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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 15/331,499, filed on 01/05/2017.
CONTINUING DATA
This application is a CON of 17/212,219 03/25/2021 PAT 12163776
17/212,219 is a CON of 16/735,186 01/06/2020 PAT 10996050
16/735,186 is a CON of 15/929,142 06/12/2019 PAT 10563978
15/929,142 is a CON of 15/331,499 10/21/2016 PAT 10359276
15/331,499 is a CON of 14/463,269 08/19/2014 PAT 9488472
14/463,269 is a DIV of 12/919,691 11/03/2010 PAT 8854610
12/919,691 is a 371 of PCT/KR2009/000904 02/25/2009
FOREIGN APPLICATIONS
KOREA, REPUBLIC OF 10-2008-0017439 02/26/2008
KOREA, REPUBLIC OF 10-2008-0082629 08/23/2008
KOREA, REPUBLIC OF 10-2009-0015691 02/25/2009
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 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Patent No. 12,163,776 in view of Chen (US 2004/0252312 A1). Chen teaches a plurality of projectors configured to radiate a light (e.g. Fig. 2 light projection units 10 and 20). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Instant U.S. Application No. 18/944,327
US Patent No. 12,163,776
1. An apparatus, comprising: a plurality of projectors configured to radiate a light having a stripe pattern to an inspection object;
at least one camera
configured to capture images that are generated by the light reflected from the inspection object;
and a controller configured to generate a three-dimensional image of the inspection object based on the images,
wherein the at least one camera is disposed oblique to a direction of the stripe pattern of the light (covered in Element 1).
1. An apparatus, comprising: a projector disposed above an inspection object, and configured to radiate first light having a stripe pattern to the inspection object;
one or more cameras each arranged in a direction that is oblique with respect to a direction of the stripe pattern in a plan view of a plane on which the inspection object is placed (Element 1), and configured to simultaneously capture one or more first images that are generated by the first light reflected from the inspection object;
and a controller configured to generate a three-dimensional image of the inspection object based on the one or more first images, wherein the one or more cameras are disposed on X-axis or Y-axis of an XY plane on which the inspection object is placed, and the direction of the stripe pattern has a predetermined angle with respect to the Y-axis.
As illustrated above, the subject matter of pending claim 1 of the instant application is rejected under nonstatutory double patenting over patented claim 1 of Patent No. 12,163,776 in view of Chen (US 2004/0252312 A1).
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chen (US 2004/0252312 A1) in view of Wagner (US 2009/0128685 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Chen discloses an apparatus (e.g. Figs. 1, 2 and abstract, Paragraph [0002, 0027]), comprising: a plurality of projectors (e.g. Fig. 2 light projection units 10 and 20) configured to radiate a light having a pattern to an inspection object (e.g. Paragraph [0043, 0044]); at least one camera (e.g. Fig. 2 Image capturing units 30, 40, 50) configured to capture images that are generated by the light reflected from the inspection object (e.g. Paragraph [0043, 0045, 0046]); and a controller configured to generate a three-dimensional image of the inspection object based on the images (e.g. abstract, Paragraph [0042, 0046, 0047]), wherein the at least one camera is oblique to a direction of the pattern of the light (e.g. Figs. 1, 2 the image light beam 3, 4, 5 reflected).
Although Chen discloses to radiate a light having a pattern (e.g. Paragraph [0043, 0044]); it fails to explicitly disclose the light having a stripe pattern.
However, Wagner teaches projectors radiate light having a stripe pattern (e.g. Fig. 3a to 3d, Paragraph [0053-0054]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time of the invention to incorporate projectors as taught as Wagner into the apparatus of Chen in order to clarify the synchronization of the illumination with the cameras.
Regarding Claim 2, Chen discloses at least one camera is further configured to capture the images reflected from the inspection object in different directions (e.g. Figs. 1, 2 the image light beam 3, 4, 5 reflected, and Paragraph [0043, 0045, 0046]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6 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.
Lu (US 5,852,672), discloses light unit radiating patterned light;
Koh (US 2006/0158664 A1), discloses apparatus for measuring 3D shape;
Watanabe (US 2004/0089059 A1), discloses beam splitting.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YULIN SUN whose telephone number is (571)270-1043. The examiner can normally be reached 10AM - 6PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jay Patel can be reached on 571-272-2988. 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.
/YULIN SUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2485