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 4/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prior art Dalla-Torre fails to disclose or suggest setting the first and second RPR similarity thresholds based on similarity values of specifically ranked members (K1’th and K2’th most similar) of a group of training patch representations, as required by amended claims 1 and 12. However, Examiner disagrees and points out that Dalla-Torre implements a funnel score map that may include an image that is the size of the frame, with a funnel score at each pixel which is indicative of the degree of suspicion that this pixel might be defective (Dalla-Torre [0098], Fig. 6), which is then used to create a list of the candidate defect locations. While a ranking is not expressly described by Dalla-Torre, it is functionally the same by the essence of the funnel scores and funnel score map. Thus, the prior art of record is still effective in capturing the full essence of the claimed invention as a whole, and subsequently rejecting all claims as amended.
Claim Objections
Claim 1, 2, 13 objected to because of the following informalities:
The acronym PRP is not defined. This must be written out prior to the first use in claim 1 or defined in the specification. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9, 11-18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Dalla-Torre et. al. (US Patent 2013/0336573 A1).
Regarding claim 1 and 12, Dalla-Torre et. al. discloses a method and non-transitory
computer readable medium (Dalla-Torre et. al. claim 17, [0192], [0193]) for defect probability
estimation based on relationships with concepts, the method comprises:(a) obtaining an
evaluated patch representation; wherein the evaluated patch representation is selected out of
(i) a representation of a patch of an image of an evaluated manufactured item (EMI), or (ii) a
patch of a representation of the image of the EMI (Abstract, Figure 1, Figure 3, Figure 5, [0051]
inspection sub-module 201 can define a candidate patch based on the candidate defect
location);
(b) determining similarities between the evaluated patch representation and reference patch
representations (RPRs) to provide similarity values ([0052] the inspection sub-module 201 can
identify at least one similar patch in the inspected frame using a predefined similarity criterion,
and using a statistical model); wherein each reference patch representation is associated with
a first RPR similarity threshold and with a second RPR similarity threshold; wherein for each
RPR, the first RPR similarity threshold exceeds the second RPR similarity threshold ([0053] the
defect identifier sub-module 205 can determine a difference between the candidate patch and
the similar patch, and then compare the difference to a threshold and can identify the
candidate defect location in the inspected frame has a defect if the difference satisfies the
threshold); wherein the first RPR similarity threshold is set based on a similarity, to the RPR, of a K1'th most similar member of the group of training patch representation, and wherein the
second RPR similarity threshold is set based on a similarity, to the RPR, of a K2'th most similar
member of the group of training patch representations, wherein K2 exceeds K1, wherein K1 exceeds one, and wherein K1 and K2 are positive integers ([0014]-[0126] processing logic can use a "Least Squares" solution to find an optimal filter for differences between patches and determine an average of all similar patches as selection criteria)
(c) determining that the evaluates patch representation is not faulty when at least one of the
following occurs:
a. for each RPR of a first number (N1) of RPRs, a similarity between the PRP of the N1 of PRPs and the evaluated patch representation is not lower than the first RPR similarity threshold of the RPR; or b. for each RPR of a second number (N2) of RPRs, a similarity between the PRP of the N2 of PRPs and the evaluated patch representation is lower than the first RPR similarity threshold and not lower than the second RPR similarity threshold of the RPR ([0062] at block 307, processing logic determines whether a defect exists at the candidate defect location based on a comparison of at least a portion of the candidate patch with at least a corresponding portion of the at least one similar patch, by comparing the difference to a threshold, Figure 4 a first reference patch is defined then a second reference patch in the inspected frame).
Regarding claim 2 and 13, Dalla-Torre et. al. discloses the method according to claim 1, and non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 12, wherein the determining that the evaluates patch representation is not faulty when both of the following occur:
a. for each RPR of the N1 of RPRs, the similarity between the PRP of the N1 of PRPs and the evaluated patch representation is not lower than the first RPR similarity threshold of the RPR: and b. for each RPR of the N2 of RPRs, the similarity between the PRP of the N2 of PRPs and the evaluated patch representation is lower than the first RPR similarity threshold and not lower than the second RPR similarity threshold of the RPR ([0076], a plurality of comparison results is obtained to find defects, [0080] more similar patches can be found using the detection method that finds at least one similar patch for each candidate defect, [0081]).
Regarding claim 3 and 14, Dalla-Torre et. al. discloses the method according to claim 1, and non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 12, wherein the EMI is manufactured by a manufactured process that exhibits a percent of functional manufactured items, and wherein values of K1 and K2 are determined based on the percent of functional manufactured items ([0039] “Die-to-Die” (D2D) Defect detection mode in which inter-die comparisons, between identical dies, are used to detect defects by using previously inspected die as a “reference” for a newly inspected die. [0040] “Die-to-Model” (D2M) Defect detection mode, a variant of defect detection for microscopic objects, in which instead of having a reference image from the adjacent die, an artificially created defect-free reference image, called a Model, is used. [0076], a plurality of comparison results is obtained to find defects, [0080] more similar patches can be found using the detection method that finds at least one similar patch for each candidate defect, [0081]).
Regarding claim 4 and 15, Dalla-Torre et. al. discloses the method according to claim 1, and non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 12, wherein values of two or more of K1, K2, N1 and N2 are determined to provide a desired relationship between two or more out of true positive, false positive, true negative and false negative values ([0092] where at block 615 processing logic applies an application-specific funnel technique to the pre-processed image(s) to propose candidate defect location(s) and the number of candidates can be a user-defined value (N=25)); [0172] If there is a defect, processing logic reports the defect to a user at block 1903. If there is not a defect, processing logic determines whether the result is a false alarm or an unresolved result at block 1905. [0175] The logic is selected based on previous knowledge defining different behavior of pattern false alarms (FAs) as opposed to various types of defects.)
Regarding claim 5 and 16, Dalla-Torre et. al. discloses the method according to claim 1, and the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 12, wherein K1 ranges between 20 and 50 ([0134], Fig 12, K may be any suitable parameter, a positive integer, such as 3 for example).
Regarding claim 6 and 17, Dalla-Torre et. al. discloses the method according to claim 1, and the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 12, wherein the EMI is manufactured by a manufactured process that exhibits a percent of functional manufactured items, and wherein values of N1 and N2 are determined based on the percent of functional manufactured items ([0096] Processing logic can generate a list of the defective pixels in the current frame (inspected frame) and a decision per each candidate defect location. For example, for each candidate defect location, the list can indicate whether the corresponding candidate defect location is a defect, a false alarm (FA), or cannot be resolved. Typically, if there is a defect in the inspected frame, the defect may corelate to a high funnel score and may be in the top N candidate (e.g., N =25). This N can also be a user-defined number, as indicated in [0094]).
Regarding claim 7 and 18, Dalla-Torre et. al. discloses the method according to claim 1, and non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 17, wherein K1 and K2 are different percentiles of a number of members of the group of training patch representations ([0094], block 670, funnel score map with a funnel score at each pixel which is indicative of the degree of suspicion that this pixel might be defective. [0126] equations 6A-6B that show calculations for K, the number of similar patches found that contained the individual pixel).
Regarding claim 9 and 20, Dalla-Torre et. al. discloses the method according to claim 1, and the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 12, comprising responding to the determining (Figure 19, perform an action contingency in response to a false alarm, Figure 18 report result of a defect).
Regarding claim 11, Dalla-Torre et. al. discloses the method according to claim 1 comprising capturing by an image sensor, the image of the EMI ([0047] The inspection process 140 may be performed using any suitable type defect inspection system, such as an optical or E-Beam inspection system, [0037] Light-based imaging defect detection system is used, which depend on an image sensor for the captured results).
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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 8, 10, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dalla-Torre et. al. (US Patent 2013/0336573 A1) in view of Odinaev (WIPO/PCT 2023/203493 A1).
Regarding claim 8 and 19, Dalla-Torre et. al. discloses the method according to claim 1, and non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 12. However, Dalla-Torre et. al. fails to disclose comprising determining, for each RPR, the first RPR similarity threshold and the second RPR similarity thresholds.
Odinaev teaches determining, for each RPR, the first RPR similarity threshold and the
second RPR similarity thresholds (Odinaev [0032], similarity mapping and similarity rules used
to define the threshold to be indicative of a lack of defect). It is crucial for the claimed invention
to show the method for determining the similarity thresholds for each RPR. Thus, it would have
been obvious to one skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention
to have combined the teachings of Dalla-Torre et. al. with the teachings of Odinaev to include
the method of similarity mapping to the selection of the representative patches. This would
quantify the defect in manufacturing to allow a clear cut-off for acceptable products.
Regarding claim 10, Dalla-Torre et. al. discloses the method according to claim 9,
However, Dalla-Torre et. al. fails to disclose wherein the responding comprises adjusting at
least one parameter of a manufacturing process that manufactures manufactured items.
Odinaev teaches wherein the responding comprises adjusting at least one parameter of a manufacturing process that manufactures manufactured items (Odinaev [0062]-[0066] where
manufactured item parameters can be changed based on alert signal and change are tracked).
It is critical for the claimed invention to have the ability to modify the manufacturing
parameters after identifying defects due to the manufacturing process. Thus, it would have
been obvious to a person skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed
invention to combine the teachings of Dalla-Torre et. al. and the teachings of Odinaev to include the modified manufacturing parameters as they are noted within the manufacturing
process.
Conclusion
Response to Amendment
Examiner has acknowledged the amendments to the claims. However, after an updated search, and considering the claims as a whole, the prior art of record used to reject all the claims in the previous non-final rejection are still maintained as effective.
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 JESSICA YIFANG LIN whose telephone number is (571)272-6435. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00am-6:15pm, with optional day off.
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, Vu Le can be reached at 571-272-7332. 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.
/JESSICA YIFANG LIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2668 May 26, 2026
/VU LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2668
Prosecution Insights