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 1-8 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed Nov 24, 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 § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori et al, US Patent Pub US 20190223337 A1 (hereinafter Mori) in view of Tasaki et al, US Patent Pub US 20060271226 A1 (hereinafter Tasaki).
Claim 1
Mori teaches an inspection management system for managing, in a production line for a product including a plurality of processes, a final inspection for a product finished through the plurality of processes and a plurality of intermediate inspections before the final inspection, the production line including a plurality of manufacturing apparatuses and a plurality of inspection apparatuses corresponding to the plurality of processes (Mori, para 12 - An inspection management system for a production line with a plurality of processes, a final inspection performed to inspect a completed product subjected to the plurality of processes and one or more intermediate inspections performed to inspect an intermediate product manufactured in the processes earlier than a final process.), the inspection management system comprising: a display configured to at least display information about the plurality of intermediate inspections (Mori, para 34 – Display that shows information about the intermediate inspection.); an inspection data obtainer configured to obtain inspection data including an inspection criterion for an inspection item in each of the final inspection and the plurality of intermediate inspections for the product (Mori, para 24, 53 - The inspection content data acquisition unit acquires inspection content data including an inspection standard for each inspection item in each process.); an inspection result obtainer configured to obtain information including inspection results of the final inspection and the plurality of intermediate inspections (Mori, para 71-73 – Obtaining measurement/inspection results of the final and intermediate inspections.)
But Mori fails to specify an inspection setting supporter configured to generate an inspection record diagram showing, as information about an inspection item in one of the plurality of intermediate inspections, a presence or an absence of a product determined defective in the final inspection and information identifying the product determined defective in the final inspection as being determined defective or acceptable under an inspection item in another of the plurality of intermediate inspections, and to cause the display to display the inspection record diagram.
However Tasaki teaches an inspection setting supporter configured to generate a single inspection record diagram showing, as information about a first inspection item in one of the plurality of intermediate inspections, first information identifying a presence or an absence of a product determined defective in the final inspection and information identifying the product determined defective in the final inspection as being determined defective or acceptable under a second inspection item in another of the plurality of intermediate inspections, and to cause the display to display the single inspection record diagram. (Tasaki, para 61, 76-80, Figs. 5, 9A, 9B, 10 – An inspection standard setting unit calculates a variation of the determination result of each of the process inspection and the final inspection for the target item selected and displays the inspection record of each product with the inspection results indicating if a board passes or fails the inspection steps, with the results being displayed in a single inspection histogram/diagram displaying good product/”first information” and defective product/”second information identifying the product determined defective” in single inspection item histograms for each inspection item/”first inspection item”, such as insufficient solder, displacement, component angle.)
Mori and Tasaki are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They relate to inspection management systems.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the above inspection management system, as taught by Mori, and incorporating the above limitations, as taught by Tasaki.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to set an inspection standard for detecting a defect sign during process inspection by incorporating the above limitations, as suggested by Tasaki (Abstract).
This rejection is also applied to claims 6-7.
Claim 2
The combination of Mori and Tasaki teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Tasaki further teaches the inspection record diagram at least includes an inspection reference line indicating a current inspection criterion. (Tasaki, para 42-43, 61, Fig. 5 – Inspection result record indicating values of inspection items/”inspection criterion”.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the above inspection management system, as taught by Mori and Tasaki, and incorporating the above limitations, as taught by Tasaki.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to set an inspection standard for detecting a defect sign during process inspection by incorporating the above limitations, as suggested by Tasaki (Abstract).
Claim 3
The combination of Mori and Tasaki teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Tasaki further teaches the single inspection record diagram is a single histogram. (Tasaki, para 61, 76-80, Figs. 5, 9A, 9B, 10 – The results displayed in a single inspection histogram/diagram displaying good product/”first information” and defective product/”second information identifying the product determined defective” in single inspection item histograms for each inspection item/”first inspection item”, such as insufficient solder, displacement, component angle.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the above inspection management system, as taught by Mori and Tasaki, and incorporating the above limitations, as taught by Tasaki.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to set an inspection standard for detecting a defect sign during process inspection by incorporating the above limitations, as suggested by Tasaki (Abstract).
Claim 4
The combination of Mori and Tasaki teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
The combination of Mori and Tasaki further teaches the single inspection record diagram identifies, as the information about the inspection item in the one of the plurality of intermediate inspections, a product determined acceptable in the final inspection, a product determined defective in the final inspection, and a product determined defective under the second inspection item in the another of the plurality of intermediate inspections and in the final inspection in different colors. (Mori, para 103-106, Fig. 8 – For the inspection items of the post-printing inspection and the post-mounting inspection for each section of the measurement values, the histogram is displayed in a manner that the number of components of the good-quality products and the number of components of the defective products after the reflow are aggregated and color-coded.)
Claim 5
The combination of Mori and Tasaki teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
The combination of Mori and Tasaki further teaches the inspection setting supporter causes the single inspection record diagram to appear on a screen for setting inspection details of the plurality of intermediate inspections. (Mori, para 92, 103 – Displaying inspection results on a screen and input devices to set inspection values.)
Claim 8
The combination of Mori and Tasaki teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
The combination of Mori and Tasaki further teaches non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program for causing an information processing apparatus to perform operations included in the inspection management method. (Mori, para 51 – Computer readable medium storing a program to perform the inspection management.)
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