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 .
Claims 1-9 are pending.
Drawings
The objection to the drawings is withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The term "deep learning module to cloud server" in line 12 should read “deep learning module to the cloud server”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed Sept 2, 2025 have been fully considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection. Applicant's amendments necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim(s) 1-9 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation recites "A manufacturing intelligence service system connected to a Manufacturing Execution System (MES) in smart factory, the system comprising: at least one Manufacturing Execution System (MES)". The reference to "the system comprising" is indefinite as it does not indicate which of the two previously stated systems ("manufacturing intelligence service system" or "Manufacturing Execution System") it refers to. It is also unclear if the "Manufacturing Execution System (MES) in smart factory" is the same as the "at least one Manufacturing Execution System", or if they are separate MES systems in the manufacturing intelligence service system. The examiner is interpreting the limitation of “A manufacturing intelligence service system connected to a Manufacturing Execution System (MES) in a Smart factory, the system comprising: at least one Manufacturing Execution System (MES)” as being “A manufacturing intelligence service system connected to at least one Manufacturing Execution System (MES) in a Smart factory, the manufacturing intelligence service system comprising: the at least one Manufacturing Execution System (MES)”, and each of the dependent claims referring to “the system of claim 1” as referring to the manufacturing intelligence service system of claim 1. The meaning of the term is not clear from the claims or specification.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “each manufacturing company” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites “transmitting result data… to a user terminal via the agent server having each manufacturing company” in lines 15-16. It is unclear what the limitation “the agent server having each manufacturing company” is intended to convey. The Examiner is interpreting the phrase as being a user terminal via the agent server that is connected to the could server connected to the at least one Manufacturing Execution System of each manufacturing company. The meaning of the term is not clear from the claims or specification.
Dependent claims 2-9 are rejected based on dependence on claim 1.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “a production line of a Manufacturing Execution System (MES) of each manufacturing company” in line 2. The limitation has already been described in claim 1, so it is unclear if the limitation is a new instance or refers to the first instance. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as set forth in this office action.
Dependent claims 2-9 are allowable over art based on their dependence upon allowable claim 1.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Applicant’s claim defines over the prior art of record because the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, does not teach middleware that includes a product code transmission middleware and a deep learning middleware, where the cloud server collects the product ID and the product information and the product defect information of a connected machine vision production line of a manufacturing company product via the agent server and transmitting result data of foreign material existence inspection, shape inspection, and normal/defective determination performed on camera image data by a deep learning shape determination system and an Al deep learning module from cloud server to user terminal via the agent server.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID E OGG whose telephone number is (469) 295-9163. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Thurs 7:30 am - 5:00 pm CT.
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, Mohammad Ali can be reached on 571-272-4105. 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.
/DAVID EARL OGG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2119
Prosecution Insights