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 Objections
Claims 7 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7: In Line 2, the Examiner assumes that “light sources includes” should actually be --light sources include[s]--.
Claim 16: In Line 2, the Examiner assumes that “light sources includes” should actually be --light sources include[s]--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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.
Claims 1-2 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi (US 2018/0106728), hereinafter Hayashi, in view of Rosenthal (US 4,379,233), hereinafter Rosenthal.
Claim 1: Hayashi discloses a measuring apparatus (1, Fig. 1) comprising:
an illuminator (3) including a light source (31) to emit light onto an object (100) (“The illumination device 3 emits light for inspection (hereinafter, referred to as “inspection light” in some cases) to the inspection target 100 held on the holding surface 21” [0026]) being conveyed in a
conveyance direction (object is relatively conveyed: “The scanning direction Y corresponds to a direction of scanning that is performed on the inspection target 100 with light by the arch-like lighting unit 31” [0023]);
a first diffuser plate (“The illumination device 3 may include a diffusion plate that diffuses the inspection light emitted from the light emitting elements toward the inspection target 100” [0026]);
a light shield portion between the first diffuser plate and the object (100), the light shield portion having an opening that includes an optical axis of light emitted from the light source (31) and reaching the first diffuser plate (“The illumination device 3 may include light shielding hoods on both sides of the light emitting elements in the scanning direction Y to reduce stray light by irregular reflection” [0026]); and
a light receiver (5) to receive light specularly reflected from the object (100) illuminated by the illuminator (3) (“The imaging devices 5 capture images of the light reflection surface 101 of the inspection target 100 by which the inspection light emitted from the arch-like lighting unit 31 is reflected” [0028]).
Hayashi is silent with respect to a second diffuser plate.
Rosenthal, however, although not in the same field of endeavor, is nevertheless concerned with the same problem of optically inspecting an object under ideal lighting conditions. Rosenthal discloses a measuring apparatus (Figs. 1,7) comprising:
a first diffuser plate (35);
a second diffuser (37) plate between the first diffuser plate (35) and an object (S); and
a light shield portion (34) between the second diffuser plate (37) and the object (S) (“A preferred embodiment of the diffuser means is a pair of diffuser plates as shown in FIG. 7. In this figure there is a diffuser plate 35 closest to the IREDs and a spaced-apart diffuser plate 37 closest to the apertured plate 34”, Col. 3, Lines 52-56), the light shield portion (34) having an opening (36) that includes an optical axis of light emitted from a light source (10) and reaching the second diffuser plate (37) (“In this embodiment the scattered light from the diffuser 35 is spread more evenly by the diffuser 37, and thus, the light emitting from the second diffuser through the aperture 36 is essentially uniform in nature and can be used for exacting measurement requirements in the field of near infrared quantitative analysis”, Col. 3, Lines 57-63).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Hayashi’s measuring apparatus with a second diffuser placed between the first diffuser and the light shield portion for the purpose of providing light that “is essentially uniform in nature and can be used for exacting measurement requirements” (Rosenthal, Col. 3, Lines 60-62).
Claim 2: Hayashi further discloses wherein the light source (31) includes multiple point light sources (“The arch-like lighting unit 31 is configured by aligning a plurality of light emitting elements such as light emitting diodes (LEDs) in a circular arc form and holding them in a housing or the like” [0026]).
Claim 4: Hayashi discloses wherein the multiple point light sources are arranged in a predetermined order along an array direction (“The arch-like lighting unit 31 is configured by aligning a plurality of light emitting elements such as light emitting diodes (LEDs) in a circular arc form and holding them in a housing or the like” [0026]), but is silent with respect to arranging the light sources along an orthogonal direction orthogonal to the array direction.
Rosenthal, however, discloses “a matrix of individual pulsed radiation emitting diodes” (Col. 1, Lines 62-66).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Hayashi’s multiple point light sources to be arranged in both an array direction and an orthogonal direction orthogonal to the array direction for the purpose of providing “an even energy distribution on the sample in the sample chamber” (Rosenthal, Col. 2, Lines 6-9). It is evident then that Hayashi’s modified multiple light source form multiple linear light sources.
Claim 5: Hayashi further discloses wherein the first diffuser plate is positioned between the light source (31) and the object (100) (“The illumination device 3 may include a diffusion plate that diffuses the inspection light emitted from the light emitting elements toward the inspection target 100” [0026]).
Claim 6: Hayashi does not explicitly disclose wherein the light shield portion is integral with the second diffuser plate.
However, Applicant has provided no criticality for the light shield portion to be integral with the second diffuser plate.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Hayashi’s measuring apparatus to make the light shield portion integral with the second diffuser plate for the purpose of reducing the chances for optical misalignment, which could introduce noise into the measurement signal. Furthermore, the court has affirmed "that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice.") In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965)
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi, in view of Rosenthal as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yonezawa (US 2001/0012393), hereinafter Yonezawa.
Claim 3: Hayashi does not explicitly disclose wherein the multiple point light sources emit light beams having different wavelengths.
Yonezawa, however, in the same field of endeavor of optical inspection, discloses a measuring apparatus (Fig. 1) comprising:
an illuminator including a light source (2) to emit light onto an object (W),
wherein the light source (2) includes multiple point light sources (functional equivalent via the “plurality of wavelength selection filters 4” [0061]),
wherein the multiple point light sources emit light beams having different wavelengths (“the filters are so designed as to convert white illumination light selectively into narrow-band lights of twenty one types” [0061]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Hayashi’s multiple point light sources to emit light beams having different wavelengths for the purpose of providing better characterization of the object by controlling the wavelengths of light emitted.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi, in view of Rosenthal as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sakai (JP 2021/143960), hereinafter Sakai, and Roy Chowdhury et al. (US 2024/0144464), hereinafter Roy Chowdhury.
Claim 12: Hayashi is silent with respect to circuitry for defect detection of the object.
Sakai, however, in the same field of endeavor of optical inspection, discloses a measuring apparatus (Fig. 2), comprising circuitry configured to:
generate image information based on light specularly reflected from an object, received by a light receiver (“an imaging unit that images an inspection object that is irradiated with the pattern light” [0003]);
calculate phase information based on the image information (“A phase image is generated, which is phase information obtained by plotting the phases corresponding to” [0003]); and
detect a defect of the object based on the phase information (“a defect inspection relating to the appearance of the inspection object is performed based on the phase image” [0003]).
Sakai is silent with respect to outputting a corrective action.
Roy Chowdhury, however, in the same field of endeavor of defect detection, discloses a process (400B, Fig. 4B) of detecting defects of an object, comprising:
generating image information of the object (Step 412);
detecting a defect of the object based on the image (Step 416); and
outputting a corrective action to be performed on the object to correct the defect (Step 418).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Sakai’s circuitry with a step of outputting a corrective action to be performed on the object for the purpose of improving the manufacturing process (Roy Chowdhury [0128]).
It would have been furthermore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Hayashi’s measuring apparatus with circuitry for defect detection for the purpose of ensuring that only high-quality objects are used for product manufacturing.
Claims 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yonezawa, in view of Rosenthal.
Claim 13: Yonezawa discloses a measuring method (using the apparatus of Fig. 1) comprising:
emitting light, by a light source (2), including multiple colors onto an object (W) to be measured (“the filters are so designed as to convert white illumination light selectively into narrow-band lights of twenty one types, the center wavelengths of which are distributed at predetermined intervals and fall within a range of 450 nm to 800 nm” [0061]); and
receiving light specularly reflected from the object (W) [0063],
wherein the light is emitted from the light source (2), through a first diffuser plate (7) and then to onto the object (W), and from the object (W) to a light receiver (11) (evident from figure) [0061,0063].
Yonezawa is silent with respect to emitting the light through a second diffuser plate and an opening of a light shield portion.
Rosenthal, however, although not in the same field of endeavor, is nevertheless concerned with the same problem of optically inspecting an object under ideal lighting conditions. Rosenthal discloses a measuring method (using the apparatus of Figs. 1,7) comprising:
emitting light, by a light source (10), onto an object (S) to be measured (“These individual IREDs are separated light-wise from each other by baffles 12 and their radiation is directed to the right as viewed in FIG. 1 through individual narrow bandpass filters 14”, Col. 2, Lines 47-51); and
receiving light from the object (S) (“On the side of the sample chamber opposite the IREDs there is a photodetector means 22 to detect the radiation passing through the sample in the sample chamber”, Col. 2, Lines 56-59),
wherein the light is emitted from the light source (10), through a first diffuser plate (35), then through a second diffuser plate (37), then through an opening (36) of a light shield portion (34) and then to onto the object (S), and from the object (S) to a light receiver (22) (“A preferred embodiment of the diffuser means is a pair of diffuser plates as shown in FIG. 7. In this figure there is a diffuser plate 35 closest to the IREDs and a spaced-apart diffuser plate 37 closest to the apertured plate 34”, Col. 3, Lines 52-56), and
the opening (34) includes an optical axis of light emitted from the light source (10) and reaching the second diffuser plate (37) (“In this embodiment the scattered light from the diffuser 35 is spread more evenly by the diffuser 37, and thus, the light emitting from the second diffuser through the aperture 36 is essentially uniform in nature and can be used for exacting measurement requirements in the field of near infrared quantitative analysis”, Col. 3, Lines 57-63).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Yonezawa’s measuring method by emitting the light through a second diffuser and opening of a light shield portion for the purpose of providing light that “is essentially uniform in nature and can be used for exacting measurement requirements” (Rosenthal, Col. 3, Lines 60-62).
Claim 14: Yonezawa is silent with respect to the light source including multiple point light sources.
However, Yonezawa does disclose using a plurality of wavelength selection filters (4) to produce multiple light beams having different wavelengths (“the filters are so designed as to convert white illumination light selectively into narrow-band lights of twenty one types, the center wavelengths of which are distributed at predetermined intervals and fall within a range of 450 nm to 800 nm” [0061]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Yonezawa’s single light source and plurality of wavelength selection filters with multiple point light sources for the purpose of using a functional equivalent that eliminates the need for moving parts (e.g. a rotary plate), which could lead to optical misalignment.
Claim 15: Yonezawa discloses wherein the multiple point light sources are arranged in a predetermined order (“the filters are so designed as to convert white illumination light selectively into narrow-band lights of twenty one types, the center wavelengths of which are distributed at predetermined intervals and fall within a range of 450 nm to 800 nm” [0061]), but is silent with respect to arranging the light sources along an array direction and an orthogonal direction orthogonal to the array direction.
Rosenthal, however, discloses “a matrix of individual pulsed radiation emitting diodes” (Col. 1, Lines 62-66).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Yonezawa’s multiple point light sources to be arranged in both an array direction and an orthogonal direction orthogonal to the array direction for the purpose of providing “an even energy distribution on the sample in the sample chamber” (Rosenthal, Col. 2, Lines 6-9). It is evident then that Yonezawa’s modified multiple light source form multiple linear light sources.
Claim 16: Yonezawa does not explicitly disclose wherein the multiple linear light sources include red, green, and blue linear light sources.
However, Yonezawa does disclose “narrow-band lights of twenty one types, the center wavelengths of which are distributed at predetermined intervals and fall within a range of 450 nm to 800 nm” [0061].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Yonezawa’s predetermined intervals so that multiple lights fall into each of the ranges of 450-495 nm (for blue light), 490-575 nm (for green light), and 650-780 nm (for red light) for the purpose of allowing object characterization throughout the visible spectrum.
It is then evident, using Yonezawa’s modified predetermined intervals, that the multiple linear light sources include:
red linear light sources including red point light sources (narrow-band lights in the 650-780 nm range) arranged in the predetermined order along the array direction and the orthogonal direction;
green linear light sources including green point light sources (narrow-band lights in the 490-575 nm range) arranged in the predetermined order along the array direction and the orthogonal direction; and
blue linear light sources including blue point light sources (narrow-band lights in the 450-495 nm range) arranged in the predetermined order along the array direction and the orthogonal direction.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yonezawa, in view of Rosenthal as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Sakai and Roy Chowdhury.
Claim 20: Yonezawa is silent with respect to defect detection of the object.
Sakai, however, in the same field of endeavor of optical inspection, discloses a measuring method (using the apparatus of Fig. 2), comprising:
generating image information based on light specularly reflected from an object, received by a light receiver (“an imaging unit that images an inspection object that is irradiated with the pattern light” [0003]);
calculating phase information based on the image information (“A phase image is generated, which is phase information obtained by plotting the phases corresponding to” [0003]); and
detecting a defect of the object based on the phase information (“a defect inspection relating to the appearance of the inspection object is performed based on the phase image” [0003]).
Sakai is silent with respect to performing a corretion.
Roy Chowdhury, however, in the same field of endeavor of defect detection, discloses a process (400B, Fig. 4B) of detecting defects of an object, comprising:
generating image information of the object (Step 412);
detecting a defect of the object based on the image (Step 416); and
performing a correction of the defect on the object (Step 418).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Sakai’s method with a step of outputting a corrective action to be performed on the object for the purpose of improving the manufacturing process (Roy Chowdhury [0128]).
It would have been furthermore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Yonezawa’s measuring method to detect defects for the purpose of ensuring that only high-quality objects are used for product manufacturing.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-11 and 17-19 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 a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 7-8,10-11: None of the prior art, alone or in combination, teaches or discloses the measuring apparatus according to claim 4, wherein:
the multiple linear light sources are arranged, in the array direction, as a set including the red linear light sources, the green linear light sources and the blue linear light sources arranged in a predetermined order,
the multiple linear light sources form an illumination pattern of a uniform stripe pattern including sinusoidal variation in luminance of the light along the array direction, and
a conditional expression is satisfied:
m< w ≤ (n -2)/3
where
m denotes a width of one period of a sinusoidal wave of the luminance of the light in the illumination pattern formed on the object and is a natural number,
n denotes the number of linear light sources in the light source and is a natural number greater than or equal to 3, and
w denotes a width of the opening,
along with the rest of the limitations of dependent claim 7.
Claim 9: None of the prior art, alone or in combination, teaches or discloses the measuring apparatus according to claim 4, wherein
the linear light sources include two sets of linear light sources arranged in the array direction (Fa),
the multiple point light sources include different types of point light sources emitting light beams with different wavelengths, and
each set of linear light sources includes the different types of point light sources arranged in a predetermined order.
Claims 17-19: None of the prior art, alone or in combination, teaches or discloses the measuring method according to claim 16, wherein
the multiple linear light sources are arranged, in the array direction, as a plurality of sets,
each set including a plurality of the red linear light sources, a plurality of the green linear light
sources and a plurality of the blue linear light sources arranged in the predetermined order, and
the multiple linear light sources form an illumination pattern of a uniform stripe pattern including sinusoidal variation in luminance of the light along the array direction and alternating regions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to HINA F AYUB whose telephone number is (571)270-3171. The Examiner can normally be reached on 9am-5pm ET Mon-Fri.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Hina F Ayub/
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights