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 .
Claim Objections
Claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 line 1: “wherein an EMI patch representation score” should read -- wherein the EMI patch representation score --
Claim 3 line 1: “wherein an EMI patch representation score” should read -- wherein the EMI patch representation score --
Claim 4 line 1: “wherein an EMI patch representation score” should read -- wherein the EMI patch representation score --
Claim 4 line 5: “reference concepts” should be followed by ending period -- reference concepts. --
Claim 5 line 1: “wherein an EMI patch representation score” should read -- wherein the EMI patch representation score --
Claim 8 line 1: “wherein an EMI patch representation score” should read -- wherein the EMI patch representation score --
Claim 9 line 1: “wherein an EMI patch representation score” should read -- wherein the EMI patch representation score --
Claim 13 line 2: “wherein an EMI patch representation score” should read -- wherein the EMI patch representation score --
Claim 14 line 2: “wherein an EMI patch representation score” should read -- wherein the EMI patch representation score --
Claim 14 line 5: “reference concepts” should be followed by ending period -- reference concepts. --
Claim 15 line 2: “wherein an EMI patch representation score” should read -- wherein the EMI patch representation score --
Claim 18 line 2: “wherein an EMI patch representation score” should read -- wherein the EMI patch representation score --
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 8, 9, 12, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dalla-Torre et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0336573).
Re claims 1 and 12: Dalla-Torre et al. disclose a method for detecting process variations in a manufacturing process (i.e., “analysis of microscopic patterned objects or articles and more particularly to inspecting the surface of an article for defects and detection of defects”, Paragraph [0001]), the method comprises:/non-transitory computer readable medium (i.e., “computer-readable storage medium 2228”, Paragraph [0192]; and Paragraph [0193]) for detecting process variations in a manufacturing process, the non-transitory computer readable medium storage instructions that cause a processor to:
receiving/receive an image of an evaluated manufactured item (EMI) (See for example, “an inspected frame 503 of an inspected image”, Paragraph [0070]), the EMI was manufactured by the manufacturing process (i.e., “articles 110 may be produced in accordance with a design 120, via a fabrication process 130”, Paragraph [0046]);
generating/generate EMI patches representations that are related to the EMI (i.e., “A candidate patch 505 is defined based on the candidate defect location 501 … A patch 513 is associated with the second location 519 in the inspected frame 503 as the patch that is similar to the candidate patch 505 in the inspected frame 503”, Paragraph [0070]); wherein the EMI patches representations of the EMI are selected out of (a) representations of patches of the image of the EMI, or (b) patches of a representation of the image of the EMI (i.e., “At block 403, processing logic defines a candidate patch in the inspected frame based on the candidate defect location …”, Paragraph [0066]; and Paragraph [0070]);
determining/determine EMI patches representations scores (i.e., “processing logic identifies at least one similar patch in the inspected frame using a predefined similarity criterion”, Paragraph [0061]), wherein an EMI patch representation score of a certain EMI patch representation is determined based on (a) one or more similarities between the certain EMI patch representation and one or more reference concepts of multiple reference concepts (i.e., “Processing logic can identify at least one similar patch by comparing pixels between the candidate patch in the inspected frame and the similar patch in the inspected frame … In one embodiment, processing logic identifies at least one similar patch in the inspected frame using a reference frame”, Paragraph [0061]; and “The patch that is associated with the corresponding location becomes the similar patch of the candidate patch in the inspected image”, Paragraph [0069]), and (b) one or more similarity thresholds of the one or more reference concepts (i.e., “Processing logic can compare the difference to a threshold and can identify the candidate defect location has a defect if the difference satisfies the threshold”, Paragraph [0062]); and
determining/determine a process variation score based on at least some of EMI patches representations scores (i.e., “automated defect review process 160 may process a relatively large amount of defect data in an effort to extract information that may be used to gain insight into design process interaction (DPI), that is, the sensitivity of particular designs to process variations”, Paragraph [0049]; and Paragraph [0074]).
Re claims 8 and 18: Dalla-Torre et al. disclose wherein an EMI patch representation score of an EMI patch representation is determined based on a minimal difference out of differences between (a) similarities between the EMI patch representation and reference concepts of the multiple reference concepts, and (b) corresponding similarity thresholds of the reference concepts (i.e., “processing logic outputs the minimal SAD locations that represent the most similar patches to template patch. The minimal SAD computations can refer to a computation of a SAD (Sum Absolute Difference) of the candidate patch ("template") with each pixel in a ROI=Region of Interest, taking locations (for example 30) with minimal SAD values”, Paragraph [0108]).
Re claim 9: Dalla-Torre et al. disclose wherein an EMI patch representation score of an EMI patch representation is determined based on an average of differences between (a) similarities between the EMI patch representation and reference concepts of the multiple reference concepts, and (b) corresponding similarity thresholds of the reference concepts (See for example, “processing logic computes the average of the stored results at block 819 and determines whether there is a defect at the candidate defect location that corresponds to the candidate patch based on the average at block 821”, Paragraph [0104]; and Paragraphs [0124]-[0127]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 2-5, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dalla-Torre et al. in view of Raichelgauz (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0311470). The teachings of Dalla-Torre et al. have been discussed above.
As to claims 2 and 13, Dalla-Torre et al. does not explicitly disclose wherein an EMI patch representation score of a certain EMI patch representation is determined based on (a) similarities between the EMI patch representation and each one of the multiple reference concepts, and (b) similarity thresholds of each one of the multiple reference concepts.
Raichelgauz teaches an EMI patch representation score of a certain EMI patch representation is determined based on (a) similarities between the EMI patch representation and each one of the multiple reference concepts, and (b) similarity thresholds of each one of the multiple reference concepts (See for example, “comparing the signature of the input image to signatures of a concept structure … Step 8216 of determining whether the signature of the input image matches any of the signatures of the concept structure based on signature matching criteria, wherein each signature of the concept structure is associated within a signature matching criterion that is determined based on an object detection parameter of the signature”, Paragraphs [0379]-[0380]; and Signature Tailored Matching Threshold, “The signature matching criteria may be a minimal number of matching identifiers that indicate of a match. For example—assuming a signature that include few tens of identifiers, the minimal number may vary between a single identifier to all of the identifiers of the signature”, Paragraph [0382]).
Dalla-Torre et al. and Raichelgauz are analogous art because they are from the field of digital image processing.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Dalla-Torre et al. by incorporating the EMI patch representation score of a certain EMI patch representation is determined based on (a) similarities between the EMI patch representation and each one of the multiple reference concepts, and (b) similarity thresholds of each one of the multiple reference concepts, as taught by Raichelgauz.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide robust and efficient similarity detection that is not sensitive to various acquisition parameters.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Raichelgauz with Dalla-Torre et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claims 2 and 13.
As to claim 3, Dalla-Torre et al. does not explicitly disclose wherein an EMI patch representation score of a certain EMI patch representation is determined based on (a) similarities between the EMI patch representation and each one of some of the multiple reference concepts, and (b) similarity thresholds of each one of some of the multiple reference concepts.
Raichelgauz teaches an EMI patch representation score of a certain EMI patch representation is determined based on (a) similarities between the EMI patch representation and each one of some of the multiple reference concepts, and (b) similarity thresholds of each one of some of the multiple reference concepts (See for example, “comparing the signature of the input image to signatures of a concept structure … Step 8216 of determining whether the signature of the input image matches any of the signatures of the concept structure based on signature matching criteria, wherein each signature of the concept structure is associated within a signature matching criterion that is determined based on an object detection parameter of the signature”, Paragraphs [0379]-[0380]; and Signature Tailored Matching Threshold, “The signature matching criteria may be a minimal number of matching identifiers that indicate of a match. For example—assuming a signature that include few tens of identifiers, the minimal number may vary between a single identifier to all of the identifiers of the signature”, Paragraph [0382]).
Therefore, in view of Raichelgauz, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dalla-Torre et al. by incorporating the EMI patch representation score of a certain EMI patch representation is determined based on (a) similarities between the EMI patch representation and each one of some of the multiple reference concepts, and (b) similarity thresholds of each one of some of the multiple reference concepts, as taught by Raichelgauz, in order to provide robust and efficient similarity detection that is not sensitive to various acquisition parameters.
As to claims 4 and 14, Dalla-Torres et al. does not explicitly disclose wherein an EMI patch representation score of each EMI patch representation is determined based on (a) similarities between the EMI patch representation and two or more reference concepts of the multiple reference concepts, and (b) similarity thresholds of two or more reference concepts of the multiple reference concepts.
Raichelgauz teaches an EMI patch representation score of each EMI patch representation is determined based on (a) similarities between the EMI patch representation and two or more reference concepts of the multiple reference concepts, and (b) similarity thresholds of two or more reference concepts of the multiple reference concepts (See for example, “comparing the signature of the input image to signatures of a concept structure … Step 8216 of determining whether the signature of the input image matches any of the signatures of the concept structure based on signature matching criteria, wherein each signature of the concept structure is associated within a signature matching criterion that is determined based on an object detection parameter of the signature”, Paragraphs [0379]-[0380]; and Signature Tailored Matching Threshold, “The signature matching criteria may be a minimal number of matching identifiers that indicate of a match. For example—assuming a signature that include few tens of identifiers, the minimal number may vary between a single identifier to all of the identifiers of the signature”, Paragraph [0382]).
Therefore, in view of Raichelgauz, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dalla-Torre et al. by incorporating the EMI patch representation score of each EMI patch representation is determined based on (a) similarities between the EMI patch representation and two or more reference concepts of the multiple reference concepts, and (b) similarity thresholds of two or more reference concepts of the multiple reference concepts, as taught by Raichelgauz, in order to provide robust and efficient similarity detection that is not sensitive to various acquisition parameters.
As to claims 5 and 15, Dalla-Torres et al. does not explicitly disclose wherein an EMI patch representation score of a EMI patch representation is determined based on one or more differences between (a) one or more similarities between the EMI patch representation and one or more reference concepts of the multiple reference concepts, and (b) one or more corresponding similarity thresholds of the one or more reference concepts.
Raichelgauz teaches an EMI patch representation score of a EMI patch representation is determined based on one or more differences between (a) one or more similarities between the EMI patch representation and one or more reference concepts of the multiple reference concepts, and (b) one or more corresponding similarity thresholds of the one or more reference concepts (See for example, “comparing the signature of the input image to signatures of a concept structure … Step 8216 of determining whether the signature of the input image matches any of the signatures of the concept structure based on signature matching criteria, wherein each signature of the concept structure is associated within a signature matching criterion that is determined based on an object detection parameter of the signature”, Paragraphs [0379]-[0380]; and Signature Tailored Matching Threshold, “The signature matching criteria may be a minimal number of matching identifiers that indicate of a match. For example—assuming a signature that include few tens of identifiers, the minimal number may vary between a single identifier to all of the identifiers of the signature”, Paragraph [0382]).
Therefore, in view of Raichelgauz, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dalla-Torre et al. by incorporating the EMI patch representation score of a EMI patch representation is determined based on one or more differences between (a) one or more similarities between the EMI patch representation and one or more reference concepts of the multiple reference concepts, and (b) one or more corresponding similarity thresholds of the one or more reference concepts, as taught by Raichelgauz, in order to provide robust and efficient similarity detection that is not sensitive to various acquisition parameters.
As to claims 7 and 17, Raichelgauz teaches the EMI patch representation score of each EMI patch representation is determined based on one or more differences between (a) the similarity between the EMI patch representation and one or more corresponding reference concepts, and (b) one or more similarity thresholds of the one or more corresponding reference concept (See for example, “comparing the signature of the input image to signatures of a concept structure … Step 8216 of determining whether the signature of the input image matches any of the signatures of the concept structure based on signature matching criteria, wherein each signature of the concept structure is associated within a signature matching criterion that is determined based on an object detection parameter of the signature”, Paragraphs [0379]-[0380]; and Signature Tailored Matching Threshold, “The signature matching criteria may be a minimal number of matching identifiers that indicate of a match. For example—assuming a signature that include few tens of identifiers, the minimal number may vary between a single identifier to all of the identifiers of the signature”, Paragraph [0382]).
Claims 10, 11, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dalla-Torre et al. in view of Sherman et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0095903). The teachings of Dalla-Torre et al. have been discussed above.
As to claims 10 and 19, Dalla-Torre et al. does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more similarity thresholds of the one or more reference concepts are calculated during a training process.
Sherman et al. teaches the one or more similarity thresholds of the one or more reference concepts are calculated during a training process (See for example, “The weighting and/or threshold values of the DNN can be initially selected prior to training, and can be further iteratively adjusted or modified during training to achieve an optimal set of weighting and/or threshold values in a trained model”, Paragraph [0067]; and Paragraphs [0114]-[0115]).
Dalla-Torre et al. and Sherman et al. are analogous art because they are from the field of digital image processing.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Dalla-Torre et al. by incorporating the one or more similarity thresholds of the one or more reference concepts are calculated during a training process.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to enable accurate and efficient solutions for automatic defect examination.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Sherman et al. with Dalla-Torre et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claims 10 and 19.
As to claims 11 and 20, Sherman et al. teaches wherein the training process comprises obtaining reference concepts that are patches of one or more reference images (See for example, FIGs. 6 and 7, Paragraphs [0098] and [0108]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, and 16 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the closest prior art made of record fails to disclose, teach, and/or suggest, inter alia, the limitations according to claims 5 and 15, and further comprising, wherein a reference concept is associated with a first number (N) of highest training similarity scores, and wherein a similarity threshold of the reference concept separates between an N’th highest training similarity score and any other training similarity score lower than the N’th highest training similarity score.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSE M TORRES whose telephone number is (571)270-1356. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM 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, Jennifer Mehmood can be reached at 571-272-2976. 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.
/JOSE M TORRES/Examiner, Art Unit 2664 03/19/2026