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
This office action is in response to remarks and amendments filed on 1/12/2026. Claims 4, 12 and 16 are cancelled. Claims 1-3, 5-11, 13-15, and 17-20 are pending.
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.
Claims 13-14, and 20 are 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.
Claims 13-14 recite the limitations "a camera," "a robotic arm," and "a light source" in lines 2-3. However, amended claim 1 introduces "a camera," "a robotic arm," and "a light source" therefore it is not clear if these terms in claims 13-14 are meant to refer to the same camera, robotic arm, and light source defined in claim 1, or if they are new and additional structures. If they are meant to refer to the same terms in claim 1, then claims 13-14 are indefinite because the claim language would be changing the structure defined in claim 1, not further limiting it. If these terms are meant to be new, separate, items, then they are also indefinite because it is not clear, and need to be defined as separate items.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "a camera device" in line 2. Similar to the explanation above, amended claim 15 introduces the term “a camera,” therefore it is not clear if it is meant to refer to the same camera defined in claim 15, or if it’s a new and additional camera, therefore the claim is indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by WIPO Patent Publication No. WO-2020152866-A1 ("Karaki").
Regarding claim 1, Karaki discloses an inspection method for electronic devices, comprising the steps of:
providing an object under test (S, Figs. 2, 4, all figures);
inspecting the object under test (S, Fig. 2) through an inspection system having an optical apparatus (130, Figs. 2-4) including a camera device (135, Figs. 2-4) and a light source device (132, 133, 134, Figs. 2-4, form light source device) disposed on a robotic arm (110, Fig. 1) with multi-axis degree of freedom (“110 is 6-axis vertical multi-joint robot”),
wherein positions of the camera device (135, Figs. 2-4) and the light source device (132, 133, 134, Figs. 2-4) are fixed on the optical apparatus (130, Figs. 2-4, see also “The first lamp 132 to the third lamp 134 and the line sensor camera 135 are firmly fixed and supported so that they do not move and their orientation does not change while the illumination camera unit 130 is moving.”), including the steps of:
using the light source device (132, 133, 134, Figs. 2-4) of the optical apparatus (130, Figs. 2-4) to provide a first inspection light (light from any one of 132, 133, 134, Figs. 2-4, to perform any one of “Specular reflection illumination, reflection dark-field illumination, same-direction dark-field illumination scanning” and see “in each of the above scans, one of the first lamp 132 to the third lamp 134 is turned on so that the inspection target S is illuminated only by the illumination light from any of the first lamp 132 to the third lamp 134.”) for inspecting a first position of the object under test (S, Fig. 1, “the drive control unit scans the same region of the inspection target multiple times”), and then using the camera device (135, Figs. 2-4) of the optical apparatus (130, Figs. 2-4) to receive a first reflection light for being recorded in a controller (140,144, Fig. 1, “The image inspection unit 144 sequentially receives the image data of the plurality of line images sequentially output from the line sensor camera 135” and see section Generation of Image);
moving the camera device and the light source device of the optical apparatus (“The drive control unit changes the angle of the optical axis of the line sensor camera with respect to a vertical line (for example, a vertical line H) of the surface of the inspection target in each of two or more times of the plurality of scans. (For example, same-direction dark field illumination, specular reflection illumination, and reflection dark field illumination), the articulated robot may be driven.” And see also: “Further, the illumination mode can be changed only by turning on/off the first lamp 132 to the third lamp 134 and changing the direction of the illumination camera unit 130, which facilitates the change.”); and
using the light source device of the optical apparatus to provide a second inspection light (light from any other of 132, 133, 134, Figs. 2-4, for example: “a second illumination lamp (for example, the second lamp 133 or the like) provided at a position for performing regular reflection illumination (for example, regular reflection illumination)”) for inspecting the first position of the object under test (S, Figs. 2-4, “the drive control unit scans the same region of the inspection target multiple times”), and then using the camera device (135, Figs. 2-4) of the optical apparatus (130, Figs. 2-4) to receive a second reflection light for being recorded in the controller (140,144, Fig. 1); and
determining whether there is an abnormality through the first reflection light and the second reflection light (see section titled Image inspection, and: “If the image inspection unit 144 determines that any one of the captured images is defective, it is determined that the inspection target S (the inspection target S scanned by the line sensor camera 135) is defective.”), wherein the step of inspecting the object under test through an inspection system further includes:
moving the camera device and the light source device of the optical apparatus (“Further, the illumination mode can be changed only by turning on/off the first lamp 132 to the third lamp 134 and changing the direction of the illumination camera unit 130, which facilitates the change.”) and
using the light source device of the optical apparatus (130, Figs. 2-4) to provide a third inspection light (any one of the other of 132, 133, 134, Figs. 2-4, for example: “A third illumination lamp provided at a position for performing dark-field illumination (for example, reflection dark-field illumination)…”) to inspect the first position of the object under test (S, Figs. 2-4, “the drive control unit scans the same region of the inspection target multiple times”), and then using the camera (135, Figs. 2-4) of the optical apparatus (130, Figs. 2-4) to receive a third reflection light for being recorded in the controller (140,144, Fig. 1),
wherein whether there is an abnormality is determined through the first reflection light, the second reflection light and the third reflection light (see section titled Effects of the Embodiment: “By the illumination and scanning in a plurality of modes, there is a high possibility that the defect can be detected in any one of the plurality of modes, and therefore the image inspection apparatus 100 has a high inspection accuracy of the presence or absence of a defect”).
Regarding claim 2, Karaki discloses the inspection method for electronic devices as claimed in claim 1, wherein there is a first included angle (any one of θ1-θ3, Fig. 4) between the first inspection light (any one of 132-134, Figs. 2-4, 6-9, 14) and a normal direction of the object under test (normal direction label as H, Figs. 7-8), there is a second included angle between the second inspection light and the normal direction of the object under test (any other one of θ1-θ3, Fig. 4), and the first included angle is different from the second included angle (θ1-θ3, Fig. 4, are all different angles).
Regarding claim 3, Karaki discloses the inspection method for electronic devices as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first inspection light comes from a first light source position in space (132-134, Figs. 2-4, 6-9, 14), the second inspection light comes from a second light source position in space (other one of any of 132-134, Figs. 2-4, 6-9, 14), and the first light source position is different from the second light source position (see Figs. 3-4, 132-134 are in different positions).
Regarding claim 5, Karaki discloses the inspection method for electronic devices as claimed in claim 1, wherein there is a first included angle (any one of θ1-θ3, Fig. 4) between the first inspection light (any one of 132-134, Figs. 2-4, 6-9, 14) and a normal direction (H, Fig. 4, 7-8) of the object under test (S, Fig. 4, 7-8), there is a second included angle between the second inspection light and the normal direction of the object under test (any second other one of θ1-θ3, Fig. 4), there is a third included angle between the third inspection light and the normal direction of the object under test (any other third one of θ1-θ3, Fig. 4), and the first included angle, the second included angle and the third included angle are different from each other (θ1-θ3, Fig. 4, are all different angles).
Regarding claim 6, Karaki discloses the inspection method for electronic devices as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first inspection light comes from a first light source position in space (for example, light from 132, Fig. 8), the second inspection light comes from a second light source position in space (for example, light from 133, Fig. 6), the third inspection light comes from a third light source position in space (134, Fig. 7), and the first light source position, the second light source position and the third light source position are different from each other (see Figs. 6-8, the three light source positions are different).
Regarding claim 11, Karaki discloses the inspection method for electronic devices as claimed in claim 1, wherein the optical apparatus (130, Fig. 1) is coupled to the controller (140, Fig. 1).
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 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karaki in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2004/0207836 ("Chhibber").
Regarding claim 7, Karaki discloses the inspection method for electronic devices as claimed in claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose further comprising, between the step of using the optical apparatus to provide a first inspection light and the step of moving the optical apparatus, the step of: using the optical apparatus to provide a third inspection light for inspecting the first position of the object under test, and then receive a third reflection light for being recorded in the controller, wherein a wavelength of the third inspection light is different from that of the first inspection light, and the step of determining whether there is an abnormality further determines whether there is an abnormality through the third reflection light.
However, Chhibber discloses between the step of using the optical apparatus to provide a first inspection light (first wavelength range, paragraph [0135]) and the step of moving the optical apparatus (Fig. 26D, paragraph [0157]), the step of: using the optical apparatus to provide a third inspection light for inspecting the first position of the object under test (paragraph [0135], wavelength of light that illuminates surface may be altered from a first wavelength range to a second wavelength, more than two wavelength ranges are possible), and then receive a third reflection light for being recorded in the controller (29, Fig. 5, paragraph [0110]), wherein a wavelength of the third inspection light is different from that of the first inspection light (paragraph [0135], the wavelength ranges are different), and the step of determining whether there is an abnormality further determines whether there is an abnormality through the third reflection light (paragraph [0135]: “The wavelengths offer additional information about the scattering particle and will aid in classification of particle sizes and material properties of the particle.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use different wavelengths of light to illuminate the object under test as disclosed by Chhibber in the device of Karaki in order to enhance different-sized particles.
Regarding claim 8, Karaki discloses the inspection method for electronic devices as claimed in claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose further comprising, after the step of using the optical apparatus to provide a second inspection light, the step of: using the optical apparatus to provide a third inspection light for inspecting the first position of the object under test, and then receive a third reflection light for being recorded in the controller, wherein a wavelength of the third inspection light is different from that of the second inspection light, and the step of determining whether there is an abnormality further determines whether there is an abnormality through the third reflection light.
However, Chhibber discloses after the step of using the optical apparatus to provide a second inspection light (second wavelength range, paragraph [0135]), the step of: using the optical apparatus to provide a third inspection light for inspecting the first position of the object under test (paragraph [0135], more than two wavelength ranges are possible), and then receive a third reflection light for being recorded in the controller (29, Fig. 5, paragraph [0110]), wherein a wavelength of the third inspection light is different from that of the second inspection light (paragraph [0135], the wavelength ranges are different from each other), and the step of determining whether there is an abnormality further determines whether there is an abnormality through the third reflection light (paragraph [0135]: “The wavelengths offer additional information about the scattering particle and will aid in classification of particle sizes and material properties of the particle.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use different wavelengths of light to illuminate the object under test as disclosed by Chhibber in the device of Karaki in order to enhance different-sized particles.
Regarding claim 9, Karaki in view of Chhibber discloses the inspection method for electronic devices as claimed in claim 8, and Karaki further discloses that there is a first included angle (any one of θ1-θ3, Fig. 4) between the first inspection light (any one of 132-134, Figs. 2-4, 6-9, 14) and a normal direction of the object under test (normal direction label as H, Figs. 7-8), there is a second included angle between the second inspection light and the normal direction of the object under test (any other one of θ1-θ3, Fig. 4), and the first included angle is different from the second included angle (θ1-θ3, Fig. 4, are all different angles).
Regarding claim 10, Karaki in view of Chhibber discloses the inspection method for electronic devices as claimed in claim 8, and Karaki further discloses that the first inspection light comes from a first light source position in space (132-134, Figs. 2-4, 6-9, 14), the second inspection light comes from a second light source position in space (other one of any of 132-134, Figs. 2-4, 6-9, 14), and the first light source position is different from the second light source position (see Figs. 3-4, 132-134 are in different positions).
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karaki.
Regarding claim 13, Karaki discloses the inspection method for electronic devices as claimed in claim 1, wherein the optical apparatus (130, Figs. 2-4) includes a camera device (135, Figs. 2-4) disposed on a robotic arm (110, Figs. 2-4) with multi-axis degree of freedom (“110 is 6-axis vertical multi-joint robot”).
Karaki does not disclose the light source device, or possibly meaning a second light source device, is on another robotic arm.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include additional robotic arms with additional sets of camera/light sources disposed thereon in order to inspect a larger space/area, as doing so is merely a duplication of parts with no new or unexpected results. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.).
Regarding claim 14, Karaki discloses the method for detecting electronic devices as claimed in claim 1, wherein the optical apparatus (130, Figs. 2-4) includes a camera device (135, Figs. 2-4) and a light source device (132, 133, 134, Figs. 2-4, form light source device) disposed on a robotic arm (110, Figs. 2-4) with multi-axis degree of freedom (“110 is 6-axis vertical multi-joint robot”).
Karaki does not explicitly disclose another camera device and another light source device disposed on another robotic arm with multi-axis degree of freedom.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include additional robotic arms with additional sets of camera/light sources disposed thereon in order to inspect a larger space/area, as doing so is merely a duplication of parts with no new or unexpected results. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.).
Claims 15, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karaki in view of U.S. Patent No. 4,999,510 ("Hayano").
Regarding claim 15, Karaki discloses an inspection method for electronic devices, comprising the steps of:
providing an object under test (S, Figs. 2, 4, all figures);
inspecting the object under test (S, Fig. 2) through an optical apparatus (130, Figs. 2-4) having a camera device (135, Figs. 2-4) and a light source device (132, 133, 134, Figs. 2-4, form light source device) disposed on a robotic arm (110, Fig. 1) with multi-axis degree of freedom (“110 is 6-axis vertical multi-joint robot”),
wherein positions of the camera device (135, Figs. 2-4) and the light source device (132, 133, 134, Figs. 2-4) are fixed on the optical apparatus (130, Figs. 2-4, see: “The first lamp 132 to the third lamp 134 and the line sensor camera 135 are firmly fixed and supported so that they do not move and their orientation does not change while the illumination camera unit 130 is moving.”), including:
selecting a first light source (any one of 132, 133, 134, Figs. 2-4) of the light source device (132, 133, 134, Figs. 2-4) to provide a first inspection light (light from any one of 132, 133, 134, Figs. 2-4, to perform any one of “Specular reflection illumination, reflection dark-field illumination, same-direction dark-field illumination scanning” and see “in each of the above scans, one of the first lamp 132 to the third lamp 134 is turned on so that the inspection target S is illuminated only by the illumination light from any of the first lamp 132 to the third lamp 134.”) for inspecting a first position of the object under test (S, Fig. 1, “the drive control unit scans the same region of the inspection target multiple times”), and then using the camera device (135, Figs. 2-4) to receive a first reflection light for being recorded in a controller (140,144, Fig. 1, “The image inspection unit 144 sequentially receives the image data of the plurality of line images sequentially output from the line sensor camera 135” and see section Generation of Image);
selecting a second light source (any other one of 132, 133, 134, Figs. 2-4) of the light source device to provide a second inspection light (light from any other of 132, 133, 134, Figs. 2-4, for example: “a second illumination lamp (for example, the second lamp 133 or the like) provided at a position for performing regular reflection illumination (for example, regular reflection illumination)”) for inspecting the first position of the object under test (S, Figs. 2-4, “the drive control unit scans the same region of the inspection target multiple times”), and then using the camera device (135, Figs. 2-4) to receive a second reflection light for being recorded in the controller (140,144, Fig. 1, as explained above, see section Generation of Image); and
determining whether there is an abnormality through the first reflection light and the second reflection light (see section titled Image inspection, and: “If the image inspection unit 144 determines that any one of the captured images is defective, it is determined that the inspection target S (the inspection target S scanned by the line sensor camera 135) is defective.”).
Karaki does not explicitly disclose that the first inspection light has a first wavelength, the second inspection light has a second wavelength, and the first wavelength is different from the second wavelength (“The respective lights after the separation are lights in different wavelength bands.”).
However, Hayano discloses a first inspection light (10, Fig. 7) has a first wavelength (col. 8, lines 55-61), the second inspection light (14, Fig. 7) has a second wavelength (col. 8, lines 57-58), and the first wavelength is different from the second wavelength (col. 8, lines 57-58).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use two different wavelengths as disclosed by Hayano in the device of Kato in order to illuminate the object under test with both light sources at the same time and improve inspection times.
Regarding claim 17, Karaki in view of Hayano discloses the inspection method for electronic devices as claimed in claim 15, and Karaki further discloses that the step of inspecting the object under test through an optical apparatus (130, Figs. 2-4) further includes:
selecting a third light source (any third light from one of 132, 133, 134, Figs. 2-4) to provide a third inspection light for inspecting the first position of the object under test (for example: “A third illumination lamp provided at a position for performing dark-field illumination (for example, reflection dark-field illumination)…”), and then receiving a third reflection light for being recorded in the controller (140,144, Fig. 1),
wherein whether there is an abnormality is determined through the first reflection light and the second reflection light and further through the third reflection light (see section titled Effects of the Embodiment: “By the illumination and scanning in a plurality of modes, there is a high possibility that the defect can be detected in any one of the plurality of modes, and therefore the image inspection apparatus 100 has a high inspection accuracy of the presence or absence of a defect”).
Regarding claim 19, Karaki in view of Hayano discloses the inspection method for electronic devices as claimed in claim 15, and Karaki further discloses that the optical apparatus (130, Fig. 1) is coupled to the controller (140, Fig. 1).
Claims 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karaki in view of Hayano further in view of Chhibber.
Regarding claim 18, Karaki in view of Hayano discloses the inspection method for electronic devices as claimed in claim 15, but does not explicitly disclose that the first inspection light has a first wavelength (first wavelength range, paragraph [0135]), the second inspection light has a second wavelength (paragraph [0135], wavelength of light that illuminates surface may be altered from a first wavelength range to a second wavelength), the third inspection light has a third wavelength (paragraph [0135], more than two wavelength ranges are possible), and the first wavelength, the second wavelength and the third wavelength are different from each other (paragraph [0135], the wavelength ranges are different).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use different wavelengths of light to illuminate the object under test as disclosed by Chhibber in the device of Karaki in view of Hayano in order to enhance different-sized particles.
Regarding claim 20, Karaki in view of Hayano discloses the inspection method for electronic devices as claimed in claim 15, and Karaki further discloses that the optical apparatus includes a camera device (135, Figs. 2-4), but does not disclose that the optical apparatus includes a changeable light source device, and the changeable light source device selectively provides light sources of different wavelengths.
However, Chhibber discloses an optical apparatus (Fig. 21A-B) includes a camera device (detector, Fig. 21A-B) and a changeable light source device (broad band light source, Figs. 21A-B), and the changeable light source device selectively provides light sources of different wavelengths (paragraph [0135]: “Therefore, in a preferred embodiment, the light source may include wavelength band pass selectable filters that are controllable so that the wavelength of light can be adjusted during the illumination of the substrate.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use a changeable light source as disclosed by Chhibber in the device of Karaki in view of Hayano in order to obtain additional information about the scattering particles and aid in classification of particle sizes and material.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Japanese Patent Publication No. JP-2019215225-A ("Kato") discloses:
providing an object under test (W, Figs. 1-2);
inspecting the object under test (W, Figs. 1-2) through an inspection system (1, Figs. 1-2) having an optical apparatus (10, Figs. 1-2) including a camera device (CCD or CMOS camera element, see section <System Structure>) and a light source device (a lightning device, see second paragraph of section <System Configuration>: “If necessary, the camera 10 may be provided with an autofocus mechanism, a pan / tilt / zoom mechanism, a lighting device, and the like.”) disposed on a robotic arm (11, Figs. 1-2) with multi-axis degree of freedom (“The robot 11 is, for example, a 6-axis or 7-axis vertical multi-joint robot.”), wherein positions of the camera device and the light source device are fixed on the optical apparatus (10, Figs. 1-2, includes the camera and the lighting device), including the steps of:
inspecting a first position of the object under test (W, Figs. 1-2, 12A, and section <Others>: “the workpiece W is fixed” meaning it is kept in a first position), and then using the camera device of the optical apparatus (10, Figs. 1-2) to receive a first reflection light (inspection image at T1, Fig. 1) for being recorded in a controller (12,13, Fig. 2, “When performing an inspection, the viewpoint of the camera 10 is moved along a preset movement path R, and images are captured at a plurality of shooting times, and these images are stored in a memory or a storage device as inspection images for inspection (Fig. 1 shows an example in which three inspection images are acquired at three shooting times T1 to T3).”);
moving the camera device and the light source device of the optical apparatus (10, Fig. 1, is moved from T1 to T2, “The viewpoint of the camera 10 is moved by the robot 11”); and
inspecting the first position of the object under test (see Fig. 12A, and section <Others>: “the workpiece W is fixed” meaning it is in the same first position), and then using the camera device of the optical apparatus (10, Figs. 1-2) to receive a second reflection light for being recorded in the controller (12,13, Fig. 2, inspection image at T2, Fig. 1, is stored); and
determining whether there is an abnormality through the first reflection light and the second reflection light (“The image inspection system may include an output unit that displays the plurality of inspection images and the plurality of recording images in chronological order… it is possible to easily find abnormalities in the visual field, changes in the lighting environment, and the like.”), wherein the step of inspecting the object under test through an inspection system further includes:
moving the camera device and the light source device of the optical apparatus (10, Fig. 1, is moved from T2 to T3, “The viewpoint of the camera 10 is moved by the robot 11”), and then using the camera device of the optical apparatus to receive a third reflection light (“Fig. 1 shows an example in which three inspection images are acquired at three shooting times T1 to T3”) for being recorded in the controller (12,13, Fig. 2, inspection image at T3, Fig. 1, is stored), wherein whether there is an abnormality is determined through the first reflection light, the second reflection light and the third reflection light (“The image inspection system may include an output unit that displays the plurality of inspection images and the plurality of recording images in chronological order….. it is possible to easily find abnormalities in the visual field…”).
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 MONICA T. TABA whose telephone number is (571)272-1583. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 am - 6 pm.
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, Georgia Epps can be reached at 571-272-2328. 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.
/MONICA T TABA/Examiner, Art Unit 2878