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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on October 8, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is 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.
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.
Invoked despite absence of “means”
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:
“process control unit” in claim 1
“function execution unit” in claim 1
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.
Based on the 35 USC 112(f) interpretation above, corresponding 35 USC 112(a) and 35 USC 112(b) rejections were considered. Upon further analysis , it was determined the 35 USC 112(a) and 35 USC 112(b) rejections were unnecessary, based on the below key parts of the specification.
Unit
Element Number
Structure/Algorithm
Process control unit
Paragraph 0029, "In the present invention, the control and calculation unit 4 includes a process control unit 41 and a function execution unit 42."
Structure: paragraph 0045, "In the image measuring apparatus of the present invention, the control and calculation unit 4 may be constituted by a CPU, and each function may be realized by executing a program (an application for image measuring apparatus) that describes the functions of the process control unit 41 and the function execution unit 42, as well as the functions to control the image capturing unit 3, the illumination unit 8, etc., by the CPU. "
Algorithm: paragraph 0030, "The process control unit 41 causes the display unit 6 to display only the user interfaces that accept inputs necessary for the use of the available functions in each of the operation steps performed by the operator in image measurement using the image measuring apparatus 1. The user interfaces are typically graphical user interfaces (GUI), such as buttons, but they can be something else, such as menu bars or toolbars." paragraph 0032, "The process control unit 41 accepts the input by the operator necessary for using the function via the user interface from the input unit 10 in each operation step and causes the function execution unit 42 to execute the concerned function."
Function execution unit
Paragraph 0029, "In the present invention, the control and calculation unit 4 includes a process control unit 41 and a function execution unit 42."
Structure: paragraph 0045, "In the image measuring apparatus of the present invention, the control and calculation unit 4 may be constituted by a CPU, and each function may be realized by executing a program (an application for image measuring apparatus) that describes the functions of the process control unit 41 and the function execution unit 42, as well as the functions to control the image capturing unit 3, the illumination unit 8, etc., by the CPU. "
Algorithm: paragraph 0032, "The process control unit 41 accepts the input by the operator necessary for using the function via the user interface from the input unit 10 in each operation step and causes the function execution unit 42 to execute the concerned function."
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-3 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.
Antecedent Basis:
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the dimensions" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the available functions" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-3 are rejected for inheriting and failing to cure the noted deficiency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because data per se and/or computer programs do not fall into one of the four categories of statutory invention (machine, process, manufacture, composition). More specifically, claims are eligible for patent protection under 35 USC § 101 if they are in one of the four statutory categories and not directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e. laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas).
Regarding claim 3, the claim is drawn toward a “program”. As described in MPEP 2106, data per se and computer programs do not fall into one of the four statutory categories, Therefore, since claim 1 is drawn toward a program, the claim is not eligible for patent protection.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 6,816,609 to Shimizu et al. (hereinafter Shimizu), and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 10,416,863 to Kaieda (hereinafter Kaieda).
Regarding independent claim 1, Shimizu discloses An image measuring apparatus (Figure 2) that captures an image of a measurement object (abstract, “In this machine and method for measuring a plurality of workpieces, images of a plurality of workpieces placed on a stage are captured using a CCD camera. ”) and measures the dimensions of the measurement object through a plurality of operation steps (abstract, “images of a plurality of workpieces placed on a stage are captured using a CCD camera. The images are processed by a computer system whereby the workpieces are measured. A computer system divides a measurement area on the stage into matrix such that each cell in the matrix is correlated to each workpiece. Then, the system sets a measurement program for each cell. Using the cells, the computer system determines a measurement order and whether or not to execute measurement. Measurement data for each cell is output to a CRT;” column 8, line 52, “ a part program is composed by storing information of a measurement procedure for one sample, taught by an operator, as well as information on a workpiece position, shape, and so on”), comprising:
a display unit (column 7, line 10, “Digital image data in the multi-value image memory 36 is displayed on the CRT 34 through operation of a display controller 37. ”);
a process control unit (Figure 2, element 38, “CPU”) that causes the display unit to display only the user interfaces that accept the inputs necessary to use the available functions in each of the operation steps (column 8, line 61, “For image processing, a measurement tool is provided to a part of a workpiece image for measurement;” column 11, line 55, “ an operator inputting a desired parameter. ”); and
a function execution unit that executes the function for which the input related to use is made on the user interface (column 8, line 61, “For image processing, a measurement tool is provided to a part of a workpiece image for measurement;” column 8, line 56, “the steps of performing image processing with respect to a workpiece image to extract an edge for temporal storage, and of reading the extracted edge to perform a performing predetermined operation (measurement of a line width, circular center coordinates, a circular radius, and roundness)”).
Shimizu fails to explicitly disclose as further recited. However, Kaieda discloses a display unit (column 1, line 60, “The control computer 50 includes a host computer 60 and an inputter/outputter 70. The inputter/outputter 70 includes a touch panel display 71, a keyboard 72, and a mouse 73.”) that displays user interfaces that accept inputs through input operations by an operator (column 1, line 17, “The present invention relates to an image measuring apparatus. Specifically, the present invention relates to a graphical user interface (GUI) supporting an operation by a user;” column 2, line 11, “Given this, a GUI screen such as that shown in FIG. 15, for example, is provided to the user as a screen to input and define lens information. This GUI screen performs display on the touch panel display 71 according to display control performed by the host computer 60. The user performs an information input or selection operation on the GUI screen by performing a touch operation on the touch panel display 71, or by performing keyboard input or mouse operation.”);
a process control unit (column 1, line 60, “The control computer 50 includes a host computer 60 and an inputter/outputter 70. The inputter/outputter 70 includes a touch panel display 71, a keyboard 72, and a mouse 73.”) that causes the display unit to display only the user interfaces that accept the inputs necessary to use the available functions in each of the operation steps (column2 , line 11, “Given this, a GUI screen such as that shown in FIG. 15, for example, is provided to the user as a screen to input and define lens information. This GUI screen performs display on the touch panel display 71 according to display control performed by the host computer 60. The user performs an information input or selection operation on the GUI screen by performing a touch operation on the touch panel display 71, or by performing keyboard input or mouse operation.”); and
a function execution unit (column 1, line 66, “In addition, the host computer 60”) that executes the function for which the input related to use is made on the user interface (column 1, line 66, “In addition, the host computer 60 switches between the field lenses (19 a to 19 d) by rotating the revolver 18 in response to an operation input by a user, performs focusing, and the like.”).
Shimizu is directed toward, “machine and method for measuring a plurality of workpieces, images of a plurality of workpieces placed on a stage are captured using a CCD camera (abstract).” Kaieda is directed toward, “An image measuring apparatus including an image measurer capable of switching between one of a type of lens and a magnification power (abstract).” As can be easily seen by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention Shimizu and Kaieda are directed towad similar methods of endeavor of image measurement systems. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would easily understand having a user interface presented to a user to input the required information would allow a user to be focused on what exactly to input. Said differently, presenting more options than needed or than relevant to the process can confuse or overwhelm a user. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Kaieda in order to ensure efficient and clear user interaction when interacting with the system.
Regarding dependent claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Additionally, Shimizu in the combination further discloses wherein the plurality of operation steps includes:
a first operation step to sequentially extract a plurality of geometric elements from the image of the measurement object (column 8, line 56, “and comprises the steps of performing image processing with respect to a workpiece image to extract an edge for temporal storage;” extracting the edges is read as geometric element); and
a second operation step to obtain measurement results by performing dimensional measurement sequentially from measurement items for which the geometric elements necessary for measurement have been obtained through the extraction of the geometric elements in the first operation step (column 8, line 58, “and of reading the extracted edge to perform a performing predetermined operation (measurement of a line width, circular center coordinates, a circular radius, and roundness);” column 8, line 53, “a part program is composed by storing information of a measurement procedure for one sample, taught by an operator, as well as information on a workpiece position, shape, and so on”).
Regarding dependent claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Additionally, Shimizu in the combination further discloses the program that causes a computer to function as the image measuring apparatus as claimed in claim 1 (see claim 1 analysis; column 1, line 8, “The present invention relates to a vision measuring machine, such as a microscopic measuring device or a non-contact view measuring CMM, and in particular to measurement using a program (a part program).”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
U.S. Publication No. 2012/0194672 to Kawa discloses, “a dimension measurement apparatus (abstract)”
U.S. Patent No. 9,772,480 to Oba discloses, “image measurement device includes: a measurement target place specifying part that specifies a measurement target place on a workpiece image (abstract)”
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Courtney J. Windsor whose telephone number is (571)272-3956. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 - 4:00.
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, John Villecco can be reached at 571-272-7319. 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.
/COURTNEY JOAN NELSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2661
Prosecution Insights