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 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.
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: light receiving unit in claim 1 and defect detecting unit in claim 8.
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.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a))(1) as being anticipated by Miyazato (JP 2012058091 A)-using machine translation.
As for claim 1, Miyazato in a surface inspection device discloses/suggests the following:
A measurement apparatus (FIG. 1 with page 3: lines 1-2) for measuring a measurement target object conveyed in a conveying direction (this appears to be an intended use recitation: note the following: ‘it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ F.2d 1647 (1987).’) the measurement apparatus (FIG. 1 with page 3: lines 1-2) comprising: an illuminating unit configured to illuminate the measurement target object (FIG. 1: 20); and a light receiving unit configured to receive specular reflection light from the measurement target object illuminated by the illuminating unit (FIG. 1: 30 with page 1: see TECHNICSL-FIELD with page 4: lines 6-10), wherein the illuminating unit includes a light source and a first diffusion plate (FIG. 3A and 3B: 22 and 23 with 26 as the first diffusion plate), the light source including a plurality of point light sources, a plurality of the light sources are arranged in a predetermined arrangement direction, the plurality of point light sources are arranged in an orthogonal direction that is orthogonal to the predetermined arrangement direction (FIG. 3A: 23 with FIG. 3B: 23 on 22 noting: 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246), and when a diffusion angle relative to the predetermined arrangement direction of the first diffusion plate is given as Ax and a diffusion angle relative to the orthogonal direction is given as Ay, a relationship of Ax <Ay is satisfied (page 3: sixth paragraph beginning with ‘The light shaping diffuser 26…’).
As for claim 2, Miyazato discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 1). In addition, Miyazato discloses/suggests wherein the plurality of point light sources emit light of different wavelengths (page 3: fourth paragraph starting with ‘In the light device 20…’ to third line of fifth paragraph).
As for claim 3, Miyazato discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 1). In addition, Miyazato discloses/suggests wherein the first diffusion plate is arranged between the light source and the measurement target object (noting orientation of 20 in FIG. 1 with 20: 26 and 23/22 in FIG. 3).
As for claim 8, Miyazato discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 1). In addition, Miyazato discloses/suggests a defect detecting unit configured to detect a defect of the measurement target object based on the specular reflection light from the measurement target object received by the light receiving unit (FIG. 1: 40-48 wherein, 47 is referred to as ‘the surface defect detection unit’).
As for claim 9, Miyazato discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 1). In addition, Miyazato discloses/suggests wherein the light source includes the plurality of point light sources emitting red light, the plurality of point light sources emitting green light, and the plurality of point light sources emitting blue light (FIG. 3A: 23 and FIG. 3B: 23 with 240-246).
As for claim 10, Miyazato discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 1). In addition, Miyazato discloses/suggests wherein the plurality of point light sources include a lens member configured to guide an optical path of emitted light to the measurement target object (FIG. 3A: treating the hemispherical member of each 23 as a lens member).
As for claim 11, Miyazato discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 1). In addition, Miyazato discloses/suggests wherein the plurality of point light sources are Light Emitting Diode (LED) elements (page 3: fourth paragraph starting with ‘In the light device 20…’ to third line of fifth paragraph).
As for claim 12, Miyazato discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 1). In addition, Miyazato discloses/suggests wherein the measurement target object is a vehicle body (FIG. 1: 10 with page 3: line 4: ‘a painted surface of a car’).
As for claim 13, Miyazato discloses/suggests the following: a measurement method executed (FIG. 7 with page 6: fourth paragraph beginning with ‘The control unit 40…’ to page 7: line 28) by the measurement apparatus according to claim 1 (see claim 1 above), the measurement method comprising: illuminating the measurement target object with light including a plurality of colors (FIG. 1: 20 with 10; page 3: lines 1-8 and page 3: last nine lines; page 7: lines 4-15); and receiving the specular reflection light from the illuminated measurement target object (FIG. 1: 10 to 30; page 4: lines 6-15).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but appear to 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: please refer to the attached PTO-892. The examiner notes that Yonezawa (JP 2000028535 A) teaches a defect inspecting device that has two diffusion plates (FIG. 1: 3 and 4).
Fax/Telephone Numbers
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Gordon J. Stock, Jr. whose telephone number is (571) 272-2431.
The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 10:00 a.m. - 6:30 p.m.
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, Kara Geisel, can be reached at 571-272-2416. 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.
/GORDON J STOCK JR/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights