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 JP2021-085710 dated 5/20/2021.
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(s) dated 11/19/2025, 2/14/2024, and 11/08/2023 has been considered and placed in the application file.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 10-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Link et al (US 20190156472 A1, hereafter referred to as Link) in view of Shimizu et al (US 20050225551 A1, hereafter referred to as Shimizu), further in view of Cognex et al (“In-Sight Track & Trace User Manual”, hereafter referred to as Cognex).
Claim 1
Regarding Claim 1, Link teaches An inspection apparatus comprising:
a controller (Link in ¶34 discloses a controller); and
a memory storing instructions, the instructions, when executed by the controller, causing the inspection apparatus to perform (Link in ¶34 discloses memory):
identifying a position of a reference portion of the product in the drawing based on the drawing data, the reference portion being a portion serving as a reference for specifying the particular affix position of the label with respect to the product (Link in ¶52 discloses identifying reference features in CAD for position registration. References serve as anchors for positional specs);
the dimension information being information for specifying a positional relationship between the reference portion and the particular affix position (Link in ¶52 discloses identifying reference features in CAD for position registration. References serve as anchors for positional specs.);
the dimension information including a tolerance of the particular affix position (Link in ¶8, 27 and 33 discloses determining if dimensions are within a certain tolerance level for manufacturing inspection).
acquiring captured image data obtained by capturing an image of the product to which the label is affixed, a captured image indicated by the captured image data including a portion of the product including the label (Link in ¶25 discloses acquiring images of objects including inspected portions);
identifying the reference portion of the product in the captured image based on the captured image data (Link in ¶52 discloses identifying references in captured images for alignment);
determining whether an affix position of the label in the captured image is the particular affix position specified by the dimension information, based on an identification result of the label in the captured image, an identification result of a position of the reference portion in the captured image, and the dimension information (Link in Abstract discloses determining if positions comply with deviation limits based on identifications and dimension info).
Link does not explicitly teach all of acquiring drawing data indicating a drawing of a portion including a label affixed to a particular affix position of a product; identifying the label in the drawing based on the drawing data; acquiring dimension information indicated in the drawing based on the drawing data, an identification result of the label in the drawing, and an identification result of the position of the reference portion in the drawing; identifying the label in the captured image based on the captured image data.
However, Shimizu teaches acquiring drawing data indicating a drawing of a portion including a label affixed to a particular affix position of a product (Shimizu in ¶631-635 discloses acquiring CAD/drawing data indicating portions with attribution information. Dimensions for parts/features at particular positions.);
acquiring dimension information indicated in the drawing based on the drawing data, an identification result of the label in the drawing, and an identification result of the position of the reference portion in the drawing (Shimizu in ¶631-635 discloses acquiring dimension attribution information from CAD/drawings based on identified elements/positions).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Link by acquiring drawing data for portions of interest and storing identification and dimension information that is taught by Shimizu, since both reference are analogous art in the field of image processing using design data; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the references since Link’s inspection apparatus using captured image data to identify reference portions and determine positional compliance with tolerances with Shimizu’s acquisition of dimension, position, and attribution information from CAD/drawings based on identified elements yields the predictable result of enabling precise verification of important positions against design specifications using deviation limits and anchors, thereby improving accuracy and efficiency of automated product inspection.
Link in view of Shimizu does not explicitly teach all of identifying the label in the drawing based on the drawing data.
However, Cognex teaches identifying the label in the drawing based on the drawing data (Cognex in “Track & Trace Overview” and Page 15 under “Label Position” discloses identifying labels in models/templates);
identifying the label in the captured image based on the captured image data (Cognex in “Track & Trace Overview” and Page 15 under “Label Position” discloses identifying labels in captured images via search regions/matching).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Link in view of Shimizu by identifying specifically labels that is taught by Cognex, since both reference are analogous art in the field of automated vison-based inspection; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the references since Link in view of Shimizu’s inspection apparatus that acquires CAD/drawing data to identify reference portions, extract dimension information with tolerances, and determine positional compliance using captured images and deviation limits with Cognex’s label-specific identification and position verification yields the predictable result of enhanced reliability and efficiency in manufacturing inspections by ensuring accurate detection and alignment of labels.
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 2
Regarding Claim 2, Link in view of Shimizu, further in view of Cognex teaches The inspection apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein the dimension information includes the tolerance and a design value of a dimension between the label and the reference portion (Shimizu in Fig 40-42 and ¶5-9, 596-598 discloses dimension information that includes a design value and tolerance limits used in the context of CAD models for inspection); and
wherein the controller is configured to:
identify a dimension between the label in the captured image and the reference portion in the captured image (Link in Abstract discloses a system that identifies dimensions for objects in an image to compare design image data of the same portion); and
determine whether the identified dimension is within a range specified by the design value and the tolerance (Shimizu in Fig 40-42 and ¶362 discloses determining if measured dimension is within tolerance by calculating the difference from design value and comparing ratio to tolerance, changing display accordingly),
thereby determining whether the affix position of the label in the captured image is the particular affix position (Shimizu in ¶215 discloses displaying attribute information such as labels and then for portions of the 3D model determines if there are defects based on dimensional tolerances).
Claim 3
Regarding Claim 3, Link in view of Shimizu, further in view of Cognex teaches The inspection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to:
identify a difference between a position of the reference portion in the captured image and a position of the reference portion in the drawing, in a state where a position and a size of the label in the captured image matches a position and a size of the label in the drawing (Link in Abstract discloses a system that identifies dimensions for objects in an image to compare design image data of the same portion); and
determine whether the difference between the position of the reference portion in the captured image and the position of the reference portion in the drawing is within the tolerance, thereby determining whether the affix position of the label in the captured image is the particular affix position (Link in ¶73 discloses determining if a difference is within tolerance for defect detection).
Claim 4
Regarding Claim 4, Link in view of Shimizu, further in view of Cognex teaches The inspection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to further perform a distortion correction process of, on the captured image data, correcting distortion in the captured image (Link in ¶70 discloses distortion can be calculated and corrected for); and
wherein the controller is configured to determine whether the affix position of the label in the captured image is the particular affix position based on the captured image data on which the distortion correction process has been performed (Link in Abstract and ¶73 discloses a system that identifies dimensions for objects in an image to compare design image data of the same portion. Distortion can be calculated and corrected for).
Claim 5
Regarding Claim 5, Link in view of Shimizu, further in view of Cognex teaches The inspection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to further perform a size change process of changing a size of an image of at least the captured image data or the drawing data such that a size of the label in the captured image matches a size of the label in the drawing (Shimizu in ¶375 discloses since the size of attribution information is changed in accordance with the display magnification for the attribution allocation plane, the attribution information can be appropriately represented so it can be identified easily.); and
wherein the controller is configured to determine whether the affix position of the label in the captured image is the particular affix position based on image data of the at least the captured image data or the drawing data on which the size change process has been performed (Shimizu in ¶375 discloses since the size of attribution information is changed in accordance with the display magnification for the attribution allocation plane, the attribution information can be appropriately represented so it can be identified easily. Link in Abstract and ¶73 discloses a system that identifies dimensions for objects in an image to compare design image data of the same portion.).
Claim 6
Regarding Claim 6, Link in view of Shimizu, further in view of Cognex teaches The inspection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the label includes a first label and a second label (Link in ¶52 discloses identifying reference features in CAD for position registration. References serve as anchors for positional specs. Cognex in “Track & Trace Overview” and Page 15 under “Label Position” discloses specifically identifying labels which can be the reference features described in Link);
wherein the particular affix position includes a first affix position at which the first label should be affixed and a second affix position at which the second label should be affixed (Link in ¶52 discloses identifying references in captured images for alignment);
wherein the reference portion includes a first reference portion and a second reference portion, the first reference portion serving as a reference for specifying the first affix position with respect to the product, the second reference portion serving as a reference for specifying the second affix position with respect to the product (Link in ¶52 discloses identifying references in captured images for alignment);
wherein the dimension information includes first dimension information and second dimension information, the first dimension information specifying a positional relationship between the first reference portion and the first affix position, the second dimension information specifying a positional relationship between the second reference portion and the second affix position (Link in ¶52 discloses identifying references in captured images for alignment. Dimension information is stored for each reference/object);
wherein the controller is configured to identify the first label and the second label in the drawing (Cognex in “Track & Trace Overview” and Page 15 under “Label Position” discloses identifying labels in models/templates);
wherein the controller is configured to identify a position of the first reference portion and a position of the second reference portion in the drawing (Link in ¶52 discloses identifying references in captured images for alignment);
wherein the controller is configured to acquire the first dimension information and the second dimension information in the drawing (Link in ¶52 discloses identifying references in captured images for alignment where dimension information is stored for references/objects);
wherein the controller is configured to identify the first label and the second label in the captured image (Cognex in “Track & Trace Overview” and Page 15 under “Label Position” discloses identifying labels in models/templates);
wherein the controller is configured to identify the first reference portion and the second reference portion in the captured image (Link in ¶52 discloses identifying references in captured images for alignment); and
wherein the controller is configured to determine whether an affix position of the first label in the captured image is the first affix position and to determine whether an affix position of the second label in the captured image is the second affix position (Link in ¶52 and 73 discloses identifying references in captured images for alignment. An object is compared to the CAD model of the same object to determine if it is in the correct position/has a defect. This can be done for every feature segmented by the system.).
Claim 7
Regarding Claim 7, Link in view of Shimizu, further in view of Cognex teaches The inspection apparatus according to claim 6, wherein the first label is affixed to a first surface of the product, and the second label is affixed to a second surface of the product, the second surface facing a different direction from the first surface (Link in ¶52 and 73 discloses identifying references in captured images for alignment. 3D models are used, which can have features/dimension information on every surface, including those facing different directions);
wherein the drawing data includes first drawing data and second drawing data, the first drawing data indicating a two-dimensional drawing of a portion of the first surface including the first label, the second drawing data indicating a two-dimensional drawing of a portion of the second surface including the second label (Link in ¶52-59 discloses identifying references in captured images for alignment. 2D projections are made to reduce computational cost when needed); and
wherein the captured image data includes first captured image data and second captured image data, the first captured image data indicating a captured image of a portion of the first surface including the first label, the second captured image data indicating a captured image of a portion of the second surface including the second label (Link in ¶52-59 discloses identifying references in captured images for alignment. 2D projections are made to reduce computational cost when needed).
Claim 10
Regarding Claim 10, Link teaches A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a set of program instructions for an inspection apparatus, the inspection apparatus comprising a controller and a memory, the set of program instructions, when executed by the controller, causing the inspection apparatus to perform (Link in ¶34 discloses a controller and memory):
identifying a position of a reference portion of the product in the drawing based on the drawing data, the reference portion being a portion serving as a reference for specifying the particular affix position of the label with respect to the product (Link in ¶52 discloses identifying reference features in CAD for position registration. References serve as anchors for positional specs);
the dimension information being information for specifying a positional relationship between the reference portion and the particular affix position (Link in ¶52 discloses identifying reference features in CAD for position registration. References serve as anchors for positional specs.);
the dimension information including a tolerance of the particular affix position (Link in ¶8, 27 and 33 discloses determining if dimensions are within a certain tolerance level for manufacturing inspection).
acquiring captured image data obtained by capturing an image of the product to which the label is affixed, a captured image indicated by the captured image data including a portion of the product including the label (Link in ¶25 discloses acquiring images of objects including inspected portions);
identifying the reference portion of the product in the captured image based on the captured image data (Link in ¶52 discloses identifying references in captured images for alignment);
determining whether an affix position of the label in the captured image is the particular affix position specified by the dimension information, based on an identification result of the label in the captured image, an identification result of a position of the reference portion in the captured image, and the dimension information (Link in Abstract discloses determining if positions comply with deviation limits based on identifications and dimension info).
Link does not explicitly teach all of acquiring drawing data indicating a drawing of a portion including a label affixed to a particular affix position of a product; identifying the label in the drawing based on the drawing data; acquiring dimension information indicated in the drawing based on the drawing data, an identification result of the label in the drawing, and an identification result of the position of the reference portion in the drawing; identifying the label in the captured image based on the captured image data.
However, Shimizu teaches acquiring drawing data indicating a drawing of a portion including a label affixed to a particular affix position of a product (Shimizu in ¶631-635 discloses acquiring CAD/drawing data indicating portions with attribution information. Dimensions for parts/features at particular positions.);
acquiring dimension information indicated in the drawing based on the drawing data, an identification result of the label in the drawing, and an identification result of the position of the reference portion in the drawing (Shimizu in ¶631-635 discloses acquiring dimension attribution information from CAD/drawings based on identified elements/positions).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Link by acquiring drawing data for portions of interest and storing identification and dimension information that is taught by Shimizu, since both reference are analogous art in the field of image processing using design data; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the references since Link’s inspection apparatus using captured image data to identify reference portions and determine positional compliance with tolerances with Shimizu’s acquisition of dimension, position, and attribution information from CAD/drawings based on identified elements yields the predictable result of enabling precise verification of important positions against design specifications using deviation limits and anchors, thereby improving accuracy and efficiency of automated product inspection.
Link in view of Shimizu does not explicitly teach all of identifying the label in the drawing based on the drawing data.
However, Cognex teaches identifying the label in the drawing based on the drawing data (Cognex in “Track & Trace Overview” and Page 15 under “Label Position” discloses identifying labels in models/templates);
identifying the label in the captured image based on the captured image data (Cognex in “Track & Trace Overview” and Page 15 under “Label Position” discloses identifying labels in captured images via search regions/matching).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Link in view of Shimizu by identifying specifically labels that is taught by Cognex, since both reference are analogous art in the field of automated vison-based inspection; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the references since Link in view of Shimizu’s inspection apparatus that acquires CAD/drawing data to identify reference portions, extract dimension information with tolerances, and determine positional compliance using captured images and deviation limits with Cognex’s label-specific identification and position verification yields the predictable result of enhanced reliability and efficiency in manufacturing inspections by ensuring accurate detection and alignment of labels.
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 11
Regarding Claim 11, Link teaches An inspection apparatus comprising:
a controller (Link in ¶34 discloses a controller); and
a memory storing instructions, the instructions, when executed by the controller, causing the inspection apparatus to perform (Link in ¶34 discloses memory):
identifying the constituent part in the drawing based on the drawing data (Link in ¶52 discloses identifying features/objects in CAD data and images);
identifying a position of a reference portion of the object in the drawing based on the drawing data, the reference portion being a portion serving as a reference for specifying the particular arrangement position of the constituent part with respect to the object (Link in ¶52 discloses identifying reference features in CAD for position registration. References serve as anchors for positional specs);
the dimension information being information for specifying a positional relationship between the reference portion and the particular arrangement position (Link in ¶52 discloses identifying reference features in CAD for position registration. References serve as anchors for positional specs.),
the dimension information including a tolerance of the particular arrangement position (Link in ¶8, 27 and 33 discloses determining if dimensions are within a certain tolerance level for manufacturing inspection);
acquiring captured image data obtained by capturing an image of the object on which the constituent part is formed, a captured image indicated by the captured image data including a portion of the object including the constituent part (Link in ¶25 discloses acquiring images of objects including inspected portions);
identifying the constituent part in the captured image based on the captured image data (Link in ¶52 discloses identifying features/objects in CAD data and captured images);
identifying the reference portion of the object in the captured image based on the captured image data (Link in ¶52 discloses identifying reference features/objects in CAD data and images); and
determining whether an arrangement position of the constituent part in the captured image is the particular arrangement position specified by the dimension information, based on an identification result of the constituent part in the captured image, an identification result of a position of the reference portion in the captured image, and the dimension information (Link in Abstract discloses determining if positions comply with deviation limits based on identifications and dimension info).
Link does not explicitly teach all of acquiring drawing data indicating a drawing of a portion including a constituent part arranged at a particular arrangement position of an object; acquiring dimension information indicated in the drawing based on the drawing data, an identification result of the constituent part in the drawing, and an identification result of the position of the reference portion in the drawing.
However, Shimizu teaches acquiring drawing data indicating a drawing of a portion including a constituent part arranged at a particular arrangement position of an object (Shimizu in ¶631-635 discloses acquiring CAD/drawing data indicating portions with attribution information. Dimensions for parts/features at particular positions.);
acquiring dimension information indicated in the drawing based on the drawing data, an identification result of the constituent part in the drawing, and an identification result of the position of the reference portion in the drawing (Shimizu in ¶631-635 discloses acquiring dimension attribution information from CAD/drawings based on identified elements/positions).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Link by acquiring drawing data for portions of interest and storing identification and dimension information that is taught by Shimizu, since both reference are analogous art in the field of image processing using design data; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the references since Link’s inspection apparatus using captured image data to identify reference portions and determine positional compliance with tolerances with Shimizu’s acquisition of dimension, position, and attribution information from CAD/drawings based on identified elements yields the predictable result of enabling precise verification of important positions against design specifications using deviation limits and anchors, thereby improving accuracy and efficiency of automated product inspection.
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 12
Regarding Claim 12, Link in view of Shimizu, further in view of Cognex teaches The inspection apparatus according to claim 11, wherein the dimension information includes the tolerance and a design value of a dimension between the constituent part and the reference portion (Shimizu in Fig 40-42 and ¶5-9, 596-598 discloses dimension information that includes a design value and tolerance limits used in the context of CAD models for inspection); and
wherein the controller is configured to:
identify a dimension between the constituent part in the captured image and the reference portion in the captured image (Link in Abstract discloses a system that identifies dimensions for objects in an image to compare design image data of the same portion); and
determine whether the identified dimension is within a range specified by the design value and the tolerance (Shimizu in Fig 40-42 and ¶362 discloses determining if measured dimension is within tolerance by calculating the difference from design value and comparing ratio to tolerance, changing display accordingly),
thereby determining whether the arrangement position of the constituent part in the captured image is the particular arrangement position (Shimizu in ¶215 discloses displaying attribute information such as labels and then for portions of the 3D model determines if there are defects based on dimensional tolerances).
Claim 13
Regarding Claim 13, Link in view of Shimizu, further in view of Cognex teaches The inspection apparatus according to claim 11, wherein the controller is configured to:
identify a difference between a position of the reference portion in the captured image and a position of the reference portion in the drawing, in a state where a position and a size of the constituent part in the captured image matches a position and a size of the constituent part in the drawing (Link in Abstract discloses a system that identifies dimensions for objects in an image to compare design image data of the same portion); and
determine whether the difference between the position of the reference portion in the captured image and the position of the reference portion in the drawing is within the tolerance, thereby determining whether the arrangement position of the constituent part in the captured image is the particular arrangement position (Link in ¶73 discloses determining if a difference is within tolerance for defect detection).
Claim 14
Regarding Claim 14, Link in view of Shimizu, further in view of Cognex teaches The inspection apparatus according to claim 11, wherein the controller is configured to further perform a distortion correction process of, on the captured image data, correcting distortion in the captured image (Link in ¶70 discloses distortion can be calculated and corrected for); and
wherein the controller is configured to determine whether the arrangement position of the constituent part in the captured image is the particular arrangement position based on the captured image data on which the distortion correction process has been performed (Link in Abstract and ¶73 discloses a system that identifies dimensions for objects in an image to compare design image data of the same portion. Distortion can be calculated and corrected for).
Claim 15
Regarding Claim 15, Link in view of Shimizu, further in view of Cognex teaches The inspection apparatus according to claim 11, wherein the controller is configured to further perform a size change process of changing a size of an image of at least the captured image data or the drawing data such that a size of the constituent part in the captured image matches a size of the constituent part in the drawing (Shimizu in ¶375 discloses since the size of attribution information is changed in accordance with the display magnification for the attribution allocation plane, the attribution information can be appropriately represented so it can be identified easily.); and
wherein the controller is configured to determine whether the arrangement position of the constituent part in the captured image is the particular arrangement position based on image data of the at least the captured image data or the drawing data on which the size change process has been performed (Shimizu in ¶375 discloses since the size of attribution information is changed in accordance with the display magnification for the attribution allocation plane, the attribution information can be appropriately represented so it can be identified easily. Link in Abstract and ¶73 discloses a system that identifies dimensions for objects in an image to compare design image data of the same portion.).
Claim 16
Regarding Claim 16, Link in view of Shimizu, further in view of Cognex teaches The inspection apparatus according to claim 11, wherein the constituent part includes a first constituent part and a second constituent part Link in ¶52 discloses identifying reference features in CAD for position registration. References serve as anchors for positional specs.);
wherein the particular arrangement position includes a first arrangement position at which the first constituent part should be arranged and a second arrangement position at which the second constituent part should be arranged (Link in ¶52 discloses identifying references in captured images for alignment);
wherein the reference portion includes a first reference portion and a second reference portion, the first reference portion serving as a reference for specifying the first arrangement position with respect to the object, the second reference portion serving as a reference for specifying the second arrangement position with respect to the object (Link in ¶52 discloses identifying references in captured images for alignment);
wherein the dimension information includes first dimension information and second dimension information, the first dimension information specifying a positional relationship between the first reference portion and the first arrangement position, the second dimension information specifying a positional relationship between the second reference portion and the second arrangement position (Link in ¶52 discloses identifying references in captured images for alignment. Dimension information is stored for each reference/object);
wherein the controller is configured to identify the first constituent part and the second constituent part in the drawing (Link in ¶52 discloses identifying references/objects in CAD data for alignment. Dimension information is stored for each reference/object);
wherein the controller is configured to identify a position of the first reference portion and a position of the second reference portion in the drawing (Link in ¶52 discloses identifying references in captured images for alignment);
wherein the controller is configured to acquire the first dimension information and the second dimension information in the drawing (Link in ¶52 discloses identifying references in captured images for alignment where dimension information is stored for references/objects);
wherein the controller is configured to identify the first constituent part and the second constituent part in the captured image (Link in ¶52 discloses identifying references/objects in captured images for alignment. Dimension information is stored for each reference/object);
wherein the controller is configured to identify the first reference portion and the second reference portion in the captured image (Link in ¶52 discloses identifying references in captured images for alignment); and
wherein the controller is configured to determine whether an arrangement position of the first constituent part in the captured image is the first arrangement position and to determine whether an arrangement position of the second constituent part in the captured image is the second arrangement position (Link in ¶52 and 73 discloses identifying references in captured images for alignment. An object is compared to the CAD model of the same object to determine if it is in the correct position/has a defect. This can be done for every feature segmented by the system.).
Claim 17
Regarding Claim 17, Link in view of Shimizu, further in view of Cognex teaches The inspection apparatus according to claim 16, wherein the first constituent part is arranged at a first surface of the object, and the second constituent part is arranged at a second surface of the object, the second surface facing a different direction from the first surface (Link in ¶52 and 73 discloses identifying references in captured images for alignment. 3D models are used, which can have features/dimension information on every surface, including those facing different directions);
wherein the drawing data includes first drawing data and second drawing data, the first drawing data indicating a two-dimensional drawing of a portion of the first surface including the first constituent part, the second drawing data indicating a two-dimensional drawing of a portion of the second surface including the second constituent part (Link in ¶52-59 discloses identifying references in captured images for alignment. 2D projections are made to reduce computational cost when needed); and
wherein the captured image data includes first captured image data and second captured image data, the first captured image data indicating a captured image of a portion of the first surface including the first constituent part, the second captured image data indicating a captured image of a portion of the second surface including the second constituent part (Link in ¶52-59 discloses identifying references in captured images for alignment. 2D projections are made to reduce computational cost when needed).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9 and 18-19 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN P CASCAIS whose telephone number is (703) 756-5576. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:00.
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, Mr. O'Neal Mistry can be reached on (313) 446-4912. 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.
/J.P.C./Examiner, Art Unit 2674
/Ross Varndell/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2674
Date: 12/17/2025