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 .
This action is responsive to the initial filing of 2/24/2025.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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:
the illumination portion in claims 1, 12, and 17, interpreted in light of page 7, lines 9-17 as a white light-emitting diode (LED), a halogen lamp, a fluorescent lamp, an incandescent lamp, a high-intensity discharge lamp (HID lamp), metal halide lamp, a monochromatic laser or a plurality of monochromatic lasers;
the imaging portion in claims 1, 12, and 17, interpreted in light of page 7, lines 18-19 as using an image sensor (which is interpreted in light of page 9, lines 8-11 as a monochrome camera or color camera);
the imaging optical elements in claims 5 and 6, each interpreted in light of page 7, lines 21-25 as a single lens, an assembled lens including a plurality of lenses, a Fresnel lens, a fly- eye lens, a microlens array, a concave mirror, a diffraction grating, or a gradient index lens (GRIN lens);
the first light selection portion of claim 5, interpreted as a diaphragm having a through-hole on the imaging optical axis (page 51, lines 2-5), a wavelength filter having a plurality of regions (page 51, lines 18-20), or a diffusion plate provided with a through-hole on the optical axis (page 52, lines 6-9); and
the second light selection portion of claim 6, interpreted in light of page 58, lines 7-8 as a transmissive diffusion plate or as any of the structures cited as options for the first light selection portion (a diaphragm having a through-hole on the imaging optical axis (page 51, lines 2-5), a wavelength filter having a plurality of regions (page 51, lines 18-20), or a diffusion plate provided with a through-hole on the optical axis (page 52, lines 6-9)).
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 § 112
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.
Claim 16 is 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.
Claim 16 recites that certain solid angles have relationships similar to the relationships between other solid angles without positively reciting the nature of that similarity or which aspects of the relationships must match (the relationship could be, for example, arc measures between the centers of the solid angles, ratios of sizes of solid angles, etc.). The claim is interpreted as requiring that the fifth solid angle is a subset of the third solid angle, that the sixth solid angle does not overlap with the third solid angle, that the seventh solid angle is a subset of the fourth solid angle, and the eighth solid angle does not overlap with the fourth solid angle.
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) 1-7 and 9-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Masumura (US patent publication 20200158657).
Regarding claim 1, Masumura teaches an optical inspection apparatus (FIG. 1) comprising:
an illumination portion (FIG. 1, surface light source 1 (described in paragraph 49 as having an LED and paragraph 75 as emitting white light, so is a white LED) along with lens 2) that is configured to irradiate at least a first object point of an object (FIG. 1, the point on inspection object W at which the arrows start and end) with
a light beam flux at one or a plurality of solid angles (FIG. 1, irradiation light path L1);
an imaging portion (FIG. 1, imaging device C, described in paragraph 70 as a color camera) that is configured to acquire an image of the object according to illumination with the light beam flux at the one or plurality of solid angles (shown in FIG. 1, and illustrated in more detail in FIG. 11); and
a processor that causes the first object point of the object to be irradiated with a light beam flux at a first solid angle by first illumination light from the illumination portion (FIG. 13(b), region IS1 and the central region (Aperture that transmits light. Note that selecting a specific optical attribute for the central region is optional (“may be provided”)), taken together. Note that in the example given in paragraph 70, this would be the solid angle that includes at least red light, but that Masumura teaches that the specific optical attributes may be other attributes besides wavelength, such as state of polarization, which is relevant for the rejection of claim 2 below), and is configured to set a solid angle not including the first solid angle as a second solid angle (FIG. 13(b) all solid angles outside of the first solid angle),
that is configured to acquire a first captured image of the object using the imaging portion by illumination with the first illumination light (paragraph 70 describes the case when the different optical properties are color channels of an RGB camera, in which the first solid angle is recorded specifically the image consisting of the red color channel),
that is configured to set a solid angle included in the first solid angle as a third solid angle (FIG. 13(b), the central aperture, which is included in the first solid angle described above), is configured to set a solid angle included in the second solid angle as a fourth solid angle (FIG. 13(b), region IS2, which in the example of paragraph 70, would consist of green light), causes at least the first object point to be irradiated with light beam fluxes at the third solid angle and the fourth solid angle by second illumination light from the illumination portion (according to the example in paragraph 70, this is the portion that includes at least green light),
that is configured to acquire a second captured image of the object using the imaging portion by illumination with the second illumination light (according to the example in paragraph 70, the image from the channel that collects green light), and
that is configured to acquire information regarding the object by the first captured image and the second captured image (paragraph 70 describes using the relative amounts of light detected with the different optical attributes to measure the angle of the surface at a particular point).
Regarding claim 2, Masumura teaches the optical inspection apparatus according to claim 1 (as described above), wherein the processor causes at least the first object point of the object to be irradiated with a light beam flux having a first wavelength spectrum at the first solid angle as the first illumination light of the illumination portion (paragraph 9 states that the different regions may differ in polarization planes, in which case, the wavelength spectrum in the first solid angle would match that of the light source in the first image captured), and causes at least the first object point to be irradiated with light beam fluxes having the first wavelength spectrum at the third solid angle and the fourth solid angle as the second illumination light of the illumination portion (when polarization states are used to distinguish different solid angles, the wavelength spectrum in the third and fourth solid angles would match the first solid angle, which matches the white LED) before or after the irradiation with the light beam flux at the first solid angle (paragraph 75 describes achieving more detailed classification and detection by dynamically changing the filter patterns using a liquid crystal member, which would involve performing an image capture before the dynamic change and one after, so one image capture would be before or after the other, using the same wavelength range at different states of polarization).
Regarding claim 3, Masumura teaches the optical inspection apparatus according to claim 1 (as described above), wherein the processor causes at least the first object point of the object to be irradiated with a light beam flux having a first wavelength spectrum at the first solid angle as the first illumination light of the illumination portion (FIG. 13(b) region IS1 and the central aperture that transmits light. Following the example of paragraph 70, these are the regions that include red light), and causes at least the first object point to be simultaneously irradiated with light beam fluxes having a second wavelength spectrum different from the first wavelength spectrum at the third solid angle and the fourth solid angle as the second illumination light of the illumination portion (FIG. 13(b), region IS2 and the central aperture that transmits light, which, following the example of paragraph 70, are the portions that include green light, which are projected at the same time as the red light is projected).
Regarding claim 4, Masumura teaches the optical inspection apparatus according to claim 1 (as described above), wherein in a case where an object point different from the first object point of the object is set as a second object point, the processor causes the second object point in addition to the first object point of the object to be irradiated with a light beam flux at the first solid angle by the first illumination light from the illumination portion (FIG. 12(b), points P and P’ on inspection object W, for example, as described in paragraph 77),
is configured to acquire the first captured image of the object using the imaging portion by the illumination with the first illumination light (paragraph 77 describes how the different points on the inspection object W receive the same illumination, which would include the first solid angle shown in FIG. 13(b) as described above),
causes the second object point in addition to the first object point to be irradiated with light beam fluxes at the third solid angle and the fourth solid angle by the second illumination light from the illumination portion (paragraph 77 describes how the different points on the inspection object W receive the same illumination, which would include the third and fourth solid angles shown in FIG. 13(b) as described above),
acquire the second captured image of the object using the imaging portion (according to the example in paragraph 70, the image from the channel that collects green light), and
is configured to acquire information regarding the object by the first captured image and the second captured image (paragraph 70 describes combining the information from separate images in the different RGB color channels).
Regarding claim 5, Masumura teaches the optical inspection apparatus according to claim 1 (as described above), wherein the imaging portion includes an imaging optical element configured to image the object (the lens of camera C, which operates according to the properties of ordinary lenses (paragraph 58)) and a first light selection portion that is provided on a focal plane of the imaging optical element and is configured to control passage of light (paragraph 59 states that the imaging optical system may be a telecentric optical system. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that telecentricity is achieved by placing an aperture stop (a diaphragm with a through-hole or an equivalent thereto) at the focal point of a lens (a single lens or an assembled lens including a plurality of lenses) of an optical system).
Regarding claim 6, Masumura teaches the optical inspection apparatus according to claim 1 (as described above), wherein the illumination portion includes an imaging optical element (FIG. 1, lens 2) configured to illuminate the object (FIG. 1, along light path L1, shown with solid arrows) and a second light selection portion (FIG. 1, filter F1 (which may have a wavelength filter with a plurality of regions (see FIG. 13(b))) or F3 (which additionally has a diaphragm having a through-hole), which that is provided on a focal plane of the imaging optical element and is configured to control passage of light (FIG. 13(b) shows a pattern of light after passing through the filter).
Regarding claim 7, Masumura teaches the optical inspection apparatus according to claim 6 (as described above), wherein the second light selection portion is axisymmetric (FIG. 13(b) indicates a filter with symmetry about its optical axis, as rotating the filter a multiple of 120° maps each of the regions exactly onto another region or onto itself).
Regarding claim 9, Masumura teaches the optical inspection apparatus according to claim 6 (as described above), wherein the second light selection portion has a distribution in an azimuthal angle direction (FIG. 13(b), note that the outer sections IS1, IS2, and IS3 are distributed by their azimuthal positions, while the center is uniformly distributed by azimuthal position).
Regarding claim 10, Masumura teaches the optical inspection apparatus according to claim 1 (as described above), wherein the processor is configured to measure a shape of the object (paragraph 70 describes how the color is used to determine angle at a particular point of the surface. Variation in the angles across a surface is a shape of an object).
Regarding claim 11, Masumura teaches the optical inspection apparatus according to claim 1 (as described above), wherein the processor is configured to inspect a surface of the object or an inner surface of the object (FIG. 1 shows a reflective setup in which a surface of an object is studied. Note that other embodiments using a transmissive setup (such as FIG. 2 when the half-mirror is not present) would also be useful for studying inside surfaces of an object).
Regarding claim 12, Masumura teaches an optical inspection method comprising:
irradiating at least a first object point of an object (FIG. 1, the point on inspection object W at which the arrows start and end) with a light beam flux at a first solid angle by first illumination light from an illumination portion (FIG. 13(b), region IS1 and the central region (Aperture that transmits light. Note that selecting a specific optical attribute for the central region is optional (“may be provided”)), taken together. Note that in the example given in paragraph 70, this would be the solid angle that includes at least red light, but that Masumura teaches that the specific optical attributes may be other attributes besides wavelength, such as state of polarization, which is relevant for the rejection of claim 14 below), a solid angle not including the first solid angle being set as a second solid angle (FIG. 13(b) all solid angles outside of the first solid angle);
acquiring a first captured image of the object using an imaging portion by illumination with the first illumination light (paragraph 70 describes the case when the different optical properties are color channels of an RGB camera, in which the first solid angle is recorded specifically the image consisting of the red color channel);
setting a solid angle included in the first solid angle as a third solid angle (FIG. 13(b), the central aperture, which is included in the first solid angle described above), setting a solid angle included in the second solid angle as a fourth solid angle (FIG. 13(b), region IS2, which in the example of paragraph 70, would consist of green light), and irradiating at least the first object point with light beam fluxes at the third solid angle and the fourth solid angle by second illumination light from the illumination portion (according to the example in paragraph 70, this is the portion that includes at least green light);
acquiring a second captured image of the object using the imaging portion by illumination with the second illumination light (according to the example in paragraph 70, the image from the channel that collects green light); and
acquiring information regarding the object by the first captured image and the second captured image (paragraph 70 describes using the relative amounts of light detected with the different optical attributes to measure the angle of the surface at a particular point).
Regarding claim 13, Masumura teaches the optical inspection method according to claim 12 (as described above), wherein in a case where an object point different from the first object point of the object is set as a second object point (FIG. 12(b), points P and P’ on inspection object W, for example, as described in paragraph 77),
the irradiating at least the first object point of the object with the light beam flux at the first solid angle includes irradiating the second object point in addition to the first object point (paragraph 77 describes how the different points on the inspection object W receive the same illumination, which would include the first solid angle shown in FIG. 13(b) as described above), and
the irradiating at least the first object point with the light beam fluxes at the third solid angle and the fourth solid angle includes irradiating the second object point in addition to the first object point (paragraph 77 describes how the different points on the inspection object W receive the same illumination, which would include the third and fourth solid angles shown in FIG. 13(b) as described above).
Regarding claim 14, Masumura teaches the optical inspection method according to claim 12 (as described above), wherein the irradiating with the light beam flux at the first solid angle by the first illumination light from the illumination portion includes irradiating with a light beam flux having a first wavelength spectrum (paragraph 9 states that the different regions may differ in polarization planes, in which case, the wavelength spectrum in the first solid angle would match that of the light source in the first image captured),
the irradiating with the light beam fluxes at the third solid angle and the fourth solid angle by the second illumination light from the illumination portion includes irradiating with a light beam flux having the first wavelength spectrum (when polarization states are used to distinguish different solid angles, the wavelength spectrum in the third and fourth solid angles would match the first solid angle, which matches the white LED), and
the first illumination light and the second illumination light are emitted at different times (paragraph 75 describes achieving more detailed classification and detection by dynamically changing the filter patterns using a liquid crystal member, which would involve performing an image capture before the dynamic change and one after, so one image capture would be before or after the other, using the same wavelength range at different states of polarization).
Regarding claim 15, Masumura teaches the optical inspection method according to claim 12 (as described above), further comprising simultaneously irradiating at least the first object point of the object with a light beam flux having a first wavelength spectrum at the first solid angle as the first illumination light (FIG. 13(b) region IS1 and the central aperture that transmits light. Following the example of paragraph 70, these are the regions that include red light) and
irradiating at least the first object point with light beam fluxes having a second wavelength spectrum different from the first wavelength spectrum at the third solid angle and the fourth solid angle as the second illumination light (FIG. 13(b), region IS2 and the central aperture that transmits light, which, following the example of paragraph 70, are the portions that include green light, which are projected at the same time as the red light is projected).
Regarding claim 16, Masumura teaches the optical inspection method according to claim 12 (as described above), further comprising:
forming a fifth solid angle and a sixth solid angle with respect to the third solid angle such that the fifth solid angle and the sixth solid angle have a relationship similar to a relationship between the third solid angle and the fourth solid angle with respect to the first solid angle (FIG. 13(b), fifth solid angle: part of the central region, which is a subset of the third solid angle. Sixth solid angle: region IS3, which does not overlap with the third solid angle);
forming a seventh solid angle and an eighth solid angle with respect to the fourth solid angle such that the seventh solid angle and the eighth solid angle have a relationship similar to a relationship between the third solid angle and the fourth solid angle with respect to the first solid angle (FIG. 13(b), seventh solid angle: an arbitrary subset of region IS2. Eighth solid angle: a part of the central region, which does not overlap with the fourth solid angle, different from the sixth solid angle);
irradiating at least the first object point of the object with light beam fluxes at the fifth solid angle, the sixth solid angle, the seventh solid angle, and the eighth solid angle by third illumination light (FIG. 13(b) light in the above-described regions); and
acquiring a third captured image of the object using the imaging portion by illumination with the third illumination light (paragraph 9 states that polarization planes are a way of providing different optical characteristics for different solid angles. The third image is the channel for light polarized along a third polarization plane),
wherein the acquiring the information regarding the object by the first captured image and the second captured image includes acquiring information regarding the object by the first captured image, the second captured image, and the third captured image (While paragraph 9 does state that polarization planes are a way of providing different optical characteristics for different solid angles, there are not three mutually orthogonal polarization planes to choose in the setup like that of Masumura, so three regions with different polarization planes would necessarily have some overlap in which regions of illumination are detected in each channel when detecting three components of polarization along different planes. Without loss of generality, the first and second solid angle may be chosen such that two regions with non-orthogonal polarization states are in the second solid angle.).
Regarding claim 17, Masumura teaches a non-transitory storage medium storing an optical inspection program for causing a computer to execute:
causing at least a first object point of an object (FIG. 1, the point on inspection object W at which the arrows start and end) to be irradiated with a light beam flux at a first solid angle by first illumination light from an illumination portion (FIG. 13(b), region IS1 and the central region (Aperture that transmits light. Note that selecting a specific optical attribute for the central region is optional (“may be provided”)), taken together. Note that in the example given in paragraph 70, this would be the solid angle that includes at least red light), setting a solid angle not including the first solid angle as a second solid angle (FIG. 13(b) all solid angles outside of the first solid angle);
acquiring a first captured image of the object using an imaging portion by illumination with the first illumination light (paragraph 70 describes the case when the different optical properties are color channels of an RGB camera, in which the first solid angle is recorded specifically the image consisting of the red color channel);
setting a solid angle included in the first solid angle as a third solid angle (FIG. 13(b), the central aperture, which is included in the first solid angle described above), setting a solid angle included in the second solid angle as a fourth solid angle (FIG. 13(b), region IS2, which in the example of paragraph 70, would consist of green light), and causing at least the first object point to be irradiated with light beam fluxes at the third solid angle and the fourth solid angle by second illumination light from the illumination portion (according to the example in paragraph 70, this is the portion that includes at least green light);
acquiring a second captured image of the object using the imaging portion by illumination with the second illumination light (according to the example in paragraph 70, the image from the channel that collects green light); and
acquiring information regarding the object by the first captured image and the second captured image (paragraph 70 describes using the relative amounts of light detected with the different optical attributes to measure the angle of the surface at a particular point).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masumura (US patent publication 20200158657) in view of Ohno (US patent publication 2022014635).
Regarding claim 8, Masumura teaches the optical inspection apparatus according to claim 6 (as described above).
Masumura does not explicitly teach that the second light selection portion has translational symmetry in a uniaxial direction.
In the same field of endeavor of projecting patterns to determine surface shape with wavelength, Ohno teaches that the second light selection portion has translational symmetry in a uniaxial direction (FIG. 11, linear illuminations 14a, 14b, and 14c are arranged so as to illuminate the target from solid angles that are arranged in a line, where one light source may be symmetrically translated onto the next along the pattern. Additionally, each linear light source has translational symmetry along its length). By arranging light sources in a line, the directions of the reflections of the light sources may be used to analyze one particular component of the surface normal separately from the other component.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the inspection device of Masumura with the linear translational symmetry of Ohno to focus on measuring the surface normal along one axis, with predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Gruna (non-patent literature “Feature-Specific Illumination Patterns for Automated Visual Inspection”) also teaches an optical inspection device that illuminates an area from a set of specific, overlapping solid angles (FIG. 2).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL D SCHNASE whose telephone number is (703)756-1691. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM ET.
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.
/PAUL SCHNASE/ Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights