DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. This application is a Continuation application of No. PCT/JP2024/001807, filed on Jan. 23, 2024, and the PCT application is based upon and claims the benefit of priority from Japanese Patent Application No. 2023-008427, filed on Jan. 24, 2023, the entire contents of which are incorporated herein by reference.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 07/09/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
4. Claims 10, 14-17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 10 depends from claim 8 and recites 'the photographing control step.' However, claim 8 does not disclose or recite 'the photographing control step.' Therefore, claim 10 is unclear and vague. Furthermore, the limitations of claim 10 are identical to those of claim 9, rendering claim 10 duplicative.
The limitation “A method of manufacturing a ceramic ball...” as recited in claims 14-17 is unclear and vague. It appears to be drafted as an independent claim. Applicant is suggested to rewrite as a complete independent form.
Appropriate correction is required.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
5. 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.
6. 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: a surface defect inspection device; an arrangement unit; a photographing control unit; a detection unit ....in claim 20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
7. 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 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.
8. 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.
9. Claims 1, 3-10, 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yuji et al. (JP 2015/007617A) (hereinafter Yuji) (cited by IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Yuji discloses a surface defect inspection method for a ceramic sintered body including a spherical surface portion (e.g., see abstract; Figs. 1–3, 6–8, paragraphs 0023-0024), the method comprising:
an arrangement step of arranging the ceramic sintered body on an arrangement member having a plurality of spherical members (e.g., see Figs. 1–3, 6, 7, paragraphs 0026-0028, 0032: the ceramic sphere is supported by an arrangement member/retainer having four spherical support members);
a photographing control step of rotating the ceramic sintered body arranged on the arrangement member in response to rotation of the plurality of spherical members (e.g., see abstract, paragraphs 0023: When a sphere 10 is photographed from above with a camera while rotated at a fixed position, a sphere holder 40 is placed on a retainer 50 that rotatably retains four sp here support balls 53 by combining the balls into square, and the sphere 10 supported by the sphere holder 40 is replaced onto the center of the combination of the four sphere supp ort balls 53), photographing the ceramic sintered body, which is arranged on the arrangement member, from a plurality of directions, and acquiring a plurality of images (e.g., see Figs. 7-8, paragraphs 0036-0037, 0041-0045: the ceramic sphere is successively rotated to different orientations and photographed by a camera during the successive rotation operations); and
a detection step of detecting a surface defect of the ceramic sintered body based on the plurality of images (e.g., see Fig. 1, paragraphs 0024, 0037, 0046: a computer analyzes the image data obtained by photographing the ceramic sphere and detects a surface depression/defect).
Regarding claim 3, Yuji discloses the surface defect inspection method according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of images are images of a whole surface of the ceramic sintered body in a circumferential direction (e.g., see Figs. 7–8, paragraphs 0042-0046: the camera photographs successive circumferential portions of the ceramic sphere, and four S/4 portions are photographed to obtain image data corresponding to the entire surface of the sphere. In particular, paragraph 0042 describes the photographing range as S/4 of the circumference, and paragraph [0046] describes photographing four S/4 portions to obtain image data for the entire surface).
Regarding claim 4, Yuji discloses the surface defect inspection method according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of images are three or more images that are obtained by photographing the ceramic sintered body, which is arranged on the arrangement member, from three or more directions (e.g., see Fig. 8, paragraphs 0043-0046: the ceramic sphere is successively rotated to different orientations and the respective circumferential portions are photographed during the successive rotation operations. More particularly, paragraphs 0040-0045 describe successive photographing operations accompanied by rotation of the sphere, including rotation in the X and Y directions, and paragraph 0046 describes obtaining four image portions corresponding to the entire surface).
Regarding claim 5, Yuji discloses the surface defect inspection method according to claim 3, wherein the plurality of images are three or more images that are obtained by photographing the ceramic sintered body, which is arranged on the arrangement member, from three or more directions (e.g., see Fig. 8, paragraphs 0042-0046: the ceramic sphere is successively rotated through different orientations and four S/4 portions of the circumferential surface are photographed to obtain image data of the entire surface).
Regarding claim 6, Yuji discloses the surface defect inspection method according to claim 1, wherein in the photographing control step, photographing is performed while a photographing surface of the ceramic sintered body is illuminated (e.g., see Fig. 1, paragraphs 0036, 0048: Illumination devices 70 are positioned on opposite sides of the ceramic sphere and illuminate the sphere during photographing by camera 20. Paragraph 0036 describes camera 20 and illumination devices 70 positioned around the inspection position, while paragraph 0048 describes illumination during the photographing operation).
Regarding claim 7, Yuji discloses the surface defect inspection method according to claim 3, wherein in the photographing control step, photographing is performed while a photographing surface of the ceramic sintered body is illuminated (e.g., see Fig. 1, paragraphs 0036, 0048: illumination devices 70 illuminate the ceramic sphere during the photographing operations).
Regarding claim 8, Yuji discloses the surface defect inspection method according to claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of spherical members is a ceramic ball (e.g., see paragraph 0014: Yuji identifies a ceramic material as a preferred material for the spherical support members because of its wear resistance; also see paragraphs 0011-0016, 0018: supporting ball).
Regarding claim 9, Yuji discloses the surface defect inspection method according to claim 1, wherein in the photographing control step, by arranging the plurality of spherical members on a table and by sliding the table (e.g., see Figs. 1–3, 6–7, paragraphs 0026-0028, 0032: wherein four spherical support members are arranged in a square and supported by a retainer), the ceramic sintered body arranged on the plurality of spherical members is rotated (e.g., see Figs. 1–5, paragraphs 0033-0035: wherein an X-Y stage includes sliders that move in two directions, movement of the slider causes the four spherical support members to rotate, and rotation of the spherical support members is transmitted to the ceramic sphere, thereby rotating the ceramic sphere. In particular, paragraph 0033 describes the X-Y stage and sliders, while paragraph [0035] describes the rotation of the spherical support members in response to slider movement and transmission of that rotation to the ceramic sphere).
Regarding claim 10, it contains the limitations of claims 8 and 9, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to those claims.
Regarding claim 14, Yuji discloses a method of manufacturing a ceramic ball, the method comprising a step of applying a polishing process to a ceramic sintered body, which is determined to be a good product among a plurality of ceramic sintered bodies by the detection step of the surface defect inspection method according to claim 1 (e.g., see paragraphs 0022, 0037, 0046: polishing process and polishing finish of a ceramic spherical body).
Regarding claim 15, it contains the limitations of claims 11 and 14, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to those claims.
Regarding claim 16, it contains the limitations of claims 12 and 14, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to those claims.
Regarding claim 17, it contains the limitations of claims 13 and 14, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to those claims.
Regarding claim 18, Yuri discloses the method of manufacturing a ceramic ball according to claim 14, wherein the ceramic ball is formed with a silicon nitride sintered body (e.g., see paragraphs 0002, 0022: silicon nitride).
Regarding claim 19, it contains the limitations of claims 15 and 18, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to those claims.
Regarding claim 20, this claim is a surface defect inspection device claim of a method version as applied to claim 1 above, wherein the surface defect inspection device performs the same limitations cited in claim 1, the rejections of which are incorporated herein. Furthermore, Yuri discloses a surface defect inspection device (see Figs. 1-8).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. 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 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuji et al. (JP 2015/007617A) in view of Takushi et al., (JP2010271045A) (cited by IDS) (hereinafter Takushi).
Regarding claim 2, Yuri does not explicitly disclose surface defect inspection method according to claim 1, wherein in the photographing control step, the ceramic sintered body is photographed by controlling a line sensor camera.
However, Takushi discloses wherein in the photographing control step, the ceramic sintered body is photographed by controlling a line sensor camera (e.g., see (paragraphs 0012-0015: photographing a ceramic sphere using a line camera; paragraphs 19-22; Figs. 1-2, paragraphs 0023, 0025: line camera).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Yuri to add the teachings of Takushi as above, in order to provide improved visual inspection apparatus for determining the presence or absence of a defect in a spherical body, particularly a ceramic spherical body, used in a bearing, a ball valve (see paragraph 0001: Takushi).
14. Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuji et al. (JP 2015/007617A) in view of YUTAKA et al., (JP 2001163673A) (cited by IDS) (hereinafter YUTAKA).
Regarding claim 11, Yuji does not explicitly disclose the surface defect inspection method according to claim 1, wherein the ceramic sintered body is a ceramic ball having a band-shaped portion.
However, YUTAKA discloses wherein the ceramic sintered body is a ceramic ball having a band-shaped portion (e.g., see paragraphs 0011, 0015, 0023: band-shaped portion; also see Fig. 3, paragraphs 0027, 0032, 0050).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Yuri to add the teachings of YUTAKA as above, in order to provide a material for ceramic balls used in the manufacture of bearings and the like, and a method for manufacturing ceramic balls (see paragraph 0001: YUTAKA).
Regarding claim 12, it contains the limitations of claims 3 and 11, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to those claims.
Regarding claim 13, it contains the limitations of claims 7 and 11, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to those claims.
Conclusion
15. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ON MUNG whose telephone number is (571) 270-7557 and whose direct fax number is (571) 270-8557. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9am - 6pm (ET).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JAMIE ATALA can be reached on (571)272-7384. 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.
/ON S MUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486
