquiring unit configured to acquire data about an image of the disk-shaped graduation plate as disk-shaped graduation- plate image data;” in claim 8;
“a polar-coordinate transforming unit configured to transform the disk-shaped graduation-plate image data into polar coordinates using a center of the disk-shaped graduation plate as a reference to generate polar-coordinate graduation image data;” in claim 8; and
“a defect detecting unit configured to detect a defect in the disk- shaped graduation plate by comparing a pitch of graduations in the polar-coordinate graduation image data with a predetermined reference value.” in claim 8.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 5287293 A) in view of Ito (US 20090218509 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Chen discloses a method of inspecting a disk-shaped graduation plate for defects (Chen, Col. 1, Line 10-14, "The present invention is related to a method and an apparatus for inspecting the contours of a gear, particularly to a method and an apparatus for fast, accurately and efficiently measuring the manufacturing errors of the contours of a precision involute spur gear."), the method comprising:
an image-data acquisition step of acquiring data about an image of the disk-shaped graduation plate as disk-shaped graduation-plate image data (Chen, Col. 3, Line 7-11, "The image of the gear 9 is magnified by the microscope 2 and photographed by the CCD camera The CCD camera 1 then digitizes the photographed image and sends the digital image to the digital computer 7 for further processing").
While Chen discloses image coordinates (Chen, Col. 3, Line 27-28, “The first step in the measurements is to make a calibration of the image coordinates.”), Chen does not specifically teach “a polar-coordinate transformation step of transforming the disk- shaped graduation-plate image data into polar coordinates using a center of the disk-shaped graduation plate as a reference to generate polar- coordinate graduation image data”.
However, Ito teaches a polar-coordinate transformation step of transforming the disk- shaped graduation-plate image data into polar coordinates using a center of the disk-shaped graduation plate as a reference to generate polar- coordinate graduation image data (Ito, paragraph [0034], " The wafer 8 is represented by Cartesian coordinates defined by X and Y axes and by polar coordinates defined by r and .theta. axes.").
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to replace Chen’s coordinate system with a polar coordinate system, as taught by Ito.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been because a polar coordinate system is more suitable for measuring circular objects, because it makes calculations for circular motion, engineering, and physics much more intuitive.
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Chen in view of Ito discloses a defect detection step for detecting a defect in the disk-shaped graduation plate by comparing a pitch of graduations in the polar- coordinate graduation1 image data with a predetermined reference value (Chen, Col. 1-2, Line 67-68, 1-3, "(18) (g) determining the coordinates of the pixels on the contours; (19) (h) comparing the contour informations with a standard gear pattern for finding the manufacturing errors.").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Chen in view of Ito to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Claim 8 corresponds to claim 1, additionally reciting a defect inspection apparatus for a disk-shaped graduation plate (Chen, Col. 1, Line 10-14, "The present invention is related to a method and an apparatus for inspecting the contours of a gear, particularly to a method and an apparatus for fast, accurately and efficiently measuring the manufacturing errors of the contours of a precision involute spur gear."),
An image-data acquiring unit, a polar-coordinate transforming unit (Chen, Col. 2-3, Line 66-68, 1-5, “FIG. 1 shows the apparatus according to this invention. As shown in FIG. 1 & 1-A. the apparatus comprises a high-resolution solid state charge coupled device (CCD) camera 1, a high-magnification aberration-free microscope set 2, a base 3, a collimated light source 4, a laser indicator 5, a power supply 6 for the CCD camera 1, a digital computer 7 and a high-resolution graphic monitor 8”),
And a defect detecting unit (Chen, Col. 5, Line 4-6, “The calculated errors will be printed out automatically on an output peripheral of the digital computer 7”). Thus, claim 8 is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as claim 1.
Claim 9 corresponds to claim 1, additionally reciting a computer-readable recording medium storing an inspection program for a disk-shaped graduation plate, the program causing a computer to execute (Chen, Col. 8, Line 20-25, “The algorithms and methods mentioned above are, in this preferred embodiment, implemented by software routines coded using high level computer programming languages, such as FORTRAN or C. These software routines are running on a high speed digital computer for fast calculation and throughput.”). Thus, claim 9 is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as claim 1.
Claim(s) 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 5287293 A) in view of Ito (US 20090218509 A1) and in further view of Sanekata (US 20190005639 A1) and Nakajima (US 20010043736 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Chen in view of Ito discloses the method of inspecting the disk-shaped graduation plate according to claim 1.
While Chen in view of Ito discloses acquiring data about a plurality of images with the disk-shaped graduation plate with pointers (Chen, Col. 3, Line 7-11, “The image of the gear 9 is magnified by the microscope 2 and photographed by the CCD camera The CCD camera 1 then digitizes the photographed image and sends the digital image to the digital computer 7 for further processing”, gears have teeth that are pointers), they do not teach acquiring different positions of a pointer.
However, Sanekata teaches acquiring data about a plurality of images of the disk- shaped graduation plate with different positions of a pointer (Sanekata, paragraph [0127], "With such a configuration, the first camera 31 (the first capturing unit) and the second camera 32 (the second capturing unit) can capture the regions of which the positions are different from each other in the test unit 16 (electronic component placing unit). Accordingly, it is possible to capture more regions of the test unit 16.").
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to use multiple cameras to capture Chen’s (in view of Ito) gear, as taught by Sanekata.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide multiple viewing angles, leading to more thorough inspections.
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Chen in view of Ito and Sanekata does not teach “and acquire the disk-shaped graduation-plate image data from which the pointer is substantially excluded based on the plurality of image data”.
However, Nakajima teaches and acquire the disk-shaped graduation-plate image data from which the pointer is substantially excluded based on the plurality of image data (Nakajima, paragraph [0010], Fig. 4c/9c below, "Accordingly, the difference between the reference data of FIG. 9(a) and the inspection data of FIG. 9(b) can be outputted qualitatively in the form of a hollow circle as shown in FIG. 9(c).", Nakajima takes a gear and excludes the teeth as shown in the figures below).
PNG
media_image1.png
555
457
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
570
409
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to exclude the teeth of Chen’s (in view of Ito and Sanekata) gear when acquiring image data, as taught by Nakajima.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been because some gears have asymmetrical parts such as teeth, and comparing gears with only its circular base would be more beneficial scanning for defects.
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Chen in view of Ito and in further view of Sanekata and Nakajima to obtain the invention as specified in claim 5.
Claim(s) 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 5287293 A) in view of Ito (US 20090218509 A1) and in further view of Sanekata (US 20190005639 A1), Nakajima (US 20010043736 A1), and Park (US 20180365816 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Chen in view of Ito, Sanekata, and Nakajima discloses the method of inspecting the disk-shaped graduation plate according to claim 5.
Chen in view of Ito, Sanekata, and Nakajima does not teach “wherein the image-data acquisition step includes: averaging the data about the plurality of images to acquire the disk-shaped graduation-plate image data”.
However, Park teaches wherein the image-data acquisition step includes: averaging the data about the plurality of images to acquire the disk-shaped graduation-plate image data (Park, paragraph [0010], "In other words, the controller 130 may calculate an average value of a brightness and a degree of variance of the brightness of each of at least one of a plurality of frames, and determine a maximum subtraction rate of a contrast of each of at least one of the frames based on the calculated average value of the brightness and the degree of variance of the brightness calculated with respect to each of the at least one of the frames.").
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to calculate the average brightness of Chen’s (in view of Ito, Sanekata, and Nakajima) images, as taught by Park.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to help understand if an image is too luminated or dark, allowing for improved recaptures if necessary.
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Chen in view of Ito, Sanekata, Nakajima, and in further view of Park to obtain the invention as specified in claim 6.
Claim(s) 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 5287293 A) in view of Ito (US 20090218509 A1) and in further view of Sanekata (US 20190005639 A1), Nakajima (US 20010043736 A1), and Wu (US 20070189631 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Chen in view of Ito, Sanekata, and Nakajima discloses the method of inspecting the disk-shaped graduation plate according to claim 5.
Chen in view of Ito, Sanekata, and Nakajima does not teach “wherein the image-data acquisition step includes: obtaining the median of luminance value for each corresponding pixel of the plurality of image data or obtaining the average value of the luminance values of several data near the median value for each corresponding pixel of the plurality of image data to acquire the disk-shaped graduation-plate image data”.
However, Wu teaches wherein the image-data acquisition step includes: obtaining the median of luminance value for each corresponding pixel of the plurality of image data or obtaining the average value of the luminance values of several data near the median value for each corresponding pixel of the plurality of image data to acquire the disk-shaped graduation-plate image data (Wu, paragraph [0017], "The median filter 132 then identifies a median M.sub.312 of luminance values of the plurality of selected pixels in step 230").
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to calculate the median luminance value of Chen’s (in view of Ito, Sanekata, and Nakajima) images, as taught by Wu.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to help understand if an image is too luminated or dark, allowing for improved recaptures if necessary.
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Chen in view of Ito, Sanekata, Nakajima, and in further view of Wu to obtain the invention as specified in claim 7.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2-4 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WAYNE ZHANG whose telephone number is (571) 272-0245. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00-6:00 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, Ms. Sumati Lefkowitz can be reached on (571) 272-3638. 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.
/WAYNE ZHANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2672
/GANDHI THIRUGNANAM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2672
1 GRADATION definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary - Gradations are small differences or changes in things.