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
The examiner will be examining the claim set dated 8/21/2023.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 8/18/2023. These drawings are accepted.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Imaging units, inspection units, suitability calculation units and program creation unit in claims 1 and 11
Image acquisition unit, imaging units and suitability calculation unit in claim 2
suitability calculation unit in claims 3 and 6
history acquisition unit and suitability calculation unit in claim 4
Image acquisition unit, suitability calculation unit and initial value calculation unit in claim 5
program creation unit in claims 7 and 8
Imaging units in claims 9 and 12
Imaging units and inspection units in claim 11
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a mental process, mathematical calculation and data gathering without significantly more. The claims recite mathematical calculation with no additional limitations because the steps of “suitability calculation unit configured to calculate, for each of inspection items related to each of components mounted on the component-mounted substrate, inspection suitabilities each indicating a suitability of each” involve data used in a calculation. Further, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims recite merely a mental process because the “detecting an abnormality according to the inspection item” is defined in the specifications to be using [0012]"machine learning" without further details. Further, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims recite merely data gathering step used in calculation because the “imaging units each configured to capture an image”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claimed limitations are merely calculations to arrive at an answer. The processes, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, could potentially be applied using a pen and paper as a mental process. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claimed limitations do not integrate the mathematical procedure into a practical application.
To distinguish ineligible claims that merely recite a judicial exception from eligible claims that require an implementation of judicial exception, the Supreme Court uses a two-step framework: Step One (Step 2A), determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts; and Step Two (Step 28), if so, ask "what else is there in the claims?" to determine whether the additional elements transform the nature of the claim into a patent eligible application.
The first step I Prong One of Step One (Step 2A) to determine patent eligibility requires the determination of whether the claims at issue are directed to an enumerated patent ineligible concept.
Prong (1) requires the determination of (a) the specific limitations in the claim under examination (individually or in combination) that the examiner believes recites an abstract idea and (b) determining whether the identified limitations falls within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated.
The enumerated patent ineligible concepts comprising:
(a) Mathematical Concepts - mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
(b) Certain methods of organizing human activity - fundamental economic
principles / practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules/ instructions) and
(c) Mental processes - concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Claims 1-15 recite a series of steps for detecting abnormalities in semiconductor manufacturing . This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the data gathering step, do not add a meaningful limitation to the system, method or computer readable medium as it is insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity and is nothing more than generally linking the product to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, this judicial exception does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Specifically, independent claims 1, 10 and 11 only recite limitations directed at mathematical calculation and data gathering. It is not integrated into any practical application. Dependent claims 2-9 and 12-15 are only additional mathematical calculations or data manipulation and data gathering.
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 1-2, 5-12 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ikeda et al. (US20190333792, hereinafter “Ikeda”)
Claim 1. (Original) Ikeda teaches An inspection system ([0031] “A quality control system according to one aspect of the present disclosure includes:… an inspection result”) comprising:
(1 + n) types of imaging units each configured to capture an image ([0073] “processing at least either two-dimensional images” and [0116] “X-ray radiography images or computed tomography (CT) images may be used as X-ray images.” and [0093]) of a component- mounted substrate that is an inspection target and acquire image data; ([0093] “Visual inspection operator 41 recognizes an electronic component deposited on a substrate by processing at least either two-dimensional images” and [0116] “using X-rays, defects in a solder joint between an electronic component and a substrate…images may be used as X-ray images.”)
(1 + m) types of inspection units ([0073] “Print inspection operator 21” and [0093] “Visual inspection operator 41” and [0116] “X-ray inspection apparatus 70”) each configured to perform, on the basis of (1 + n) types of the image data respectively acquired by the (1 + n) types of imaging units, an inspection corresponding to each of the (1 + n) types of image data; ([0073] “Print inspection operator 21 recognizes solder printed on a substrate by processing at least either two-dimensional images” and [0093] “Visual inspection operator 41 recognizes an electronic component deposited on a substrate by processing at least either two-dimensional images” and [0116] “X-ray inspection apparatus 70 inspects, using X-rays, defects in a solder joint between an electronic component and a substrate…. X-ray images.”)
an inspection suitability calculation unit configured to calculate, for each of inspection items related to each of components mounted on the component-mounted substrate, inspection suitabilities each indicating a suitability of each of (1 + m) types of the inspections performed by the (1 + m) types of inspection units for detecting an abnormality according to the inspection item; ([0100] “Based on the results of inspections each being performed by print inspection apparatus 20, visual inspection apparatus 40, or X-ray inspection apparatus 70, notifier 44 also notifies of information related to abnormality when an abnormality is detected in any of the inspection results or notifies of a sign predicting that a member becomes unusable when a sign of abnormality is detected in any of the inspection results.”)
and an inspection program creation unit configured to create or update an inspection program for the component-mounted substrate,
wherein the inspection program creation unit determines, on the basis of the inspection suitabilities, whether to perform each of the (1 + m) types of inspections for each of the inspection items related to each of the components mounted on the component-mounted substrate. ([0098] “It should be noted that when an electronic component is visually defective, visual inspection controller 42 may transmit an operation prohibition command via communicator 46, to solder printing apparatus 10, print inspection apparatus 20, first component mounting apparatus 30, visual inspection apparatus 40, second component mounting apparatus 50, reflow solder oven 60, and X-ray inspection apparatus 70. With this, component mounting line 1 stops its operation.” )
Claim 2. (Original) Ikeda teaches The inspection system according to claim 1, further comprising:
a sample image acquisition unit configured to acquire (1 + n) types of sample images of the component-mounted substrate respectively captured by the (1 + n) types of imaging units, ([0073] “Print inspection operator 21 recognizes solder printed on a substrate by processing at least either two-dimensional images” and [0093] “Visual inspection operator 41 recognizes an electronic component deposited on a substrate by processing at least either two-dimensional images” and [0116] “X-ray inspection apparatus 70 inspects, using X-rays, defects in a solder joint between an electronic component and a substrate…. X-ray images.”)
wherein the inspection suitability calculation unit includes a first suitability calculation unit configured to calculate the inspection suitabilities on the basis of the (1 +n) types of sample images. ([0100] “Based on the results of inspections each being performed by print inspection apparatus 20, visual inspection apparatus 40, or X-ray inspection apparatus 70, notifier 44 also notifies of information related to abnormality when an abnormality is detected in any of the inspection results or notifies of a sign predicting that a member becomes unusable when a sign of abnormality is detected in any of the inspection results.”)
Claim 5. (Currently Amended) Ikeda teaches The inspection system according to claim 1, further comprising:
a design information acquisition unit configured to acquire design information related to the component-mounted substrate,
wherein the inspection suitability calculation unit includes an initial value calculation unit configured to calculate initial values of the inspection suitabilities on the basis of the design information. ([0074] “print inspection controller 22 analyzes solder printed on a substrate… the dimensions of the solder when the substrate is viewed from above, and the volume, height, and form of the solder,” Is understood to be the same as the claimed design information in light of instant specifications [0061])
Claim 6. (Currently Amended) Ikeda teaches The inspection system according to claim 1,
wherein the inspection suitabilities are individually calculated in correspondence with each of the (1 + m) types of inspections, and
the inspection suitability calculation unit calculates the inspection suitabilities of all of the (1 + m) types of inspections for each of the inspection items related to each of the components. ([0100] “Based on the results of inspections each being performed by print inspection apparatus 20, visual inspection apparatus 40, or X-ray inspection apparatus 70, notifier 44 also notifies of information related to abnormality when an abnormality is detected in any of the inspection results or notifies of a sign predicting that a member becomes unusable when a sign of abnormality is detected in any of the inspection results.”)
Claim 7. (Currently Amended) Ikeda teaches The inspection system according to claim 1,
wherein the inspection program creation unit determines whether to perform the (1 + m) types of inspections for each of the inspection items related to each of the components on the basis of the inspection suitabilities such that at least any one of the (1 + m) types of inspections is performed for each of the inspection items related to each of the components mounted on the component-mounted substrate and all of the (1 + m) types of inspections are performed for the inspection item for which none of the inspection suitabilities of the (1 + m) types of inspections has met a predetermined criterion. ([0148] “Since a case where no abnormality is detected by print inspection apparatus 20, visual inspection apparatus 40, and X-ray inspection controller 72 is assumed in this flow” Is understood to be the same as the claimed all inspections are performed if none of the inspection suitabilities has met a predetermined criterion in light of instant specification [0073])
Claim 8. (Currently Amended) Ikeda teaches The inspection system according to claim 1,
wherein the inspection program creation unit determines to perform any one of the (1 + m) types of inspections to minimize line takt ( [0031] “a time limit management unit configured to manage an elapsed time period and an expiration date of a member, the elapsed time period being a time period that has elapsed” is understood to be the same as the claimed minimize line takt in light of instant specifications [0073]) related to inspection of the component-mounted substrate for the inspection item for which a difference between the inspection suitabilities of the (1 + m) types of inspections is within a predetermined range. ([0031] “usability determiner that determines whether the member is usable based on the inspection result, and the elapsed time period and the expiration date of the member” and [0031] “the member comprising at least one of a substrate, solder, and a component other than the solder”)
Claim 9. (Currently Amended) Ikeda teaches The inspection system according to claim 1,
wherein the (1 + n) types of imaging units include a first imaging unit that is a visible light camera ([0093] “Visual inspection operator 41…obtained through image capturing by a camera” ) and a second imaging unit that is an X-ray camera, [0116] “X-ray inspection apparatus 70…It should be noted that X-ray radiography images or computed tomography (CT) images may be used as X-ray images.”) and
the (1 + m) types of inspections include a first inspection based on first image data acquired by the first imaging unit [0093] “Visual inspection operator 41 recognizes an electronic component deposited on a substrate by processing at least either two-dimensional images ”and a second inspection based on second image data acquired by the second imaging unit. [0116] “using X-rays, defects in a solder joint between an electronic component and a substrate…images may be used as X-ray images.”
Claim 10. The device herein has been executed and performed by the system of claim 1 and is likewise rejected.
Claim 11. The method herein has been executed and performed by the system of claim 1 and is likewise rejected.
Claim 12. The method herein has been executed and performed by the system of claim 2 and is likewise rejected.
Claim 14. The method herein has been executed and performed by the system of claim 5 and is likewise rejected.
Claim 15. Ikeda teaches A non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program for causing a computer to execute each step of the inspection program creation method according to claim 11. ([0225] “Each component may be realized by causing a program executing unit such as a CPU or a processor to read a software program recorded on a recording medium such as a hard disk” A hard disk is a non-transitory computer readable medium)
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.
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 nonobviousness.
Claims 3-4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda et al. (US20190333792, hereinafter “Ikeda”) and in view of Lipson et al (US7167583, hereinafter “Lipson”)
Claim 3. (Original) Ikeda teaches The inspection system according to claim 2,
wherein the first suitability calculation unit includes a trained model obtained ([0207] “neural network is learned,”) by performing machine learning using a training data set ([0207] “by using, as teacher data,”)
Ikeda does not explicitly teach including inspection image data related to the component-mounted substrate resulting in a false negative and/or a false positive in at least any one of the (1 + m) types of inspections performed in the past.
Lipson teaches including inspection image data related to the component-mounted substrate (Abstract “printed circuit board inspection system includes an image model, a structural model and a geometric model to inspect objects.”) resulting in a false negative and/or a false positive (Col14line15 “This learn step will take the new false positives and false negative, along with other training data, and revise the models… retraining on the false positives and negatives,”) in at least any one of the (1 + m) types of inspections performed in the past. (Col14line18 “retraining on the false positives and negatives,”)
It would have been obvious to persons of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ikeda to have training dataset comprised of past false positives and false negatives as taught by Lipson to arrive at the claimed invention discussed above. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been to have (Lipson et al Col4line30 “accurate inspection test results with the usefulness and desirability of performing rapid image analysis can be achieved by the use of a plurality of different types of models.”)
Claim 4. (Currently Amended) Ikeda teaches The inspection system according to claim 1, further comprising:
an inspection history acquisition unit configured to acquire inspection history information of the past including an inspection result related to components of the same types as the components mounted on the component-mounted substrate, ([0207] “Trainer 88 performs training so that feature information which is a neural network is learned, by using, as teacher data, both data indicating a good product and data indicating a defective product”)
wherein the inspection suitability calculation unit includes a second suitability calculation unit configured to calculate the inspection suitabilities ([0068] “notifier 14 also notifies of information related to abnormality when an abnormality is detected in any of the inspection results”) on the basis of the inspection history information. ([0207] “updates feature information with the newly-learned feature information.”)
Ikeda does not explicitly teach of false negative and/or false positive
Lipson teaches inspection result of false negative and/or false positive (Col14line15 “This learn step will take the new false positives and false negative, along with other training data, and revise the models… retraining on the false positives and negatives,”)related to components of the same types as the components mounted on the component-mounted substrate, (col14line13 “one or more components or for an entire PCB,”)
It would have been obvious to persons of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ikeda to have inspection results of false positive or false negative to be training data for the inspection suitability calculator as taught by Lipson to arrive at the claimed invention discussed above. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been to have (Lipson et al Col4line30 “accurate inspection test results with the usefulness and desirability of performing rapid image analysis can be achieved by the use of a plurality of different types of models.”)
Claim 13. The method herein has been executed and performed by the system of claim 4 and is likewise rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Stefanowski et al US20210206515 teaches component inspection and retraining the machine learning based on false positives false negatives and positive results
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OWAIS MEMON whose telephone number is (571)272-2168. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (7:00am - 4:00pm) CST.
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, Gregory Morse can be reached at (571) 272-3838. 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.
/OWAIS I MEMON/Examiner, Art Unit 2663