DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed on 09/22/2025.
In the filed response, claims 1, 11, 20, and 21 have been amended, where claims 1, 20, and 21 are independent claims.
Accordingly, Claims 1-21 have been examined and are pending. This Action is made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
1. The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 06/27/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the instant claims 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. Please see examiner’s responses below.
3. Applicant argues (see pgs. 9-11 of remarks) prior art Isken does not teach and/or suggest the amended features of claim 1 which are also similarly recited in claims 20 and 21. In particular, Applicant asserts that “Isken does not describe a system that provides an option for selecting a lighting optimization mode from a set of lighting optimization modes that includes an edge detection lighting optimization mode and at least one of a defect detection lighting optimization mode or a points from focus lighting optimization mode, wherein the different lighting optimization modes correspond to different lighting determinations. Instead, Isken is only in relation to operation modes utilized for detecting defects (i.e., wherein each operation mode may comprise a predefined selection of light sources and/or cameras to be used for illuminating the sample for defect detection)”. Applicant also asserts that “Isken does not perform a lighting optimization process that "determines lighting for illuminating the workpiece" wherein the lighting optimization process is performed based on the selected lighting optimization mode. Instead, in Isken each of the operating modes comprises a predefined selection of light sources and/or cameras to be used”.
4. Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s arguments, however based on updated searches, other prior art was found that is deemed relevant to the amended claims. After careful consideration, the examiner finds that the work of Weiss et al. US 2018/0130197 A1 (PTO 892), hereinafter referred to as Weiss, teaches and/or suggests these features. Weiss describes a system 100 for optical inspection (e.g. fig. 2) that can illuminate and image a surface of interest on a unit of a part or assembly having different sizes or geometries (e.g. ¶0087). Said system employs multiple lighting modules that can be selectively activated by a controller to achieve a particular lighting condition across a surface of a part during an imaging routine (e.g. ¶0025, ¶0053, and ¶0075). For e.g., this can include dark-field and bright-field lighting which are shown to be suitable for detecting defects (e.g. scratches, nicks, abrasions, etc.) and edges, respectively, on a unit of a part. In the absence of any further defining limitation, and given the BRI, “an option for selecting a lighting optimization mode from a set of lighting optimization modes” can be construed to mean the controller can selectively choose a given lighting mode from a plurality of lighting modes. In other words, from the various lighting modules that are available in Weiss’s system, the controller has an option for selectively choosing and activating a particular lighting mode that will yield the desired lighting condition suitable for detecting defects and/or edges of the part. Hence, the selected mode can be interpreted as the “optimization mode”, while the lighting modules not selected and activated can be interpreted as the “set of lighting optimization modes” that is available to the system. Further, each of Weiss’s activated lighting modules can be understood as corresponding to different types of lighting. As to a lighting “optimization process”, although Weiss does not explicitly use this term, the examiner respectfully submits any light element(s) from a plurality of light elements that are selectively activated by the system controller to yield a specific lighting condition for illuminating a surface of a part under inspection, can be construed as an “optimization process” given its BRI. Lastly, Applicant noted on pg. 10 “in Isken each of the operating modes comprises a predefined selection of light sources and/or cameras to be used”. The examiner respectfully submits that pg. 20 lines 18-21 of the filed specification recites “predefined lighting layouts”, which is understood to mean that for a selection of a lighting module to be made from a plurality of lighting modules, there must be a predefined selection of light sources and/or cameras to be used. Examiner does agree with Applicant that Isken is only in relation to operation modes utilized for detecting defects, however, Weiss’s teachings are deemed relevant since they address what can be construed as an “optimization process” for determining the optimal lighting for illuminating a surface of a part based on the selected lighting (i.e. optimization mode) for the purposes of detecting edges and defects. Based on the foregoing, the examiner respectfully submits Weiss, either alone or in combination, teaches and/or suggests the disclosed features of the instant claims given their BRI. Please see office action below for further details.
5. Other relevant works were also identified during examination, including that of Naruse US 2021/0364447 A1 (PTO 892), hereinafter referred to as Naruse, which discloses a method for obtaining an ‘optimized’ illumination light emission pattern to help emphasize defects in workpieces (e.g. ¶0009). Also see Naruse et al. US 2024/0305893 A1, Bryll et al. US 2013/0162807 A1, Ando US 2015/0355103 A1, Campbell et al. US 2012/0243790 A1 (PTO 892).
6. Applicant’s response and amendments with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is acknowledged. As such, the rejection is withdrawn.
7. The Examiner is available to discuss the matters of this office action to help move the Instant Application forward. Please refer to the conclusion to this office action regarding scheduling interviews.
8. In light of the foregoing, Claims 1-21 have been examined and are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5, 14, 16, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weiss et al. US 2018/0130197 A1, in view of Ashdown et al. US 2008/0013314 A1, hereinafter referred to as Weiss and Ashdown, respectively.
Regarding claim 1, (Currently Amended) Given the BRI of the following limitations, Weiss teaches and/or suggests “A system, comprising: a lens configured to input image light arising from a workpiece [See for e.g. ¶0026. Optical sensor 122 can include a lens (not illustrated) to direct light from surfaces of a unit of a part], wherein the lens is configured to transmit the image light along an imaging optical path and has an optical axis [With reference to optical sensor 122 which contains a lens (above), please refer to Figs. 2-3]; a camera configured to receive image light transmitted along the imaging optical path and to provide images of the workpiece [See for e.g. ¶0026 of Weiss regarding optical sensor 122 which can include various types of cameras having a defined FOV directed towards an imaging volume for capturing images of a part (e.g. fig. 2)]; a lighting configuration comprising lighting channels configured to illuminate the workpiece for producing the image light [Weiss further describes integrated lighting modules all of which can be controlled to activate individual light elements or groups of light elements to achieve a particular lighting condition across a surface of a part (e.g. ¶0075). Each light element or group of light elements can be construed as a lighting channel]; one or more processors; and a memory coupled to the one or more processors and storing program instructions that when executed by the one or more processors cause the one or more processors [See controller 180 in for e.g. ¶0088 with reference to fig. 2] to at least: provide an option for selecting a lighting optimization mode that is at least one of from a set of lighting optimization modes [Although ‘optimization mode’ is not explicitly referred to, Weiss’s controller 180 can activate (i.e. select) a particular lighting module from different lighting modules to achieve a particular lighting condition for imaging a part/assembly. Given the selected lighting module corresponds to a given lighting condition, this can be construed as one of a set of lighting optimization modes], the set of lighting optimization modes comprising an edge detection lighting optimization mode [One such mode can be with respect to bright-field lighting modules 150 which are suitable for detecting edges. See for e.g. ¶0053]; and at least one of a defect detection lighting optimization mode or a points from focus lighting optimization mode, [Recognizing the limitation “at least one of”, ¶0053 further describes dark-field lighting modules 140 which can be construed as another mode suitable for detecting defects (e.g. scratches, etc.)] wherein the different lighting optimization modes correspond to different lighting determinations [Same citations above. Dark-field and bright-field lighting modules can be controlled to project dark-field and bright-field lighting corresponding to particular lighting conditions that are suitable for detecting defects and edges, respectively]; receive a selection of a lighting optimization mode from the set of lighting optimization modes [Given the BRI of the limitation, Weiss’s system can receive controls from controller 180 to selectively activate a lighting module from a set of lighting modules. In other words, the selected module enables a desired lighting condition from a set of modules corresponding to different lighting conditions]; and perform a lighting optimization process based on the selected lighting optimization mode [Based on the lighting module selected, the system will perform corresponding processing for performing edge/defect detection. In other words, this can be interpreted as a “lighting optimization process” given its BRI, since the selected lighting is shown to yield the desired/optimal lighting for achieving a particular lighting condition], wherein the lighting optimization process determines lighting for illuminating the workpiece [The selected lighting provides the desired lighting conditions for illuminating a part or assembly. Please refer to (PART) in fig. 2] and the determined lighting comprises settings for the lighting channels of the lighting configuration.” [Given the BRI of “settings”, Weiss further describes setting bright-field and dark-field light intensities as per claim 21. For further support, please refer to Ashdown below] Although Weiss’s teachings are deemed relevant given the BRI of the claims, Ashdown from the same or similar field of endeavor is relied on to more clearly teach and/or suggest “and the determined lighting comprises settings for the lighting channels of the lighting configuration.” [Given the BRI of the foregoing limitation, Ashdown illustrates settings for controlling which illumination characteristics (e.g. ¶0033) of a light source are to be optimized (e.g. fig. 2). The light source can comprise various combinations, arrangements, arrays, etc. of lighting elements (e.g. ¶0023-¶0024 and ¶0036) where each of the elements can be considered a lighting channel of the overall lighting configuration] Although Ashdown’s optimized lighting is not explicitly used for illuminating a workpiece for both defect and edge detection as in Weiss, Ashdown does optimize the one or more lighting characteristics that are most suitable for the application for which the light source is to be used. For this reason, Ashdown is deemed relevant art. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Weiss for performing optical inspection of a part (e.g. fig. 2), to add the teachings of Ashdown as above that provide a more explicit means for obtaining different light source solutions that can help improve and/or optimize selected illumination characteristics of a light source for a given application (e.g. ¶0006).
Regarding claim 2, (Original) Weiss and Ashdown teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 1 and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Weiss further teaches and/or suggests “wherein the program instructions when executed by the one or more processors further cause the one or more processors [See for e.g. ¶0134 regarding hardware and software for performing the functions described therein] to determine one or more elements or regions on the workpiece for the lighting optimization.” [¶0016 describes lighting select surfaces or a surface of interest of a part(s), which can be interpreted as regions of a part. Also refer to ¶0017-¶0018]
Regarding claim 3, (Original) Weiss and Ashdown teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 1 and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Weiss further teaches and/or suggests “wherein the program instructions when executed by the one or more processors further cause the one or more processors [See for e.g. ¶0134 regarding hardware and software for performing the functions described therein] to determine lighting variables to be utilized in the lighting optimization process.” [As to lighting variables, see claim 21 of Weiss regarding setting dark-field and bright-field light ‘intensities’. Please note that Ashdown also addresses this feature in for e.g. e.g. fig. 2 and related text]
Regarding claim 4, (Original) Weiss and Ashdown teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 1 and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Weiss further teaches and/or suggests “wherein the program instructions when executed by the one or more processors further cause the one or more processors [See for e.g. ¶0134 regarding hardware and software for performing the functions described therein] to display a result of the lighting optimization process as including one or more determined candidates for the lighting for illuminating the workpiece.” [Weiss does not address displaying a result as claimed. Please refer to Ashdown below] Given Weiss is silent with respect to displaying a result as claimed, the work of Ashdown from the same or similar field of endeavor is relied on to teach and/or suggest “to display a result of the lighting optimization process as including one or more determined candidates for the lighting for illuminating the workpiece.” [See for e.g. ¶0041 with reference to user interface 26/control panel 28 (fig. 2) that enables control over which illumination characteristics (see ¶0043) of a light source are optimized for use. Display 36 shows various display values indicative of said illumination characteristics resulting from the selected optimization. The light source details are provided in for e.g. ¶0036-¶0038]
The motivation for combining Weiss and Ashdown has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 5, (Original) Weiss and Ashdown teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 1 and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Weiss further teaches and/or suggests “wherein the program instructions when executed by the one or more processors further cause the one or more processors [See for e.g. ¶0134 regarding hardware and software for performing the functions described therein] to determine at least one of: that additional lighting optimization is to be performed for the same workpiece and the same lighting optimization mode but for a different one or more elements or regions on the workpiece [Weiss’s inspection system shows different orientations of the same unit of part may be inspected over time (¶0047). Also refer to ¶0053, i.e. illuminating surfaces of a unit of part. The foregoing description of different orientations and surfaces can be construed as different one or elements or regions of the workpiece], and perform the lighting optimization process for the different one or more elements or regions on the workpiece; or that additional lighting optimization is to be performed for the same workpiece and a different lighting optimization mode, and perform the lighting optimization process based on the different lighting optimization mode.” [See ¶0025 where different angles and qualities of light may be projected onto a unit of part. The controller can actively select these lighting modules for imaging purposes based on quantitative and qualitative optical inspection parameters]
Regarding claim 14, (Original) Weiss and Ashdown teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 1 and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Weiss further teaches and/or suggests “wherein the program instructions when executed by the one or more processors [See for e.g. ¶0134 regarding hardware and software for performing the functions described therein] further cause the one or more processors to enable a user to control independent lighting variables that are utilized as part of the lighting optimization process. [Weiss further describes setting bright-field and dark-field light intensities as per claim 21. For further support, please see Ashdown below] Although Weiss is deemed relevant, the work of Ashdown from the same or similar field of endeavor is relied on to further teach and/or suggest the aforementioned features. [See fig. 2 as discussed in instant claim 1. Also please refer to ¶0033 with regards to one or more illumination characteristics that can be optimized independently] The motivation for combining Weiss and Ashdown has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 16, (Original) Weiss and Ashdown teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 1 and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Weiss further teaches and/or suggests “wherein when the defect detection lighting optimization mode is selected [¶0053 describes dark-field lighting modules 140 for detecting defects (e.g. scratches, etc.) which may be selectively activated to yield a desired lighting condition on the surface of interest (e.g. ¶0091)], the lighting optimization process is configured to be in communication with a defect detection process that evaluates proposed lighting and provides feedback on an accuracy with which the defect detection process is able to detect a known defect region as illuminated by the proposed lighting.” However Weiss does not appear to describe a feedback mechanism for he lighting as claimed. Ashdown, on the other hand, from the same or similar field of endeavor is relied on to teach and/or suggest the aforementioned limitation. [See ¶0005 and ¶0069 where a feedback signal is provided to adjust optimized drive parameters of the light source to ensure a desired and stable output] The motivation for combining Weiss and Ashdown has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the system of Claim 1.
Regarding claim 21, claim 21 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the system of Claim 1.
Claims 6 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weiss, in view of Ashdown, and in further view of Naruse US 2021/0364447 A1, hereinafter referred to as Naruse.
Regarding claim 6, (Original) Weiss and Ashdown teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 1 and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Weiss further teaches and/or suggests “wherein the program instructions when executed by the one or more processors” [See for e.g. ¶0134 regarding hardware and software for performing the functions described therein], however, Weiss does not appear to address the remaining features of claim 6. As such, the work of Naruse from the same or similar field of endeavor is brought in to more explicitly teach and/or suggest “further cause the one or more processors to save a lighting optimization model for the workpiece for which the lighting optimization model comprises the settings for the lighting channels of the lighting configuration as corresponding to the determined lighting.” [See for e.g. ¶0070 and fig. 2 of Naruse with respect to storage 130 storing illumination parameters and learning machine parameters (including illumination parameters and the like) used by machine learning models in a learning stage and inspection stage. Also please note ¶0083 and fig. 3] From the above, Naruse is shown to employ machine learning techniques for determining optimized illumination light emission patterns for inspecting a workpiece. Thus, Naruse is deemed relevant given the BRI of the claim. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical inspection system of Weiss and the lighting optimization method of Ashdown, to add the teachings of Narsue as above that allows an inspection of a workpiece to be performed using optimized lighting with which influences of variations in a non-defective product or variations in individual products which are workpieces can be curbed, while emphasizing defects in workpieces (¶0009).
Regarding claim 17, (Original) Weiss and Ashdown teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 1 and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Weiss further teaches and/or suggests “wherein the program instructions when executed by the one or more processors [See for e.g. ¶0134 regarding hardware and software for performing the functions described therein] further cause the one or more processors to collect a set of images to be utilized for the lighting optimization process, and for which each lighting channel to be optimized is on in at least one of the images.” However, Weiss (and Ashdown) do not appear to address the aforementioned features regarding images. As such, the work of Naruse from the same or similar field of endeavor is brought in to more explicitly teach and/or suggest “further cause the one or more processors to collect a set of images to be utilized for the lighting optimization process, and for which each lighting channel to be optimized is on in at least one of the images.” [See for e.g. the work flows depicted in figs. 8-9 (and corresponding text) for evaluating workpiece images which further lead to executing illumination optimization.] The motivation for combining Weiss, Ashdown, and Naruse has been discussed in connection with claim 6, above.
Claims 15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weiss, in view of Ashdown, and in further view of Isken et al. US 2023/0304940 A1, hereinafter referred to as Isken.
Regarding claim 15, (Original) Weiss and Ashdown teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 1 and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Weiss further teaches and/or suggests “wherein when the defect detection lighting optimization mode is selected [¶0053 describes dark-field lighting modules 140 for detecting defects (e.g. scratches, etc.) which may be selectively activated to yield a desired lighting condition on the surface of interest (e.g. ¶0091)], the program instructions when executed by the one or more processors” [See for e.g. ¶0134 regarding hardware and software for performing the functions described therein], however Weiss (and Ashdown) do not appear to address the remaining limitations of claim 15. As such, the work of Isken from the same or similar field of endeavor is relied on to teach and/or suggest “further cause the one or more processors [See ¶0117] to receive information from a user regarding at least one of: a workpiece with a defect where the user indicates a region of the defect for which the lighting optimization process utilizes the information to provide lighting that maximizes the contrast of the region [Different defect modes can be selected by the user (fig. 10 and ¶0168-¶0169), where each mode will have a corresponding lighting arrangement, i.e. the lighting will be modified accordingly according to the selected mode that creates a suitable environment for capturing images of the sample (e.g. ¶0151), thus allowing for accurate detection and/or quantification of the defect type]; or characteristics of at least one of a defect or a surface of the workpiece, and for which the characteristics are utilized by the lighting optimization process to determine whether the optimized lighting will correspond to surface lighting with maximized texture or darkfield lighting of at least one surface of interest.” [Recognizing the ‘or’ condition above, Isken’s teachings are applied to the first recited feature] Given Isken’s teachings above for inspecting for coating defects (abstract), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Weiss for performing optical inspection of a part (e.g. fig. 2) along with Ashdown’s method for optimizing illumination characteristics (abstract), to add the teachings of Isken as above that ensures the coated surface is illuminated in a defined and reproducible manner so that photos taken of coating defects provide reproducible results that are comparable with results obtained from other photos in terms of the type and number of coating defects observed (e.g. ¶0009).
Regarding claim 18, (Original) Weiss and Ashdown teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 1 and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Weiss and Ashdown however do not appear to address the features of claim 18. Isken on the other hand from the same or similar field of endeavor is relied on to teach and/or suggest “wherein one or more of the lighting channels of the lighting configuration are movable lighting channels [Position and orientation of light sources are changeable (e.g. ¶0064 and ¶0145); hence, their lighting paths/channels are movable], and for which each movable lighting channel is configured to be controllable to move in relation to the other lighting channels of the lighting configuration for adjusting at least one of a position or direction of the lighting provided by the movable lighting channel [Same citation above, since having changeable light sources suggests moving the light sources around to different positions/orientations in relation to one another to optimize the lighting environment], and for which the lighting optimization process includes optimizing at least one of the position or direction of a movable lighting channel.” [Same citations and rationale given above] The motivation for combining Weiss, Ashdown, and Isken has been discussed in connection with claim 15, above.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weiss, in view of Ashdown, and in further view of Li et al. US 2019/0132567 A1, hereinafter referred to as Li.
Regarding claim 19, (Original) Weiss and Ashdown teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 1 and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Weiss and Ashdown however do not appear to address the features of claim 19. Li on the other hand from the same or similar field of endeavor is relied on to teach and/or suggest “wherein the lighting optimization process is configured to utilize negative color lighting channels through a process that includes subtracting one image from another.” [See for e.g. ¶0063] Given Li’s teachings above for correcting color temperatures of a flash lamp (abstract), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Weiss for performing optical inspection of a part (e.g. fig. 2) along with Ashdown’s method for optimizing illumination characteristics (abstract), to add the teachings of Li as above that provide a method that aims to correct the light compensation color distribution of a flash lamp such that it is consistent with the color temperature of the environment; hence, image quality can be improved (e.g. ¶0063).
Allowable Subject Matter
10. Claims 7-13 are 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. In light of the specification, the Examiner finds the claimed invention to be patentably distinct from the prior art of records. The prior art of record, taken individually or in combination fail to explicitly teach or render obvious within the context of the respective independent claims the limitations:
7. (Original) The system of claim 6, wherein the program instructions when executed by the one or more processors further cause the one or more processors to: compare a second workpiece to the workpiece and determine similarities of the second workpiece; determine that the saved lighting optimization model will be utilized for the lighting for the second workpiece; and recall the saved lighting optimization model to provide the lighting for the second workpiece.
8. (Original) The system of claim 7, wherein the program instructions when executed by the one or more processors further cause the one or more processors to: determine a location and orientation of the second workpiece; determine that adjustments are needed to the lighting in relation to the location and orientation of the second workpiece; and provide adjustments to the lighting based on the location and orientation of the second workpiece.
9. (Original) The system of claim 7, wherein the program instructions when executed by the one or more processors further cause the one or more processors to provide the lighting for the second workpiece and acquire one or more images of the second workpiece as illuminated by the lighting.
10. (Original) The system of claim 9, wherein the program instructions when executed by the one or more processors further cause the one or more processors to perform one or more inspection operations on the second workpiece, for which the one or more inspection operations correspond to the lighting optimization mode that was selected for the lighting optimization process.
11. (Currently Amended) The system of claim 10, wherein the one or more inspection operations comprise: edge detection which is utilized to determine the locations of one two or more edges on the second workpiece; and determining a distance between two edges on the second workpiece.
12. (Original) The system of claim 10, wherein the one or more inspection operations comprise defect detection which is utilized to detect a defect on the second workpiece.
13. (Original) The system of claim 10, wherein the one or more inspection operations comprise points from focus which is utilized to determine three dimensional profile data for the second workpiece.
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 RICHARD A HANSELL JR. whose telephone number is (571)270-0615. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 10 am- 7 pm.
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, Jamie Atala can be reached at 571-272-7384. 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.
/RICHARD A HANSELL JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486