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 .
ART REJECTION:
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)(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) 1,6,9-10,12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yacoubian(USPGPUB 2022/0381556 A1).
-- In considering claim 1, the claimed subject matter that is met by Yacoubian includes:
1) a memory is met by the memory of the processor(112)(see: sec[0119]);
2) one or more processors coupled to the memory is met by the processor(112, sec[0119])
3) the processor configured to:
i) divide shape data of a surface of an inspection object into a plurality of curved surfaces is met by the that the shape of the illumination and detection is performed(see: sec[0106]);
ii) calculate a plurality of teaching points indicating positions at which the inspection object is inspected by an inspection device mounted on a movable body is met by the sensor head utilized for surface inspection by referencing along the various points on structure(116), so that position data is recorded with respect to the structure(see: sec[0044]) ;
iii) calculate a path between curved surfaces transitioning the plurality of curved surfaces and a path in a curved surface transitioning teaching points within the curved surface of each of the plurality of curved surfaces is met by the sensor head being combined with distance measurements sensor, and pointing the sensor head(101) to various points on the structure so as to achieve an accurate determination of the position with respect to the structure(see: sec[0045]);
iv) calculate, based on the path between the curved surfaces, the path in the curved surface, and movement performance of the movable body, an orbit of the movable body so that an inspection time of the inspection object becomes shorter is met by the multiple optical modalities(see: sec[0099]) wherein the sensor(12) inspects surfaces by utilizing multiple optical modalities, thereby shortening the time to detect defects of different types or class(see: sec[0058]).
-- Claim 6 recites subject matter that is met as discussed in claim 1 above, as well as:
1) an inspection device configured to inspect an inspection object is met by the head device sensor head(101) containing various positioning registration sensors(130);
2) a movable body configured to control at least one of a position and a posture of the inspection device is met by the stationary and moving structure(116);
-- With regards to claim 9,
1) the inspection object includes a plurality of inspection objects is met by the sensor head(101) containing various positioning registration sensors(130)(see: sec[0036]);
2) the one or more processors are configured to accept shape data of the plurality of inspection objects in order and process the shape data of the plurality of inspection objects in order to calculate control information of the movable body is met by the inspected surface being curved or irregularly shaped as detected by the sensor head(see: sec[0109]);
3) the movable body controls, based on the control information, at least one of the position and the posture of the inspection device to inspect the plurality of inspection objects in order is met by the apparatus(123) used to rapidly scan the entire structure achieved by stationary and moving the structure(see: sec[0035]).
-- With regards to claim 10,
1) the inspection device includes a plurality of inspection devices and the movable body includes a plurality of movable bodies is met by the sensor head including an array of sensors(see: sec[0035]);
2) the one or more processors are configured to assign inspections of one or more curved surfaces included in the plurality of curved surfaces to the respective inspection devices is met by the scanned surfaces detecting inspected surface being curved or irregularly shaped as detected by the sensor head(see: sec[0109]);
3) the inspection devices respectively inspect the one or more curved surfaces assigned by the one or more processors to inspect the inspection object is met by the processors, as discussed in claim 1 above.
-- Claim 12 recites a method that substantially corresponds to the subject matter of claim 1, and therefore, is met for the reasons as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above.
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 (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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yacoubian in view of examiner’s statement of Official Notice.
-- Claim 13 recites essentially the same subject matter as that of claim 12, and therefore, is met for the reasons as discussed in the rejection of claim 12 above, except for:
1) A computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer-readable medium including programmed instructions.
Although Yacoubian does not teach the use of the medium and programmed instructions, the examiner takes Official Notice that in the inspection device art, use of non-transitory computer readable medium including programmed instructions for performing various tasks related to the device is well known. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed subject matter, to incorporate the medium and programmed instructions into the processors in the system of Yacoubian, since this would have been necessary in order to allow the processors to function properly and perform the functions necessary to operate the system in the most efficient means possible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5,7-8, and 11 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARYL C POPE whose telephone number is (571)272-2959. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM - 5PM M-F.
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, BRIAN ZIMMERMAN can be reached at 571-272-3059. 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.
/DARYL C POPE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686
Prosecution Insights