DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Preliminary Amendment filed on 09/17/2024.
In the instant application, claims 1-11 are canceled; claims 12-31 are newly added; Claims 12 and 26 are independent claim; Claims 12-31 have been examined and are pending. This action is made non-final.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings submitted on 09/17/2024 are acceptable.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/17/2024 was filed before the mailing date of the first office action on the merits. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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.
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 limitations are:
Claim 12,
“a screen generation unit configured to generate…”
“an input unit configured to receive ….”
“ a control unit configured to analyze …”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/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 this/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 it/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 it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Independent Claims 12 and 26 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claims 2 and 16 of U. S. Patent No. 12118196 (hereinafter 196’) since the claims, if allowed, would improperly extend the "right to exclude" already granted in the patent.
Instant Application 18/887064
Patent 196’
Claim 12:
An inspection setting device for configuring an image inspection device that inspects a workpiece captured by a camera, comprising:
+ a screen generation unit configured to generate a display screen having a palette region for arranging a plurality of tools, including an imaging setting tool related to an imaging setting of the camera, a positioning setting tool related to a positioning setting of an inspection region with respect to an inspection target image captured by the camera, an inspection setting tool related to an inspection setting for the positioned inspection region, and an output tool related to an output setting for outputting an inspection result;
+ an input unit configured to receive user input to place the plurality of tools at any position on the palette region displayed on the display screen; and
+ a control unit configured to analyze reference relationships among the plurality of tools arranged on the palette region and determine an execution order of the plurality of tools during an image inspection.
Claim 26:
An inspection setting device for setting an image inspection device that inspects a workpiece captured by a camera, the inspection setting device comprising:
+ a processor; and a memory connected to the processor, wherein the processor and the memory are configured to:
+ generate a display screen having a palette region for arranging a plurality of tools, including an imaging setting tool related to an imaging setting of the camera, a positioning setting tool related to a positioning setting of an inspection region with respect to an inspection target image captured by the camera, an inspection setting tool related to an inspection setting for the positioned inspection region, and an output tool related to an output setting for outputting an inspection result;
+ receive user input to place the plurality of tools at any position on the palette region displayed on the display screen; and
+ analyze reference relationships among the plurality of tools arranged on the palette region and determine an execution order of the plurality of tools during an image inspection.
Claim 2:
An inspection setting device for setting an image inspection device that inspects a workpiece captured by a camera, the inspection setting device comprising:
+ a screen generation unit configured to generate a display screen displaying a palette region in which a plurality of tools can be arranged, the plurality of tools including an imaging setting tool related to capturing setting of a camera, a positioning setting tool related to positioning an inspection region with respect to an inspection target image captured by the camera, an inspection setting tool related to an inspection content with respect to the positioned inspection region, and an output tool related to an output setting for an inspection result, and displaying a work sheet region for referring to and calculating data related to the plurality of tools;
+ an input unit configured to receive selection of a tool arranged on the palette region on the display screen, and receive a setting related to input, reference, or calculation of data related to the selected tool via the work sheet region; and
+ a control unit configured to generate a mnemonic representing data related to a tool arranged on the palette region, wherein the input unit receives a forward reference instruction for taking data related to a selected tool on the palette region into the work sheet region, and when the input unit receives the forward reference instruction, the control unit associates the selected tool with a cell by giving the mnemonic of data related to the selected tool to the cell on the work sheet region.
Claim 16:
An inspection setting device for setting an image inspection device that inspects a workpiece captured by a camera, the inspection setting device comprising:
+ a processor; and a memory connected to the processor, wherein the processor and the memory are configured to:
+ generate a display screen displaying a palette region in which a plurality of tools including an imaging setting tool related to capturing setting of a camera, a positioning setting tool related to positioning an inspection region with respect to an inspection target image captured by the camera, an inspection setting tool related to an inspection content with respect to the positioned inspection region, and an output tool related to an output setting for an inspection result, and a work sheet region for referring to and calculating data related to the plurality of tools;
+ receive selection of a tool arranged on the palette region on the display screen, and receive a setting related to input, reference, or calculation of data related to the selected tool via the work sheet region; and
+ analyze a reference relationship between a plurality of tools arranged on the palette region and data input to the work sheet region; and determine an execution order at the time of execution of inspection of each tool, and a reference order and a calculation order of data in the work sheet region.
As can be seen from the table above, independent Claim 12 of the instant application is anticipated by Claim 2 of 196’, in that Claim 2 of 196’ contains all the limitations of Claim 12 of the instant application therefore is not patently distinct from the earlier patent claim and as such is unpatentable for obvious-type double patenting. Claim 26 is similarly mapped to claim 16 of 196’ as such is unpatentable for obvious-type double patenting. The instant application claim is broader in every aspect than the patent claim and is therefore an obvious variant thereof.”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-31 are allowed when the double patenting rejections are resolved.
Examiner’s Statement of reason of Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The present invention is directed to an inspection setting device for setting an image inspection device that inspects a workpiece captured by a camera.
Independent claims 12 and 26 when considered as a whole, are allowable over the prior arts.
The closest prior arts can be found: HINO et al. (US 2020/0364) teaches a method for providing an image inspection apparatus that makes a pass/fail determination of an inspection target based on an image of the inspection target captured by an imaging unit, the image inspection apparatus including: a mode switching unit that switches a mode of the image inspection apparatus between a setting mode for setting the image inspection apparatus and a run mode for performing an inspection. Saeki (US 2015/0022637) teaches a method for providing a three-dimensional image processing apparatus, a three-dimensional image processing method, a three-dimensional image processing program, a computer-readable recording medium, and a recording device, each of which suppresses a lack of height information to suppress deterioration in accuracy at the time of converting a high-tone distance image to a low-tone distance image. KIM et al. (US 2014/0181752) teaches an operational program of a numerical control machine, which includes: a main menu in which main menus including a tool management menu and a tool setting menu are arranged; a detail information in which the list of tools mounted on a machine tool is outputted, when the tool management menu is selected from the main menu; a preview that displaying the machining state of a material on the basis of the information inputted through the main menu; and a function selection in which function selection icons for selecting and adding new tools are arranged, in which when the tool management tool is selected from the main menu, " register new tool item" is shown up on the function selection icons, and the function selection icon for selecting a new tool is selected, a tool database including characters, symbols, and images for tool lists is outputted in the detail information in accordance with a machining method so that a new tool can be registered.
However, closest prior arts as discussed above, do not teach or suggest the particular combination of steps or elements as recited in the independent claim 1. For example, the prior arts do not teach of suggest the steps of “An inspection setting device for setting an image inspection device that inspects a workpiece captured by a camera, the inspection setting device comprising: a screen generation unit configured to generate a display screen displaying a palette region in which a plurality of tools can be arranged, the plurality of tools including an imaging setting tool related to capturing setting of a camera, a positioning setting tool related to positioning an inspection region with respect to an inspection target image captured by the camera, an inspection setting tool related to an inspection content with respect to the positioned inspection region, and an output tool related to an output setting for an inspection result, and displaying a work sheet region for referring to and calculating data related to the plurality of tools; and an input unit configured to receive selection of a tool arranged on the palette region on the display screen, and receive a setting related to input, reference, or calculation of data related to the selected tool via the work sheet region.”
While the cited prior arts disclose some of the claimed features as explained above, however, the cited prior arts fail to disclose or suggest each and every limitation together as Claimed. Furthermore, the Examiner cannot determine a reasonable motivation, either from the cited prior art or the existing case law, to combine the known references to render the claimed invention.
The dependent claims further add limitations to the allowable subject matter of the corresponding independent claims; thus are also allowable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on form PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
It is noted that any citation to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006,1009, 158 USPQ 275,277 (CCPA 1968)).
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tam T. Tran whose telephone number is (571) 270-5029. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:30 AM - 5:00 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, William L. Bashore can be reached on 571-272-4088. 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.
/TAM T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2174
Prosecution Insights