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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed October 15, 2025 has been entered. Claim 3 is cancelled. Claim1 1-2 and 4-12 are pending. The amendment has overcome the 112 (b) rejection of the office action mailed on August 1, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, filed October 15, 2025, with respect to the rejections under 35 USC 103 of claim 1, have been fully considered, but are not persuasive. Masamura teaches the light source (1) outside the housing (fig. 1), and Lee teaches the light source attachment part (103) has a bracket (106) configured to change a direction of the first light source in the opening region (lines 196-198). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Masamura by incorporating a bracket provided outside the housing and configured to change a direction of the first light source so the optical inspection may be efficiently performed (Lee: line 183).
Specification Objections
The specification is objected to due to the following informalities:
The specification is objected to because “bracket provided outside the housing” recited in claim 1 is not recited in the specification.
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.
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 1-3, 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masamura (US 20180299386 A1) in view of Lee (KR 101823101 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Masamura teaches an imaging housing (100) comprising: a housing that covers an imaging space (fig. 1, [0043]); an imaging device attachment part (that is provided on a first surface (top) of the housing and to which an imaging device (imaging device C) is attached ([0043] imaging device C is attached through an attachment part); and
a light source attachment part (inherently the source is attached to the housing through an attachment part) that is provided on a second surface (side surface) intersecting the first surface of the housing and to which a first light source (source 1) that irradiates an inside of the housing is attached ([0044]), wherein the housing is provided with a diffusion member therein ([0048]), and has a first opening (top opening, reflection/transmission light path L2) facing a lens of the imaging device on the first surface (fig. 1, [0043]), a second opening (irradiation light path L1 ) on the second surface, but fails to disclose a movable plate that changes an opening region of the second opening into which light of the first light source is incident, and the light source attachment part has a bracket provided outside the housing and configured to change a direction of the first light source in the opening region.
However, Masamura teaches the light source outside the housing (fig. 1) and Lee, from the same field of endeavor, teaches a movable plate that changes an opening region of the second opening into which light of the first light source is incident (lines 179-183), and the light source attachment part (103) has a bracket (incident angle adjusting unit 106 includes brackets 104 and 105) configured to change a direction of the first light source in the opening region (lines 196-200).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Masamura by incorporating a movable plate that changes an opening region of the second opening into which light of the first light source is incident, and the light source attachment part has a bracket provided outside the housing and configured to change a direction of the first light source in the opening region so the optical inspection may be efficiently performed (line 183).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Masamura, when modified by Lee, teaches the imaging housing according to claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the diffusion member is exchangeable and wherein the housing includes an insertion/removal mechanism, and the diffusion member is provided in the housing by the insertion/removal mechanism.
However, one of ordinary skill would recognize that providing the diffusion member in the housing of Masamura as an exchangeable part yields flexibility. It is established that making an element removable or replaceable for convenience or customization is obvious (MPEP 2144 (V)(C)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Masamura and Lee by incorporating wherein the diffusion member is exchangeable, and wherein the housing includes an insertion/removal mechanism, and the diffusion member is provided in the housing by the insertion/removal mechanism to yield predictable results of flexible device.
Regarding claim 6, Masamura, when modified by Lee, teaches the imaging housing according to claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the imaging device is attachably and detachably attached to the imaging device attachment part.
However, it is established that making an element removable or replaceable for convenience or customization is obvious (MPEP 2144 (V)(C)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Masamura and Lee by incorporating wherein the imaging device is attachably and detachably attached to the imaging device attachment part for ease of use.
Regarding claim 7, Masamura, when modified by Lee, teaches the imaging housing according to claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the imaging device attachment part has an imaging direction adjustment mechanism that adjusts an imaging direction of the imaging device.
However, Lee teaches wherein the imaging device attachment part has an imaging direction adjustment mechanism that adjusts an imaging direction of the imaging device (lines 138-139: The optical device 100 May include a rotation adjustment unit 160, and may be configured to scan the inspection target, lines 221-226)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Masamura and Lee by incorporating wherein the imaging device attachment part has an imaging direction adjustment mechanism that adjusts an imaging direction of the imaging device to yield predictable results of flexible device for enhanced imaging.
Regarding claim 8, Masamura, when modified by Lee, teaches examination device comprising:
the imaging housing according to claim 1; an imaging device (imaging device C) that is provided in the imaging device attachment part ([0043]); and a first light source (source 1) that is provided in the light source attachment part ([0044]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masamura (US 20180299386 A1) in view of Lee (KR 101823101 B1), further in view of Tsai (US20080180958A1).
Regarding claim 4, Masamura, when modified by Lee, teaches the imaging housing according to claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the diffusion member attached to a bottom part of the housing is removable.
However, Tsai from the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the diffusion member (180) attached to a bottom part of the housing is removable ([0022] diffusing panel 180 disposed at the bottom of the light housing 120….. the diffusing panel 180 may be removably attached to the light housing 120).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Masamura and Lee by incorporating wherein the diffusion member attached to a bottom part of the housing is removable for a uniform lighting in the housing ([0022]) and to yield predictable results of flexible device.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masamura (US 20180299386 A1) in view of Lee (KR 101823101 B1), further in view of Nakayama (US 20220148138 A1)
Regarding claim 5, Masamura, when modified by Lee, teaches the imaging housing according to claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein an imaging device hood is provided on the first surface of the housing.
However, Nakayama, from the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein an imaging device hood is provided ([0007]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Masamura and Lee by incorporating wherein an imaging device hood is provided on the first surface of the housing for mage distortion correction ([0007]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masamura (US 20180299386 A1) in view of Lee (KR 101823101 B1), further in view of Biedermann (US5644140A).
Regarding claim 9, Masamura, when modified by Lee, teaches the examination device according to claim 8, but fails to disclose wherein the light source attachment part includes a first light source attachment part and a second light source attachment part, the first light source attachment part is provided with the first light source, and the second light source attachment part is provided with a second light source.
However, Biedermann, from the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the light source attachment part includes a first light source attachment part and a second light source attachment part, the first light source attachment part is provided with the first light source (Lt1), and the second light source attachment part is provided with a second light source (Lt2) (fig. 3, Col. 9, lines 39-45).
Furthermore, Masamura teaches only one light source attachment part and the light source attachment part is provided with the light source. A second light source attachment part with a provided with a second light source is mere duplication (In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960))
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Masamura and Lee by incorporating wherein the light source attachment part includes a first light source attachment part and a second light source to attachment part, the first light source attachment part is provided with the first light source, and the second light source attachment part is provided with a second light source to improve defect detection.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masamura (US 20180299386 A1) in view of Lee (KR 101823101 B1), further in view of Biedermann (US5644140A), and further in view of Cronin (US20030223248A1)
Regarding claim 10, Masamura, when modified by Lee and Biederman, teaches the examination device according to claim 8, but fails to disclose further comprising: a processor that changes wavelength intensities of the first light source and the second light source.
However, Cronin from the same field of endeavor, teaches a processor (Controller 140) that changes wavelength intensities of the first light source and the second light source ([0061] Controller 140 is coupled to light source array 112 to independently control the intensity output of each light source, and thereby select the spectral content of output beam 118).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Masamura, Lee and Biederman by incorporating a processor that changes wavelength intensities of the first light source and the second light source to yield predictable result of better suitable illumination.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masamura (US 20180299386 A1) in view of Lee (KR 101823101 B1), further in view of Fujiwara (US 20090002485A1)
Regarding claim 11, Masamura, when modified by Lee, teaches the examination device according to claim 8, but fails to disclose wherein the first light source is a halogen lamp, and the second light source is a metal halide lamp.
However, Fujiwara, from the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the first light source is a halogen lamp, and the second light source is a metal halide lamp ([0069] In addition to the metal halide lamp, alternatively, a mercury lamp or a xenon lamp may be used as the first light source while a halogen lamp or an LED may be used as the second light source).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Masamura and Lee by incorporating wherein the first light source is a halogen lamp, and the second light source is a metal halide lamp to optimize illumination for different inspection scenarios ([0069]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masamura (US 20180299386 A1) in view of Lee (KR 101823101 B1), further in view of Ono (US 20210211617 A1)
Regarding claim 12, Masamura, when modified by Lee, teaches the examination device according to claim 8, but fails to disclose wherein the imaging device is a multispectral camera, and the multispectral camera is a pupil division type in which a plurality of band-pass filters are disposed at a pupil position or in the vicinity of the pupil position.
However, Ono teaches an imaging device (Abstract), wherein the imaging device is a multispectral camera, and the multispectral camera is a pupil division type in which a plurality of band-pass filters are disposed at a pupil position or in the vicinity of the pupil position ([0060]-[0062])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Masamura and Lee by incorporating wherein the imaging device is a multispectral camera, and the multispectral camera is a pupil division type in which a plurality of band-pass filters are disposed at a pupil position or in the vicinity of the pupil position in order to provide high-quality multispectral image ([0033]).
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 MOHAMED DOUMBIA whose telephone number is (571)272-8266. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00 PM ET.
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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at 571-270-5789. 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.
/MOHAMED DOUMBIA/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/MICHELLE M IACOLETTI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877