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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 9-12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on February 18, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In regard to claim 2, the limitation, “wherein the light path deflection component (3) comprises symmetrically distributed prisms corresponding to the imaging component (2), the prism is wedge-shaped, and the prism has a deflection angle a of 10-20 degrees” renders the scope of the claim unclear. Namely, a plurality of prisms is claimed, followed by limitations applied to a singular prism. For examination purposes it is presumed that the limitations must apply to one or all of the prisms in the system.
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 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choate (US 5,832,107) in view of Lehnen et al. (US 5,917,655).
In regard to claim 1, Choate discloses a virtual binocular detection device 20 (denoted “optical system”, see e.g. Column 2, lines 56-58 and Figure 1) for imaging detection of a to-be-detected object W (denoted “object or piece of work”, see e.g. Column 2, lines 45-47 and Figure 1), comprising (see e.g. Figure 1):
a light source S1 (see e.g. Column 5, lines 46-54 and Figure 1) configured to generate light for imaging detection (see e.g. Column 5, lines 46-65),
two imaging components 23 and 24 (denoted “cameras”, see e.g. Column 2, lines 66-Column 3, line 11 and Figure 1) arranged side by side and configured to receive the light and perform imaging(see e.g. Column 3, line 65-Column 4, line 25), and a light path deflection component 41/42 (denoted “doublet lenses”, see e.g. Column 3, lines 20-24 and Figure 1) positioned between the light source S1 and the imaging component 23 and 24 and configured to receive and refract the light reflected by a surface of the to-be-detected object W so as to make main light emit into the imaging component 23 and 24 (see e.g. Figure 1 and note that the light is split into two paths, toward the cameras 23, 24).
Choate fails to disclose
the light is emitted parallelly to the imaging component.
However, Lehnen et al. discloses (see e.g. Figure 4)
the light 77, 78 is emitted parallelly to the imaging component 46 (see e.g. Figure 4).
Given the teachings of Lehnen et al., 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 device of Choate with the light is emitted parallelly to the imaging component.
Doing so would provide a rearranging of parts (i.e. to redirect the light in a parallel fashion), which is considered within ordinary skill in the art. Such a rearrangement would allow for ease of viewing of the image.
In regard to claim 5, Choate discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
a housing 12 having an inner cavity (see e.g. Figure 1 where the components are contained within housing 12), wherein the light source S1, the imaging component 23 and 24 and the light path deflection component 41/42 all are positioned within the inner cavity (i.e. of element 12).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choate (US 5,832,107) in view of Lehnen et al. (US 5,917,655) and further in view of MacNaughton et al. (CA 2739136, a copy of which is attached).
In regard to claim 2, Choate, in view of Lehnen et al., discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the light path deflection component comprises symmetrically distributed prisms corresponding to the imaging component, the prism is wedge-shaped, and the prism has a deflection angle a of 10-20 degrees.
However, MacNaughton et al. discloses
wherein the light path deflection component 20 (see e.g. paragraph [00227] and Figure 67) comprises symmetrically distributed prisms corresponding to the imaging component 22+S, (see e.g. Figure 67).
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to select a configuration in which the prism is wedge-shaped, since it has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being with in the level of ordinary skill in the art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination (see e.g. MPEP 2144.04, In re Dailey 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using the prism has a deflection angle a of 10-20 degrees, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
Given the teachings of MacNaughton et al., 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 device of Choate, in view of Lehnen et al., with wherein the light path deflection component comprises symmetrically distributed prisms corresponding to the imaging component, the prism is wedge-shaped, and the prism has a deflection angle a of 10-20 degrees.
Providing a prism of a shape specific to the light path toward the imaging components would optimize the viewing quality.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 4, and 6-8 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
In regard to dependent claims 3 and 6-8, the closest prior art references fail to disclose “wherein the imaging component (2) comprises an industrial lens (201) configured to receive light and a vision camera (202) configured for imaging; the industrial lens (201) uses a fixed-focus lens, and the industrial lens (201) has a focal length F of 35-55 mm; and the vision camera (202) uses a board level camera.”
In regard to dependent claim 4, the closest prior art references fail to disclose “wherein the light source (1) comprises a blue light source (101) and a red light source (102) arranged in sequence, and the red light source (102) is closer to the to-be-detected object (6); the light source (1) comprises a frame with an opening in the middle, and a plurality of light sources are arranged on the frame; and an opening of a frame of the red light source (102) is greater than that of the blue light source (101).”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following reference is cited for disclosing related limitations of the applicant’s claimed and disclosed invention: Lang et al. (US 2014/0218478 A1) and Tan (US 2011/0316975 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA M MERLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3207. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at (571) 272-9791. 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.
/JESSICA M MERLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights