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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN202203760) in view of Yonezawa (EP 0930498).
Regarding claim 1, Wang shows in Fig.3 the following elements of applicant’s claim: an optical detection module, comprising: a first light source (6) that provides a first light beam to illuminate an object (12) to be measured; a second light source (7-9) that provides a second light beam to illuminate the object (12) to be measured; and an image capturing component (11) coupled to the first light source and the second light source and used capture an image of the object to be measured, wherein a wavelength of the first light beam is different from a wavelength of the second light beam, and the wavelength of either the first light beam or the second light beam is between 300 nanometers and 3000 nanometer (paragraph 18). Although Wang doesn’t specifically mention the use of a control module, such use is well known in the art as disclosed by Yonezawa (Fig.1; a controller 33 is coupled to a first light source 3, a second light source 11 and an image capturing component 21) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the teachings of Yonezawa in the device of Wang in view of the desire to achieve adaptive and real-time adjustments resulting in improving the defect detection. Regarding claims 13-14, the method steps therein are inherently disclosed by the device of Wang in view of Yonezawa.
Regarding claims 2-3, the limitations therein are shown in Fig.1 of Yonezawa.
Regarding claim 4, the limitations therein are disclosed in paragraph 18 of Wang.
Regarding claim 5, 7, 15 and 16, the specific number of image sensors utilized and the use of a filter element would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of meeting different design requirements and achieving the particular desired performance.
Regarding claims 8-10 and 17, the limitations therein are shown in Fig.3 of Wang in view of Fig.1 of Yonezawa.
Regarding claims 11-12, the limitations therein are shown in Fig.1 of Yonezawa.
Regarding claims 18-20, the specific scheme and configuration utilized to control the first and second light sources would have been an obvious design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art depending on the needs of particular application and involving only routine skill in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 6, the prior art fails to disclose or make obvious a detection system for an electronic device comprising, in addition to the other recited features of claim 1 and intervening claims 2-3, the limitation of “wherein the image capturing component comprises a first photography device and a second photography, and the optical lens component further comprises a beam splitter element disposed in the optical path, and the beam splitter element allows the first reflected light beam and the second reflected light beam to be correspondingly transmitted to the first photography device and the second photography device”.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lee et al (US 2023/0141957) is cited for disclosing an optical inspection device comprising first and second light sources, an image sensor and a filter element. Shiomi et al (US 2003/0059103) is cited for disclosing an optical inspection device comprising first and second image sensors.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN K PYO whose telephone number is (571)272-2445. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:30 PM.
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.
/KEVIN K PYO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2878
Prosecution Insights