DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Amendment
2. The amendment filed on 02/05/2026 has been entered into this application.
Specification
3. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities.
The amended claims 1 and 3-4 introduced new matters to the disclosure which are not supported by the original specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
5. Claim 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
5.1 (New matters): As to amended Claim 1, the newly added limitation, “a first light source comprising" and “an optical lens set comprising" are not supported by the specification. Examiner acknowledges that the instant specification discloses “a first light source module and image forming module” (Par. [0004]). However, the specification does not implicitly or explicitly disclose the newly added limitation. It is also noted that applicants did not cite any portion of the specification for support for the newly added limitations. Thus, the newly added limitations are deemed to be new matters.
5.2 (Written description): Specifically, claim 1 recites “a first light source comprising” and “an optical lens set comprising”.
Examiner acknowledges that the instant specification discloses “The optical inspection system includes a first light source module, an image forming module and an operation processor. As shown in FIG. 1, 2 @ 12 (First light source module) and 14 (Image forming module) (Par. [0004, 0018]).
However, the specification does not explain in clear and concise terms how “a first light source comprising: a first polarizer and a linear light source” and “an optical lens set comprising: a second polarizer and an optical detector”. It is also noted that applicants did not cite any portion of the specification for support for the newly added limitations. As such, the disclosure of the instant specification is not sufficient to support an apparatus where how “a first light source comprising: a first polarizer and a linear light source” and “an optical lens set comprising: a second polarizer and an optical detector” and requires further clarification.
For examination purposes the Examiner is considering the “a first light source module, a second light source module and an image forming module”.
Claims 2-9, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AlA), first paragraph, because of their dependency status from claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
7. Claim 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 3-4, the limitations recited in claim 1, in line 4-10, “a first light source comprising: a first polarizer and a linear light source” and “an optical lens set comprising: a second polarizer and an optical detector”. Also in claim 3, limitations recited in line 2-4, “a second light source” and “optical lens set” and further in claim 4, limitations recited in line 2-4, “a second light source” and “first light source” .It is not clear how a first light source comprising: a first polarizer and a linear light source” and “an optical lens set comprising: a second polarizer and an optical detector.
Examiner acknowledges that the instant specification discloses “The optical inspection system includes a first light source module, an image forming module and an operation processor. As shown in FIG. 1, 2 @ 12 (First light source module) and 14 (Image forming module) (Par. [0004, 0018]).
However, the specification does not explain in clear and concise terms how “a first light source comprising: a first polarizer and a linear light source” and “an optical lens set comprising: a second polarizer and an optical detector”. It is also noted that applicants did not cite any portion of the specification for support for the newly added limitations. As such, the disclosure of the instant specification is not sufficient to support an apparatus where “a first light source comprising: a first polarizer and a linear light source” and “an optical lens set comprising: a second polarizer and an optical detector” and requires further clarification.
For examination purposes the Examiner is considering the “a first light source module, a second light source module and an image forming module”.
Regarding claims 2 and 5-9, are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, because of their dependency status from claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
8. 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.
9. Claims 1-2 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN213364606U by Xiao et al. (hereinafter (Xiao).
Regarding Claim 1, Xiao teaches an optical inspection system of removing a pattern relevant to surface metallic texture on a circuit from an image to be inspected (Fig. 1, Par. [0005, 0007, 0012, 0023, 0025-0026]), the optical inspection system comprising (Fig. 1-4):
a first light source module (Fig. 1 @ 11, Par. [0014, 0017]. Note: amended limitation: “a first light source” is not considered (see 112 rejection above)), comprising:
a first polarizer (Fig. 2 @ 115, Par. [0014, 0020]) disposed on a position facing the circuit (Fig. 1 @ 300, Par. [0014, 0020-0021]), and having a first polarization axis (Fig. 1 @ 15, i.e. the oblique axis); and
a linear light source (Fig. 2 @ 123 and 113 form the linear light source, Par. [0014, 0020]) configured to emit a linear light beam which passes through the first polarizer (Fig. 2 @ 115, Par. [0014, 0020]) to project polarization beam onto the circuit (Fig. 1 @ 300, Par. [0014, 0020-0021]);
an image forming module (Fig. 1 @ 13, Par. [0014, 0019, 0022]. Note: amended limitation: “an optical lens set” is not considered (see 112 rejection above)) comprising:
a second polarizer (Fig. 1 @ 137, Par. [0014, 0019) disposed on another position facing the circuit (Fig. 1 @ 300, Par. [0014, 0020-0021) and different from the first polarizer (Fig. 1, 2, illustrates such configuration), a second polarization axis (Fig. 1 @ 31, i.e. the vertical axis) of the second polarizer being intersected by the first polarization axis (Fig. 1, illustrates such configuration); and
an optical detector (Fig. 1 @ 132, Par. [0014, 0022) adapted to receive a reflection beam (Fig. 1 @ 31, Par. [0014, 0022) generated by the linear polarization beam (Fig. 2 @ 111, Par. [0014, 0020) reflected from the circuit (Fig. 1 @ 300, Par. [0014, 0020-0021) and passing through the second polarizer (Fig. 1 @ 137, Par. [0014, 0019); and
an operation processor (Par. [0004, 0022, 0027], thus inherently teaches an operation processor) electrically connected to the optical detector (Fig. 1 @ 132, Par. [0014, 0022), and adapted to receive the image to be inspected generated by the reflection beam (Fig. 1 @ 31), and further to analyze the image to be inspected (Par. [0022]) for determining whether the circuit (Fig. 1 @ 300, Par. [0014, 0020-0021) has any defect except the surface metallic texture (Par. [0005, 0007, 0012, 0023, 0025-0026]).
Regarding Claim 2, Xiao teaches an inspection optical axis (Fig. 1 @ 31, i.e. the vertical axis) of the optical detector (Fig. 1 @ 132, Par. [0014, 0022) is substantially parallel to a planar normal vector (Fig. 1, illustrates such configuration) of the circuit (Fig. 1 @ 300, Par. [0014, 0020-0021), and an included angle (Fig. 1 @ 15, 31, illustrates an included angle) between an output optical axis of the linear light source (Fig. 1 @ 15, i.e. the oblique axis) and the planar normal vector (Fig. 1 @ 31, i.e. the vertical axis) is set to be between sixty degrees and seventy-five degrees (Fig. 1, illustrates such configuration).
Regarding Claim 5, Xiao teaches the reflection beam (Fig. 1 @ 31) generated by the linear polarization beam (Fig. 1 @ 15) projected onto the surface metallic texture (Fig. 1 @ 300) is filtered by the second polarizer (Fig. 1 @ 137).
Regarding Claim 6, Xiao teaches the reflection beam (Fig. 1 @ 31) generated by the linear polarization beam (Fig. 1 @ 15) projected onto the defect of the circuit (Fig. 1 @ 300) via scattering or diffusion is received by the optical detector (Fig. 1 @ 132).
Regarding Claim 7, Xiao teaches the defect is an unexpected object or a scratch (Par. [0004]) on the circuit (Fig. 1 @ 300).
Regarding Claim 8, Xiao teaches the operation processor analyzes each pixel column or each pixel row of the image to be inspected to find out the defect (Par. [0022]: image sensor 132 can be a charge coupled device (CCD) thus teaches the limitation) when the surface metallic texture is filtered from the image to be inspected (Fig. 1 @ 137, filtered by the polarizer 137).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. 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.
11. Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao in view of CN205562358U by Nome et al. (hereinafter (Nome).
Regarding Claim 3, Xiao teaches the optical inspection system (See Claim 1 rejection) but does not explicitly teach further comprises a second light source module (Note: amended limitation: “a second light source” is not considered (see 112 rejection above)) disposed on a position around the image forming module (Note: amended limitation: “an optical lens set” is not considered (see 112 rejection above)) and opposite to the first light source module (Note: amended limitation: “a first light source” is not considered (see 112 rejection above)).
However, Nome teaches a second light source module (Fig. 1A @ 71) disposed on a position around the image forming module (Fig. 1A @ 3) and opposite to the first light source module (Fig. 1A @ 72).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Xiao by Nome as taught above such that a second light source module disposed on a position around the image forming module and opposite to the first light source module is accomplished in order to obtain a predictable result.
Note: However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a second light source module in order to obtain a predictable result, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding Claim 4, Xiao teaches the first polarization axis of the first polarizer of the first light source module (See Claim 1 rejection. Note: amended limitation: “a first light source” is not considered (see 112 rejection above)) but does not explicitly teach a polarization axis of a first polarizer of the second light source module (Note: amended limitation: “a second light source” is not considered (see 112 rejection above)) is intersected by the first polarization axis of the first polarizer of the first light source module (Note: amended limitation: “a first light source” is not considered (see 112 rejection above)).
However, Nome teaches a polarization axis of a first polarizer (Fig. 1A @ 91, arrow indication a polarization axis of a first polarizer) of the second light source module (Fig. 1A @ 71) is intersected (Fig. 1A, illustrates such configuration, intersected at 2) by the first polarization axis of the first polarizer (Fig. 1A @ 92, arrow indication the first polarization axis of the first polarizer) of the first light source module (Fig. 1A @ 72).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Xiao by Nome as taught above such that a polarization axis of a first polarizer of the second light source module is intersected by the first polarization axis of the first polarizer of the first light source module is accomplished in order to obtain a predictable result.
Allowable Subject Matter
12. Claim 9 is 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.
13. Claim 9 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 1st and 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Reason for Allowance
14. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
15. As to Claim 9, the prior arts of record alone or in combination fails to teach or suggest the claimed limitation of “wherein the operation processor decides a position of at least one pixel within the image to be inspected has the defect when a difference between a grey level of the at least one pixel within the image to be inspected and a grey level computation value of pixels within the image to be inspected is greater than a preset threshold” along with all other limitations of claim 1.
16. Xiao (CN213364606U) teaches an optical inspection system of removing a pattern relevant to surface metallic texture on a circuit from an image to be inspected but fails to teach the claimed limitations.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance”.
Response to Arguments
17. Applicant's argument, filed on 02/05/2026, with respect to Claim Interpretation have been fully considered and they are persuasive. Therefore, Claim Interpretation is withdrawn.
However, it was not understood by the Examiner what is Applicant meant by “according to Examiner’s opinion”.
18. Applicant’s arguments filed on 02/05/2026 with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
18.1 The Applicant argues that Xiao fails to teach the inventive characteristic of "a linear light source configured to emit a linear light beam which passes through the first polarizer " of the present application. From the aforementioned reason, the applicant believes that claim 1 of the present application show difference since there is a major structural difference between the present application and the prior art reference (Argument, Page 8).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Xiao teaches a light-emitting element (Fig. 2 @ 123, Par. [0020]) and a diffuser (Fig. 2 @ 113, Par. [0020]), together form the linear light source. Therefore, there is no major structural difference between the present application and the prior art reference.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 JAMIL AHMED whose telephone number is (571) 272-1950. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Kara Geisel can be reached on 571-272-2416. 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.
/JAMIL AHMED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877