DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . The Amendment filed 27 August 2025 (hereinafter “the Amendment”) has been entered and considered. Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 1-27, all the claims pending in the application, are rejected. All new grounds of rejection set forth in the present action were necessitated by Applicant’s claim amendments; accordingly, this action is made final.
Response to Amendment
In view of the amendments to independent claim 1, the previously applied prior art rejections are withdrawn. However, the combination of Algranati and Lipson is maintained; thus, the Examiner will address Applicant’s arguments regarding this combination of references.
On pages 7-8 of the Amendment, Applicant alleges that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have combined the teachings of Algranati and Lipson because the references “pursue different goals (global vs. component optimization)”. In support of this assertion, Applicant argues that Algranati discloses modifying a defect detection process at an article-wide parameter level, whereas Lipson modifies the defect detection process at the individual part level. Applicant thus concludes that the combination would introduce conflict because “it is unclear whether inspection should prioritize global parameter tuning or local model revision”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees and maintains that the combination of references renders independent claim 1 obvious.
Initially, the Examiner notes that the references do not “pursue different goals”, as the Applicant alleges. On the contrary, both Algranati and Lipson are directed to image-based printed circuit board (PCB) inspection (see Abstract of each reference). Thus, Algranati and Lipson both pursue the same goal of non-destructive defect detection in inspection articles, contrary to Applicant’s assertions.
The Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s point that the manner of pursuing the common goal differs between the references. However, according to MPEP 2145(X)(D)(I): “the prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed….” That Algranati and Lipson teach alternative methods of inspection does not render the claim nonobvious.
Furthermore, Applicant has failed to provide any evidence of how the proposed modification would “introduce conflict” beyond noting the different manner of inspection. Why, precisely, can’t the two methods of inspection be performed together, one-after-another, for example? Why, specifically, could Lipson’s component optimization be performed as the automatically modifying of the inspection plan in place of Algranati’s global approach?
Both Algranati and Lipson disclose are directed to image-based printed circuit board (PCB) inspection (see Abstract of each reference). Both references disclose that an inspection plan is updated responsive to inspection results ([0038-0046, 0059-0061] and Fig. 3 of Algranati and Fig. 2, element 64 of Lipson). As noted in the previous Office Action, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Algranati such that the inspection plan is modified – responsive to poor inspection results – to revise a specific model or set of models for a problem part such that the inspection of the problem part is performed differently from the inspection of parts of the same type as the problem part, as taught by Lipson, to arrive at the claimed invention. Such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. More specifically, Algranati’s inspection plan adjustment as modified by Lipson’s component-specific inspection plan adjustment can yield a predictable result of dynamically learning to handle “problem components” since Lipson teaches the same (pages 19-20). Thus, a person of ordinary skill would have appreciated including in Algranati’s dynamic inspection plan algorithm the ability to re-inspect specific components since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
For all the foregoing reasons, the combination of Algranati and Lipson is maintained.
On page 8 of the Amendment. Applicant argues that the proposed combination of Algranati and Lipson does not teach or suggest the newly added features of independent claim 1. This argument is rendered moot in view of the new grounds of rejection set forth below.
On page 9 of the Amendment, Applicant contends that Lipson’s teaching of inspection being performed at different stages of the manufacturing flow does not teach that inspection operations are modified because of a manufacturing parameter, thus concluding that the applied references do not teach or suggest the features of claim 22. However, the claim language does not require that the manufacturing parameter is the direct cause of the modification of inspection parameters, as Applicant’s argument implies. Rather, the claim recites “that said automatically modifying comprises modifying in response to a manufacture parameter of said item or a part thereof”. Thus, the broad claim language allows for an interpretation in which the modification is informed by a manufacturing parameter. Lipson discloses that the modified inspection process may result in re-performing a previous stage of manufacture (Fig. 22 and pages 66-67). That is, Lipson discloses that the automatic modification of the inspection is informed by the stage of manufacture and thus reads on the broad claim language. If Applicant believes that Lipson does not teach or suggest that the manufacturing parameter is the direct cause of the automatic modifying, then the Examiner proposes amending the claim to recite the same in order to make the scope of the claim commensurate with Applicant’s argument.
On page 9 of the Amendment, Applicant contends that Lipson’s disclosure that a structural model describes relations between parts for confirmation of the presence of a part does not teach or suggest that the inspection plan assigns operations based on the location of a discrete element relative to a subpart, thus concluding that the features of claim 27 are not taught. Here, the Applicant appears to note a distinction without a difference. How can the inspection plan assign operations of a part that is not present? Stated another way, the confirmation of the presence of a part is required in order to assign inspection thereof. Thus, Lipson’s assigning of inspection operations is done according to the relative location between the subpart and the part which reads on the broad claim language of claim 27. Importantly, the broad linking language “according to” in the claim does not preclude the above interpretation of Lipson. If Applicant believes that the relationship between Lipson’s use of the structural model and the assignment of inspection operations is different from that of the disclosed invention, the Examiner recommends amending the claim to recite more narrow language linking the two in order to make the scope of the claim commensurate with Applicant’s argument.
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, 3, 5-8, 10, 12-13, 18-22, 24-25 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0281548 to Algranati et al. (cited in the IDS filed 2/18/21; hereinafter “Algranati”) in view of WO2002088688 to Lipson et al. (cited in the IDS filed 7/4/24; hereinafter “Lipson”) and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0304261 to Takahashi et al. (hereinafter “Takahashi”).
As to independent claim 1, Algranati discloses a method of automatic inspection of instances of an item of manufacture (Abstract and [0002] discloses that Algranati is directed to establishing a parameters setup for automatically inspecting a plurality of articles, such as printed circuits, semiconductor devices, or complex mechanical elements), comprising: (a) providing an inspection plan for said instances of said item of manufacture ([0033] discloses selecting an initial set of parameters for automatic optical inspection of an article, and [0042] discloses that subsequent articles in a batch are further inspected based on a modified plan of inspection; the inspection process which utilizes the initial set of parameters is interpreted as an inspection plan); (b) detecting a defect with an automated process ([0033-0034] discloses using the initial set of parameters to perform automatic optical inspection of the article to arrive at a map of detected defects): (i) inspecting at least one instance of the item of manufacture using at least one camera and following said inspection plan ([0033] discloses using the initial set of parameters to perform automatic optical inspection of the article; [0060] discloses that the optical inspection utilizes an optical sensor sensitive to visible, color or gray-level light; an ordinarily skilled artisan would recognize such a sensor as a camera); (ii) automatically identifying a plurality of defects in said at least one instance of the item of manufacture ([0034] discloses acquiring a defect map of the article based on the automatic optical inspection of the article); (c) automatically modifying said automated process in response to at least one defect of said plurality of defects being detected ([0038-0042] discloses a heuristic approach which forms a new parameters setup by automatically choosing among different combinations of parameters to identify the combination that provides the best defect detection results of the article using a cost function); and (d) repeating said (b)-(c) using said modified automated process for at least one of the instances of the item of manufacture ([0043-0046] discloses re-inspecting the same article with the new set of parameters to receive a new defect map with better detection results, and that this iterative process is repeated for refining the tuning of parameters; [0042] discloses that subsequent articles in the batch are inspected using the new set of parameters that form the modified inspection plan).
Algranati discloses that the inspection system chooses locations (at which elements of the inspection object are located) to elaborate and defects are detected in these inspected areas ([0059-0061]; see Fig. 3). However, Algranati does not expressly disclose the item comprising a plurality of discrete elements of different types, the item including a plurality of discrete elements of a same type, wherein said inspection plan refers to said discrete elements of different types and assigns a different inspection operation for different types of discrete elements and a same inspection operation to at least two discrete elements of a same type; wherein the automatically modifying is performed in response to manufacturing process data associated with a region in which at least one defect of said plurality of defects is detected, the at least one defect being related to a first discrete element from a plurality of discrete elements of a selected type, wherein said detecting comprises applying operations which said inspection plan assigns with reference to each of said referred to elements; and the automatically modifying comprises modifying the inspecting of said first discrete element in a first manner in response to detecting said at least one defect, and with respect to inspection operations and/or parameters defined therefor, such that a second discrete element from said plurality of discrete elements of said selected type is to be inspected in a second manner distinct from said first manner.
Lipson, like Algranati, is directed to image-based printed circuit board (PCB) inspection (Abstract, last paragraph on page 11 through second full paragraph on page 12). In particular, Lipson discloses generating an initial inspection plan for a particular PCB, wherein the inspection plan is “initialized with default models for each component type” (last full paragraph on page 18). Lipson discloses that “in the inspection plan each reference designator specifies a particular, unique location on the printed circuit board as well as a particular part which is to be located [at] that board position” (first paragraph on page 27). For a particular part type, the models are loaded into the inspection plan, the system acquires a picture of the part, and the models for that particular part type are used for inspection (See Fig. 6A). For example, a “model is applied to all ‘placed images’ of the same part type” (232 of Fig. 14A and last full paragraph on page 41).
Lipson, like Algranati, also contemplates a scenario in which an inspection plan is updated responsive to inspection results (Fig. 2, element 64). Specifically, once the basic inspection plan is generated and used to perform inspection (56-58 of Fig. 2 and corresponding description), the inspection plan is augmented based on observations from the inspection (64-66 of Fig. 2 and corresponding description). If the results of the inspection “do not yield good results for one or more components…the learn step is implemented” (last paragraph on page 19). The inspection system “identifies a problem inspecting a particular part (or stated differently…the model yields poor results in inspecting a specific part)” and asks the user whether the variation in appearance between the problem part and “other parts of this kind” is normal (second full paragraph on page 20). The learning process results in “a revised specific model or set of models for that part which the system identified as a problem part”, and the inspection plan for the problem component is updated (third full paragraph on page 20).
In summary, Lipson discloses that the item comprising a plurality of discrete elements of different types, the item including a plurality of discrete elements of a same type, wherein said inspection plan refers to said discrete elements of different types and assigns a different inspection operation for different types of discrete elements and a same inspection operation to at least two discrete elements of a same type; wherein said detecting comprises applying operations which said inspection plan assigns with reference to each of said referred to elements (first paragraph on page 27 discloses that, in the inspection plan each reference designator specifies a particular, unique location on the printed circuit board as well as a particular part which is to be located at that board position; last full paragraph on page 18 discloses that the inspection plan is initialized with different default models for different component types; 232 of Fig. 14A and last full paragraph on page 41 and Fig. 6A discloses that the models for a particular part type are used for inspection of discrete parts of the same part type); wherein the automatically modifying is performed in response to , and the automatically modifying comprises modifying the inspecting of a first discrete element from a plurality of discrete elements of a selected type in a first manner in response to detecting said at least one defect, and with respect to inspection operations and/or parameters defined therefor, such that a second discrete element from said plurality of discrete elements of said selected type is to be inspected in a second manner distinct from said first manner (pages 19-20 disclose that, responsive to poor inspection results (analogous to Algranati’s defect detection), the inspection system identifies a problem inspecting a specific part relative to other parts of the same type, and revises a specific model or set of models for that problem part, and the inspection plan for the problem component is updated such that the problem part is inspected differently from other parts of the same type).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Algranati such that the article for inspection (PCB in both references) includes discrete parts of different types and discrete parts of a same type, wherein the inspection plan includes references to particular parts and their locations along with different models applied to the inspection process of each part of different types, and wherein the inspection plan is modified – responsive to poor inspection results – to revise a specific model or set of models for a problem part such that the inspection of the problem part is performed differently from the inspection of parts of the same type as the problem part, as taught by Lipson, to arrive at the claimed invention discussed above. Such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. It is predictable that the proposed modification would have improved overall inspection results by virtue of dynamically learning to handle “problem components”.
The proposed combination of Algranati and Lipson does not expressly disclose that the automatically modifying is performed in response to manufacturing process data associated with a region in which the at least one defect is detected.
Takahashi, like Algranati and Lipson, is directed to detecting defects on a semiconductor wafer (Abstract and [0002]). Takahashi discloses that different areas of the surface of the wafer may be prioritized for inspection based on a degree of density of manufactured patterns on the wafer ([0032-0038]). For example, regions in which patterns are very dense are assigned a higher priority of inspection than regions in which patterns are not dense (Id.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the proposed combination of Algranati and Lipson such that the adjustment to the inspection plan is performed in response to manufacturing process data that indicates the density of patterns in a region on the wafer, as taught by Takahashi, to arrive at the claimed invention discussed above. Such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. It is predictable that the proposed modification would have “suppress[ed] an inspection precision from being lowered by discarding some defect data” ([0063] of Takahashi).
As to claim 3, Lipson further teaches that said inspecting comprises inspecting using a plurality of inspection modules, each pertaining to a different certain component and/or context (last paragraph on page 13 through first full paragraph on page 14 discloses that a separate module is utilized for each part such that a plurality of modules are used during the inspection process, each module including multiple models for the respective part).
As to claim 5, Algranati further discloses that said automatically modifying comprises modifying one or more settings of said automatically identifying ([0038-0042] discloses a heuristic approach which forms a new parameters setup by automatically choosing among different combinations of parameters to identify the combination that provides the best defect detection results of the article using a cost function).
As to claim 6, Algranati further discloses that said automatically modifying comprises modifying said inspection plan ([0038-0042] discloses a heuristic approach which forms a new parameters setup by automatically choosing among different combinations of parameters to identify the combination that provides the best defect detection results of the article using a cost function; the inspection process which utilizes the set of parameters is interpreted as the inspection plan).
As to claim 7, Algranati further discloses that said automatically modifying comprises modifying a quality of inspection at one or more parts of said item ([0059-0060] discloses that the inspection system chooses locations to elaborate and defects are detected in the inspected areas; [0046] discloses that the elaboration includes using higher resolution (quality) images for the inspection of the particular locations).
As to claim 8, Algranati further discloses that said automatically identifying comprises automatically identifying one or more of surface defects, label defects, screws and connectors to verify a condition ([0034] discloses acquiring a defect map (indictive of a condition) of the article based on the automatic optical inspection; Figs. 2-3 show that the defects are located at the surface of the article).
Algranati does not expressly disclose that the identifying is to verify a presence and condition of an element from said plurality of elements. However, Lipson discloses identifying to verify a presence and condition of an element from said plurality of elements (first full paragraph on page 32 discloses that the structure model decides if the part is present; third and fourth paragraphs on page 36 discloses that the image model determines variances (a condition) between imaged parts and the model). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Algranati to verify the presence and condition of elements as part of the inspection plan, as taught by Lipson, to arrive at the claimed invention discussed above. Such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. It is predictable that the proposed modification would have made for a more robust inspection by virtue of checking both the presence of a part and its condition, rather than only its condition.
As to claim 10, Algranati further discloses that said inspection plan refers to a reference object ([0047, 0061] discloses that the defect detection mechanism may compare its results to a reference article having correct form stored in a database).
As to claim 12, Algranati further discloses that said automatically modifying comprises automatically modifying using machine learning ([0016-0017, 0041] discloses that the automatic modification of the parameter setup is performed using machine learning).
As to claim 13, Algranati further discloses that said automatically modifying comprises automatically modifying in response to human input ([0036-0037] discloses that a user may decide whether each defect is critical or not which facilitates the automatic parameter tuning).
As to claim 18, Algranati further discloses that said automatically modifying comprises predicting quality of inspection based on settings of said inspecting ([0039] discloses reprocessing the stored images using different sets of parameters to simulate different defect maps (thereby predicting the quality of inspection for each set of parameter) in order to perform the automatic parameter tuning).
As to claim 19, Algranati does not expressly disclose that said inspecting comprises measuring a part of said item of manufacture. However, Lipson discloses that said inspecting comprises measuring a part of said item of manufacture (second full paragraph on page 26 discloses that “the geometry model can measure the true dimensions of the part and its subparts”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Algranati to perform measurements of the dimensions of parts, as taught by Lipson, to arrive at the claimed invention discussed above. Such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. It is predictable that the proposed modification would have made the inspection system more robust by virtue of further evaluating the article for inspection.
As to claim 20, Algranati does not expressly disclose generating said inspection plan based on one or both of an enrollment process and a CAD model. However, Lipson teaches generating said inspection plan based on one or both of an enrollment process and a CAD model (last full paragraph on page 18 discloses that “the inspection plan is generated…by taking in board specific information…in the form of computer aided design (CAD) data”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Algranati to generate the inspection plan according to CAD data, as taught by Lipson, to arrive at the claimed invention discussed above. Such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. It is predictable that the proposed modification would have improved inspection results since the design data used to manufacture the part under inspection would be used as part of the inspection.
As to claim 21, the proposed combination of Algranati and Lipson further teaches that said generating comprises automatically generating at least one inspection requirement based on said CAD model (pages 18-19 of Lipson discloses that the inspection step is a board-specific step, wherein the board specific information is in the form of CAD data). The reasons for combining the references are the same as those discussed above in conjunction with claim 20.
As to claim 22, Algranati does not expressly disclose that said automatically modifying comprises modifying in response to a manufacture parameter of said item or a part thereof. However, Lipson teaches that said automatically modifying comprises modifying in response to a manufacture parameter of said item or a part thereof (Fig. 22 and pages 66-67 disclose that the inspection processes disclosed by Lipson are applied at multiple stages of manufacture – after solder paste is applied, after components are placed, and after solder reflow – and the inspection may result in re-performing a previous stage of manufacture; thus, the learning process which modifies the inspection plan is based on the manufacturing parameters at each stage of manufacture). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Algranati to perform the modifying in response to manufacture parameters of the PCB, as taught by Lipson, to arrive at the claimed invention discussed above. Such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. It is predictable that the proposed modification would have improved manufacturing results by virtue of feedback provided at each stage of manufacture.
As to claim 24, Algranati further discloses that said automatically modifying comprises modifying one or both of a number and quality of images acquired according to said inspection plan of a part of said item ([0046] discloses that the automatic parameter tuning involves using higher resolution (quality) images for the inspection).
As to claim 25, Algranati further discloses that said automatically modifying comprises modifying in response to identifying a part of said item or a property of a part of said item ([0038-0042] automatically tuning the parameters setup in response to defect maps of the article, the defect maps representing a property (defect) of various parts (according to the map) of the article).
As to claim 27, Algranati does not expressly disclose that said applying comprises applying operations which inspection plan assigns according to a location of a discrete element of said plurality of discrete elements relative to a subpart of said item of manufacture. However, Lipson discloses that said applying comprises applying operations which inspection plan assigns according to a location of a discrete element of said plurality of discrete elements relative to a subpart of said item of manufacture (last full paragraph on page 34 and second full paragraph on page 37 discloses that the structural model applied in the inspection describes the relations between parts and if the relation properties are satisfied, the structural model indicates the part is present). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Algranati to perform inspection based on the relative locations between parts, as taught by Lipson, to arrive at the claimed invention discussed above. Such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been to confirm the presence of the parts in addition to the condition of the parts, thereby arriving at a more robust inspection.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Algranati in view of Lipson and Takahashi and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0283847 to Aikawa et al. (hereinafter “Aikawa”).
As to claim 2, the proposed combination of Algranati, Lipson and Takahashi does not expressly disclose automatically selecting which images to use for said inspecting.
Aikawa, like Algranati, is directed to image-based defect inspection (Abstract). Aikawa discloses that an image for inspection must meet a quality threshold before being selected for inspection ([0211]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the proposed combination of Algranati, Lipson and Takahashi to automatically select only images that meet a quality threshold for inspection, as taught by Aikawa, to arrive at the claimed invention discussed above. Such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been to ensure accurate defect detection.
Claims 4, 9, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Algranati in view of Lipson and Takahashi and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0298901 to Derrien et al. (hereinafter “Derrien”).
As to claim 4, the proposed combination of Algranati, Lipson and Takahashi does not expressly disclose that said inspection plan includes a trajectory of movement of said item relative to said at least one camera, said modifying comprising modifying said trajectory.
Derrien, like Algranati, is directed to image-based inspection of a part by comparing features of the imaged part with those stored in a database (Abstract). Derrien teaches that said inspection plan includes a trajectory of movement of said item relative to said at least one camera ([0009, 0089-0091] discloses an initial inspection plan including an initial path for the camera relative to the zones of the surface of the part), said modifying comprising modifying said trajectory ([0009, 0092-0098] discloses defining a new path for the camera that enable images to be acquired using the optimized optical parameters).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the proposed combination of Algranati, Lipson and Takahashi to include within the initial inspection plan a trajectory of the camera relative to the part to be inspected and to modify that trajectory, as taught by Derrien, to arrive at the claimed invention discussed above. Such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. It is predictable that the proposed modification would have avoided over-exposure or under-exposure of the image zones ([0069] of Derrien).
As to claim 9, the proposed combination of Algranati, Lipson and Takahashi does not expressly disclose that said inspection plan includes a sequence of inspection instructions, each inspection instruction specifying: one or more of position, orientation and activation of an optical head and an illumination setting.
However, Derrien discloses that said inspection plan includes a sequence of inspection instructions, each inspection instruction specifying: one or more of position, orientation and activation of an optical head and an illumination setting ([0009, 0066-0068] discloses an initial inspection plan including an initial path for the lighting source 26 (necessarily including an optical head) relative to the zones of the surface of the part and optical parameters according to which the images are captured).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the proposed combination of Algranati, Lipson and Takahashi to include within the initial inspection plan instructions for an initial path of the lighting source and optical settings, as taught by Derrien, to arrive at the claimed invention discussed above. Such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. It is predictable that the proposed modification would have identified zones of over-exposure and under-exposure to avoid in the inspection process ([0069] of Derrien).
As to claim 15, the proposed combination of Algranati, Lipson and Takahashi does not expressly disclose that said inspecting comprises inspecting using at least one camera mounted on a robotic arm and configured to move relative to said item of manufacture to provide said inspection. However, Derrien teaches that said inspecting comprises inspecting using at least one camera mounted on a robotic arm and configured to move relative to said item of manufacture to provide said inspection ([0009, 0066-0068, 0089-0091] discloses an initial inspection plan including an initial path for the camera 24 relative to the zones of the surface of the part; Fig. 1 shows that the camera 24 is mounted to a robot arm 18). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the proposed combination of Algranati and Lipson to mount the camera on a robot arm configured to move relative to the part during inspection, as taught by Derrien, to arrive at the claimed invention discussed above. Such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. It is predictable that the proposed modification would have provided a variety of angles of inspection.
As to claim 16, the proposed combination of Algranati, Lipson and Takahashi does not expressly disclose that said inspecting comprises inspecting using a maneuverable device to provide relative movement between said at least one camera and said item of manufacture. However, Derrien teaches that said inspecting comprises inspecting using at maneuverable device to provide relative movement between said at least one camera and said item of manufacture ([0009, 0066-0068, 0089-0091] discloses an initial inspection plan including an initial path for the camera 24 relative to the zones of the surface of the part; Fig. 1 shows that the camera 24 is mounted to a robot arm 18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the proposed combination of Algranati, Lipson and Takahashi to mount the camera on a robot arm configured to move relative to the part during inspection, as taught by Derrien, to arrive at the claimed invention discussed above. Such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. It is predictable that the proposed modification would have provided a variety of angles of inspection.
As to claim 17, the proposed combination of Algranati, Lipson and Takahashi does not expressly disclose automatically generating a trajectory and camera settings for said robotic arm and said camera. However, Derrien teaches automatically generating a trajectory and camera settings for said robotic arm and said camera ([0069-0076] discloses automatically identifying optimized optical settings and a path for said camera 24 which is mounted and controlled by robot arm 18; See Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the proposed combination of Algranati, Lipson and Takahashi to automatically generate the path of the camera and optical settings, as taught by Derrien, to arrive at the claimed invention discussed above. Such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. It is predictable that the proposed modification would have avoided over-exposure and under-exposure ([0068] of Derrien).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Algranati in view of Lipson and Takahashi and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0288219 to Zafar et al. (hereinafter “Zafar”).
As to claim 11, the proposed combination of Algranati, Lipson and Takahashi does not expressly disclose that said inspection plan refers to a best practices database.
Zafar, like Algranati, is directed to image-based defect inspection (Abstract). Zafar discloses that parameters in the inspection process may be altered based on a rules database ([0490]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the proposed combination of Algranati, Lipson and Takahashi to refer to a rules database to form the inspection plan, as taught by Zafar, to arrive at the claimed invention discussed above. Such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. It is predictable that the proposed modification would have improved defect capture rates ([0490] of Zafar).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Algranati in view of Lipson and Takahashi and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,815,198 to Vachtsevanos et al. (cited in the IDS filed 2/18/21; hereinafter “Vachtsevanos”).
As to claim 14, the proposed combination of Algranati, Lipson and Takahashi does not expressly disclose that said inspecting comprises inspecting using at least one fixed camera. However, Vachtsevanos discloses that it was well known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform image-based inspection using at least one camera fixedly mounted to a frame (col. 28, lines 49-61 and Fig. 15). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the proposed combination of Algranati, Lipson and Takahashi to perform the inspection using a fixed camera, as taught by Vachtsevanos, to arrive at the claimed invention discussed above. Such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. It is predictable that the proposed modification would have provided clear images by avoiding camera shake.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Algranati in view of Lipson and Takahashi in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0061620 to Doe et al. (hereinafter “Doe”).
As to claim 23, the proposed combination of Algranati, Lipson and Takahashi does not expressly disclose that said automatically modifying comprises modifying in response to a marking on said item or a part thereof. However, Doe discloses that it was well known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify inspection recipes based on the identification of marks ([0026] and claim 17). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the proposed combination of Algranati, Lipson and Takahashi to modify the inspection recipe in response to detecting a marking, as taught by Doe, to arrive at the claimed invention discussed above. Such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. It is predictable that the proposed modification would have made the inspection robust to process variation ([0026] of Doe).
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Algranati in view of Lipson and Takahashi in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,687,398 to Kriwet et al. (hereinafter “Kriwet”).
As to claim 26, the proposed combination of Algranati, Lipson and Takahashi does not expressly disclose that said applying comprises applying operations which said inspection plan assigns according to a quality requirement of a type of discrete element.
Kriwet, like Algranati, is directed to image-based inspection of parts (Abstract). Kriwet discloses that it was well known in the part inspection arts to set different quality tolerances for different sorts of parts and different criteria of the parts (col. 2, line 63 to col. 3, line 8 and col. 7, line 38 to col. 8, line 33). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the proposed combination of Algranati, Lipson and Takahashi to apply an inspection plan that assigns different quality tolerances for different criteria or sorts of parts, as taught by Kriwet, to arrive at the claimed invention discussed above. Such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. It is predictable that the proposed modification would have been to “perform optimum adaptation” (col. 2, lines 38-40 of Kriwet).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN M CONNER whose telephone number is (571)272-1486. The examiner can normally be reached 10 AM - 6 PM Monday through Friday, and some Saturday afternoons.
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, Greg Morse can be reached at (571) 272-3838. 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.
/SEAN M CONNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2663