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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested:
INSPECTION SYSTEM HAVING REDUCED INSPECTING TIME
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 2, the limitations of claim 2 have already been recited in claim 1 from which claim 2 depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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) 1-3, 5, 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kumagai (WO 2024/048346 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kumagai discloses
A control apparatus (1; fig. 1) comprising:
at least one processor (510; fig.14); and
at least one memory (530, 540; fig. 14) that is in communication with the at least one processor, wherein the at least one memory stores instructions for causing the at least one processor and the at least one memory to ([0078]-[0080]):
acquire a first signal (Synchronization timing issued from the imaging unit to the light source driver; [0058]) indicating activation timings of light sources synchronized with an imaging;
activate a plurality of light sources among the activation timings of the light sources based on the first signal at a first timing (Light sources A and B are activated simultaneously; fig. 13); and
output, to a lighting unit, a second signal for activating a light source different from the plurality of light sources at a second timing (Light sources C and D are activated after light sources A and B are activated. This requires an inherent second signal to activate light sources C and D; fig. 13).
Regarding claim 2, Kumagai discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1), in addition, Kumagai discloses, wherein the at least one memory further stores instructions for causing the at least one processor and the at least one memory to: activate the plurality of light sources at the first timing (Light sources A and B are activated simultaneously; fig. 13), and output, to the lighting unit, the second signal for activating the light source different from the plurality of light sources at the second timing (Light sources C and D are activated after light sources A and B are activated. This requires an inherent second signal to activate light sources C and D; fig. 13).
Regarding claim 3, Kumagai discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1), in addition, Kumagai discloses, wherein the at least one memory further stores instructions for causing the at least one processor and the at least one memory to use a captured image obtained by imaging an object irradiated with light from the plurality of light sources activated at the first timing to inspect a gloss of the object ([0024], [0033]-[0039]; Images captured from both illumination pattern A and illumination pattern B are used to determine if black tape is attached to the object using a gloss recognition.).
Regarding claim 5, Kumagai discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1), in addition, Kumagai discloses, wherein the at least one memory further stores instructions for causing the at least one processor and the at least one memory to use a captured image obtained by imaging an object irradiated with light from the light source activated at the second timing, the light source being different from the plurality of light sources, to inspect a surface shape of the object (Images using both light emission patterns A and B are used to determine the contour (shape) of the object; [0024], [0038]-[0040]).
Regarding claim 10, it discloses a method for implementing the apparatus of claim 1. Thus, claim 10 is an inherent variation of claim 1 and is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as stated above (see claim 1).
Regarding claim 11, it recites similar limitations to claim 1 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons as stated above (see claim 1).
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, 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumagai.
Regarding claim 4, Kumagai discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1), however, Kumagai fails to explicitly disclose using the captured image obtained by imaging an object irradiated with light at the second timing to inspect color. However, the examiner takes official notice of the fact that it was well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to provide this.
Kumagai teaches an inspection system which is capable of two consecutive illuminations with any number of respective light sources activated ([0060]-[0061] for each illumination). Using an image illuminated with light in an inspection system to detect color is well-known. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to improve Kumagai by applying the technique of using the image captured for the second illumination to detect color to achieve the predictable result of detecting color defects.
Regarding claim 7, Kumagai discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1), however, Kumagai fails to explicitly disclose the plurality of light source activated at the first timing is selected based on an instruction from a user. However, the examiner takes official notice of the fact that it was well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to provide this.
Kumagai teaches an inspection device wherein any number of the plurality of light sources may be activated simultaneously for each illumination pattern. Allowing a user to control different aspects of an inspection device including its light sources is well-known. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to improve Kumagai by applying the technique of allowing a user to control which lights are used for each light pattern to achieve the predictable result of allowing the user more control over the inspection.
Regarding claim 8, Kumagai discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1), however, Kumagai fails to explicitly disclose the plurality of light sources are electrically connected to each other and the lighting unit includes one signal terminal from which a signal is inputtable to the plurality of light sources. However, the examiner takes official notice of the fact that it was well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to provide this.
Kumagai teaches an inspection device having a plurality of light sources which can be activated simultaneously. Providing one input signal terminal for a plurality of lights which are to be activated simultaneously is well-known. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to substitute the plurality of signal terminals for each light to be activated simultaneously with a single signal terminal to achieve the predictable result of reducing the complexity of the circuit and cost.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumagai in view of Ikeda (US 2023/0252616 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Kumagai discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1), in addition, Kumagai discloses,
wherein the lighting unit includes light sources (30; figs. 1, 4) disposed in a [circular] (fig. 4) distribution pattern above an object (A1; fig. 1) as an inspection target, and
.
However, Kumagai, fails to explicitly disclose the light sources are in a hemispherical distribution pattern and the plurality of light sources activated at the first timing is smaller in zenith angle than the light source activated at the second timing. However, the examiner maintains that it was well known in the art to provide this, as taught by Ikeda.
In a similar field of endeavor, Ikeda discloses wherein the lighting unit includes light sources (30; figs. 1, 4) disposed in a hemispherical (fig. 22; [0164], [0166]) distribution pattern above an object (3; fig. 22) as an inspection target, and
wherein the plurality of light sources activated at the first timing (Lighting state shown in fig. 21(c)) is smaller in zenith angle than the light source activated at the second timing (Lighting state shown in fig. 21(a)), the light source being different from the plurality of light sources ([0162]-[0163]).
Kumagai teaches an inspection device having a circular light arrangement. Ikeda teaches an inspection device having a hemispherical arrangement wherein the plurality of light sources at the first timing have a smaller zenith angle than the light source at the second timing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve Kumagai by applying the technique of Ikeda to achieve the predictable result of improving image analysis due to distorted field of curvature while also maximizing the inspection space using folded optics ([0164]).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumagai in view of Dordoni et al. (US 2016/0321796 A1) hereinafter referenced as Dordoni.
Regarding claim 9, Kumagai discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1), however, Kumagai, fails to explicitly disclose light sources activated at the first timing are smaller in power consumed than the light source activated at the second timing. However, the examiner maintains that it was well known in the art to provide this, as taught by Dordoni.
In a similar field of endeavor, Dordoni discloses wherein the plurality of light sources activated at the first timing (110, 112, 114; [0113]; fig. 4) are smaller in amount of power consumed than the light source (122, 124, 126; [0113]; fig. 4) activated at the second timing, different from the plurality of light sources (The power of each light source may be individually controlled. Therefore, the device is capable providing more power to the first light sources than the second; [0112]).
Kumagai teaches an inspection device having light patterns activated at different times. Dordoni teaches an inspection device having light patterns activated at different times wherein power supplied to each individual light source is controlled. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve Kumagai by applying the technique of Dordoni to achieve the predictable result of achieving the proper brightness of each object according to the desired inspection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Iwabuchi et al. (US 2025/0234097 A1) teaches an inspection device very similar to the instant application.
Cherry (US 2019/0353583 A1) teaches an inspection device having a plurality of light sources arranged hemispherically (fig. 4).
Skaff et al. (US 2015/0219557 A1) teaches an inspection device having a plurality of light sources arranged hemisphericaly (fig. 2).
Go (JP 2018-7034) teaches using a plurality of lights activated simultaneously for gloss detection.
Liu et al. (US 2015/0160128 A1) teaches an inspection device having a plurality of light sources arranged hemisphericaly (fig. 2).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL M BERARDESCA whose telephone number is (571)270-3579. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 10-8, Fri 10-2.
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, Sinh Tran can be reached at (571)272-7564. 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 M. BERARDESCA
Examiner
Art Unit 2637
/PAUL M BERARDESCA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2637 6/13/2026
Prosecution Insights