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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
1. 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).
2.. With respect to applicant’s remarks filed on 12/29/25 regarding amended claim 1, and new claims 17, 18, pages 9-14, the new added limitations “the projection portion is configured to change the projection image by the light of the two different wavelength spectra in time series”, “a light diffusion portion which increases a divergence angle of the light flux when the light flux passes through the focal plane or the focal plane region”, “a light emitting surface of the light source is disposed in the focal plane or the focal plane region, and the light source is configured to independently emit light of the two different wavelength spectra in different regions”, have been found in the references of Lui Chen-guang et al. (CN 113985592 A), Oomori et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2002/0017620), Deliwala (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0108409), Takei et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 8,542,272), and Furman (U.S. Pat. No. 7,843,558). Hereafter Lui, Oomori, Deliwala, Takei, Furman.
3. Regarding to amended claim 1, Deliwala teaches the projection portion is configured to change the projection image by the light of the two different wavelength spectra in time series ([0237], Deliwala discloses “the changes in the LED spectra become changes in the available light intensity at the selected wavelengths passed through the pinhole P”. It is inherent that the changes in the LED spectra must change projection image in time series). Further, Takei also teaches this limitation (Column 4, lines 19-67; Figures 1, 2, filter 12. It is inherent that filter 12 is configured to change the projection image by the transmitted light through the filter of different wavelength spectra in time series). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Lui by having the projection portion to change the projection image in time series order to different images for detecting.
4. Regarding to new claim 18, Furman teaches a light diffusion portion which increases a divergence angle of the light flux when the light flux passes through the focal plane or the focal plane region, (Column 5, lines 7-18; Column 6, lines 1-14; Figures 6, 9, light diffusers 120, 130, convert distribution emitted from each point of source 104, to a rectangular angular distributions 121, 132, 134, and increase a divergence angle of the light flux when the light flux passes through the focal plane of lens 106. Further, a characteristic of an optical diffuser is to scatter light to create uniform illumination in larger FOV. Therefore, the limitation “diffuser increases a divergence angle of the light” is only a characteristic of a diffuser). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Lui by having a light diffusion portion order to diverge light beams for detecting.
5. Regarding to new claim 19, Lui teaches a light emitting surface of the light source is disposed in the focal plane or the focal plane region, and the light source is configured to independently emit light of the two different wavelength spectra in different regions, (the following figure 1, the surface D of reflection grating 2 is not different from a light emitting surface of the light source, disposed in the focal plane or the focal plane region 4, and this light source D is configured to independently emit light of the two different wavelength spectra (A, B, C) in different regions on to the object 5).
6. Grounds for the rejection of claims are provided below as necessitated by amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. Claim(s) 19, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lui Chen-guang et al. (CN 113985592 A) in view of Oomori et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2002/0017620). Hereafter “Lui”, “Oomori”. (Please see attached file for Lui’s reference in previous office action).
Regarding Claim(s) 19, Lui teaches an optical apparatus comprising:
an illumination optical element having a focal plane or a focal plane region including a vicinity of the focal plane (figure 1, focal plane 4); and
a projection portion including a light source (figure 1, light source 1),
wherein:
the projection portion is configured to emit a light including light of at least two different wavelength spectra from the light source (page 3, lines 3, it is inherent that LED wide spectrum must contains at least two different wavelength spectra) to the illumination optical element (figure 1, objective 5 is not different from the illumination optical element), and
the projection portion is configured to form a projection image at different positions by light of the two different wavelength spectra in the focal plane or the focal plane region of the illumination optical element (the following figure 1, focal plane 4, projection image ABC at different positions. It is inherent that achromatic lens 3 are corrected to bring plurality wavelengths into focus on the same focal plane 4).
a light emitting surface of the light source is disposed in the focal plane or the focal plane region, and the light source is configured to independently emit light of the two different wavelength spectra in different regions, (the following figure 1, the surface D of reflection grating 2 is not different from a light emitting surface of the light source, disposed in the focal plane or the focal plane region 4, and this light source D is configured to independently emit light of the two different wavelength spectra with different projection images ABC, in different regions on to the object 5).
However, Lui does not teach light flux. It is inherent that any light beam must has its own light flux. Moreover, Oomori also teaches light flux ([0035], lines 9-12). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Lui by having light flux in order to implement inspection system amount of light intensity emitted by the light source.
9. Claim(s) 1-6, 8-10, 17, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lui Chen-guang et al. (CN 113985592 A) in view of Oomori et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2002/0017620), further in view of Deliwala (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0108409) or Takei et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 8,542,272). Hereafter “Lui”, “Oomori”, “Deliwala”, “Takei”. (Please see attached file for Lui’s reference in previous office action).
Regarding Claim(s) 1, Lui teaches an optical apparatus comprising:
an illumination optical element having a focal plane or a focal plane region including a vicinity of the focal plane (figure 1, focal plane 4); and
a projection portion including a light source (figure 1, light source 1),
wherein:
the projection portion is configured to emit a light including light of at least two different wavelength spectra from the light source (page 3, lines 3, it is inherent that LED wide spectrum must contains at least two different wavelength spectra) to the illumination optical element (figure 1, objective 5 is not different from the illumination optical element), and
the projection portion is configured to form a projection image at different positions by light of the two different wavelength spectra in the focal plane or the focal plane region of the illumination optical element (the following figure 1, focal plane 4, projection image ABC at different positions. It is inherent that achromatic lens 3 are corrected to bring plurality wavelengths into focus on the same focal plane 4).
However, Lui does not teach light flux. It is inherent that any light beam must has its own light flux. Moreover, Oomori also teaches light flux ([0035], lines 9-12). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Lui by having light flux in order to implement inspection system amount of light intensity emitted by the light source.
Moreover, Lui does not teach the projection portion is configured to change the projection image by the light of the two different wavelength spectra in time series. Deliwala teaches the projection portion is configured to change the projection image by the light of the two different wavelength spectra in time series, ([0237], Deliwala discloses “the changes in the LED spectra become changes in the available light intensity at the selected wavelengths passed through the pinhole P”. It is inherent that the changes in the LED spectra must change projection image in time series). Further, Takei also teaches this limitation (Column 4, lines 19-67; Figures 1, 2, filter 12. It is inherent that filter 12 is configured to change the projection image by the transmitted light through the filter of different wavelength spectra in time series). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Lui by having the projection portion to change the projection image in time series order to different images for detecting.
Regarding Claim(s) 2, Lui teaches the projection portion is configured to emit light fluxes including light of at least two different wavelength spectra in a same period from the light source, (page 3, lines 3, it is inherent that LED wide spectrum must contains at least two different wavelength spectra in a same period from the light source).
Regarding Claim(s) 4, Lui teaches the projection portion makes a divergence angle immediately after the light flux from the light source passes through the focal plane or the focal plane region larger than a divergence angle immediately before the light flux passes through the focal plane or the focal plane region (figure 1, the projection portion reflection grating 2 makes a divergence angle immediately after the light from the LED passes through the focal plane 4).
Regarding Claim(s) 5, Lui teaches the projection portion is configured to image the light flux from the light source on the focal plane or the focal plane region (the following figure 1, reflecting grating 2 is not different from the projection portion is configured to image the light from the LED 1 on the focal plane 4).
Regarding Claim(s) 6, Lui teaches a light emitting surface of the light source is disposed in the focal plane or the focal plane region, and the light source is configured to independently emit light of the two different wavelength spectra in different regions (figure 1, the combination of achromatic lens 3, grating 2 and LED 1 have a light emitting surface of achromatic lens 3 being disposed in the focal plane 4. It is inherent that combination of achromatic lens 3, grating 2 and LED 1 wide spectrum independently emit light of the two different wavelength spectra in different regions).
Regarding Claim(s) 8, Lui teaches an imaging portion which is configured to disperse at least two different wavelengths included in the light of the at least two different wavelength spectra, respectively, in the light from the light source (the above figure 1, combination of achromatic lens 3 and grating 2 disperses at least two different wavelengths at different projection images ABC included in the light of the at least two different wavelength spectra).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (D)][AltContent: textbox (ABC)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
674
522
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim(s) 9, Lui teaches an imaging portion which has object side telecentricity for light having at least one wavelength in the light from the light source (figure 1, the imaging portion 8, 9, 10, 11, of the optical inspection apparatus has object side telecentricity with respect to light having at least one wavelength in the light from the light source 1).
Regarding Claim(s) 10, Lui teaches the illumination optical element has a lens (figure 1, lens 3, 4).
Regarding Claim(s) 17, Lui teaches the projection portion is configured to change a direction of a light beam of the light flux, or relationship between the direction of the light beam and the two different wavelength spectra in time series (the above figure 1, the surface reflection D is not different from projection portion, which changes direction of a light beam of the light flux at different projection images ABC with different wavelength spectra in time series).
10. Claim(s) 7, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lui Chen-guang et al. (CN 113985592 A) in view of Oomori et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2002/0017620), further in view of Deliwala (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0108409) or Takei et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 8,542,272), and further in view of Furman (U.S. Pat. No. 7,843,558). Hereafter “Lui”, “Oomori”, “Deliwala”, “Takei”, “Furman”. (Please see attached file for Lui’s reference in previous office action).
Regarding Claim(s) 7, Lui, Oomori, Deliwala, Takei, do not teach a light diffusion portion which increases a divergence angle of the light flux when the light flux passes through the focal plane or the focal plane region. Furman teaches a light diffusion portion which increases a divergence angle of the light flux when the light flux passes through the focal plane or the focal plane region, (Column 5, lines 7-18; Column 6, lines 1-14; Figures 6, 9, light diffusers 120, 130, convert distribution emitted from each point of source 104, to a rectangular angular distributions 121, 132, 134, and increase a divergence angle of the light flux when the light flux passes through the focal plane of lens 106. Further, a characteristic of an optical diffuser is to scatter light to create uniform illumination in larger FOV. Therefore, the limitation “diffuser increases a divergence angle of the light” is only a characteristic of a diffuser). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Lui, Oomori, Deliwala, Takei by having a light diffusion portion order to diverge light beams for detecting.
11. Claim(s) 11, 13, 15, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lui Chen-guang et al. (CN 113985592 A) in view of Oomori et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2002/0017620), further in view of Deliwala (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0108409) or Takei et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 8,542,272), and further in view of Ohno et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0077793). Hereafter “Lui”, “Oomori”, “Deliwala”, “Takei”, “Ohno”. (Please see attached files for Lui’s reference in previous office action).
Regarding Claim(s) 11, 13, 15, Lui, Oomori, Deliwala, Takei, teach all the limitations of claims 1 and 9, as stated above except for a processor that is configured to control the imaging portion, causes the imaging portion to acquire an image, and performs optical inspection of an object surface based on information of color of the image captured by the imaging portion. Ohno teaches a processor that is configured to control the imaging portion, causes the imaging portion to acquire an image, and performs optical inspection of an object surface based on information of color of the image captured by the imaging portion ([0076-0081, 0210-0214]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Lui, Oomori, Deliwala, Takei by having a light diffusion portion in order to detect fine defect ([0076-0081, 0210-0214]).
12. Claim(s) 18, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lui Chen-guang et al. (CN 113985592 A) in view of Oomori et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2002/0017620), further in view of Furman (U.S. Pat. No. 7,843,558). Hereafter “Lui”, “Oomori”, “Furman”. (Please see attached files for Lui’s reference in previous office action).
Regarding Claim(s) 18, Lui teaches an optical apparatus comprising:
an illumination optical element having a focal plane or a focal plane region including a vicinity of the focal plane (figure 1, focal plane 4); and
a projection portion including a light source (figure 1, light source 1),
the projection portion is configured to emit a light including light of at least two different wavelength spectra from the light source (page 3, lines 3, it is inherent that LED wide spectrum must contains at least two different wavelength spectra) to the illumination optical element (figure 1, objective 5 is not different from the illumination optical element), and
the projection portion is configured to form a projection image at different positions by light of the two different wavelength spectra in the focal plane or the focal plane region of the illumination optical element (the following figure 1, focal plane 4, projection image ABC at different positions. It is inherent that achromatic lens 3 are corrected to bring plurality wavelengths into focus on the same focal plane 4).
However, Lui does not teach light flux. It is inherent that any light beam must has its own light flux. Moreover, Oomori also teaches light flux ([0035], lines 9-12). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Lui by having light flux in order to implement inspection system amount of light intensity emitted by the light source.
Moreover, Lui does not teach a light diffusion portion which increases a divergence angle of the light flux when the light flux passes through the focal plane or the focal plane region. Furman teaches a light diffusion portion which increases a divergence angle of the light flux when the light flux passes through the focal plane or the focal plane region, (Column 5, lines 7-18; Column 6, lines 1-14; Figures 6, 9, light diffusers 120, 130, convert distribution emitted from each point of source 104, to a rectangular angular distributions 121, 132, 134, and increase a divergence angle of the light flux when the light flux passes through the focal plane of lens 106. Further, a characteristic of an optical diffuser is to scatter light to create uniform illumination in larger FOV. Therefore, the limitation “diffuser increases a divergence angle of the light” is only a characteristic of a diffuser). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Lui by having a light diffusion portion order to diverge light beams for detecting.
Allowable Subject Matter
13. Claims 12, 14, 16, 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.
14. The allowable Subject matter was indicated in office Action mailed on 09/29/25.
Conclusion
15. 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.
Fax/Telephone Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRI T TON whose telephone number is (571)272-9064. The examiner can normally be reached on 8am-4pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
January 14, 2026
/Tri T Ton/
Primary Examiner Art Unit 2877