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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-6, 10-12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ono et al. (WO/2020/202496 where the examiner is using the U.S. PGPub 2022/0170739 A1 as the English language equivalent for citations).
As to claims 1 and 12, Ono discloses and shows in figure 2, 7 and 13, A measurement system comprising:
a light source (i.e. the laser that is part of the laser distance measurement device) that emits irradiation light to be applied to a plurality of measurement points (P301 in blown up view, but hundreds if not thousands shown in left image of figure 7) included in at least one evaluation region (R31) of a surface of an object ([0073], ll. 1-9; [0102], ll. 1-3; [0103], ll. 1-7);
a detector (12, where in order to produce the images as disclosed some type of detector is required ) that receives reflected light returned from the plurality of measurement points and outputs a detection signal (i.e. signal to form the images/point cloud data) ([0072]; [0176]); and
a processing circuit (11 also labeled as 71) that calculates and outputs a roughness parameter (where the abnormality determination is a function as disclosed of a surface being rough as a result of rust being present, in other words a roughness parameter) regarding an uneven shape of the at least one evaluation region, based on the detection signal ([0071], ll. 1-4; [0080]; [0146]; [0209]),
wherein the processing circuit corrects the roughness parameter in accordance with an angle of incidence of the irradiation light incident on the at least one evaluation region (clearly all calculations are a function of the evaluation region), a measurement distance in the at least one evaluation region, or intensity of received light obtained as a result of the at least one evaluation region being irradiated with the irradiation light ([0162]-[0163], as explicitly disclosed the incidence angle helps refine/corrects the roughness measurement. Further Ono uses brightness (i.e. intensity) to make the measurement and correction, and further even uses distance as well to refine the data).
Ono does not explicitly disclose where the detector inherently required to form the images is an optical detector.
However, the examiner takes Office Notice that the basic concept of using visible light (i.e. optical) based detectors such as a CMOS or CCD detector to efficiently and with low error produce images of the sample area under test is a well-known and predictable choice.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ono with the use of an optical detector in order to provide the advantage of expected results as obviously using an optical detector to produce the images from the laser light allows for a rapid measuring system capable of high resolution imaging of the sample area/points under test.
The subject matter of claims 1 and 12 relate in that the technical features of apparatus claim 1 are in each case suitable for implementing the method of claim 12, therefore the method is obvious in view of the above apparatus rejection.
As to claim 3, Ono does not explicitly disclose a measurement system, wherein: the at least one evaluation region includes a plurality of evaluation regions; and the processing circuit corrects the roughness parameter in each of the plurality of evaluation regions in accordance with the angle of incidence of the irradiation light incident on a corresponding one of the plurality of evaluation regions.
However, Ono does disclose and show in figure 7 and in ([0102]) using a region R31 to measure a roughness parameter for to evaluation the sample under test. The examiner takes Office notice that obviously more than one region can be measured on the sample under test. As clearly shown the point cloud is applied to a vastly larger area than just region R31. As such obviously one could further refine the representation of the sample under test by duplicating the measurements across various regions.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ono with a measurement system, wherein: the at least one evaluation region includes a plurality of evaluation regions; and the processing circuit corrects the roughness parameter in each of the plurality of evaluation regions in accordance with the angle of incidence of the irradiation light incident on a corresponding one of the plurality of evaluation regions in order to provide the advantage of increased accuracy and expected results in in measuring multiple regions obviously one can further refine and clearly define any roughness over a larger area of the sample under test, especially obvious as the point cloud is already projected over a vastly larger area than region R31.
As to claim 5, Ono discloses a measurement system, wherein, before the irradiation light is emitted, the processing circuit calculates the angle of incidence of the irradiation light based on a result of distance measurement for the surface of the object ([0018], as disclosed the first incidence angle is calculated subsequent to the plurality of distance measurement points).
As to claim 6, Ono discloses a measurement system, wherein: the processing circuit obtains correction data from a storage, the correction data being data that defines a correlation between an angle of incidence and a correction parameter (i.e. the correction data being the calculated incident angle difference); the processing circuit determines a correction parameter based on the angle of incidence of the irradiation light and the correction data; and the processing circuit corrects the roughness parameter based on the determined correction parameter (where said data corrects distance measurements with fundamentally are used to define the roughness value of the sample area under test) ([0162]; [0172]; [0209]; where implicitly where the calculations are done with computers storage is required for said computer to function).
As to claim 10, Ono discloses a measurement system, wherein the processing circuit outputs the roughness parameter which has not yet been corrected, as well as the corrected roughness parameter (since applicant never defines what the circuit outputs too, inherently in the processing chain the data of the first images that subsequently get refined include the output of the first roughness parameter and the corrected roughness parameter) ([0162]-[0163]).
As to claim 11, Ono discloses a measurement system, wherein: the processing circuit includes first (circuit implicitly part of measurement device 12, as disclosed all the functions/algorithms are executed on a computer (i.e. first or second circuits)) and second processing circuits (112-113); the first processing circuit generates distance information on each of the plurality of measurement points (i.e. point cloud which as disclosed in setup in three-dimensional coordinates which require distances), based on the detection signal; the second processing circuit (11 calculates the roughness parameter regarding the uneven shape of the at least one evaluation region, based on the distance information; and the second processing circuit corrects the roughness parameter in accordance with the angle of incidence of the irradiation light incident on the at least one evaluation region (again the surface roughness takes into account angle of incidence as disclosed) ([0077], ll. 1-6; [0089]; [0141]; [0162]-[0163]; [0209]).
As to claim 16, Ono discloses a measurement system, wherein, based on the detection signal, the processing circuit sets the angle of incidence of the irradiation light incident on the at least one evaluation region, the measurement distance in the at least one evaluation region, or the intensity of received light obtained as a result of the at least one evaluation region being irradiated with the irradiation light (i.e. sets the brightness/intensity into varying subgroups H102 or H101) ([0081]).
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ono et al. in view of Doerband (DE 102007010588 B3, where the examiner is providing a machine translation hereinwith for citations).
As to claim 2, Ono does not explicitly disclose a measurement system, wherein: the roughness parameter is one of an arithmetic mean height, root mean square height, developed interfacial area ratio, skewness, kurtosis, and root mean square slope in a two-dimensional region or one of the arithmetic mean height, root mean square height, skewness, kurtosis, and root mean square slope in a linear region.
However, Doerband does disclose in (page 1, ll. 8-15) that it is well-known that roughness parameter can be calculated as a function of mean height. Obviously, a height being a function of distances is arithmetic and relies on numbers to define. Further obviously this common concept could be applied in conjunction with Ono to define each region (i.e. two-dimensional region) as explicitly shown in figure 7 of Ono.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ono with a measurement system, wherein: the roughness parameter is one of an arithmetic mean height, root mean square height, developed interfacial area ratio, skewness, kurtosis, and root mean square slope in a two-dimensional region or one of the arithmetic mean height, root mean square height, skewness, kurtosis, and root mean square slope in a linear region in order to provide the advantage of increased accuracy in using one of many known characterization methods as disclosed in Doerband one can clearly represent the quality (abnormal or not) of the sample under test in a well-known and meaningful manner.
Claim(s) 4 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ono et al. in view of Meeks (U.S. PGPub No. 2007/0153273 A1).
As to claim 4, Ono does not explicitly disclose a measurement system, further comprising: an optical deflector that changes a direction of the irradiation light, wherein the processing circuit controls an operation of the optical deflector.
However, Meek does disclose and show in figure 15 and in ([0094]; [0132]) the use of deflectors (1504/1507) to control the angle of incidence of the irradiation light. Further in doing so as noted Meek doing so allows for a larger array of samples under test to be measured. Further obviously using deflectors avoids requirements of the source to be moved and instead a simple mirror can redirect light over the sample under test. Lastly, obviously the computer as disclosed in Meek can be used to control the deflector mirrors scanning orientation as doing so would increase movement speed and reduce human error.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ono with a measurement system, further comprising: an optical deflector that changes a direction of the irradiation light, wherein the processing circuit controls an operation of the optical deflector in order to provide the advantage of increased efficiency and expected results in using a computer computer/circuit to control a deflector one can obviously scan a sample under test with less alignment requirements, but further as explicitly noted in Meek allow for varying types of sample to be tested that require larger or smaller angles of incidence.
As to claims 7 and 8, Ono does not explicitly disclose a measurement system, wherein: the correction data is stored in the storage by object attribute; and the processing circuit obtains the correction data from the storage, based on an attribute of the object to be measured or wherein the attribute of the object is at least one of a material, a proportion of the material, a size, a polishing method for the surface, or a product number of the object.
However, Meeks does disclose in ([0003]; [0099]) the basic concept when profiling a sample under test (i.e. a roughness profile) one can take into account material of the sample under test as an attribute by which to define an angle of incidence to use with said sample. Obviously, this variation in angle based on sample can be interpreted as a correction data/program that varies said angle based on the sample under test to ensure the highest accuracy possible for the roughness measurement. The data on material as disclosed in Meeks is previously known as such it can obviously be stored correlation/correction data.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ono with a measurement system, wherein: the correction data is stored in the storage by object attribute; and the processing circuit obtains the correction data from the storage, based on an attribute of the object to be measured or wherein the attribute of the object is at least one of a material, a proportion of the material, a size, a polishing method for the surface, or a product number of the object in order to provide the advantage of increased accuracy as explicitly noted in Meeks taking into account the material of the sample defines desired incidence angles so a more accurate representation of the sample under test can be produced.
As to claim 9, Ono does not explicitly disclose a measurement system, wherein: when the incidence of angle is larger than a reference angle for correction, the processing circuit sets a greater correction amount for the roughness parameter as the angle of incidence is larger; and when the incidence of angle is smaller than the reference angle for correction, the processing circuit sets a greater correction amount for the roughness parameter as the angle of incidence is smaller.
However, Ono firstly does disclose in ([0022]) the concept of correcting distance measurement points and based on incidence angle difference and reflection brightness difference. Further, Meeks discloses in ([0079]) the use of modulating the angle of incidence larger or smaller based on the surface under test, and additionally that varying angles have varying sensitivities. Obviously, this known concept of a varying sensitivity at varying angles can be used as a correction amount to the roughness parameter as it is a function of varying incidence angles.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ono with a measurement system, wherein: when the incidence of angle is larger than a reference angle for correction, the processing circuit sets a greater correction amount for the roughness parameter as the angle of incidence is larger; and when the incidence of angle is smaller than the reference angle for correction, the processing circuit sets a greater correction amount for the roughness parameter as the angle of incidence is smaller in order to provide the advantage of increased accuracy in further refining the correcting algorithm to modulate roughness based on sensitivity as a function of incidence angle one can further refine the roughness output.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As to applicant’s first argument that Ono is not related to the calculation and correction of a roughness parameter, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner is interpreting the brightness value (i.e. the point cloud based reflection brightness data) as a roughness parameter. As in ([0089]), “Thus, the surface abnormality detection device 11 of the first example embodiment can identify the abnormal portion on the surface from the three-dimensional point cloud data including the reflection brightness. This makes it possible to identify the abnormal portion for the surface roughness finer than the distance measurement accuracy of the distance measurement device 12, and reduce false detection.” The correction is for example one of distance to the point cloud data ([0095]) “As illustrated in FIG. 6, the processes from step S101 to step S102 are performed in a similar manner to those in the first example embodiment. After step S102, the surface abnormality detection device 21 corrects the reflection brightness value of each point cloud based on the distance from the observation point to the point cloud (step S201).” The examiner notes that angle of incidence is also disclosed, however this noted citation is merely the most explicitly clear teaching of applicant’s claim limitation. As such the rejection has been maintained as explicitly a roughness parameter is measured brightness, and said parameter is corrected with distance measurements.
As to applicant’s argument that Ono corrects the brightness information and not the roughness parameter, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s assertion is partially correct; Ono does correct the brightness parameter. However, the examiner disagrees that this is not a correction of the roughness parameter. As seen from the explicitly bolded citation above, brightness (i.e. point cloud data) is used to define and identify an abnormal portion surface roughness. As such clearly the brightness data can be interpreted as a roughness parameter. As such the rejection is maintained.
As to applicant’s arguments directed at ([0162]-[0163]) although the examiner does not find the arguments persuasive, the argument is considered moot. As the examiner has provided a new citation from the same reference to further support the rejection above (where the applicant is responsible for the reference as a whole), specifically the statement that “Further Ono uses brightness (i.e. intensity) to make the measurement and correction, and further even uses distance as well to refine the data)”. The examiner is merely relying on these new citations as they more clearly and explicitly teach applicant’s claim language in question. As such the rejection is maintained.
As to applicant’s argument that Ono does not calculate a roughness parameter as recited in the independent claims, please see the remarks above as they already address this argument explicitly.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18-20 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
As to claim 18, the prior arts taken alone or in combination fails to teach or disclose a measurement system, wherein the processing circuit corrects the roughness parameter by multiplying the roughness parameter by a correction coefficient determined based on the angle of incidence.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL P LAPAGE whose telephone number is (571)270-3833. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5:30.
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, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached at 571-272-2287. 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.
/Michael P LaPage/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights