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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No.2022-032278, filed on 3/3/2022.
Preliminary Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of the preliminary amendment filed on 7/16/2024. The amendment has been placed of record in the file.
The Information Disclosure Statements
The prior art cited in the information disclosure statements filed on 7/16/2024, 2/13/2025, 6/9/2025, has been considered.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) –irradiation means…capturing means…. detecting means…in claim 20---are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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.
Claim(s) 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20-21, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Piironen et al. (US Patent # 6,327,374 B1) [ hereinafter Piironen].
As claims 8, 21, Piironen teaches a surface inspection method for a metal material in which a surface defect of the metal material is optically detected, the surface inspection method comprising: irradiating a surface of the metal material (20, 80, Figs. 1, 3, 11) with light (10-12, Figs. 1, 3, 11); obtaining a plurality of images (21, 84, Figs. 3, 11) by capturing reflected light from the surface of the metal material by the light emitted in two or more different wavelength bands (light sources of different colors having different wavelength ranges; see column 7, line 50 to column 8, line 20); and detecting the surface defect present on the surface of the metal material (column 6, lines 21-33) from information of a relative signal intensity between the plurality of images obtained from a same position on the surface of the metal material in (b) (column 6, line 48 to column 7, 20; note, in dark-field illumination, Light is directed at the surface. A flawless, smooth surface reflects this light away from the camera lens, appearing dark. Only surface irregularities, such as scratches, edges, pits, or particles, scatter this light back toward the camera, making them appear as bright, high-contrast features against a dark background, and vis a vis in bright-field illumination; thus. from information of relative signal intensity/dark- brightness).
As claim 10, Piironen teaches all as applied to claim 8, and in addition teaches , wherein includes irradiating the metal material with the light so that an angle with respect to a normal direction of the surface of the metal material falls within a range of 60° or more and less than 90°, and includes receiving the reflected light so that a light receiving angle with respect to the surface of the metal material falls within a range of 0° or more and less than 20° (Figs. 1, 3, 12).
As to claim 12, Piironen teaches all as applied to claim 8, and in addition teaches wherein at least one of the two or more different wavelength bands is a wavelength band of 500 nm or less (column 7, lines 50-59).
As to claim 14, Piironen teaches all as applied to claim 10, and in addition teaches wherein at least one of the two or more different wavelength bands is a wavelength band of 500 nm or less (column 7, lines 50-59).
As to claim 16, Piironen teaches all as applied to claim 8, and in addition teaches wherein at least one of the two or more different wavelength bands is a wavelength band of 650 nm or more (column 7, lines 50-59).
As to claim 18, Piironen teaches all as applied to claim 10, and in addition teaches wherein at least one of the two or more different wavelength bands is a wavelength band of 650 nm or more (column 7, lines 50-59).
As to claim 20, Piironen teaches a surface inspection apparatus for a metal material that optically detects a surface defect of the metal material, the surface inspection apparatus comprising: irradiation means (10-12, Figs. 1, 3) for irradiating a surface of the metal material (20, Figs. 1, 3) with light; image capturing means (21, 84, Figs. 1, 3, 11) for obtaining a plurality of images by capturing reflected light from the surface of the metal material by the light emitted by the irradiation means in two or more different wavelength bands ; and detecting means (column 6, lines 21-33) for detecting the surface defect present on the surface of the metal material. Note “from information of a relative signal intensity between the plurality of images obtained from a same position on the surface of the metal material by the image capturing means.’ is intended use. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piironen in view of Wang (US 2019/0318469 A1).
As to claim 9, Piironen teaches all as applied to claim 8 except wherein detecting the surface defect using a determiner created by a machine learning method using: a relative intensity between the plurality of images as a feature amount; or a plurality of amounts calculated from the relative intensity as the feature amount. However, Wang, in the same field of endeavor, teaches detecting an speckle pattern generated by the reflected and/or scattered and/or transmitted light from an object, and then analyzing the speckle patterns using artificial neural network based machine learning (paragraph 0038).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate a learning machine model to Piironen invention in order to provide advantages that include: parallel processing, error tolerance, hardware implementation, and learning ability (paragraph 0039).
As to claim 11, Piironen in view of Wang teaches all as applied to claim 9, and in addition Piironen teaches irradiating the metal material with the light so that an angle with respect to a normal direction of the surface of the metal material falls within a range of 60° or more and less than 90°, and receiving the reflected light so that a light receiving angle with respect to the surface of the metal material falls within a range of 0° or more and less than 20° (Figs. 1, 3, 12).
As to claim 13, Piironen in view of Wang teaches all as applied to claim 9, and in addition Piironen teaches wherein at least one of the two or more different wavelength bands is a wavelength band of 500 nm or less (column 7, lines 50-59).
As to claim 15, Piironen in view of Wang teaches all as applied to claim 11, and in addition Piironen teaches wherein at least one of the two or more different wavelength bands is a wavelength band of 500 nm or less (column 7, lines 50-59).
As to claim 17, Piironen in view of Wang teaches all as applied to claim 9, and in addition Piironen teaches wherein at least one of the two or more different wavelength bands is a wavelength band of 650 nm or more (column 7, lines 50-59).
As to claim 19, Piironen in view of Wang teaches all as applied to claim 11, and in addition Piironen teaches wherein at least one of the two or more different wavelength bands is a wavelength band of 650 nm or more (column 7, lines 50-59).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Nakao (US 2018/0350060 A1) teaches an invention to make it possible to highly accurately specify a contour even with simple operation and further improve accuracy of a defect inspection. A plurality of edge detection regions are set on an image for inspection. A contour segment is formed in each of the edge detection regions. Connection processing for connecting an end portion of one contour segment and an end portion of another contour segment is repeatedly executed to form a closed region. A defect inspection of an inspection target object is executed with the closed region set as an inspection target region (abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDULLAHI NUR whose telephone number is (571)270-1298. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 9am to 6pm.
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, Kara Geisel, can be reached on 571-272-2416. 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.
/ABDULLAHI NUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2886