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 based on an application filed in Japan on 07 February 2022. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the JP2022-017255 or JP2022-017254 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 22 November 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Claims 8 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8: “the number” in line 2 should be “a number” for further clarity and continuity in the claim language.
Claim 17: “the number” in line 2 should be “a number” for further clarity and continuity in the claim language.
Appropriate correction is required.
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”) 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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
“a drive unit” in claims 1 and 10: “The drive unit 16 includes a publicly known linear motor or motor drive mechanism” (¶40).
“an imaging instructing unit” in claims 1 and 10: “The control device 20 includes an arithmetic circuit that includes various kinds of processors (processors), memories, and the like. The various kinds of processors include a central processing unit (CPU), a graphics processing unit (GPU), an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), a programmable logical device [for example, a simple programmable logic device (SPLD), a complex programmable logic device (CPLD) and a field programmable gate array (FPGA)], and the like. Note that various kinds of functions of the control device 20 may be implemented by one processor or may be implemented by processors of the same type or different types” (¶46). Additionally, see ¶¶48-49 which show that the imaging instructing unit is part of the control unit.
“a frame dropping occurrence rate calculating unit” in claim 1: “The control device 20 includes an arithmetic circuit that includes various kinds of processors (processors), memories, and the like” (¶46). Additionally, see ¶¶48-49 which show that the frame dropping occurrence rate calculating unit is part of the control unit.
“a measurement condition setting unit” in claim 1: “The control device 20 includes an arithmetic circuit that includes various kinds of processors (processors), memories, and the like” (¶46). Additionally, see ¶¶48-49 which show that the measurement condition setting unit is part of the control unit.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-17 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.
Regarding claim 1, “a scanning direction” in line 7 is unclear as a direction perpendicular to the measurement target along which the optical head scans has already been mentioned previously. Is this limitation referring to the same direction mentioned previously or a different direction? In light of the specification, the Examiner is interpreting this limitation to be referring to the same direction mentioned previously.
Claims 2-9 are rejected for their dependency on claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, “the range” in line 2, “the field of view” in line 2, and “the scanning speed” in line 3 are all unclear as these limitations lack proper antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 10, “a surface shape” in line 14 is unclear as this limitation has been mentioned previously. Is this limitation referring to the same surface shape mentioned previously or a different surface shape? In light of the specification, the Examiner interpreting this limitation to be referring to the same surface shape mentioned previously.
Claims 11-17 are rejected for their dependency on claim 10.
Regarding claim 16, “the range” in line 2, “the field of view” in line 2, and “the scanning speed” in line 3 are all unclear as they all lack proper antecedent basis.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-17 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Regarding claim 1, the prior art of record individually or combined fails to teach a surface shape measuring device as claimed that acquires an observation image of a measurement target while causing an optical head to scan relatively to the measurement target in a direction perpendicular to the measurement target, the surface shape measuring device comprising: a camera configured to capture the observation image acquired by the optical head; a drive unit configured to cause the optical head to scan relatively to the measurement target in a scanning direction perpendicular to the measurement target; an encoder configured to detect a position of the optical head in the scanning direction with respect to the measurement target; an imaging instructing unit configured to instruct the camera to capture the observation image based on a position signal output from the encoder for each predetermined interval; more specifically in combination with a frame dropping occurrence rate calculating unit configured to calculate a frame dropping occurrence rate indicating an occurrence rate of frame dropping of the camera; and a measurement condition setting unit configured to set a measurement condition for measuring a surface shape of the measurement target based on the frame dropping occurrence rate.
Claims 2-9 would be allowed for their dependency on claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, the prior art of record individually or combined fails to teach a surface shape measurement method as claimed for measuring a surface shape by a surface shape measuring device including: a camera configured to capture an observation image of a measurement target acquired by an optical head; a drive unit configured to cause the optical head to scan relatively to the measurement target in a scanning direction perpendicular to the measurement target; an encoder configured to detect a position of the optical head in the scanning direction with respect to the measurement target; and an imaging instructing unit configured to instruct the camera to capture the observation image based on a position signal output from the encoder for each predetermined interval, more specifically in combination with the surface shape measurement method comprising: calculating a frame dropping occurrence rate indicating an occurrence rate of frame dropping of the camera; and setting a measurement condition for measuring a surface shape of the measurement target based on the frame dropping occurrence rate.
Claims 11-17 would be allowed for their dependency on claim 10.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Saeki et al. (USPGPub 20160131474 A1): Saeki teaches a surface shape measurement device using a white light interferometer, however, fails to teach calculating a frame dropping occurrence rate of the camera.
de Groot et al. (USPGPub 20150002852 A1): de Groot teaches coherence scanning interferometry for use of measuring surfaces, however, fails to teach calculating a frame dropping occurrence rate of the camera.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIN R GARBER whose telephone number is (571)272-4663. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0730-1730.
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 Y 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.
/ERIN R GARBER/Examiner, Art Unit 2878
/GEORGIA Y EPPS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2878