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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claim 9 is noted to recite updating the second threshold value, such that “the second threshold value is proportional to at least one of a variation in the correction feature of each of one or more defect candidate areas included in the evaluation target image, a maximum value of the correction feature of the one or more defect candidate areas, and a number of iterations of the defect estimation image generation processing”.
Examiner notes that the claimed phrase “at least one of x, y, or z” is treated with its plain meaning as a conjunctive list and equivalent to “at least one of x, and at least one of y, and at least one of z”, absent evidence to the contrary from the specification or prosecution history. If the plain meaning is inconsistent with the specification and the specification shows that the meaning “and” is in fact meant to connote a disjunctive “or”, then the “and” should be treated as a disjunctive “or” for purposes of the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification (“at least one of x, or at least one of y, or at least one of z”). See MPEP 2111.01 and SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 69 U.S.P.Q.2d 1865 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
As claim 9 recites a “at least one of” conjunctive “and” list, each element of the list is understood to be required to be proportional to the updated second threshold value. However, as “variation in the correction feature of each of one or more defect candidate areas included in the evaluation target image”, “maximum value of the correction feature of the one or more defect candidate areas”, and “number of iterations of the defect estimation image generation processing” are understood to be separate and independent values, the claim does not indicate how the updated second threshold value would be simultaneously proportional to the three separate and independent values.
The corresponding disclosure at specification paragraphs [0088] and [0145], recite similar language with claim 9 and does not provide additional details on how the updated second threshold value would be simultaneously proportional to the three separate and independent values.
Thus, the claim 9 subject matter are not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
For the purposes of further treating the Application on the merits, the Examiner assumes that the “at least one of” conjunctive “and” list of claim 9 is intended to be interpreted as a disjunctive “or” list, equivalent to “the second threshold value is proportional to at least one of a variation in the correction feature of each of one or more defect candidate areas included in the evaluation target image, a maximum value of the correction feature of the one or more defect candidate areas, or a number of iterations of the defect estimation image generation processing”.
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 4 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.
Claim 4 is noted to recite, “the termination condition is at least one condition of: a number of iterations of the defect estimation image generation processing being equal to or greater than a predetermined number; a number of defect candidate areas included in the defect estimation image being equal to or smaller than a predetermined number; and a number of times the defect estimation image generated during previous execution of the defect estimation image generation processing is matched with the defect estimation image generated during current execution of the defect estimation image generation processing being equal to or greater than a predetermined number of times.”
Examiner notes that the claimed phrase “at least one of x, y, or z” is treated with its plain meaning as a conjunctive list and equivalent to “at least one of x, and at least one of y, and at least one of z”, absent evidence to the contrary from the specification or prosecution history. If the plain meaning is inconsistent with the specification and the specification shows that the meaning “and” is in fact meant to connote a disjunctive “or”, then the “and” should be treated as a disjunctive “or” for purposes of the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification (“at least one of x, or at least one of y, or at least one of z”). See MPEP 2111.01 and SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 69 U.S.P.Q.2d 1865 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
As claim 4 recites a “at least one of” conjunctive “and” list, each element of the list is understood to be required to for the terminal condition. However, the corresponding disclosure in the specification for the claim 4 subject matter appears to connote that a disjunctive “or” list is intended, and describes at paragraph [0106], “Specifically, the termination condition indicates satisfying at least one condition of: the number of iterations of the defect estimation image generation processing is equal to or greater than a predetermined number; the number of defect candidate areas D included in the defect estimation image 60 is equal to or smaller than a predetermined number; or the number of times the defect estimation image 60 generated during the previous execution of the defect estimation image generation processing is matched with the defect estimation image 60 generated during the current execution of the defect estimation image generation processing is equal to or greater than the predetermined number of times.”
Thus, there is ambiguity in the interpretation for the claim 4 recitation of the “at least one of” claimed phrase as a conjunctive “and” list or a disjunctive “or” list, and claim 4 fails 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.
For the purposes of further treating the Application on the merits, the Examiner assumes that the “at least one of” conjunctive “and” list of claim 4 is intended to be interpreted as a disjunctive “or” list, equivalent to “the termination condition is at least one condition of: a number of iterations of the defect estimation image generation processing being equal to or greater than a predetermined number; a number of defect candidate areas included in the defect estimation image being equal to or smaller than a predetermined number; or a number of times the defect estimation image generated during previous execution of the defect estimation image generation processing is matched with the defect estimation image generated during current execution of the defect estimation image generation processing being equal to or greater than a predetermined number of times”.
Claim 6 recites, “the specifying unit specifies a maximum feature area that is an image area with a largest feature and an image area having a distance from a center coordinate of the image area to a center coordinate of the maximum feature area that is equal to or smaller than a predetermined value out of the plurality of image areas that overlap within the same pattern area in the evaluation target image, as the single defect candidate area”.
As currently presented, the claim language of claim 6 has multiple possible interpretations of differing claim scope.
The recitation of “the specifying unit specifies a maximum feature area that is an image area with a largest feature and an image area having a distance from a center coordinate of the image area to a center coordinate of the maximum feature area that is equal to or smaller than a predetermined value out of the plurality of image areas that overlap within the same pattern area in the evaluation target image”, renders the claim unclear as to whether the “maximum feature area” is “an image area with a largest feature” or is “an image area with a largest feature and an image area having a distance a center coordinate of the image area to a center coordinate of the maximum feature area that is equal to or smaller than a predetermined value”.
The recitation of “an image area with a largest feature and an image area having a distance from a center coordinate of the image area to a center coordinate of the maximum feature area that is equal to or smaller than a predetermined value out of the plurality of image areas that overlap within the same pattern area in the evaluation target image”, renders the claim unclear as to whether “the image area” recited in “distance a center coordinate of the image area to a center coordinate of the maximum feature area” refers to the “an image area with a largest feature” or “image area having a distance”.
Furthermore, the recitation of “the specifying unit specifies a maximum feature area that is an image area with a largest feature and an image area having a distance from a center coordinate of the image area to a center coordinate of the maximum feature area that is equal to or smaller than a predetermined value out of the plurality of image areas that overlap within the same pattern area in the evaluation target image, as the single defect candidate area”, renders the claim unclear as to whether the claim is intended to be interpreted as the “maximum feature area” is specified as “the single defect candidate area”, or the “image area having a distance from a center coordinate of the image area to a center coordinate of the maximum feature area that is equal to or smaller than a predetermined value” is specified as “the single defect candidate area”, or that the “maximum feature area” and the “image area having a distance from a center coordinate of the image area to a center coordinate of the maximum feature area that is equal to or smaller than a predetermined value” are specified as “the single defect candidate area”.
Thus, there is ambiguity in the interpretation for the claim 6 subject matter, and claim 6 fails 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.
For the purposes of further consideration of the claims on the merits, the Examiner assumes the interpretation, wherein the specifying unit specifies a maximum feature area that is an image area with a largest feature, specifies an another image area having a distance from a center coordinate of the image area to a center coordinate of the maximum feature area that is equal to or smaller than a predetermined value, where the another image area is out of the plurality of image areas that overlap within the same pattern area in the evaluation target image, and that the maximum feature area and the another image area are specified as the single defect candidate area.
This assumed interpretation appears to correspond to the disclosed subject matter at specification paragraph [0116].
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 1-4, 7-8, and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroi et al. (US 2002/0114506), herein Hiroi.
Regarding claim 1, Hiroi discloses a defect inspection device comprising:
one or more hardware processors (see Hiroi [0049]-[0054], where one or more processors are disclosed to perform the disclosed teachings) configured to function as:
an acquisition unit that acquires an inspection image obtained by imaging an inspection target and a reference image of the inspection target in design (see Hiroi [0052], [0055], and [0057], where an inspection image, having a potential defect and corresponding to a scanned wafer, and a reference image, corresponding to the inspection image, are used);
an evaluation target image generation unit that generates an evaluation target image in accordance with the inspection image and the reference image (see Hiroi [0055] and [0057], where a difference image is generated from subtracting the inspection image and the reference image);
a defect estimation image generation unit that generates, based on a feature of a defect candidate area corresponding to an image area of consecutive pixels each of which has a pixel value equal to or greater than a first threshold value and which are included in the evaluation target image, a defect estimation image for which a defect estimation value is defined for each pixel (see Hiroi [0055] and [0057], where an initial threshold is used to threshold the difference image and generate a binary defect candidate image and defect candidate information); and
an iteration control unit that controls the defect estimation image generation unit to perform iteration of defect estimation image generation processing using the defect estimation image as the evaluation target image (see Hiroi [0055]-[0056] and [0060]-[0061], where a threshold modification and re-judgement step can be performed, and that the defect detection steps can be repeated and analyzed to evaluate if a better threshold could have been determined).
While Hiroi’s teachings are disclosed in separate embodiments, Hiroi further teaches that the disclosed teachings and functionalities can be further combined or separated and any number of different combinations can occur depending upon the application (see Hiroi [0089]-[0090]).
At the time of filing, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious from Hiroi’s teachings to combine the corresponding features and techniques of the separate embodiments of Hiroi’s defect inspection systems and methods as suggested by Hiroi.
This modification is rationalized as some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
In this instance, Hiroi teaches corresponding features and techniques to in separate embodiments to perform defect inspection upon a scanned wafer using corresponding inspection images and reference images to determine defect candidates.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expect that the corresponding features and techniques of the separate embodiments of Hiroi’s defect inspection systems and methods are combinable to perform the disclosed defect inspection as suggested by Hiroi.
Regarding claim 2, please see the above rejection of claim 1. Hiroi discloses the defect inspection device according to claim 1, wherein the defect estimation image generation unit includes:
a specifying unit that specifies the defect candidate area corresponding to the image area of the consecutive pixels each of which has a pixel value equal to or greater than the first threshold value and which are included in the evaluation target image (see Hiroi [0057]-[0058], where the defect candidate image and defect candidate information are used to clip the inspection image, reference image, and defect candidate image to result in clipped defect candidate image);
a feature calculation unit that calculates a feature of the specified defect candidate area in the evaluation target image (see Hiroi [0057]-[0058], where the clipped inspection and reference images are subtracted to obtain the difference image and a difference metric is obtained from the difference image);
a correction feature calculation unit that calculates a correction feature obtained by correcting the feature with a second threshold value (see Hiroi [0057]-[0059], where a new threshold is determined and used to threshold the difference image to obtain a defect candidate image); and
a defect determination unit that generates the defect estimation image by using the evaluation target image and the correction feature (see Hiroi [0055] and [0057]-[0059], where the new threshold is used to threshold the difference image and generate the defect candidate image and defect candidate information).
Regarding claim 3, please see the above rejection of claim 2. Hiroi discloses the defect inspection device according to claim 2, wherein
the iteration control unit controls the defect estimation image generation unit to use the defect estimation image generated by the defect determination unit as the evaluation target image to be used for next defect estimation image generation processing (see Hiroi [0061], where if there are too many false defects, then the threshold level is set to a new value and a new defect candidate images are generated and the process is repeated), and to iterate the defect estimation image generation processing, which is a series of processes of
a process of specifying the defect candidate area (see Hiroi [0057]-[0058], where the defect candidate image and defect candidate information are used to clip the defect candidate image to result in clipped defect candidate image),
a process of calculating the feature (see Hiroi [0057]-[0058], where the clipped inspection and reference images are subtracted to obtain the difference image and a difference metric is obtained from the difference image),
a process of calculating the correction feature (see Hiroi [0057]-[0059], where a new threshold is determined and used to threshold the difference image to obtain a defect candidate image), and
a process of generating the defect estimation image in sequence (see Hiroi [0055] and [0057]-[0059], where the new threshold is used to threshold the difference image and generate the defect candidate image and defect candidate information),
until it is determined that a predetermined termination condition is satisfied (see Hiroi [0061], where if there are too many false defects, then the threshold level is set to a new value and a new defect candidate images are generated and the process is repeated).
Regarding claim 4, please see the above rejection of claim 3. Hiroi discloses the defect inspection device according to claim 3, wherein the termination condition is at least one condition of:
a number of iterations of the defect estimation image generation processing being equal to or greater than a predetermined number;
a number of defect candidate areas included in the defect estimation image being equal to or smaller than a predetermined number (see Hiroi [0060], where if there are an allowable number of false defects, then the threshold setup process is complete ); and
a number of times the defect estimation image generated during previous execution of the defect estimation image generation processing is matched with the defect estimation image generated during current execution of the defect estimation image generation processing being equal to or greater than a predetermined number of times.
Regarding claim 7, please see the above rejection of claim 3. Hiroi discloses the defect inspection device according to claim 3, wherein
the feature in the defect candidate area is represented by a group of feature values of pixels constituting the defect candidate area in the evaluation target image (see Hiroi [0057]-[0058], where the clipped inspection and clipped reference images are subtracted to obtain the difference image and a difference metric is obtained from the difference image), and
the correction feature calculation unit calculates a feature obtained after the feature value of a pixel out of the pixels constituting the defect candidate area in the evaluation target image that is smaller than the second threshold value is corrected to 0, as the correction feature (see Hiroi [0057]-[0059], where a threshold is applied to the difference image to obtain a binary defect candidate image, where the use of a threshold on the difference image to obtain the binary image is equivalent to multiplying pixel values of the difference image with a corresponding binary value of the threshold condition to obtain the binary image, i.e. multiplying by 1 when the difference image is above the threshold and multiplying by 0 when the difference image is below the threshold).
Regarding claim 8, please see the above rejection of claim 3. Hiroi discloses the defect inspection device according to claim 3, wherein
the correction feature calculation unit updates an initial value of the predetermined second threshold value for each iteration of the defect estimation image generation processing (see Hiroi [0057]-[0059] and [0061], where a new threshold is determined and used to threshold the difference image to obtain a new defect candidate image, and the process can be repeated if there are too many false defects).
Regarding claim 10, please see the above rejection of claim 2. Hiroi discloses the defect inspection device according to claim 2, wherein
the defect determination unit generates the defect estimation image for which the defect estimation value corresponding to a value obtained by multiplying a pixel value by the correction feature of the defect candidate area to which the pixel belongs is defined for each pixel included in the defect candidate area in the evaluation target image (see Hiroi [0057]-[0059], where a new threshold is determined and used to threshold the difference image to obtain a binary defect candidate image, where the use of a threshold on the difference image to obtain the binary image is equivalent to multiplying pixel values of the difference image with a corresponding binary value of the threshold condition to obtain the binary image, i.e. multiplying by 1 when the difference image is above the threshold and multiplying by 0 when the difference image is below the threshold).
Regarding claim 11, please see the above rejection of claim 1. Hiroi discloses the defect inspection device according to claim 1, wherein
the evaluation target image generation unit generates a difference image between the inspection image and the reference image as the evaluation target image (see Hiroi [0055] and [0057], where a difference image is generated from subtracting the inspection image and the reference image).
Regarding claim 12, it recites a method performing the device functions of claim 1. Hiroi teaches the method by performing the device functions of claim 1. Please see above for detailed claim analysis.
Please see the above rejection for claim 1, as the rationale to combine the teachings of the separate embodiments of Hiroi are similar, mutatis mutandis.
Regarding claim 13, it recites a computer program product having a non-transitory computer readable medium including programmed instructions stored thereon, wherein the instructions, when executed by a computer cause the computer to perform the device functions of claim 1. Hiroi teaches a computer program product having a non-transitory computer readable medium including programmed instructions which causes a computer to performing the device functions of claim 1 (see Hiroi [0049]-[0054] and [0087]-[0088], where the disclosed teaching can be implemented by a computer program product stored on a computer readable medium and performed by one or more processors). Please see above for detailed claim analysis, with the exception to the following further limitations:
Please see the above rejection for claim 1, as the rationale to combine the teachings of the separate embodiments of Hiroi are similar, mutatis mutandis.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroi as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Maher et al. (US 2017/0140516), herein Maher.
Regarding claim 5, please see the above rejection of claim 2. Hiroi discloses the defect inspection device according to claim 2, wherein the one or more hardware processors are configured to further function as
a pattern area specifying unit that specifies a pattern area of consecutive pixels and which are included in the reference image (see Hiroi [0057]-[0058], where a clipped reference image is determined from the defect candidate information), and
the specifying unit specifies a plurality of image areas that overlap within a same pattern area out of image areas in the evaluation target image as a single defect candidate area (see Hiroi [0057]-[0058], where the defect candidate image and defect candidate information are used to clip the defect candidate image to result in clipped defect candidate image).
Hiroi does not explicitly disclose that the pattern area of consecutive pixels each of which has a pixel value equal to or greater than a third threshold value.
Maher teaches in a related and pertinent defect detection method and system (see Maher Abstract), where in acquiring the reference image, a target region of the reference image is selected to identify pixels of interest to be inspected based on a matching metric and identifying corresponding comparative regions of the reference image to be compared with a test image (see Maher [0053]-[0056] and [0060]), where the matching metric includes a defined range of pixel values, where the reference image may be a grayscale image and ranges of pixels are below or above a cutoff threshold (see Maher [0061]-[0062]).
At the time of filing, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Maher to the teachings of Hiroi, such that corresponding reference images are determined based on identifying corresponding areas with a matching metric for a defined range of pixel values being above a cutoff threshold to identify pixels of interest to be inspected.
This modification is rationalized as an application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
In this instance, Hiroi disclose a base system and method for performing defect inspection upon a scanned wafer using corresponding inspection images and reference images to determine defect candidates.
Maher teaches a known technique in acquiring a reference image, where a target region of the reference image is selected to identify pixels of interest to be inspected based on a matching metric and identifying corresponding comparative regions of the reference image to be compared with a test image, where the matching metric includes a defined range of pixel values, where the reference image may be a grayscale image and ranges of pixels are below or above a cutoff threshold.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that by applying Maher's technique would allow for the device of Hiroi to determine reference images with pixels of interest to be inspected based on identifying corresponding areas with a matching metric for a defined range of pixel values being above a cutoff threshold, predictably leading to an improved defect inspection device for identifying corresponding areas in the reference image with pixels of interest to be inspected.
Regarding claim 6, please see the above rejection of claim 5. Hiroi and Maher disclose the defect inspection device according to claim 5, wherein
the specifying unit specifies a maximum feature area that is an image area with a largest feature (see Hiroi [0057]-[0058], where a defect candidate has a defect signal maximum difference) and an image area having a distance from a center coordinate of the image area to a center coordinate of the maximum feature area that is equal to or smaller than a predetermined value (see Hiroi [0057]-[0058], where the defect candidate image and defect candidate information are used to clip the inspection image, reference image, and defect candidate image, resulting in clipped inspection image, reference image, and defect candidate image, and that the clipped image has a dimension of 128x128 pixels, suggesting that the pixels around the defect candidate having a maximum difference is smaller than the 128x128 clipped image area) out of the plurality of image areas that overlap within the same pattern area in the evaluation target image, as the single defect candidate area (see Hiroi [0057]-[0058], where the defect candidate image and defect candidate information are used to clip the inspection image, reference image, and defect candidate image to result in clipped defect candidate image).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroi as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Ishikawa (US 2007/0053580).
Regarding claim 9, please see the above rejection of claim 8. Hiroi does not explicitly disclose the defect inspection device according to claim 8, wherein
the correction feature calculation unit updates the second threshold value for each iteration of the defect estimation image generation processing such that the second threshold value is proportional to at least one of a variation in the correction feature of each of one or more defect candidate areas included in the evaluation target image, a maximum value of the correction feature of the one or more defect candidate areas, and a number of iterations of the defect estimation image generation processing.
Ishikawa teaches in a related and pertinent image defect inspection method and system (see Ishikawa Abstract), where a difference image is computed from the difference between an inspection image and reference image and used to detect defects, where false defects exists and are dispersed over the entire image (see Ishikawa [0044]-[0048]), and variance in the difference image are calculated and used to correct the detection threshold value to reduce the defect detection sensitivity according to the computed variance and reduce the detection of false defects (see Ishikawa [0053]-[0054]).
At the time of filing, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Ishikawa to the teachings of Hiroi, such that corresponding threshold applied to the difference image to obtain the defect candidate image are adjusted according to the variance of the difference image area to reduce the sensitivity to detect false defects due to noise.
This modification is rationalized as an application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
In this instance, Hiroi disclose a base system and method for performing defect inspection upon a scanned wafer using corresponding inspection images and reference images to determine defect candidates.
Ishikawa teaches a known technique in a image defect inspection method and system for reducing the detection of false defects, where variance in the difference image are calculated and used to correct the detection threshold value to reduce the defect detection sensitivity according to the computed variance.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that by applying Ishikawa’s technique would allow for the device of Hiroi to calculate the variance of the difference image area and adjust the corresponding threshold applied to the difference image to obtain the defect candidate image and reduce the sensitivity to detect false defects due to noise, predictably leading to an improved defect inspection device for with reduced detection sensitivity to false defects.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY WING HO CHOI whose telephone number is (571)270-3814. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
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, VINCENT RUDOLPH can be reached at (571) 272-8243. 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.
/TIMOTHY CHOI/Examiner, Art Unit 2671
/VINCENT RUDOLPH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2671
Prosecution Insights