DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the remarks and amendments filed on January 23rd, 2026. Claims 1-24 are pending and have been examined.
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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 23rd, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant alleges on page 10, paragraph 5 of “Remarks” that “Iwabuchi not only fails to disclose or suggest, but also teaches away from, the subject matter of amended claim 1 and 22 that ‘the first appearance and the second appearance are respectively different from an appearance of a defect in the inspection target image.’ “ Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant cites paragraphs [0045], [0079], [0096], and [0115] of Iwabuchi to support this argument, and each will be discussed below.
Applicant cites paragraph [0045], but the cited language appears in paragraph [0046], not paragraph [0045]. Paragraph [0047] continues from paragraph [0046], and reads “Therefore, the display parameter obtaining unit 205 obtains a display parameter from a reference image based on reference information selected by the reference information selecting unit 209…In the present embodiment, a display parameter is a parameter used in making uniform how two images that appear differently are displayed and matching how these images appear on display.” Which suggests that a display parameter is used to match an aspect of appearance of the two images (reference and target images). Paragraph [0052] then goes on to describe an example of a display parameter “The display parameter is used to, as described above, match the appearance of another image (a partial area in the case of the present embodiment) to that of a reference image identified by the coordinates in the coordinate item 302 and the size in the size item 303. In the present embodiment, the case in which a zoom magnification is adopted as an example of the display parameter will be described by way of example” and paragraph [0053] gives more examples “Other than that, an interface for changing the display parameter, such as a zoom magnification, a brightness adjustment value, a hue adjustment value, or a gamma value, may be displayed in accordance with a certain operation (such as right click or double tap) in the target image display area 402.” These sections teach that the display parameter is matched between the target and reference images, for example the zoom magnification or brightness. This is done so that these aspects of the appearance between the two defects are comparable, as they are displayed in a similar manner which allows for more accurate comparison of the defects. However, the appearance of the defects includes more than just these values, and also includes aspects such as the width of a crack defect, or the shape of the defect. As can be seen in figures 4A and 4B, the overall appearance of these defects is not made equal, as the two defects pictured have different shapes, and potentially different crack widths. Therefore, examiner believes that this teaching of “matching the appearance” of paragraph [0045], [0096], and [0115] simply suggests that certain aspects (such as zoom, brightness, or hue) of the images would be made equal, while other aspects of the appearance would be kept as is.
With respect to paragraph [0079], examiner agrees that the appearance of the target and reference image appears exactly the same in figure 14D. However, the remaining portion of paragraph [0079] goes on to say “As a result, in FIGS. 14A and 14D, the images displayed in the target image display area 402 and the reference image display area 403 appear exactly the same. However, the case is not limited to the above in the present embodiment. For example, in the reference image display area 403, a reference image whose center is an area cut out with the selected thumbnail image 1401 may be displayed. Alternatively, for example, in the target image display area 402, the position of a portion displayed to be centered on a partial image displayed immediately before the zoom magnification is changed may be adjusted.” This suggests that the image shown in 14D is only one example, and the image in the reference image display area 403 could be a different reference image with an area cut out. Furthermore, examiner did not cite to this figure or these paragraphs to teach the amended claim language (which was previously presented in claim 12). Instead, figure 4A was cited to teach that the first and second appearance are different from an appearance of a defect in the target image. For at least the above reasons, the rejection will be maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-12 and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US20200193582 (herein after referred to by its primary author, Iwabuchi).
In regards to claim 1, Iwabuchi teaches an image display device comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory that stores an instruction to be executed by the at least one processor (Iwabuchi Paragraph [0116] “The present invention may be realized by a process of supplying a program realizing one or more functions of the above-described embodiments to a system or an apparatus via a network or a storage medium, and reading and executing the program by one or more processors included in the system or apparatus.”), wherein the at least one processor acquires an inspection target image in which a first inspection object is imaged, (Iwabuchi Paragraph [0038] “A target image input unit 201 obtains a photographed image of a structure to be inspected (hereinafter referred to as a “target image”) from the NET IF 104 or the HDD 107.”) extracts a determined image from a database in which a plurality of determined images in which a plurality of second inspection objects different from the first inspection object are imaged, respectively, and to which determination results of a defect of the plurality of second inspection objects are given, respectively, are stored, and displays the inspection target image and at least two or more determined images based on the extracted determined image on a display (Iwabuchi Figure 4A; Paragraph [0042] “A reference information display unit 207 displays reference information managed by a later-described reference information holding unit 206 on the display device 105. Reference information is information that associates, for a reference image that serves as a reference for determining a defect in a target image, at least information on the type and degree of defect in the reference image.”; Paragraph [0048] “In the present embodiment, a target image and a reference image are displayed to be comparable with each other, thereby facilitating comparison between a defect already identified in the reference image and a candidate for a pre-determined defect included in the target image, and supporting a task of determining a defect in the target image.” Examiner note: The reference image of this reference is analogous to the determined image of the present disclosure. The reference image contains information pertaining to the defect found in the target image, and these are stored in the reference information holding unit 206.), and the at least two or more determined images include a first determined image in which the defect of the second inspection object is visually recognized in a first appearance and a second determined image in which the defect of the second inspection object is visually recognized in a second appearance different from the first appearance and in which the determination result is the same as the first determined image (Iwabuchi Figure 3; Paragraph [0048] “Therefore, “to match how the two images appear on display” in the present embodiment refers to making the display environments of the target image and the reference image uniform in order to facilitate comparison between the target image and the reference image. For example, the zoom magnifications of the two images are made equal. Because the reference image includes the partial image of the target image where a defect has already been determined in the present embodiment, when the zoom magnification of the target image and the zoom magnification of the reference image are made equal, if defects with the same width are photographed in these images, the displayed defects appear to be of the same width.” Examiner note: This figure and section show that when defects are saved, they have an associated zoom magnification. When these saved defects are used to compare against the target defect, their magnification might be different, and this reference can account for that fact.).
In regards to claim 2, Iwabuchi teaches the image display device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor extracts the first determined image and the second determined image from the database. (Iwabuchi Figure 2 “Reference Information holding unit 206”; Paragraph [0063] “In S601, when the user selects any one of the thumbnail images or the character strings in the above-mentioned reference information list area (406 or 408), the reference information selecting unit 209 obtains reference information in accordance with the selection from the reference information holding unit 206.”)
In regards to claim 3, Iwabuchi teaches the image display device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor extracts the first determined image from the database, and generates the second determined image based on the first determined image. (Iwabuchi Paragraph [0056] “A reference thumbnail image 407 is a thumbnail image representing a reference image, and is generated by appropriately trimming or size-reducing/enlarging a reference image obtained on the basis of reference information.”)
In regards to claim 4, Iwabuchi teaches the image display device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor generates the first determined image and the second determined image based on the extracted determined image. (Iwabuchi Paragraph [0040] “A defect specifying unit 203 specifies a defect in the partial area of the target image…”; Paragraph [0042] “Reference information is information that associates, for a reference image that serves as a reference for determining a defect in a target image, at least information on the type and degree of defect in the reference image. A reference image in the present embodiment includes a partial image of a target image, the partial image including a defect specified by the defect specifying unit 203.” Examiner note: The defect specified by the defect specifying unit is used to select reference information.)
In regards to claim 5, Iwabuchi teaches the image display device according to claim 1, wherein in the database, only a plurality of the determined images in which the second inspection object having the defect is imaged are stored. (Iwabuchi Figure 3; Paragraph [0051] “In FIG. 3, a reference identification (ID) for uniquely identifying reference information stored in the reference information table is described in a reference ID item 301 of the reference information table. The relative coordinates of a rectangle representing a defect area of the target image are described in a coordinate item 302.”)
In regards to claim 6, Iwabuchi teaches the image display device according to claim 1, wherein in the database, a plurality of determined images to which a determination result of presence or absence of the defect of the second inspection object is given are stored (Iwabuchi Paragraph [0040] “In the present embodiment, a defect includes, for example, cracks, delamination, spalline, efflorescence, cold joints, rock pockets (honeycombs), surface air voids, sand streaks, rust fluids, etc., which occur on the surface of the structure.”; Paragraph [0050] “When a defect is specified and determined in a partial area of a target image, the reference information holding unit 206 of the present embodiment generates information that associates the defect determination result (type and degree of defect) with the partial area as new reference information, and manages the new reference information.” Examiner note: This section teaches that when a target image is determined to have a defect, the type and degree of the defect is stored in the reference information unit. Furthermore, this reference teaches that many different types of defect can be stored (cracks, delamination, spalline, etc.). This means the reference information holding unit stores defects of multiple types, and therefore stores a result of the presence or absence of a crack, because when a reference type other than crack is specified, that means the crack defect is absent.), and each of the first determined image and the second determined image is given a determination result of having the defect. (Iwabuchi Figures 3 and 4A; Paragraph [0055] “A reference information list area 406 in FIG. 4A is an area where a list of items of reference information managed by the reference information holding unit 206 is displayed.”)
In regards to claim 7, Iwabuchi teaches the image display device according to claim 1, wherein in the database, a plurality of determined images to which a determination result of a type or a degree of the defect of the second inspection object is given are stored, and each of the first determined image and the second determined image has the same determination result of the type or the degree of the defect. (Iwabuchi Figure 3 Examiner note: This figures shows that the reference image database contains the type of defect, in part 304.)
In regards to claim 8, Iwabuchi teaches the image display device according to claim 1, wherein at least one processor receives a region of interest of the inspection target image (Iwabuchi Paragraph [0040] “A defect specifying unit 203 specifies a defect in the partial area of the target image, displayed by the target image display unit 202, on the basis of an input from the user via the input unit 106.”), and extracts the at least two or more determined images including a region related to the received region of interest. (Iwabuchi Paragraph [0042] “Reference information is information that associates, for a reference image that serves as a reference for determining a defect in a target image, at least information on the type and degree of defect in the reference image. A reference image in the present embodiment includes a partial image of a target image, the partial image including a defect specified by the defect specifying unit 203.” Examiner note: the reference image includes the same defect specified by the defect specifying unit 203, which is the defect found in the target image.)
In regards to claim 9, Iwabuchi teaches the image display device according to claim 8, wherein the at least one processor receives the region of interest input by a user or the region of interest obtained from an image analysis result of the inspection target image. (Iwabuchi Paragraph [0040] “A defect specifying unit 203 specifies a defect in the partial area of the target image, displayed by the target image display unit 202, on the basis of an input from the user via the input unit 106.”)
In regards to claim 10, Iwabuchi teaches the image display device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor receives at least one of character information or numerical information, and extracts at least two or more determined images related to at least one of the received character information or numerical information. (Iwabuchi Paragraph [0040] “A defect specifying unit 203 specifies a defect in the partial area of the target image, displayed by the target image display unit 202, on the basis of an input from the user via the input unit 106… In the present embodiment, a defect is specified by the user by enclosing an area that seems to be deformed in the target image with a rectangle or an ellipse or by tracing the outline thereof via the input device 106.” Examiner note: The user inputs numerical information in the form of a shape of the defect. The shape of the defect is analogous to numerical information as seen in paragraph [0099] in the present inventions disclosure.)
In regards to claim 11, Iwabuchi teaches the image display device according to claim 10, wherein the at least one processor receives at least one of the character information or the numerical information input by a user, or at least one of the character information or the numerical information obtained from an image analysis result of the inspection target image. (Iwabuchi Paragraph [0040] “A defect specifying unit 203 specifies a defect in the partial area of the target image, displayed by the target image display unit 202, on the basis of an input from the user via the input unit 106… In the present embodiment, a defect is specified by the user by enclosing an area that seems to be deformed in the target image with a rectangle or an ellipse or by tracing the outline thereof via the input device 106.”)
In regards to claim 12, the image display device according to claim 1, wherein the first appearance and the second appearance are respectively different from an appearance of a defect in the inspection target image. (Iwabuchi Figure 4a Examiner note: In this figure, the target defect is displayed on the left, and the reference information is displayed on the left and bottom. As can be seen from this figure, the reference information can have a different appearance from the target information.)
In regards to claim 22, Iwabuchi anticipates the claim language as in the consideration of claim 1.
In regards to claim 23, Iwabuchi teaches a non-transitory, computer-readable tangible recording medium on which a program for causing, when read by a computer, the computer to execute the image display method according to claim 22 is recorded. (Iwabuchi Paragraph [0116] “The present invention may be realized by a process of supplying a program realizing one or more functions of the above-described embodiments to a system or an apparatus via a network or a storage medium, and reading and executing the program by one or more processors included in the system or apparatus.”)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-21 and 24 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
In regards to claims 13 and 24, Iwabuchi teaches a display parameter of the inspection target image is set as a first reference value, and the first and second determined images have values that can be different from the first reference value. (Iwabuchi Paragraph [0048] “For example, the zoom magnifications of the two images are made equal. Because the reference image includes the partial image of the target image where a defect has already been determined in the present embodiment, when the zoom magnification of the target image and the zoom magnification of the reference image are made equal, if defects with the same width are photographed in these images, the displayed defects appear to be of the same width.”) However, Iwabuchi fails to teach that the first determined image has a first value that is relatively smaller than the first reference value for the display parameter of the at least one item, and the second determined image has a second value that is relatively larger than the first reference value for the display parameter of the at least one item. Iwabuchi merely teaches that the target image and reference image can have different display parameter values, but does not teach that these display parameter values must be above and below the display parameter value of the target image. Therefore, Iwabuchi does not meet the limitations of claims 13 and 24.
Furthermore, the prior art of record does not teach this limitation. Generally, the prior art teaches that a target image and a reference image can have differing display parameters such as brightness. These differing parameters are generally made to be equal as to allow for the user to easily identify a defect when comparing to another image. For example, as described above, Iwabuchi teaches that zoom magnification of images may be different, but when comparing one image against another, the zoom magnification can be made equal so as to allow the user to more easily recognize if the defects are of a same type and degree. More examples will be discussed below.
As another non-limiting example, a close prior art, US20190130551 (Chen) teaches that a reference image and a target image may have differing imaging parameters. (Chen Paragraph [0040] “Due to different capturing time, different capturing environment, different machine status, or other possible reasons, the target die images and the reference die images may have different contrast. However, such contrast difference makes the comparison between the target die images and the reference die images difficult.”) Then, histogram matching is used to adjust the contrast of the images to have them appear more similar and allow for easier defect comparison. (Chen Paragraph [0041] “Referring to FIG. 4, the target die image T(i, j) is adjusted by the processor 130 to have a similar contrast with the reference die image R(i, j) which is captured at the same location on a die with the target die image T(i, j). Similarly, the target die image T(i+1, j+1) is adjusted by the processor 130 to have a similar contrast with the reference die image R(i+1, j+1) which is captured at the same location on a die with the target die image T(i+1, j+1), the target die image T(i+2, j+2) is adjusted by the processor 130 to have a similar contrast with the reference die image R(i+2, j+2) which is captured at the same location on a die with the target die image T(i+2, j+2), and so on.”) This prior art differs from the claimed invention in that the reference images contrast values are not necessarily above and below the target image contrast values, they are merely differing. Therefore, this prior art does not teach the first determined image has a first value that is relatively smaller than the first reference value for the display parameter of the at least one item, and the second determined image has a second value that is relatively larger than the first reference value for the display parameter of the at least one item.
As another non-limiting example, a close prior art which was cited by the applicant in the IDS dated July 24th, 2024, US20050152615 (Hutchinson) teaches a method of comparing images which have different contrast values. This is done by setting the brightness of a reference image to match more closely to that of a target image. (Hutchinson Figure 7) This prior art differs from the claimed invention in a similar manner, in that the reference images have a different contrast level, but not necessarily a contrast level which is above and below that of the target image. Therefore, this prior art does not teach the first determined image has a first value that is relatively smaller than the first reference value for the display parameter of the at least one item, and the second determined image has a second value that is relatively larger than the first reference value for the display parameter of the at least one item.
As another non-limiting example, a close prior art (that does not meet the effective filing date of the claimed invention), KR20240077289 (Yoon) teaches a method of comparing two images with differing brightness. This is done by setting the brightness level of the reference image equal to the brightness level of the target image. (Yoon Page 3 Paragraph 5 “The image correction unit 120 corrects the brightness information of the reference image so that the brightness information of the reference image matches the brightness information of the target image, based on the difference information between the representative brightness information of the reference image and the representative brightness information of the target image”) Again, this prior art differs from the claimed invention in a similar manner as described above. This prior art merely says the brightness information of the reference image is different from the brightness information of the target image. This prior art does not require that there be multiple reference images, and that the reference images have display parameter values which are above and below that of the target image. Therefore, this prior art does not teach the first determined image has a first value that is relatively smaller than the first reference value for the display parameter of the at least one item, and the second determined image has a second value that is relatively larger than the first reference value for the display parameter of the at least one item.
Lastly, as another non-limiting example, a close art (which does not meet the effective filing date of the claimed invention), US20220405905 (Doi) teaches a defect detection method. This includes an image acquisition step, where the acquired images include a low quality picture learning image and a high quality learning image. These two images are used along with the inspection image to determine the degree of abnormality for the defect detection step. This prior art differs from the claimed invention in that it does not display the high quality and low quality image to the user for comparison. Furthermore, this art does not meet the effective filing date of the claimed invention, so this would not qualify as prior art.
For these reasons, the examiner has reached the conclusion that the subject matter of claims 13 and 24 is not taught by the prior art of record. Furthermore, as claims 14-21 depend (directly or indirectly) on claim 13, their subject matter is not taught by the prior art of record. Therefore, claims 13-21 are currently objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable over the prior art rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
“A Review and Analysis of Automatic Optical Inspection and Quality Monitoring Methods in Electronics Industry” gives an overview of current methods for inspecting defects within electronic components.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CALEB LOGAN ESQUINO whose telephone number is (703)756-1462. The examiner can normally be reached M-Fr 8:00AM-4:00PM EST.
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, Andrew Bee can be reached at (571) 270-5183. 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.
/CALEB L ESQUINO/Examiner, Art Unit 2677
/ANDREW W BEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2677