Detailed Action
1. Claims 17-32 are pending in this Application.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 07/07/202617-32, fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it omits a copy of the Notification of Reasons for Refusal (dated June 2, 2026) for Japanese Patent Application No. 2023-569310 and its corresponding English machine translation cited in Box 1.
Response to amendment
4. Applicant’s response to the last Office Action filed on 03/25/2026 has been entered and made of record.
5. Claims 17, 22, 23 and 28 have been amended.
Response to Argument
6. The Applicant’s argument filed 06/24/2026 is fully consider. For Examiner response see discussion below.
7. The Applicant has amended a section of claim 17 by adding the highlighted section as shown below:
“estimates a depth from the coated surface of a foreign substance that has contaminated the coated surface and causes
Then substantially argue “It is respectfully submitted that Niihara fails to teach "estimates a depth from the coated surface of a foreign substance that has contaminated the coated surface and causes the surface defect using change in the feature that has been calculated."
Specifically, Niihara merely teaches a device that calculates the depth of the defect in the concave defect or the height of the defect in the convex defect and the size of the coating defect. See [0019], 5th paragraph. The depth of the defect in the concave defect is NOT a depth from the coated surface of a foreign substance that has contaminated the coated surface.
The Applicant's argument is persuasive. Niihara does not teach how to estimate a depth from the coated surface of a foreign substance that has contaminated the coated surface. Thus, the rejection based on Niihara is withdrawn."
However, after further search and consideration, new prior art M. R. Kozlowski et al., “Depth Profiling of Polishing-Induced Contamination on Fused Silica Surfaces” that teaches the amended section of the limitation was found.
8. Regarding the amended claims 22–23 and 28, these claims have been amended similarly to claim 17. Therefore, the response to the Applicant’s arguments set forth for claim 17 applies equally to claims 22–23 and 28.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103, which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 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.
9. Claims 17, 19, 23, 25, 28 and 30 are rejected r under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tsuyoshi Nagato et al., (hereafter Tsuyoshi),” Defect Inspection Technology for a Gloss-Coated Surface Using Patterned Illumination” pub. 2013, in view of M. R. Kozlowski, et al., (hereafter Kozlowski), “Depth Profiling of Polishing-Induced Contamination on Fused Silica Surfaces”, published December 20,1997
As to claim 17, Tsuyoshi teaches a surface inspection device (Fig.6 page 5 section 4, coating appearance inspection apparatus) comprising:
a hardware processor that acquires a plurality of images of an inspected site on a coated
surface of a workpiece imaged by an imaging device (Figs.4 and 7, page 5 section 4, Figure 6 shows the appearance of the apparatus, and Figure 7 shows the structure of the internal optics system. The internal structure includes a camera, a projector and screen. As shown in Fig. 4 the camera move in the coated layers and capture a plurality of image ) in a state where a bright and dark pattern of an illumination device that illuminates the inspected site is moved relative to the workpiece (Figs. 4 and 5, page 4, 2nd paragraph,
the amplitude of intensity modulation on the coated surface is calculated by the four-step phase-shifting method [3] as shown in Fig. 5. In this method, the amplitude Iamp(x, y) is calculated according to the equations below by obtaining the images I1 to I4 taken in the four patterns, each with a different initial phase δ of the illumination pattern by π/2. );
calculates a feature representing a surface defect for the plurality of images that has been acquired, (Fig. 8, tabel.1, Section 4.1, Table 1 illustrates feature of the observation methods for defects on the coated surface. Fig. 8 shows the appearance of the intensity modulation at individual defects with the phase shift of the stripe pattern. It was found that a convex defect has reduction in amplitude. In the case of scratches also, the amplitude was reduced. In the case of dirt, the amplitude was hardly observed.); and
estimates surface defect using change in the feature that has been calculated (Fig. 8b page 6, last par. using change in the feature calculated by the calculation means (c "phase shift" and reduction in amplitude in view of figure 8b would determine a convex defect which is attributed to foreign matter inside the coating as disclosed on page 1, last paragraph, line 1);
however , it is noted that Tsuyoshi does not specifically “estimates a depth from the coated surface of a foreign substance that has contaminated the coated surface”;
on the other hand in the same field of endeavor the method of depth profiling polishing-induced contamination on fused silica surfaces by Kozlowski teaches (Figs. 1 and 3, where Fig.3 illustrates method of measuring depth profiles by showing how element contamination changes as a function of depth into the layer. Specifically Fig. 1 illustrates SEM micrograph of gray haze damaged created by 351nm,7 ns illumination of a polished fused silica surface. Figure 3: Semi-log plots of contamination depth profile of several elements at two sites on a polished fused silica substrate from source E. (;) sample E 1-2 and (b) sample E 2-6)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the method of estimating contamination depth on a coated surface taught by Kozlowski into the method of Tsuyoshi. The motivation to do so would have been to allow a user of Tsuyoshi to prevent premature coating failure by ensuring that harmful hazy damage and impurities trapped within or beneath the coating layer are fully identified, measured, and removed before applying new protective layers.
As to claim 19, Tsuyoshi teaches the hardware processor estimates the depth from the coated surface of the foreign substance using a difference between a maximum value and a minimum value of the feature (page 4 2nd par., the amplitude of intensity modulation on the coated surface is calculated by the four-step phase-shifting method [3] as shown in Fig. 5. In this method, the amplitude Iamp(x, y) is calculated according to the equations below by obtaining the images I1 to I4 taken in the four patterns, each with a different initial phase δ of the illumination pattern by π/2.Thus the maximum and minimum amplitudes identify pixels that are too bright or too dark compared to their surroundings, and systems can highlight defect such as scratches, cracks, or spots based the maximum, minimum amplitudes and their surrounding area).
Claim 23 is rejected the same as claim 17 except claim 23 is directed to a method claim. Thus, argument analogous to that presented above for claim 17 is applicable to claim 23.
Claim 25 is rejected the same as claim 19 except claim 25 is directed to a method claim. Thus, argument analogous to that presented above for claim 19 is applicable to claim 25.
As to claim 28, both Tsuyoshi teaches A non-transitory recording medium storing a program for causing a computer to execute (Tsuyoshi: computer simulation results shown in Fig.8 and Fig 9, where Fig.8 illustrate the computer simulation graphs of the appearance of phase and intensity modulation at defects of different images.);
regarding the remaining limitations of claim 28, all the remaining limitations is rejected the same as claim 17 except claim 28 is directed to a computer programing claim. Thus, argument analogous to that presented above for claim 17 is applicable to remaining limitation of claim 28.
Claim 30 is rejected the same as claim 17 except claim 30 is directed to a computer program claim. Thus, argument analogous to that presented above for claim 17 and 28 are applicable to claim 30.
10. Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tsuyoshi,” Defect Inspection Technology for a Gloss-Coated Surface Using Patterned Illumination” in view of Kozlowski, “Depth Profiling of Polishing-Induced Contamination on Fused Silica Surface, further in view of Matthews et al., ( hereafter Matthews), US 20030139836 A1, pub. 07/24/2003
As claim 22,Tsuyoshi teaches An automatic defect repair system (see Fig.6) comprising: an imaging device that images a plurality of images of an inspected site on a coated surface of a workpiece in a state where a bright and dark pattern of an illumination device that illuminates the inspected site is moved relative to the workpiece; the surface inspection device according to claim 17(all this limitation discussed in claim 17) that acquires the plurality of images and estimates a depth from a coated surface of a foreign substance that has contaminated the coated surface and cause surface defect; and a repair device that repairs the surface defect based on an estimation result by the surface inspection device( all the above limitation are discussed in claim 17 );
however, it is noted that the combination of Tsuyoshi and Kozlowski does not teach
“An automatic defect repair system comprising a repair device that repairs the surface defect based on an estimation result by the surface inspection device”
On the other hand in the same field of endeavor a method of detecting and repairing paint defects on a vehicle body of Matthews teaches an automatic defect repair system comprising a repair device that repairs the surface defect based on an estimation result by the surface inspection device a repair device that repairs the surface defect based on an estimation result by the surface inspection device (claims 4-5, 19, An assembly for automated paint defect detection and repair on a vehicle body, comprising: an optical system developing paint defect data by electronically imaging the vehicle body; a vision cell controller in communication with said optical wherein said paint defect data includes the size, location of said paint defects., the size and type of said paint defects).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the automated paint defect detection and repair apparatus taught by Matthews into modified Tsuyoshi.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been allows user of Tsuyoshi to repair defect such as defects on a gloss-coated surface, scratches, and sticking dirt of adhesive materials ( see Tsuyoshi section 4 page 5).
11. Claims 20-21, 26-27 and 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tsuyoshi, in view of Kozlowski, “Depth Profiling of Polishing-Induced Contamination on Fused Silica Surface, further in view of TAKAHASHI, IPPE(hereafter TAKAHASHI), TW 201310012 A, pub., 03/01/2003
As to claim 20, Tsuyoshi teaches the feature is set, in a case where a set of pixels constituting a defect portion is defined as a defect region in images (Figure 8 shows Each shot images in a particular phase and the appearance of phase and intensity modulation at defects,, where the intensity describe the intensity of the pixels associated to the image );
however, it is noted that the combination of Tsuyoshi and Kozlowski does not teach
“ obtained by binarizing the plurality of images, to the number of pixels in the defect region”.
On the other hand TAKAHASHI teaches “ obtained by binarizing the plurality of images, to the number of pixels in the defect region (page 5 3rd par., Preferably, the image processing unit includes a binarization step of binarizing the captured luminance image with a predetermined threshold value, and setting each pixel to a clear pixel or more below a threshold value. a dark pixel of the threshold value; and a candidate defect extraction step, wherein a region in which a plurality of bright pixels are connected is a candidate defect region, and the detection step is in the direction in which the boundary lines are arranged, and the candidate defect region and the adjacent other The number of pixels between the candidate defect regions is counted, and when the number of pixels counted is equal to or less than a predetermined value, the relevant candidate defect region is set as a defect).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a well-known method of binarizing an image
taught by TAKAHASHI into modified Tsuyoshi.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been allows user of Tsuyoshi to
maximize speed, accuracy, and computational efficiency, by simplifying the image, it highlights the region of interest (defects) and separates it from the background.
Claim 26 is rejected the same as claim 20 except claim 26 is directed to a method claim. Thus, argument analogous to that presented above for claim 20 is applicable to claim 26.
As to claim 21, TAKAHASHI the feature is set, in a case where a set of pixels constituting a defect portion is defined as a defect region in images obtained by binarizing the plurality of images, to a minimum value of a pixel value in the defect region (page 5 3rd par., the binarization step of binarizing the captured luminance image with a predetermined threshold value, and setting each pixel to a clear pixel or more below a threshold value a dark pixel of the threshold value. Thus, the system identifies the absolute lowest brightness value within the flawed area (the darkest point) to set its threshold).
Claim 27 is rejected the same as claim 21 except claim 27 is directed to a method claim. Thus, argument analogous to that presented above for claim 21is applicable to claim 27.
Claim 31 is rejected the same as claim 20 except claim 31 is directed to a computer program claim. Thus, argument analogous to that presented above for claim 20 and 28 are applicable to claim 31.
Claim 32 is rejected the same as claim 21 except claim 32 is directed to a computer program claim. Thus, argument analogous to that presented above for claim 21 and 28 are applicable to claim 32.
Allowable Subject Matter
12. Claims 18, 24 and 29 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claims but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claim.
13. Regarding claims 18, 24 and 29 no prior art is found to anticipate or render the following limitation obvious:
“wherein the hardware processor estimates the depth from the coated surface of the foreign substance using a value of a coefficient a when a quadratic curve of
y = ax2 + bx + c is fitted to the change in the feature with a frame number of the plurality of images represented as x and the feature represented as y.”
Additional Prior arts
The following prior art is additional prior arts identified by the examiner as relevant but not used as the formal basis for rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103
“MEASUREMENT DEVICE”, JP 2021014988 A, pub. 02/12/2021, to NARUMI KENJI et al., disclosed:
To provide a measurement device capable of acquiring information on a depth of an object existing inside a scatter (see Abstract)
FIG. 3A is a diagram showing an example of a graph in which the relationship between the movement amount of the scatterer 101 and the rate of change of the light amount is plotted with reference to the value in the peripheral region where the foreign matter 102 does not exist. FIG. 3B is a diagram showing an example of a graph in which the relationship between the amount of movement of the scatterer and the rate of change of the phase variation is plotted with reference to the value in the peripheral region where the foreign matter 102 does not exist ( see page 8 3rd par.,)
From the examples shown in FIGS. 3A and 3B, it can be seen that both the amount of light and the phase variation show a larger rate of change as the depth of the foreign matter 102 becomes shallower. It should be noted that the rate of change in the amount of light decreases sharply with respect to the depth, whereas the rate of change in the phase variation gradually decreases with respect to the depth (see page 8 4th par.,).
FIG. 5 is a diagram showing an example of a graph plotting the relationship between the depth of the foreign matter 102 and the maximum value of the change in the rate of change in the amount of light and the phase variation when the scatterer 101 is scanned. Here, the absolute value of the rate of change with respect to the standard is taken as the amount of change in the rate of change. The circles and squares represent the maximum values of the changes in the rate of change in the amount of light and the rate of change in the phase variation, respectively. In other words, the graph shows how sensitive the detection by the amount of light and the phase variation is to the depth of the foreign matter 102 (see page 8 7th par).
From the example shown in FIG. 5, in this analysis model, the detection by the amount of light is more sensitive when the depth of the foreign matter is 2 mm, and the detection by the phase variation is when the depth of the foreign matter is 5 mm or 10 mm. It can be seen that the sensitivity is high (see page 8 8th par).
Conclusion
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to Mekonen Bekele whose telephone number is (469) 295-9077.The examiner can normally be reached on Monday -Friday from 9:00AM to 6:50 PM Eastern Time.
If attempt to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Eng, George can be reached on (571) 272-7495.The fax phone number for the organization where the application or proceeding is assigned is 571-237-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published application may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR.
Status information for unpublished application is available through Privet PAIR only.
For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have question on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217-919 (tool-free)
/MEKONEN T BEKELE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2699
Prosecution Insights