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
Claims 1, 5, and 6 have been newly amended. No claims have been newly added nor canceled. Claims 1-7 remain pending in the present application. The previous claim objections to claims 1, 5, and 6 have been withdrawn as a result of amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant asserts that the previously applied references fail to teach every limitation of independent claim 1. Specifically, Applicant asserts that the previously applied prior art fails to teach the limitation of "wherein the user interface is configured to execute, during execution of each of the plurality of programs, a first capture mode for performing image capturing using an autofocus function of the autofocus lens, and a second capture mode for performing image capturing using the focus value stored in the storage unit, without using the autofocus function." Applicant notes that "the Office Action states that Makoto's steps S300 to S302 correspond to the recited 'first capture mode', and steps S303 and S305 correspond to the recited 'second capture mode'." Applicant further notes that "In particular, as described in Makoto's paragraph [0055], in step S303, it is determined as to whether a predetermined time has passed since the autofocus (AF) function was stopped. Then, if the predetermined time has passed, the AF function is resumed (S304). Otherwise, if the predetermined time has not passed, the AF function remains stopped (step S305). Therefore no image is captured in step S305 [sic]. Further, in paragraph [0058] and step S307 of Makoto, the AF operation is stopped, but the purpose of S307 is to stop the focus operation during a period of time in which the AF is not required so as to reduce wear on the focus drive parts (see, [0060]) [sic]. Therefore, Applicant submits that Makoto does not describe that the image is captured without using the AF function as in the present invention. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding Applicant's assertion that the previously applied prior art fails to teach the limitation of "wherein the user interface is configured to execute, during each of the plurality of programs, a first capture mode for performing image capturing using an autofocus function of the autofocus lens, and a second capture mode for performing image capturing using the focus value stored in the storage unit, without using the autofocus function…," the examiner notes that "for performing image capturing" is merely the intended use of the "capture mode," and as such, does not receive any patentable weight . Specifically, the examiner asserts that the "first capture mode" must merely "use an autofocus function of the autofocus lens," as "for performing image capturing" is the intended use of the first capture mode. Likewise, the "second capture mode" must merely "use the focus value stored in the storage unit, without using the autofocus function," as "for performing image capturing" is the intended use of the second capture mode. Hence, Applicant's arguments are not persuasive.
The examiner recommends amending the claim to, for example, recite: "wherein the user interface is configured to execute, during execution of each of the plurality of programs, a first capture mode and a second capture mode, wherein in the first capture mode, image capturing is performed using an autofocus function of the autofocus lens, and in the second capture mode, image capturing is performed using the focus value stored in the storage unit, without using the autofocus function."
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Makoto (JP2020190652A), hereafter Makoto, in view of Takeda (US 20200070281 A1), hereafter Takeda.
Regarding claim 1, Makoto teaches a robot system including a camera with an autofocus lens and a robot configured to perform an operation based on a capturing result of the camera (0033, the imaging device 100 is fixed to a robot arm 130, when the robot arm 130 moves, the imaging range of the imaging device 100 is changed, furthermore, the robot arm 130 can grasp a workpiece 150, which is the object to be photographed, using a robot hand at the tip of the arm, 0026, the camera microcomputer 114 controls the overall operation of the image capturing apparatus 100 and also controls the focusing drive source 111 to perform autofocus), the robot system configured to set a plurality of programs for using the camera, the robot system comprising:
A user interface and autofocus lens (0026, the camera microcomputer 114 controls the overall operation of the image capturing apparatus 100 and also controls the focusing drive source 111 to perform autofocus, 0032, the image processing controller 120 includes a CPU 121, a primary storage device 122, a secondary storage device 123, a communication device 124, a display unit 125, and an operation unit 126, the display unit 125 displays captured images and text for interactive operations, and the operation unit 126 accepts operations from the user); and
A storage unit (0032, the image processing controller 120 includes a CPU 121, a primary storage device 122, a secondary storage device 123, a communication device 124, a display unit 125, and an operation unit 126, the secondary storage device 123 is made up of a hard disk or the like, and stores the programs that run the CPU 121, the primary storage device 122 is made up of RAM or the like, and stores the programs read from the secondary storage device),
Wherein the user interface is configured to execute, during execution of each of the plurality of programs, a first capture mode for performing image capturing using an autofocus function of the autofocus lens (0053, in step 300, the camera microcomputer 114 determines whether or not a command has been received from the image processing controller 120 via the communication device 116, if a command has not been received, it proceeds to step S301, 0054, in step S301, the camera microcomputer 114 determines whether the continuous AF is in operation or is stopped, if the continuous AF is in operation, the process proceeds to step 302, where it determines that continuous AF operation should be continued), and a second capture mode for performing image capturing using the focus value stored in the storage unit, without using the autofocus function (0054, if continuous AF is stopped, the process proceeds to step S303, 0055, in step S303, the camera microcomputer 114 determines whether or not the current time is a predetermined time elapsed from the time when AF was stopped, if it is determined that the predetermined time has not elapsed, the continuous AF remains stopped in step S305).
Makoto fails to teach, however, wherein the user interface is configured to set a focus position in each of the plurality of programs; and
Wherein the storage unit is configured to store a value which is set in each of the plurality of programs.
Takeda, however, in an analogous field of endeavor, does teach wherein the user interface is configured to set a focus position in each of the programs (0094, Fig. 24 shows the GUI 300 in a state in which the tab 314 is selected, the setting menus of the tab 314 includes a setting box 531 for performing operation setting); and
Wherein the storage unit is configured to store a value which is set in each of the plurality of programs (0094, by operating the program generation button 324, the operation program generation process can again be carried out using the various setting values set in the adjustment menus, 0035, the operation program for the scanner 50 generated by the laser machining teaching device 1 is transmitted from the laser machining teaching device to a control unit of the scanner 50 via the robot controller 20, the control unit of the scanner 50 may be constituted by a conventional computer comprising a CPU, RAM, ROM, a storage device, etc.).
Makoto and Takeda are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g., imaging systems. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have included the user interface focus setting and program storage of Takeda in order to provide a means of specifically designating a focus setting. The motivation to combine is to allow a user or operator to select a specific focus setting if desirable.
Claim 6 is similar in scope to claim 1, and is similarly rejected.
Claims 2-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Makoto in view of Takeda, and further in view of Iwata (US 20210165202 A1), hereafter Iwata.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Makoto and Takeda teaches the robot system according to claim 1, but fails to explicitly teach wherein, in the first capture mode and the second capture mode, a relative positional relationship between the camera and an object to be imaged by the camera is the same.
Iwata, however, in an analogous field of endeavor, does teach wherein, in the first capture mode and the second capture mode, a relative positional relationship between the camera and an object to be imaged by the camera is the same (0084-0085, in S106, controller 120 sets the number of observation area 16 at 1, in step S110, controller 120 performs an autofocus process, the autofocus process refers to a processing of focusing microscope camera 140 on observation area 16 located within the image-capturing field of view of microscope camera 140 using the existing autofocus technique, and thus focus position 424 is obtained, 0090-0093, in S122, the controller 120 obtains focus position 424 corresponding to identification information 44 obtained from memory 124 in S102, in S124, controller 120 sets the number of observation area 16 at 1, in S126, controller 120 positions observation area 16 having the set number within the image-capturing field of view, in S128, controller 120 changes the focal point of microscope camera 140 such that the focal point of microscope camera 140 is brought into focus position 424 corresponding to the set number, Examiner's note: the positions of each "observation area" would be the same in both the autofocus focus detection step, as well as when the stored focus value is used, since the same observation area is being photographed each time, see also [0095] of Iwata).
Makoto, Takeda, and Iwata are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g., imaging systems. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have included the same relative positional relationship of Iwata in order to provide a means of ensuring that a portion of a workpiece to be imaged can be imaged properly without having to perform a focusing function again. The motivation to combine is to increase the efficiency with which the imaging can take place.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Makoto, Takeda, and Iwata teaches the robot system according to claim 2, and Iwata further teaches wherein the focus value stored in the storage unit is a focus value obtained by using the autofocus function in the first capture mode, or a focus value acquired by correcting the focus value obtained by using the autofocus function, by using the user interface (0084-0085, in S106, controller 120 sets the number of observation area 16 at 1, in step S110, controller 120 performs an autofocus process, the autofocus process refers to a processing of focusing microscope camera 140 on observation area 16 located within the image-capturing field of view of microscope camera 140 using the existing autofocus technique, and thus focus position 424 is obtained).
Makoto, Takeda, and Iwata are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g., imaging systems. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have included the stored focus value of Iwata in order to provide a means of ensuring that a portion of a workpiece to be imaged can be imaged properly. The motivation to combine is to increase the efficiency with which the imaging can take place.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Makoto, Takeda, and Iwata teaches the robot system according to claim 2, and Iwata further teaches wherein the first capture mode is executed when the robot is taught, and the second capture mode is executed when the robot is used at a production site (0095, the processing in S106 to S120 is the processing performed when the image capturing process is performed on culture plate 10 for the first time, processing in S122 to S136 is the processing performed when the image capturing process has already been performed on culture plate 10, Examiner's note: the examiner is interpreting the first image capturing process S106-S120 as the "training," and the second image capturing process S122 to S136 as the "production," since the focus positions stored in the first image capturing process are used for subsequent image capture of the culture plate 10 after culturing).
Makoto, Takeda, and Iwata are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g., imaging systems. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have included the teaching and production processes of Iwata in order to provide a means of ensuring that a portion of a workpiece to be imaged can be imaged during production. The motivation to combine is to increase the efficiency with which the imaging can take place during production.
Claim 7 is similar in scope to claim 4, and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Makoto and Takeda teaches the robot system of claim 1, but fails to explicitly teach wherein each of the plurality of programs is prepared for different workpieces or different capturing regions of the same workpiece.
Iwata, however, in an analogous field of endeavor, does teach wherein each of the plurality of programs is prepared for different workpieces or different capturing regions of the same workpiece (0040, fifty six observation areas 16 are formed on plate shaped member 12, 0095, The processing in S106 to S120 is the processing performed when the image capturing process is performed on culture plate 10 for the first time, and is the processing of concurrently performing generation of image capturing condition 240 and image capturing of each observation area 16. In contrast, the processing in S122 to S136 is the processing performed when the image capturing process has already been performed on culture plate 10, and is the processing performed when image capturing of observation area 16 is performed for the second and subsequent times. In the processing in S122 to S136, an image of each observation area 16 is captured using image capturing condition 240 generated by performing the processing in S106 to S120, Examiner's note: the examiner is interpreting each of the observation areas of the culture plate as being different regions, i.e., observation areas, of the same workpiece, i.e., the same culture plate).
Makoto, Takeda, and Iwata are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g., imaging systems. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have included the single workpiece having multiple programs of Iwata in order to provide a means of allowing multiple portions of a workpiece to have a stored focus value. The motivation to combine is to ensure that the entirety of the workpiece can be imaged properly and quickly.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BLAKE A WOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-6830. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:00 AM to 4:30 PM Eastern.
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, Thomas Worden can be reached at (571) 272-4876. 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.
/B.A.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/JASON HOLLOWAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights