DETAILED ACTION
Interview Summary
To expedite prosecution, Examiner proposed amendments to clarify the claims in order to place the case in condition for allowance. However, applicant requested a written OA.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 13-20 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: the new claims are directed to a different embodiment from the invention originally claimed based on the lengths of shadows.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 13-20 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 4/28/26. These drawings are acceptable.
The drawings are objected to because all diagrams and features in Figures 2-5 and 7-12 are required to be distinctly labeled to indicate contents or function with legends (37 C.F.R. 1.83(a), 1.84(o)) since they are necessary for understanding of the drawing. Correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5-7, 11, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu (CN 112560891).
Regarding claims 1 and 7, Liu discloses the same inspection device for a target object 203 including a hole and a component 204 inserted into the hole, the device comprising a plurality of light sources 202 configured to illuminate an area including the hole in different directions in series (e.g. Fig. 2); a camera 201 configured to generate a plurality of digital images of the area illuminated by the light sources in series [0039]; and a controller 703 configured to determine whether the component is normally inserted into the hole based on lengths of shadows (e.g. Fig. 7) included in each 702 of the digital images generated by the camera [0063]-[0070], wherein the controller is configured to determine, when the component is not normally inserted into the hole, a corresponding NG mode from among a plurality of NG modes indicating modes of insertion abnormality [0068]-[0069] by comparing a difference 706 in the lengths of the shadows of the component included in at least two of the plurality of digital images with a threshold (e.g. offset information).
Claims 5 and 11. wherein directions in which the respective light sources emit light 202 incline at a same angle with respect to a face 203 on which the hole is provided in the target object (e.g. Fig. 2).
Claims 6 and 12. wherein the target object has linearly arranged holes 204 including the hole, and directions in which the respective light sources emit light intersect with an array direction (e.g. Fig. 2) of the holes as seen in plan view (e.g. planar view).
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) 4 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Yanagita et al (2002/0025652).
Although Fig. 2 of Liu discloses determining whether the component is inserted into the hole based on the plurality of modes of shadow lengths within the digital images, it is noted Liu differs from the present invention in that it fails to particularly disclose first and second portions of the component as specified in claims 4 and 10. Yanagita et al however, in Figures 22, 24, and 27, teaches the concept of such well-known component 30 includes first 10 and second 20 portions which can be separated from each other and are not normally connected to each other.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having both the references of Liu and Yanagita et al before him/her, to incorporate the inspection method of Yanagita et al into the inspection device of Liu in order to inspect more than one portion of the component simultaneously.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/28/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts on p. 13-15 of the Remarks that the reference fails to disclose a plurality of modes. However, [0068]-[0069] of Liu discloses the concept of such common shadow height classifications by the shadow classifier 7032, thus meeting the definition of plural modes in its broadest reasonable sense.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 4-7 and 10-12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
20260025592 discloses LIGHTING ARRANGEMENTS FOR MATERIAL SORTING
20260011203 discloses MEANS FOR USING MICROSTRUCTURE OF MATERIALS SURFACE AS A UNIQUE IDENTIFIER
20260010996 discloses DEFECT INSPECTION SYSTEM AND DEFECT INSPECTION METHOD
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 YOUNG LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-7334. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 11 - 7.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jay Patel can be reached at 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.
/Y LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2485
Prosecution Insights