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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a non-Final office action in merits. Claims 1-18, as originally filed, are presently pending and have been elected and considered below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/9/2024 and 1/8/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Invocation of 35 USC § 112(f)
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: an acquisition unit that discriminates, an extraction unit that extracts, a measurement unit that measures, a relevance determination unit that determines, a region decision unit that decides, a drawing unit that draws, in claims 1, 12-13; a display control unit that passes in claim 2; the relevance determination unit determines in claim 6-9; the region decision unit decides in claim 12.
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 § 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-7, 10-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0293725 Al, Ohshima et al. (hereinafter Ohshima) in view of US 2022/0405909 A1, Wang et al. (hereinafter Wang).
As to claim 1, Ohshima discloses a display processing device comprising:
an acquisition unit that discriminates a detection target and other targets of an object for each pixel of a captured image obtained by imaging the object based on the captured image (pars 0044, 0216, 0221, 0229-0231, 0291-0292, the image being divided or segmented based on object detected either in continuous segment or non-continuous segment with pixels at each point), and acquires a segmentation result Figs 32C, 35-36, selecting a plurality of continuous or non-continuous segments; pars 0044, 0048, 0229-0231, 0291-0292);
an extraction unit that extracts a region of the detection target from the segmentation result (pars 0229-0232, 0291-0292);
a measurement unit that measures a feature amount for determining a relevance between a plurality of regions of the detection targets in a case where a plurality of non-continuous regions of the detection targets are extracted (Figs 5:13, 7A, 36, distance measurement; pars 0048, 0054, 0073, 0110-0111, 0216, 0221, 0233, 0241, a plurality of non-continuous segments being selected or differentiated from others through measurement of distance in segment/region with defect objects);
a region decision unit that decides a target region to be displayed in an integrated display format among the plurality of regions of the detection targets based on an evaluation result determined by the relevance determination unit (Fig 6; pars 0106, 0119, 0130-0131, 0152-0154, 0230-0233, select regions/segments of the detection targets/objects to be displayed based on measurement results); and
a drawing unit that draws the target region in the display format (pars 0219, 0221, 0228, 0230, highlight the target region being displayed).
Ohshima does not expressly disclose a relevance determination unit that determines the relevance between the plurality of regions of the detection targets based on the feature amount.
Nevertheless, Wang, in the same or similar field of endeavor, further teaches an acquisition unit that discriminates a detection target and other targets of an object for each pixel of a captured image obtained by imaging the object based on the captured image, and acquires a segmentation result (pars 0062, 0064, 0206, 0214-0215); and a relevance determination unit that determines the relevance between the plurality of regions of the detection targets based on the feature amount (pars 071-0072, 0079, 0088, 0096, 0103, 0111, size of the region with defect measured as feature amount by distances).
Therefore, consider Ohshima and Wang’s teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art before the filing date of invention to incorporate Wang’s teachings in Ohshima’s device to facilitate defect analysis involved different defect type, size, and classes/cluster.
As to claim 2, Ohshima as modified discloses the display processing device according to claim 1, further comprising a display control unit that passes information necessary for displaying the target region to a display unit to display the target region (Ohshima: Figs 5-6, 33-0034; pars 0064, 0066, 0070, 0104-0106, display control unit to display region of interest in the image).
As to claim 3, Ohshima as modified discloses the display processing device according to claim 1, wherein the captured image is a transmission image captured by transmitting radiation through the object (Ohshima: pars 0080-0081, 0094).
As to claim 4, Ohshima as modified discloses the display processing device according to claim 1, wherein the display format is at least one of a frame surrounding the target region (Ohshima: pars 0230-0231, selected frame), highlight display between the target region and other regions (Ohshima: pars 0231, highlighting display), or a mark indicating the target region (Wang: pars 0181, 0229, region marker).
As to claim 5, Ohshima as modified discloses the display processing device according to claim 1, wherein the detection target is a defect (Ohshima: Fig 6; pars 0004-0005, 0053-0054, 0057, detect a defect).
As to claim 6, Ohshima as modified discloses the display processing device according to claim 5, wherein the relevance determination unit determines a relevance for regions of detection targets having the same type of defects (Ohshima: Figs 20, 31-0032; pars 0058, 0174, 0212-0213, 0217, same type of defect associated with crack of the surface; Wang: par 0112).
As to claim 7, Ohshima as modified discloses the display processing device according to claim 6, wherein the feature amount is a distance between the regions of the detection targets (Ohshima: pars 0048, 0054, 0073, 0110-0111, 0216, 0221, 0233, 0241; Wang: pars 0006, 0020, 0023, 0071).
As to claim 10, Ohshima as modified discloses the display processing device according to claim 6, wherein the feature amount is positional information of the detection target (Ohshima: pars 0056-0058, 0062, 0094, defect position information; Wang: pars 0114, 0124, 0138, defect type, position, and dimension).
As to claim 11, Ohshima as modified discloses the display processing device according to claim 6, wherein the feature amount is a regularity of the region of the detection target (Ohshima: pars 0145, 0180-0181, 0183, 0214, rectangular, tile, annular, and/or cross shapes; Wang: par 0138).
As to claim 12, Ohshima as modified discloses the display processing device according to claim 6, wherein the region decision unit decides the target region and a sub-target region in the target region, which has a different occurrence density distribution of the detection target from other regions inside the target region (Fig 19; pars 0006, 0020-0021, 0023, 0056, 0073, 0079, 0088, different defect point density in different substrates), and the drawing unit draws the target region in a first display format and draws the sub-target region in a second display format (Ohshima: pars 0219, 0221, highlight with different colors/lines; Wang: pars 0058, 0138).
As to claim 13, Ohshima as modified discloses the display processing device according to claim 5, wherein the target region includes defects of different types (Wang: par 112), and the drawing unit adds information indicating that the defects of different types are included in the target region (Ohshima: pars 0219, 0221).
As to claim 14, Ohshima as modified discloses the display processing device according to claim 13, wherein the information is given by at least one of a display color (Ohshima: pars 0219, 0221), a line type (Ohshima: pars 0151, 0219, 0221, a curved or straight line), or a mark of a frame surrounding the target region (Wang: Fig 4; pars 0004-0006, 0009, 0011).
As to claim 15, Ohshima as modified discloses the display processing device according to claim 1, wherein the target region to be displayed in the integrated display format decided by the region decision unit includes target regions extracted as ones of at least two types different from each other (Ohshima: pars 0219, 0221; Wang: pars 0058, 0138, more than one colors and more than one type of lines).
As to claim 16, it is a method claim necessitated claim 1. Rejection of claim 1 is therefore incorporated herein.
As to claim 17, it recites similar limitations as claim 16 with a broader scope. Rejection of claim 1 is therefore incorporated herein.
As to claim 18, it recites a non-transitory CRM storing program executed to perform functions and features of claim 16. Rejection of claim 16 is incorporated herein.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 9 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.
Reasons for Allowance
Prior art of record (Ohshima and Wang) neither discloses alone nor teaches in combination functions and features as recited in claim 8 and claim 9, respectively.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular column, line number, paragraphs and/or figure(s) in the reference(s) as applied to the claims 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 reference(s) 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUN SHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7927. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 8:30-5:50 PT.
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, Amandeep Saini can be reached on 571-272-3382. 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.
/QUN SHEN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2662