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 .
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 limitation(s) uses 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 limitation(s) is/are:
“imaging number determination unit” in claim 1
“imaging instruction unit” in claim 1
“displacement amount determination unit” in claim 1
“drive amount calculation unit” in claim 1
“drive instruction unit” in claim 1
“operation adjustment unit” in claim 1
“image composition unit” in claim 1
“drive amount calculation unit” in claim 2
“imaging number determination unit” in claim 4
“drive amount calculating unit” in claim 8.
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 limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) 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 limitation(s) recite(s) 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.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “an imaging device” in line 1. It is unclear whether the limitation “an imaging device: is the same as the previously recited “imaging device” in claim 1 leading to indefiniteness.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5-7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujisawa US20070014551(hereinafter “Fujisawa”) in view of Yamada WO22172521 (hereinafter “Yamada”).
Fujisawa teaches an industrial system control device for controlling (see paragraph 0193, an image sensing apparatus that includes an image sensor, a driving section, and an imaging controlling section):
an imaging device including an imaging element for capturing an image of an object formed on an imaging surface to generate a captured image (see paragraph 0046 and 0188, imaging system [imaging device] including a digital camera [imaging element] with an imaging section that corresponds to the imaging sensor [including an imaging plane where the subject is positioned, 0147] for acquiring an image);
and one or more industrial machines each including a plurality of drive axes for causing relative movement between the object and the imaging device, the industrial system control device comprising (see paragraph 0060 and 0071, the image sensing apparatus includes a driving mechanism that includes an X-axis and Y-axis actuator which each include a drive shaft that move bases plates for changing the imaging position [see paragraph 0074]):
(see 0168 and Figure 22, the use of a predetermined number of shift photos to be completed. However, Fujisawa does not explicitly teach the setting of the predetermined number of shift photos to be completed);
an imaging instruction unit configured to instruct the imaging device to capture an image (see paragraph 0166-0167, the image processor applies the image processing steps S11-S14 [Figure 21] to capture an image);
a displacement amount determination unit configured to determine a necessary displacement amount of an image forming position of the object on the imaging surface (see paragraphs 0138-0141 and Figure 17, the shift amount calculating section obtains the shift amount of the center of the imaging area at the second position relative to the first position);
a drive amount calculation unit configured to calculate a drive amount of each of the drive axes that displace the image forming position of the object by the displacement amount (see paragraphs 0140-0141 and Figure 17, the shift amount calculating unit includes determining the moveable amount x1, x2, x3, x4, that the x-axis and y-axis actuator [each including a drive shaft, 0071] are driven along each axis);
a drive instruction unit configured to instruct each of the drive axes to drive by the drive amount (see paragraph 0168 and Figure 22, the driving mechanism is controlled to move the image sensor to a new position);
an operation adjustment unit configured to repeatedly cause the imaging instruction unit to execute an imaging instruction, with a drive instruction by the drive instruction unit inserted between repeated steps of causing the imaging instruction unit to execute the imaging instruction, until the number of images to be captured is reached (see paragraphs 0165-0168 and Figure 22, repeating of the loop that includes the image capturing operation and move image sensor operation until the predetermined number of shift photos completed); and
an image composition unit configured to combine a plurality of images captured by the imaging device to generate one composite image (see paragraph 0178, the image processing section joining images to create a composite image).
Fujisawa does not explicitly teach an imaging number determination unit configured to determine a number of images to be captured by the imaging device.
Yamada teaches an imaging number determination unit configured to determine a number of images to be captured by the imaging device (see paragraph 0056, setting the number of images to be completed based on tool length [subject length]).
Yamada and Fujisawa are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of an imaging device that captures images at a plurality of different positions by changing the relative distance between an object and the camera to produce a composite image.
Before the effective filling date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Fujisawa to include set a number of images to be captured as taught by Yamada. The motivation for doing so would have been to allow for changing the set number based on the object being imaged (Yamada, paragraphs 0056).
Regarding claim 2, Fujisawa and Yamada teach the industrial system control device according to claim 1.
Fujisawa teaches the drive amount calculation unit calculates the drive amount in consideration of a distance (see paragraphs 0140-0141 and Figure 17, the shift amount calculating unit includes determining the moveable amount x1, x2, x3, x4, that the x-axis and y-axis actuator [each including a drive shaft, 0071] are driven along each axis).
Fujisawa does not teach a distance between the object and the imaging device.
Yamada teaches a distance between the object and the imaging device (see Figure 7A, the use of a working distance WD as the distance between the camera [fixed the shutter mechanism including the feed screw]).
Regarding claim 5, Fujisawa and Yamada teach the industrial control device according to claim 1.
Fujisawa teaches an industrial system comprising controlling (see paragraph 0193, an image sensing apparatus that includes an image sensor, a driving section, and an imaging controlling section): an imaging device configured to image an object (see paragraph 0046 and 0188, imaging system [imaging device] including a digital camera [imaging element] with an imaging section that corresponds to the imaging sensor [including an imaging plane where the subject is positioned, 0147] for acquiring an image); one or more industrial machines configured to cause relative movement between the object and the imaging device (see paragraph 0060 and 0071, the image sensing apparatus includes a driving mechanism that includes an X-axis and Y-axis actuator which each include a drive shaft that move bases plates for changing the imaging position [see paragraph 0074]); and the industrial system control device according to claim 1 .
Regarding claim 6, Yamada and Fujisawa teach the industrial system according to claim 5.
Yamada teaches the one or more industrial machines include a machine tool that holds the object in a positionable manner and machines the object (see paragraph 0088, the machine includes pots, magazine [see paragraph 0015, the magazine turns around the rotating shaft], and the ATC [automatic tool changer] with an arm [the arm includes a grip and is mounted on a rotating shaft of the motor, paragraph 0019] which serve as a tool supports. See paragraph 0028, the machine includes a machine controller that controls the machining program to machine the workpiece).
Regarding claim 7, Yamada and Fujisawa teach the industrial system according to claim 5.
Yamada teaches the one or more industrial machines include a robot that holds the imaging device in a positionable manner (see paragraph 0025, the machine tool includes a shutter that the camera is fixed [held] to, the shutter moves the camera [the machine includes a shutter that holds the camera and moves the camera for imaging]).
Claim 9 is analogous to claim 1, thus is analyzed and rejected similar to claim 1.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujisawa in view of Yamada in view of Akiyama US20230356346 (hereinafter “Akiyama”).
Regrading claim 3, Fujisawa and Yamada teach the industrial system control device according to claim 1.
Fujisawa nor Yamada teach the displacement amount is an integer multiple of a half pixel pitch or an integer multiple of a pixel pitch of the imaging element.
Akiyama teaches the displacement amount is an integer multiple of a half pixel pitch or an integer multiple of a pixel pitch of the imaging element (see paragraph 0099-0100, the amount of deviation of the camera may be identified as pixel units [length corresponding to one pixel], where the processing machine makes the tool and the camera move relatively. The distance between imaging positions may be referred to as the pitch of the imaging position, see paragraph 0105).
Akiyama, Yamada, and Fujisawa are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of a machine that includes a camera and a drive source for relatively moving a subject and camera to then capture an image of the subject a repeated number of times.
Before the effective filling date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Fujisawa and Yamada to include a using a pixel pitch for the displacement amount as taught by Akiyama. The motivation for doing so would have been to allow for the precise detection of deviations in multiple directions (Akiyama, paragraphs 0099).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 8 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see the attached 892 notice of reference cited.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMILY R. HAUK whose telephone number is (571)272-5966. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Chan Park can be reached at 571-272-7409. 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.
/EMILY ROSE HAUK/Examiner, Art Unit 2669 /CHAN S PARK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2669
Prosecution Insights