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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with regard to the prior art rejection have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by claim amendments.
Applicant’s arguments with regard to 35 U.S.C 101 abstract idea rejection have been considered. The abstract idea rejection is being withdrawn in light of Applicant’s remarks and the claim amendments.
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.
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 1-2, 5, 7-9, 12, 14-16, 19, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D11 and further in view of Gallarda et al.2
With regard to claim 1, D1 teach computer-implemented method comprising: receiving a sample image of a first printed circuit board assembly (PCBA), wherein the first PCBA includes a first printed circuit board (PCB) and a first plurality of electronic components mounted on the first PCB (see ¶ 60: X-ray image of integrated circuit); receiving a baseline image for a second PCBA, wherein the second PCBA includes a second PCB and a second plurality of electronic components mounted on the second PCB (see ¶ 60: reference image); comparing, utilizing differential analysis, the sample image to the baseline image (see ¶ 60: comparing images); identifying, based on the comparing, a first area of a first anomaly associated with the first PCBA (see ¶ 60: identifying differences); and displaying a see ¶ 16: display one or more of the at least one X-ray image of the one or more ICs showing differences between the one or more of the at least one X-ray image and the one or more reference images).
D1 fail to explicitly teach generating a generating a composite image highlighting the first area of the first anomaly associated with the first printed circuit board assembly, wherein the composite image utilizes the baseline image as a foundational image, wherein the highlighting includes at least one pixel that is not present in the sample image and present in the baseline image and displaying the composite image, however Gallarda et al. teach the missing feature (see fig. 20, col 7 lines 15-30: test image (sample image) overlaid on the reference image (baseline image) which shows the differences or defects, at least one pixel not present in the test image is present in the reference image).
One skilled in the art would have found it obvious to combine the teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. In particular, it would have been obvious to incorporate known teachings of generating a composite image as taught by Gallarda et al. into the configuration of D1 yielding predictable and enhanced visualization of the differences, thereby highlighting the potential defect or fraudulent component of the integrated circuit. By overlaying the images, i.e., composite image, it would have been easy for a person to visualize the differences between the sample image and the reference image, which would be indicate of defects or anomaly.
With regard to claim 2, D1 teach computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein comparing, utilizing the differential analysis, the sample image to the baseline image further comprises: subtracting, utilizing a variance script, each pixel that is present in the sample image and the baseline image (see ¶ 60: subtracting to determine the difference or variance); and highlighting, utilizing the variance script, each pixel that is not present in the sample image or the baseline image (see ¶ 16: highlighting or showing the difference).
With regard to claim 3, D1 teach computer-implemented method of claim 2, further comprising: generating the composite image highlighting the first area of the first anomaly associated with the first PCBA based on the highlighting of each pixel that is not present in the sample image or the baseline image (see ¶ 16: display one or more of the at least one X-ray image of the one or more ICs showing differences between the one or more of the at least one X-ray image and the one or more reference images).
D1 teach displaying the x-ray image along with highlighting or showing the differences, which anticipates the composite image, i.e., composite of the x-ray image and the highlighting showing the differences. Alternatively, Examiner takes Official Notice to the fact that generating and displaying a composite image is well known in the art before the effective filing date and one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to incorporate known teachings of a composite image into the configuration of D1 yielding predictable and enhanced visualization of the differences, thereby highlighting the potential defect or fraudulent component of the integrated circuit.
With regard to claim 4, D1 teach computer-implemented method of claim 3, wherein the composite image utilizes a foundational image for the baseline image (see ¶ 16: x-ray image showing the difference).
With regard to claim 5, D1 teach computer-implemented method of claim 3, wherein the sample image, the baseline image, and the composite image are 2D x-ray images (see ¶¶ 39, 45: x-ray images).
With regard to claim 7, D1 teach computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the first anomaly associated with the first PCBA represents a variation with respect to the second PCBA (see ¶ 60: difference or variation).
With regard to claim 8, see discussion of corresponding claims above. D1 inherently teaches a computer processor and a memory (see ¶ 50: computer).
With regard to claims 9-12, 14, see discussion of corresponding claims above.
With regard to claims 15-19, see discussion of corresponding claims above. D1 inherently teaches a computer processor and a memory (see ¶ 50: computer).
With regard to claim 21, D1 teach wherein the first anomaly associated with the first printed circuit board assembly represents a variation with respect to the second printed circuit board assembly (see ¶ 60: subtracting to determine the difference or variance).
Claims 6, 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 in view of Gallarda et al. and further in view of D2.3
With regard to claim 6, D1 teach computer-implemented method of claim 1, but fails to teach responsive to determining the baseline image does not exist, generating a median image for the baseline image based on a plurality of image samples of a plurality of PCBAs, wherein the plurality of PCBAs include a plurality of PCBs and a plurality of electronic components mounted on each of the plurality of PCBs, however D2 teach the missing feature (see ¶¶ 5, 144: reference image generated by determining a median or average of multiple images).
One skilled in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to combine the teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. In particular, it would have been obvious to incorporate known teachings of generating a reference or baseline image based on a median of a plurality of images as taught by D2 into the configuration of D1 for generating a baseline image. The motivation would have been to enhance the accuracy of the reference or baseline image by combining a plurality of reference or baseline images.
With regard to claims 13 and 20, see discussion of claim 6.
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 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AVINASH YENTRAPATI whose telephone number is (571)270-7982. The examiner can normally be reached on 8AM-5PM.
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, Sumati Lefkowitz can be reached on (571) 272-3638. 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AVINASH YENTRAPATI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2672
1 US Publication No. 2015/0078518.
2 US Patent No. 6,539,106.
3 US Publication No. 2023/0118839.
Prosecution Insights