DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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 Arguments
2. Applicant's arguments received 10/07/2025 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Claims 1-5, 10, 13, 16, 22 and 24 are rejected as new prior art reference KUROKAWA et al. (US 20160021314 A1) has been found to teach, in combination with other cited prior art, the claimed limitations of processing analog comparison associated with the trigger. Detailed response is given in sections 4-8 as set forth below in this Office action.
The terminal disclaimer filed on 10/07/2025 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of the US Patent No. 11885612 is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Claim Objection
3. Claim 24 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 24, last line, change “combining analog processing” into -- combining analog processing. --
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
4. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
5. Claims 1-5, 7-13, 15-18 and 20 have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because they recite an “apparatus” comprising the generic placeholder terms of “a trigger” and “an evaluator” coupled with functional language, i.e. “to acquire…” and “for determining…” respectively, but without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claims 1-5, 7-13, 15-18 and 20 have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification (US 20240118074 A1, e.g., para. 0070-0074, 0081-0089, etc.) that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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 of this title, 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.
7. Claims 1-5, 16, 22 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masaki (US 4547800 A) in view of KUROKAWA et al. (US 20160021314 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 22, Masaki discloses an apparatus (Fig. 7), and a method for practicing the apparatus, for measurement of an object (Abstract), comprising: a trigger (e.g., the combination of 50/52/54/70/72/74/76 in Fig. 7) configured to acquire image information from a measurement camera (television camera 50) and to trigger (the term “to trigger” is given a broad interpretation, e.g., to generate, produce, prompt, provoke, set off, spark; here, in one embodiment, the system of Fig. 7 processes the acquired image information from the camera 50, inputting of the workpiece image information to the writing device 70 is triggered only if the camera 50 detects the workpiece under inspection), in dependence on image content of the image information (col. 10, lines 45-57), forwarding of the image information (e.g., the output from shift register 76, which resembles a digital incremental encoder) to an evaluator (computer 80) for determining measurement results or an evaluation of the image information by an evaluator (computer 80) for determining measurement results (col. 10, lines 51-57; col. 12, lines 34-60).
Masaki does not mention explicitly the details of the triggering mechanism including: wherein the trigger is configured to compare a current image sensor analog signal to an image sensor analog signal stored in an analog memory to detect a temporal change of image information, wherein the analog comparison corresponds to a formation of difference images and allows detection of a movement of the image content, and to trigger, based thereon, the output of a digitized version of the image information via a digital interface of an image sensor.
KUROKAWA discloses an apparatus (Figs. 1 and 15), and a method for practicing the apparatus, for measurement of an object (Abstract; see also Figs. 3A1, 3A2, 3B1, 3B2, 3C and related text), comprising a trigger (para. 0074); wherein the trigger is configured to compare a current image sensor analog signal to an image sensor analog signal stored in an analog memory to detect a temporal change of image information, wherein the analog comparison corresponds to a formation of difference images and allows detection of a movement of the image content, and to trigger, based thereon, the output of a digitized version of the image information via a digital interface of an image sensor (para. 0074-0075, 0077, 0098-0102, 0262).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate KUROKAWA’s triggering mechanism associated with analog image signal comparison into Masaki’s apparatus to arrive the claimed invention. It is deemed that the skilled person in the art would conceive and apply such modification, as an intended use of the KUROKAWA invention, without needing inventive skill but depending on practical considerations, for example, in order to reduce the power consumption of the apparatus (KUROKAWA, Abstract; para. 0006, 0008, 0262).
The limitation of “… for three-dimensional measurement of an object” has not been given patentable weight because the recitation occurs in the preamble. A preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone.
Regarding claim 2, Masaki discloses: wherein triggering the measurement output is performed exclusively based on the image content (as shown in Fig. 7, the one-input and one-output shift register 76 receives input only from the reading device 74; see also col. 10, lines 45-57).
Regarding claim 3, Masaki discloses: wherein the trigger is configured to perform image analysis (col. 12, lines 9-20 and 36-40) and to trigger the measurement output or the evaluation of the image information in dependence on the image analysis (col. 12, lines 34-60).
Regarding claim 4, Masaki does not but KUROKAWA discloses: wherein the trigger is configured to perform analog preprocessing of image sensor analog signals and to trigger, based on the analog preprocessing of the image sensor analog signals, forwarding of the image information or the evaluation of the image information by an evaluator for determining measurement results (para. 0099-0101). As such, the combination of Masaki/KUROKAWA renders the claimed invention obvious.
Regarding claim 5, Masaki does not but KUROKAWA discloses: wherein the trigger is configured to trigger digitization of image sensor analog signals (para. 0099-0101) and an output of a digitized version of the image information via a digital interface of the image sensor (para. 0263-0264). As such, the combination of Masaki and KUROKAWA renders the claimed invention obvious.
Regarding claim 16, Masaki discloses: wherein the trigger is configured to decide whether a result is output or whether the output is suppressed (see discussion of switch 54 Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 24, Masaki discloses an apparatus (Fig. 7), comprising: a trigger (e.g., the combination of 50/52/54/70/72/74/76 in Fig. 7) configured to acquire image information from a measurement camera (television camera 50) and to trigger (the term “to trigger” is given a broad interpretation, e.g., to generate, produce, prompt, provoke, set off, spark; here, in one embodiment, the system of Fig. 7 processes the acquired image information from the camera 50, inputting of the workpiece image information to the writing device 70 is triggered only if the camera 50 detects the workpiece under inspection), in dependence on image content of the image information (col. 10, lines 45-57), forwarding of the image information (e.g., the output from shift register 76, which resembles a digital incremental encoder) to an evaluator (computer 80) for determining measurement results (col. 10, lines 51-57; col. 12, lines 34-60).
Masaki does not mention explicitly the details of the triggering mechanism including: wherein the trigger is configured to perform combining analog processing of a plurality of image sensor analog signals, which comprises a weighted or unweighted addition or subtraction of image sensor analog signals from adjacent pixels, to detect a presence of a specific structure in the image information, and to trigger the output of a digitized version of the image information via a digital interface of an image sensor based on a result of the combining analog processing.
The teaching of KUROKAWA includes: wherein the trigger is configured to perform combining analog processing of a plurality of image sensor analog signals (para. 0074-0075, 0077, 0098-0102), which comprises an unweighted addition or subtraction of image sensor analog signals from adjacent pixels, to detect a presence of a specific structure in the image information (para. 0074-0075; see also para. 0140-0146), and to trigger the output of a digitized version of the image information via a digital interface of an image sensor based on a result of the combining analog processing (para. 0099-0101, 0263-0264).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate KUROKAWA’s triggering mechanism associated with analog image signal comparison into Masaki’s apparatus to arrive the claimed invention. Doing so would allow for reducing the power consumption of the apparatus (KUROKAWA, Abstract; para. 0006, 0008, 0262).
The limitation of “… for three-dimensional measurement of an object” has not been given patentable weight because the recitation occurs in the preamble. A preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone.
8. Claims 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masaki in view of KUROKAWA as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Omid-Zohoor (US 10009549 B2).
Regarding claim 10, Masaki does not mention explicitly: wherein the trigger is configured to detect when the image content has shifted with respect to a reference image content by at least a predetermined shift or by more than a predetermined shift and to trigger, in dependence on the detection of a shift, forwarding of the image information or the evaluation of the image information by the evaluator for determining measurement results.
Omid-Zohoor discloses an apparatus (e.g., Fig. 1) for measurement of an object (Abstract), comprising: an array of image sensors (108); a converter circuitry (110) configured to perform combining analog processing of a plurality of image sensor analog signals (col. 14, lines 49-67) to trigger the output of a digitized version of the image information via a digital interface (e.g., the digital processor 124) of the apparatus based on a result of the combining analog processing (col. 5, lines 22-27; col. 16, lines 19-20, 26-56; see also discussion of block 680 in Fig. 6). The apparatus taught by Omid-Zohoor further comprises: a trigger configured to detect when the image content has shifted with respect to a reference image content by at least a predetermined shift or by more than a predetermined shift and to trigger, in dependence on the detection of a shift, forwarding of the image information for determining measurement results (col. 27, line 60 – col. 28, line 5; see also col. 11, lines 55-60; col. 16, lines 64-67; col. 18, lines 31-42).
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 combination of Masaki/KUROKAWA with Omid-Zohoor’s teaching of multiplexer type of converter to combine analog processing of a plurality of image sensor analog signals and to trigger the output of a digitized version of the image information based on a result of the combining analog processing. Doing so would enable to process a plurality of input image sensor analog signals and to optimize the operation of the apparatus and the resulting output (Omid-Zohoor, col. 5, lines 9-27).
Regarding claim 13, Masaki does not mention explicitly: wherein the trigger is configured to evaluate elevation information or surface information during the analysis of the image content.
The teaching of Omid-Zohoor comprises: wherein the trigger is configured to evaluate elevation information or surface information (e.g., edges or gradients of pixel intensity values of the object) during the analysis of the image content (col. 5, lines 55-67; see also discussion about the comparators 242, 244 in Fig. 2). As such, the combination of Masaki/KUROKAWA and Omid-Zohoor renders claimed invention obvious.
Conclusion
9. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Contact Information
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIUQIN SUN whose telephone number is (571)272-2280. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am-6:00pm.
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, Shelby A. Turner can be reached on (571) 272-6334. 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.
/X.S/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/SHELBY A TURNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857