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 .
Response to Amendment
The current Office action is in response to Applicant’s Request Continued for Examination filed on June 17, 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pg. 5-6, filed June 17, 2026, with respect to claims 1-12 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 102 rejection of the claims has been withdrawn. Regarding claims 1 and 7, Applicant argues that Takeshita fails to disclose calculating the planar area based on the average of the numbers of effective pixels and the relationship between the numbers of the effective pixels and the planar area. Takeshita discloses calculating the size of foreign matter using luminance in [0040] but fails to disclose calculating the planar area based on the average of the numbers of effective pixels and the relationship between the numbers of effective pixels.
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.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “calculates the planar area of the foreign object based on the average of the numbers of effective pixels and a relationship between the numbers of effective pixels and the planar area of the foreign object obtained in advance” is not adequately described by the specification. In particular, the specification discloses calculating using the average of the numbers of a plurality of effective pixels and a linear graph representing a correlation between the luminance reduction threshold and the numbers of effective pixels in [0092]. The specification fails to adequately describe using the average of the numbers of effective pixels and the relationship between the numbers of effective pixels and the planar area of the foreign object obtained in advance. The specification discloses that the planar area of a foreign object is found using a relationship between the planar area (diameter) of a foreign object and the numbers of pixels having luminance reduction amounts in [0076]-
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 1-12 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites the limitation "the average of the numbers of effective pixels" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim fails to define a limitation directed to obtaining or calculating an average of the numbers of pixels. The claim fails define whether or not the average of the numbers of effective pixels is the same the numbers of effective pixels. The Examiner has interpreted the claim as “calculates, as numbers of effective pixels, an average of the numbers of effective pixels”.
Further, the limitation “calculates the planar area of the foreign object based on the average of the numbers of effective pixels and a relationship between the numbers of effective pixels and the planar area of the foreign object obtained in advance” renders the claim indefinite because the claim fails to define how the numbers of effective pixels are related to the average of the numbers of effective pixels and how both are used to calculate the planar area. The specification discloses the average of the numbers of effective pixels are used as the numbers of effective pixels in [0090]-[0091]. The specification discloses calculating using the average of the numbers of a plurality of effective pixels and a liner graph representing a correlation between the luminance reduction threshold and the numbers of effective pixels in [0092]. The claim fails to particularly point out how the numbers of effective pixels are related to the average of the numbers of effective pixels. The Examiner has interpreted the limitation as “calculates the planar area of the foreign object based on the average of the numbers of effective pixels and a relationship between the numbers of effective pixels and the luminance reduction threshold”. Claims 2-12 are rejected by virtue of their dependency.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-12 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The closest prior art is Takeshita (U.S. 2021/0262949).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood:
Takeshita discloses an X-ray transmission inspection apparatus comprising:
an X-ray source (Fig. 1, 10) configured to irradiate a sample with X-rays;
an X-ray sensor (Fig. 1, 20) installed on a side opposite to the X-ray source with respect to the sample (Fig. 1, 20 is opposite of 10) and configured to detect transmitted X-rays when the X-rays pass through the sample (Fig. 1, 20, detector); and
a calculation part (Fig. 1, 40) configured to calculate a planar area of a foreign object in the sample based on the transmitted X-rays detected by the X-ray sensor ([0032], foreign matter size is calculated),
wherein the calculation part obtains luminance distribution divided into a plurality of pixels according to luminance of the transmitted X-rays in a plane perpendicular to an irradiation direction of the X-rays ([0032]-[0036], pixel brightness is determined for each pixel), calculates, as numbers of effective pixels, an average of numbers of the pixels having luminance reduction ([0031], average of brightness reduction amounts) amounts greater than or equal to a luminance reduction threshold that is in a predetermined ratio to a maximum luminance reduction amount ([0032]-[0036], pixel brightness reduction amount is determined based on the threshold), which is the largest luminance reduction amount in the luminance distribution, and calculates the planar area of the foreign object based a relationship between the numbers of effective pixels and the planar area of the foreign object obtained in advance ([0036] and [0040] foreign matter size is determined based on brightness reduction amount).
However, Takeshita fails to disclose calculates the planar area of the foreign object based on the average of the numbers of effective pixels and a relationship between the numbers of effective pixels and the luminance reduction threshold.
Since the prior art of record fails to teach the details above, nor is there any reason to modify or combine prior art elements absent of applicant’s disclosure, the claim is deemed patentable over the prior art of record. Claims 2-12 are allowable by virtue of their dependency.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOORENA KEFAYATI whose telephone number is (469)295-9078. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 7:30 am to 4:30 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, David Makiya can be reached at 571-272-2273. 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.
/S.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/DAVID J MAKIYA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights