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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 4/30/2025 and 4/2/2026 were considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites, in the last line, “out-side” which should read “outside”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 5 and 6 are 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.
Regarding claim 5, the claim recites “wherein a first plane defined by the optical axes of the camera and the first light source is substantially orthogonal to a plane defined by the optical axes of the camera and the second light source.” The term “substantially” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "substantially" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what angle would be considered to fall within or outside the limits of “substantially orthogonal” because the optical axes of the light sources can be assigned by different parameters, for example, “optical axis can e.g. be a symmetry axis of the light emission from the light source, or, if the light is not distributed symmetrically, a direction corresponding to a centre of gravity of the light distribution” ([0015]). Thus, if the optical axes of the light sources 17 and 16 are not defined in the center of the light sources, the claimed planes would not be orthogonal as shown in Fig. 2. As such, for the purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted as a first plane defined by the optical axes of the camera and the first light source is at a nonzero angle to a plane defined by the optical axes of the camera and the second light source. Appropriate correctio is required.
Regarding claim 6, the claim recites “optionally wherein the length of the light source in the direction perpendicular to the optical axes is greater than the distance between the light source and an intersection of the optical axes.” The phrase "optionally" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Further, even if the limitation was considered, it is unclear which light source and optical axes “the light source” and “the optical axes” is referring to. Is it the first light source? Are the optical axes of the first light source and the camera? Or the optical axes of the first and second light source? For the purposes of examination, the limitations following "optionally" are not required by the claim. Appropriate correction is required
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2020152866 A1 by Karaki et al. (hereinafter "Karaki"; cited in the IDS; translation provided with this office action).
Regarding claim 1, Karaki teaches a surface inspection apparatus comprising ([001]; at least Fig. 1-4):
a) a camera ([016]; [020] illumination camera unit 130 including line sensor camera 135);
b) an actuator apparatus ([016] multi-joint/articulated robot 110) for displacing the camera relative to a surface to be inspected ([020] moving mechanism 120 is a mechanism that moves the articulated robot 110 in the left-right direction; moves along the surface of the inspection target S);
c) a first light source mounted to the actuator apparatus for joint displacement with the camera ([0025]; Fig. 3, 4; first lamp 132); and
d) a second light source ([025] third lamp 134) arranged so that an angle in which optical axes of the first and second light sources intersect is non-zero (Fig. 3; [027]-[029] The first lamp 132 is supported at a position and an orientation in which the optical axis L1 of the first lamp 132 matches the axis R13; [029] The third lamp 134 is supported at a position and orientation in which an angle θ2 between the optical axis L3 and the optical axis L2 of the third lamp 134 is 50 degrees; thus the angle the optical axes intersect is non-zero).
Regarding claim 2, Karaki teaches the surface inspection apparatus of claim 1, and further teaches wherein an angle in which optical axes of at least one of the light sources and of the camera intersect is above 30° and/or below 60° ([031] The line sensor camera 135 is supported at a position and orientation in which an angle θ3 between the optical axis L4 of the line sensor camera 135 and the optical axis L1 (axis R13) is 20 degrees. Thus, the first lamp is at a [028] θ3 between the optical axis L3 and the optical axis L2 of the third lamp 134 is 50 degrees, therefore the angle between the camera and the second light source is 70 degrees which is above 30 degrees and the thus the angle between the camera and the first light source is 20 degrees which is below 60 degrees. The examiner notes that the angle is not required to be both above 30 degrees and below 60 degrees due to the recitation of "and/or".)
Regarding claim 3, Karaki teaches the surface inspection apparatus of claim 1, and further teaches wherein emission ranges of the first and second light sources overlap the field of view of the camera in a same plane (Fig. 4 shows emission ranges of first lamp 132 and third lamp 134 overlap the field of view of the camera in the same plane of the surface to be inspected).
Regarding claim 6, Karaki teaches the surface inspection apparatus of claim 1, and further teaches wherein at least the first light source is elongate in a direction perpendicular to its optical axis and the optical axis of the camera ([0026] strip-shaped light emitting surface).
Regarding claim 7, Karaki teaches the surface inspection apparatus of claim 1, and further teaches wherein at least one of the light sources comprises a LED ([0026] plurality of LEDs).
Regarding claim 8, Karaki teaches the surface inspection apparatus of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the actuator apparatus is adapted to operate the first and second light sources by turns (see Fig. 2; [039] drive control unit 141 drives the articulated robot 110 to rotate the rotating body 112, the first arm 113 to the third arm 115, the second-2 arm 114B, and the third-2 arm 115B, respectively; the light sources are attached to the arm 115).
Regarding claim 9, Karaki teaches the surface inspection apparatus of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the actuator apparatus comprises a robot arm carrying the camera and the light sources, and a controller for the robot arm (Fig. 2; [039] drive control unit 141 drives the articulated robot 110).
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Karaki.
Regarding claim 4, Karaki teaches the surface inspection apparatus of claim 1, and further teaches wherein each light source is offset from the optical axis of the camera so that when the optical axis of the camera is normal to the surface to be inspected, a specular reflection of each light source on the surface is located out-side the field of view of the camera (Fig. 4 shows first lamp and third lamp are offset from camera 135 such that the specular reflection from the first and third lamp does not reach the camera; [0046] dark field illumination, the line sensor camera 135 images (scans) the inspection target S in the reflection dark field; compare to [045] The line sensor camera 135 receives the illumination light emitted from the second lamp 133 and specularly reflected by the surface of the inspection target S, due to the second lamp being the same angle from the optical axis.)
Even arguendo Karaki does not explicitly teach this configuration when the optical axis of the camera is normal to the surface to be inspected , it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. See MPEP 2144.04 Sec. V. C. It would have been well known and obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the light sources and camera in a similar configuration when the camera is normal to the surface instead of the first light source in order to efficiently perform dark field illumination.
Regarding claim 5, Karaki teaches the surface inspection apparatus of claim 1, and further teaches where the first and second light sources (lamps 132, 134) are horizontally displaced from the camera (see Fig. 4, camera 135) and the first and second light sources are vertically displaced from each other (see Fig. 3 lamp 134 above lamp 132). Thus, a first plane defined by the optical axes of the camera and the first light source is at a nonzero angle to a plane defined by the optical axes of the camera and the second light source (see 112b claim interpretation).
Even arguendo, Karaki does not explicitly teach wherein a first plane defined by the optical axes of the camera and the first light source is substantially orthogonal to a plane defined by the optical axes of the camera and the second light source, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. See MPEP 2144.04 Sec. V. C. It would have been well known and obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Karaki to include wherein a first plane defined by the optical axes of the camera and the first light source is substantially orthogonal to a plane defined by the optical axes of the camera and the second light source in order to achieve a desired illumination profile.
Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karaki in view of US20220291137A1 by Hiramatsu et al. (hereinafter "Hiramatsu").
Regarding claim 10, Karaki teaches a method of surface inspection, comprising ([001]; at least Fig. 1-4):
a) placing part of a surface to be inspected [020] surface of the inspection target S) at an intersection of optical axes of a camera ([016]; [020] illumination camera unit 130 including line sensor camera 135) and first and second light sources ([0025]; Fig. 3, 4; first lamp 132; third lamp 134);
b) obtaining a first image of the surface part illuminated by the first light source ([047] the lamp control unit 142 turns on the first lamp 132 and turns off the second lamp 133 and the third lamp 134; imaging operation);
c) switching off the first light source and switching on the second light source ([046] the lamp control unit 142 turns on the third lamp 134 and turns off the first lamp 132);
d) obtaining a second image of the surface part illuminated by the second light source ([046] causes the line sensor camera 135 to scan the inspection target S).
Although Karaki teaches to determine whether a feature observed in at least one of the images is indicative of a defect ([064] the image inspection unit 144 individually performs image processing on captured images of different illumination modes… to inspect whether there is a defect, and when even one defect is determined to be an inspection target Karaki does not explicitly teach thereafter deciding, based on a comparison of the first and second images, whether a feature observed in at least one of the images is indicative of a defect.
However, Hiramatsu does address this limitation. Hiramatsu and Karaki are considered to be analogous to the present invention as they are in the same field of defect inspection.
Hiramatsu teaches a method of surface inspection (Fig. 5), comprising:
a) placing part of a surface to be inspected at an intersection of optical axes of a camera and first and second light sources;
b) thereafter obtaining a first image of the surface part illuminated by the first light source (step S1; [0091] switches the light source A on, and acquires an image A by imaging the surface of the inspection object 10);
c) switching off the first light source and switching on the second light source (step S2-S3 [0092]-[0093] switches the light source A off; switches the light source B on);
d) thereafter obtaining a second image of the surface part illuminated by the second light source (step S3; [0093] switches the light source B on and acquires an image B by imaging the surface of the inspection object 10);
e) thereafter deciding, based on a comparison of the first and second images, whether a feature observed in at least one of the images is indicative of a defect (step S5-S6; [0095] generates an image C by subtracting a luminance profile SB of the image B from a luminance profile SA of the image A; [0096] image C is an example of a third image and contains information about the texture such as the gloss; [0104] in image C, the contrast of the defect is emphasized, thus showing whether at least one of the images is indicative of a defect; [0107] calculates a difference between the light component that is reflected by the specular reflection and the light component that is reflected by the diffuse reflection, that is, generates the image C related to the luminance profile SA-SB; calculating a difference is a type of comparison between the two images).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to switch on and off light sources to acquire images and determine the presence of defects based on a comparison of the images. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Karaki to explicitly include b) thereafter obtaining a first image of the surface part illuminated by the first light source; c) switching off the first light source and switching on the second light source; d) thereafter obtaining a second image of the surface part illuminated by the second light source; e) thereafter deciding, based on a comparison of the first and second images, whether a feature observed in at least one of the images is indicative of a defect as suggested by Hiramatsu in order to perform a more robust inspection where the contrast of the defect is emphasized so that the unevenness is likely to be conspicuous, thus easier to detect (Hiramatsu [0104]).
Regarding claim 11, Karaki modified by Hiramatsu teaches the method of claim 10, and Karaki further teaches comprising the step of determining a size of the defect ([055] The image inspecting unit 144 performs a labeling process on black (white specular illumination) or white (dark cathodic illumination and dark field illuminating in the same direction) pixels in the binarized image to collect a collection of black or white pixels if it is larger than a predetermined area, it is determined that there is a defect.; thus the size of the defect is determined).
Further, even if Karaki does not explicitly teach determining a size of the feature at least when the feature is found to be indicative of a defect, Hiramatsu does address this limitation.
Hiramatsu teaches determining a size of the feature at least when the feature is found to be indicative of a defect ([0113] frame 105A illustrated in FIG. 7B is generated by the processor 101 (See FIG. 3) depending on, for example, the shape or size of the defect that appears at the location).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the size of defect. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Karaki to include determining a size of the feature at least when the feature is found to be indicative of a defect as suggested by Hiramatsu in order to efficiently identify defects to be checked by the operator ([0112]-[0113]).
Regarding claim 12, Karaki modified by Hiramatsu teaches the method of claim 10, and Karaki further teaches wherein while the first and second light sources are being operated by turns (see Fig. 2; [039] drive control unit 141 drives the articulated robot 110 to rotate the rotating body 112, the first arm 113 to the third arm 115, the second-2 arm 114B, and the third-2 arm 115B, respectively; the light sources are attached to the arm 115), the camera and the first and second light sources are being displaced continuously ([039] , The illumination camera unit 130 is moved along the surface of the inspection target S).
Regarding claim 13, Karaki modified by Hiramatsu teaches the method of claim 10, and Karaki further teaches wherein at least the first light source is elongate in a direction perpendicular to its optical axis ([0026] strip-shaped light emitting surface), and wherein between instants in which the first and second images are taken, the camera and the light sources are displaced in the direction ([036] The sequential imaging of the inspection target S while the line sensor camera 135 moves along the inspection target S as described above is also referred to as scanning. As the imaging while moving, the movement may be temporarily stopped at the time of imaging).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karaki in view of Hiramastu as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of WO 2021176389 A1 by Raspone et al. (hereinafter "Raspone"; cited in the IDS; translation provided with this office action).
Regarding claim 14, Karaki modified by Hiramatsu teaches the method of claim 10, but Karaki does not explicitly teach wherein the surface to be inspected is a freshly painted surface.
However, Raspone does address this limitation. Raspone and Karaki are considered to be analogous to the present invention as they are in the same field of defect inspection.
Raspone teaches wherein the surface to be inspected is a freshly painted surface ([019] detecting surface defects on an object 11, for example a painted body of a motor vehicle).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use surface inspection method on a freshly painted surface for defects. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Karaki to include wherein the surface to be inspected is a freshly painted surface as suggested by Raspone in order apply the well-known defect inspection method to painted surfaces which often have irregularities on the surface (Raspone [003]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20220011241 A1 by Ono teaches a surface-defect detecting method of optically detecting a surface defect of a steel material, where Fig. 20 shows the light sources 2 a and 2 b are installed so that the irradiation directions of illumination light beams are different from each other by 90° and the side closer to a light source is dark and the side farther from the light source is bright for a concave surface defect, or the side closer to the light source is bright and the side farther from the light source is dark for a convex surface defect ([0114]).
US 20190178812 A1 by Richard teaches a surface inspection system where the light sources are offset from the camera to avoid specular reflection. ([0009] As the surface of the sheet element to be inspected is here assumed as being glossy, the reflection of the light coming from the two light sources is in theory specular if the surface is assumed to be a mirror and in practice close to specular. Thus, the reflected light originating from the upper light source passes the camera on its upper side, and the reflected light originating from the lower light source passes the camera on its lower side.)
CN112748120A by Lin teaches The first light source 311 and the second light source 312 are at a predetermined angle to form a cross light source. The presence of the crossed light source ensures that defects on the object 34 to be inspected can also be imaged by the corresponding industrial camera when their defect direction is parallel to the light source (Abstract)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAITLYN E KIDWELL whose telephone number is (703)756-1719. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. 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.
/KAITLYN E KIDWELL/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights