DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-26 are presented for examination.
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly
indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/26/25 and 9/18/24 and 10/19/23 were considered by the examiner. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The term “soundness degree” in claims 1, 5-7, 13 and 21-23 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “soundness degree” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claims 2-20 rejected because they incorporate the deficiencies of claim 1.
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 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.
7. 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
8. Claims 1-7, 9, 10, 12-14 and 18-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tanaka et al. (Tanaka), EP 3106948 A11.
As per claim 1, Tanaka discloses a manufacturing line abnormality portent detection apparatus [figure 1] comprising:
a processor; an imaging apparatus; a first memory; and a second memory [figure 1; para 30],
wherein the processor performs imaging processing of imaging a product as an inspection target manufactured by a manufacturing line one by one by using the imaging apparatus [para 26],
significant point information acquisition processing of acquiring significant point information related to a significant point of the product based on an image acquired by the imaging [para 26],
significant point information storage processing of storing the acquired significant point information in the first memory [para 27],
storage processing of storing information that affects a defect of the product in the second memory as defect related information and storing information that does not affect the defect of the product in the second memory as defect unrelated information, among pieces of the significant point information stored in the first memory [para 31, 34],
product evaluation value calculation processing of calculating a product evaluation value indicating a soundness degree of the product based on the defect related information, defect detection processing of detecting presence or absence of the defect of the product based on the product evaluation value calculated by the product evaluation value calculation processing [para 26, 31, 43, 52, 60],
line evaluation value calculation processing of calculating a line evaluation value indicating a soundness degree of the manufacturing line based on the defect related information and the defect unrelated information, abnormality sign detection processing of detecting an abnormality sign of the manufacturing line based on the line evaluation value calculated by the line evaluation value calculation processing [para 28, 29], and
output processing of outputting feedback information including a detection result of the abnormality sign of the manufacturing line and a detection result of the defect of the product [para 29, 60].
Tanaka teaches:
[0026] The X-ray inspection apparatus Y 4 inspects the state of solder joints on the circuit board using an X-ray image. For example, a multilayer circuit board and a
package component, such as a ball grid array (BGA) and a chip size package (CSP), have solder joints hidden under the circuit board or the component. In this case,
the state of the solder cannot be inspected with the appearance inspection apparatus Y3 (or with an appearance image). The X-ray inspection apparatus Y4 overcomes
such weakness of an appearance inspection. The inspection items of the X-ray inspection apparatus Y4 include a component positional deviation, a solder height,
a solder volume, a solder ball diameter, a back fillet length, and the quality of a solder joint. The X-ray images may be images taken by projecting X-rays, or may be images taken using the computed tomography (CT) scan.
[0028] The analyzer Y6 analyzes the inspection results collected in the inspection management apparatus Y5 from the inspection apparatuses Y1 to Y 4 (inspection results from each process) to predict defects, estimate the cause of defects, and may provide the analysis results as feedback to the production facilities X1 to X3 as appropriate (by, for example, changing the mounting program).
[0043] To correctly determine the quality of solder in the example shown in Fig. 6B, the quality of solder is 20 finally determined based on an inspection result from the X-ray inspection apparatus Y4 in the present embodiment. The difference between the X-ray absorptivity of an electrode and the absorptivity of solder causes a luminance difference between an electrode portion and a solder portion in an X-ray image (X-ray transmission image or a tomogram). Analyzing the X-ray image thus allows
examination of the electrode undersurface for a joint between the electrode and the solder, and also allows measurement of the area of the joint (corresponding to the joining strength) between the electrode and the solder.
[0052] When at least one of the feature quantities indicating the state of the joint on the target land has failed the inspection in step S83, the determination unit 65 determines
that the target land is a defective article, and advances the processing to step S85. The processing of step S85 and subsequent steps refers to the distributions of product state values and facility state values of acceptable articles. When the acceptable article distribution database 63 contains no data or contains an insufficient amount of accumulated data, the determination unit 65 may skip the processing in step S85 and subsequent steps, and may stop the abnormality detection process. In the example described below, the acceptable article distribution database 63 stores a sufficient amount of accumulated data.
As per claim 2, Tanaka discloses the processor performs defect portent value calculation processing of calculating a defect portent value based on the defect unrelated information, and notification processing of giving notification of the
defect portent value [figure 8; para 31, 34, 57].
As per claim 3, Tanaka discloses the imaging apparatus is a radiography apparatus, an ultrasound imaging apparatus, or an infrared imaging apparatus [para 26, 67].
As per claim 4, Tanaka discloses the significant point information is one or more
of type information, occurrence position information, size information, or shape information of the significant point, and in the storage processing [para 26: "X-ray inspection apparatus Y4 include a component positional deviation, a solder height, a solder volume, a solder ball diameter, a back fillet length, and the quality of a solder joint”], the significant point information is classified into the defect related information and the defect unrelated information based on one or more of the type information, the occurrence position information, the size information, or the shape information of the significant point, and stored in the second memory [para 26: "X-ray inspection apparatus Y4 include a component positional deviation, a solder height, a solder volume, a solder ball diameter, a back fillet length, and the quality of a solder joint” ; para 31, 34].
As per claim 5, Tanaka discloses that in the line evaluation value calculation processing, the line evaluation value indicating the soundness degree of the manufacturing line is calculated based on at least one piece of the defect related information stored in the second memory and at least two or more pieces of the defect unrelated information stored in the second memory [figure 8; para 28, 29, 31].
As per claim 6, Tanaka discloses that in the line evaluation value calculation processing, the line evaluation value indicating the soundness degree of the manufacturing line is calculated based on two or more pieces of the defect related information stored in the second memory and two or more pieces of the defect unrelated information stored in the second memory [figure 8; para 28-31].
As per claim 7, Tanaka discloses that in the line evaluation value calculation processing, the line evaluation value indicating the soundness degree of the manufacturing line is calculated based on the defect related information and the defect unrelated information stored in the second memory and corresponding to a plurality of the products [figure 8; para 28-31].
As per claim 9, Tanaka discloses in the line evaluation value calculation processing, the defect related information and the defect unrelated information are counted, and the line evaluation value is calculated based on a count value obtained by the counting [figures 2A-2D, 4; para 39].
As per claim 10, Tanaka discloses in the line evaluation value calculation processing, in a case in which the defect related information and the defect unrelated information are counted, the defect related information and the defect unrelated
information are weighted and counted [figures 2A-2D, 4; para 39].
As per claim 12, Tanaka discloses in the abnormality sign detection processing,
two or more line evaluation values are compared, and the abnormality sign of the manufacturing line is detected based on a comparison result obtained by the
comparison [figures 10A, 10B; para 51-53].
As per claim 13, Tanaka discloses the manufacturing line includes a plurality of
manufacturing processes [figure 1], the significant point information is one or more of type information, occurrence position information, size information, or shape information of the significant point [para 26], the manufacturing line abnormality portent detection apparatus further comprises a third memory [para 30: general-purpose computer systerms each including a central processing unit (CPU), a main storage unit (memory), an auxiliary storage unit (e.g., a hard disk), an input device (e.g., a keyboard, a mouse, a controller, and a touch panel), and a display. Although the apparatuses X4, Y5, and Y6 may be separate apparatuses, a single computer system may have all the functions of the apparatuses X4, Y5, and Y6, or a computer included in any one of the production facilities X1 to X3 and the inspection apparatuses Y1 to Y4 may have all or some of the functions of the apparatuses X4, Y5 and Y6. In summary, a plurality of memories (third memory) versus a single memory, is seen in the present context as a mere design choice which does not provide any unexpected technical effect to the skilled person], that stores a first correspondence table in which specific significant point information included in the significant point information and a specific manufacturing process related to the specific significant point information among the plurality of manufacturing processes of the manufacturing line are associated with each other [para 30, 31, 34], in the line evaluation value calculation processing, in a case in which the defect related information and the defect unrelated information are counted, the defect related information and the defect unrelated information are counted for each of the plurality of manufacturing processes according to the first correspondence table, and a count value for each manufacturing process obtained by the counting is calculated as a process evaluation value indicating a soundness degree of each manufacturing process [para 39, 51-53], and in the abnormality sign detection processing, an abnormality sign of each manufacturing process of the manufacturing line is detected based on the process evaluation value calculated for each manufacturing process [para 28, 29, 60].
As per claim 14, Tanaka discloses the significant point information is one or more
of type information, occurrence position information, size information, or shape information of the significant point [para 26], the manufacturing line abnormality portent detection apparatus further comprises a fourth memory that stores a second correspondence table in which specific significant point information included in the significant point information and specific environment information related to the specific significant point information among a plurality of pieces of environment information
indicating a manufacturing environment in the manufacturing line are associated with each other [para 30, 31, 34], the processor performs processing of acquiring the specific significant point information among pieces of the specific significant point information stored in the first memory, and processing of acquiring, in a case in which the specific significant point information is acquired, the specific environment information related to the acquired specific significant point information according to the
second correspondence table, and in the output processing, feedback information including the specific environment information is output [para 28-29, 60].
As per claim 18, Tanaka discloses the significant point information includes occurrence position information and size information of the significant point of the product [para 26], the processor performs processing of acquiring minute significant point information indicating a minute significant point having a significant point size smaller than a threshold value based on the significant point information acquired by the significant point information acquisition processing, and processing of generating emphasis information emphasizing and displaying the minute significant point
based on the acquired minute significant point information and displaying a region [figures 2A-2C; para 32; para 29: The workstation Y7 displays information about, for example, the states of the production facilities X1 to X3, the inspection results from the inspection apparatuses Y1 to Y 4, and the analysis results from the analyzer Y6], which includes the minute significant point and is larger than the significant point size of the minute significant point, in a visible manner, and information corresponding to the number of the minute significant points, and in the output processing, the emphasis information and the information corresponding to the number of the minute significant points are superimposed on the image, and displayed on a display [para 29: “The workstation Y7 displays information about, for example, the states of the production facilities X1 to X3, the inspection results from the inspection apparatuses Y1 to Y 4, and the analysis results from the analyzer Y6”; para 33: “The production data is referred to in the process of generating acceptable article distributions described later to extract the facility state value data for a predetermined period of time or to delete old facility state value data. The facility state value data shown in Figs. 2A to 2C may include date and time information or production lot numbers to eliminate the production
data”; figures 2A-2D; para 26, 29, 33, 60].
As per claim 19, Tanaka discloses the emphasis information is mask information
filling the region larger than the significant point size of the minute significant point with at least one of a specific color or brightness, or frame information surrounding the region, and the information corresponding to the number of the minute significant points is character information indicating the number or information on at least one of a color or brightness of the emphasis information corresponding to the number [para 25: The appearance inspection apparatus Y3 inspects the state of solder joints on the circuit board fed from the reflow furnace X3. The appearance inspection apparatus Y3 measures the postreflow solder in a two dimensional or three-dimensional manner, and determines whether various inspection items for the solder joints fall within the range of normal values (tolerances) based on the measurement results. The inspection items
include the quality of a solder fillet shape in addition to the items used in the component inspection. The shape of solder is determined with, for example, a laser displacement meter, a phase shifting method, a space-coding method, and a light-section method described above, and also with the color highlight system (a method for
detecting the three-dimensional shape of solder with two dimensional hue information by illuminating the solder surface with RGB color light at different angles of incidence
and capturing the reflected light of each color using a top camera); para 38: “These product state values can be determined based on the shape measurement results from the appearance inspection apparatus Y3 and from the X-ray inspection apparatus Y4. These state values may be calculated using any algorithm. For example, a solder fillet can be cut out by extracting an RGB-hue portion from an appearance image obtained by the color highlight system to determine the wetting spread area, the fillet length, and the fillet width. Additionally, the wetting height can be measured with a laser displacement meter or a phase shifting method to calculate the wetting angle”; para 25, 26, 29, 33, 38 60].
As per claim 20, Tanaka discloses in the significant point information acquisition
processing, a feature amount of the image is extracted, and a defect probability of the significant point information is acquired for each pixel of the image, and in the output processing, a color corresponding to the defect probability is added to a pixel corresponding to the significant point information, and displayed on a display [para 25, 26, 29, 38, 60].
As to claims 21-22 are contained the same limitations as set forth claim 1. Therefore, same rejection is applied.
As to claims 23-25, claims 1-3 basically are the corresponding
elements that are carried out the method of operating step in claims 23-25.
Accordingly, claims 23-25 are rejected for the same reason as set forth in claims
1-3.
As per claim 26, directed to a computer readable recording medium
storing the program instructions to perform the method of steps executed by the
system as set forth in claim 23. Therefore, it is rejected on the same basis as set forth
hereinabove.
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 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.
9. 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.
10. Claims 8, 11 and 15-17, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al. (Tanaka), EP 3106948 A1 in view of Kawata et al. (Kawata), US publication no. 2012/02215862.
As per claim 8, Tanaka fails to disclose the plurality of products are a product group manufactured within a certain period, a certain number of product groups manufactured in time series, or a product group of one lot which is a unit for managing
the product.
Kawata discloses the plurality of products are a product group manufactured within a certain period, a certain number of product groups manufactured in time series, or a product group of one lot which is a unit for managing the product [figure 7; para 52].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time the invention to combine the teachings of Tanaka and Kawata because they both disclose an inspected defection system, the specify teachings of Kawata stated above would have further enhanced the performance and functionality of Tanaka system to obtain predictable results to obtain product group parameters.
As per claim 11, Tanaka discloses in the line evaluation value calculation processing, in a case in which the defect related information is counted, the defect related information is counted by performing weighting corresponding to a type of the
defect related information [figures 10A 10B; para 51-53].
As per claim 15, Tanaka discloses a fifth memory that stores quality information indicating a quality for each product group and additional information related to the quality information in association with each other [para 30, 31, 34], wherein the processor performs processing of acquiring the quality information related to the quality of the product group based on each inspection history of an inspection history group
corresponding to the product group [para 28, 29], and processing of acquiring the additional information corresponding to the quality information from the fifth memory based on the acquired quality information, and in the output processing, the additional information acquired to correspond to the product group is output [para 28-29, 60].
As per claim 16, Tanaka discloses the abnormality sign detection processing compares two or more line evaluation values corresponding to two or more product groups, and detects the abnormality sign of the manufacturing line based on a result of the comparison [para 51-53]. And Kawata disclose two or more product groups having different manufacturing times [figure 7; para 52].
As per claim 17, Tanaka discloses in a case in which the line evaluation values for the respective product groups do not fluctuate, the abnormality sign detection processing determines that there is no abnormality sign of the manufacturing line, and in a case in which the line evaluation values for the respective product group tend to be increased and approaches a threshold value that can be regarded as an abnormality of the manufacturing line, the abnormality sign detection processing determines that there is the abnormality sign of the manufacturing line [para 51-53].
11. Examiner's note: Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. MPEP 2141.02 VI: “PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS."
12. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Mori et al,, US publication no. 2019/0223337, discloses an inspection management system which has a plurality of processes, the inspection management
system comprising: an inspection content setting unit configured to set inspection content based on the inspection content data acquired by the inspection content data acquisition unit; a simulation unit configured to simulate inspection in accordance with assumed inspection content; an inspection standard calculation unit configured to calculate an inspection standard more appropriate than a current inspection standard based on the simulation; and an output unit configured to output base information at least indicating that the inspection standard calculated by the inspection standard calculation unit is more appropriate than the current inspection standard.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHUN CAO whose telephone number is (571)272-3664. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:30 am-4:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kamini Shah can be reached on 571-272-2279. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/CHUN CAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115
1 Tanaka is cited by applicant.
2 Kawata is cited by applicant.