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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112:
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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention. The claims invoke 112 sixth paragraph as mentioned above, but the original disclosure, paragraphs 196-197, cites “The controller 40 may transmit a second signal SIG2 to the notification unit 50. The second signal SIG2 may include state information of the optical system 30. The notification unit 50 may transmit the state information of the optical system 30 to a user. The user may grasp an alignment state of the optical system 30 based on the state information of the optical system 30.”, which does not incorporate physical structure into the claim language and deems the claim indefinite. The scope of protection is unclear since what is transmitting the state information of the optical system to a user? In view of 35 USC 112 sixth paragraph, "means plus function" directs the claim towards physical structure within the specification, yet the disclosure does not appear to cite any concrete examples of structure. The mention of a notification unit leads the Examiner to question if a notification unit is hardware or a physical component. Is the notification unit considered to be any mechanism that broadcasts a signal? The nature of 112 sixth paragraph invokes structure from the specification, but when the specification does not have sufficient structure supporting the “non-structural term”, the scope of the claim is indefinite due to the lack of recitation. The Examiner will interpret the cited invocation of means plus function as reasonably broad as possible to one ordinary skilled in the art. Therefore, the interpretation given for the non-structural term is considered to be any general purpose computer, processor or hardware with an algorithm or any dedicated circuitry that performs the claimed functions.
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.
(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.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yoshida et al. (US 20190066287 A1), hereinafter Yoshida.
Regarding claim 11, Yoshida teaches An equipment diagnosis method comprising: (Abstract see "An inspection system includes a first imaging device provided in a first inspection device; a second imaging device provided in a second inspection device; a first controller; and a second controller, wherein the first controller acquires a particular feature of a calibration jig, which is positioned in the first inspection device, from an image of the calibration jig obtained by the first imaging device as first feature data, and the second controller acquires the particular feature of the calibration jig, which is positioned in the second inspection device, from an image of the calibration jig obtained by the second imaging device as second feature data." Para. 25 see "the controller 21 controls the first imaging device 10 to image the inspection subject O positioned by the positioning device 30, conducts known image processing on the obtained image, and carries out pass/fail determination on each of the components on the inspection subject O."). a master jig insertion step of inserting a master jig into a transfer device; a master jig movement step of moving the master jig in one direction by the transfer device; (Para. 53 see "the positioning devices 30 and 60 are used to fix the inspection subject O and the calibration jig 70. The positioning devices 30 and 60 may be robots, conveyers, and the like that bring the inspection subject O and the calibration jig 70 to below the imaging devices 10 and 40."). a master jig image acquisition step in which an optical system photographs an outer surface of the master jig to acquire an image of the master jig; and a master jig image analysis step in which a controller analyzes the image of the master jig to diagnose a state of the optical system. (Para. 56 see "the controller 21 of the first inspection device 1 compares an image obtained by the first imaging device 10 but before correction of the aberration etc., with the pass sample images 25 and failure sample images 26, and carries out pass/failure determination of the components on the inspection subject O.").
Regarding claim 12, Yoshida teaches The equipment diagnosis method of claim 11. further comprising: an analysis result notification step in which a notification unit notifies a user of the state of the optical system. (Para. 20 see "when a command for preparing sample images is input through the input device 23, the controller 21 controls the display device 22 to display an indication that confirms whether or not installation of the substrate, i.e., a sample, on the positioning device 30 is completed. When the controller 21 receives, from the input device 23 or the like, the information indicating completion of installation of the sample on the positioning device 30, the controller 21 controls the first imaging device 10 to image the sample." Para. 21 see "Subsequently, the controller 21 stores, in the storage device 24, the obtained images along with the pass/failure information, and these images constitute the pass sample images 25 and the failure sample images 26." (Examiner note: the display notifies a user of a state of the system. This would show pass/failure state.)).
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 1, 4-6, 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida et al. (US 20190066287 A1), hereinafter Yoshida, in view of Oka et al. (JP 2016046018 A), hereinafter Oka.
Regarding claim 1, Yoshida teaches A master jig comprising: a case; (Abstract see "An inspection system includes a first imaging device provided in a first inspection device; a second imaging device provided in a second inspection device; a first controller; and a second controller, wherein the first controller acquires a particular feature of a calibration jig, which is positioned in the first inspection device."). and a marking member coupled to an outer surface of the case, (Para. 30 see "the calibration jig 70 is a plate-shape member having an upper surface on which multiple points P are arranged in square grids. Note that the calibration jig 70 is not limited to a member on which circular points P are drawn. For example, a checkerboard pattern may be drawn on the upper surface of the calibration jig 70." See also Fig. 4-5.). wherein the marking member includes a plurality of figures consecutively arranged or a plurality of brightness areas arranged along one direction. (Para. 30 see "the calibration jig 70 is a plate-shape member having an upper surface on which multiple points P are arranged in square grids. Note that the calibration jig 70 is not limited to a member on which circular points P are drawn. For example, a checkerboard pattern may be drawn on the upper surface of the calibration jig 70." Para. 48 see "the first and second feature data 27 and 57 are position data of the points P of the calibration jig 70. Alternatively, the first and second feature data 27 and 57 may be data that indicates the brightness or color hue of pixels in the image." See also Fig. 4-5. (Examiner note: checkboard pattern indicates squares of different brightness or color arranged in an alternating fashion. Each figure or square is consecutively arranged. One column may be brightness areas along one direction, where each brightness area is a square.)).
Yoshida does not teach wherein the case includes: a cell body configured to extend in a left-right direction; and an extension configured to extend from each of left and right sides of the cell body,.
However, Oka teaches wherein the case includes: a cell body configured to extend in a left-right direction; and an extension configured to extend from each of left and right sides of the cell body, (Para. 51 see " In the dummy battery 210 in this case, electric terminals 212, 213, 214, 215 corresponding to the electrode terminals 202, 203 and electrically connected thereto are provided on two different side surfaces." See also Fig. 5. (Examiner note: As seen in figure 5, the body extends in a left-right direction and the terminals 202 and 203 extend for each left and right side.)).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yoshida to incorporate the teachings of Oka to include extensions in opposite directions. Doing so would predictably allow terminals of the battery to be easily accessible by extending them away from the body for accessible connections.
Regarding claim 4, Yoshida in view of Oka teaches The master jig of claim 1.
In addition, Yoshida teaches wherein the marking member further includes a first marking member including the plurality of figures, wherein the plurality of figures include: a first figure type, or a second figure type with a brightness lower than a brightness of the first figure type, wherein at least one first figure corresponding to the first figure type among the plurality of figures and at least one second figure corresponding to the second figure type among the plurality of figures are alternately arranged. (Para. 30 see "the calibration jig 70 is a plate-shape member having an upper surface on which multiple points P are arranged in square grids. Note that the calibration jig 70 is not limited to a member on which circular points P are drawn. For example, a checkerboard pattern may be drawn on the upper surface of the calibration jig 70." See also Fig. 4-5. Para. 48 see "the first and second feature data 27 and 57 are position data of the points P of the calibration jig 70. Alternatively, the first and second feature data 27 and 57 may be data that indicates the brightness or color hue of pixels in the image." (Examiner note: checkboard pattern indicates squares of different brightness or color arranged in an alternating fashion. A checkerboard has two figure types where one figure type might be a black square and one figure type might be a white square.)).
Regarding claim 5, Yoshida in view of Oka teaches The master jig of claim 1.
In addition, Yoshida teaches wherein the marking member is configured such that unit figures of first and second figure types with different brightnesses are arranged in a checkerboard shape. (Para. 30 see "the calibration jig 70 is a plate-shape member having an upper surface on which multiple points P are arranged in square grids. Note that the calibration jig 70 is not limited to a member on which circular points P are drawn. For example, a checkerboard pattern may be drawn on the upper surface of the calibration jig 70." See also Fig. 4-5. Para. 48 see "the first and second feature data 27 and 57 are position data of the points P of the calibration jig 70. Alternatively, the first and second feature data 27 and 57 may be data that indicates the brightness or color hue of pixels in the image." (Examiner note: checkboard pattern indicates squares of different brightness or color.)).
Regarding claim 6, Yoshida in view of Oka teaches The master jig of claim 1.
In addition, Yoshida teaches wherein the marking member further includes a second marking member including the plurality of brightness areas, and wherein the plurality of brightness areas each have a different brightness value. (Para. 30 see "the calibration jig 70 is a plate-shape member having an upper surface on which multiple points P are arranged in square grids. Note that the calibration jig 70 is not limited to a member on which circular points P are drawn. For example, a checkerboard pattern may be drawn on the upper surface of the calibration jig 70." See also Fig. 4-5. Para. 48 see "the first and second feature data 27 and 57 are position data of the points P of the calibration jig 70. Alternatively, the first and second feature data 27 and 57 may be data that indicates the brightness or color hue of pixels in the image." (Examiner note: checkboard pattern means squares of different brightness or color. Each square may be a brightness area.)).
Regarding claim 8, Yoshida in view of Oka teaches The master jig of claim 6.
In addition, Yoshida teaches wherein the second marking member extends in the left-right direction or a front-rear direction. (Para. 30 see "the calibration jig 70 is a plate-shape member having an upper surface on which multiple points P are arranged in square grids. Note that the calibration jig 70 is not limited to a member on which circular points P are drawn. For example, a checkerboard pattern may be drawn on the upper surface of the calibration jig 70." See also Fig. 4-5. Para. 48 see "the first and second feature data 27 and 57 are position data of the points P of the calibration jig 70. Alternatively, the first and second feature data 27 and 57 may be data that indicates the brightness or color hue of pixels in the image." (Examiner note: A column of squares on a checkerboard extends in the left-right direction and front-rear direction because it has 2 dimensions (e.g. length and width.)).
Regarding claim 9, Yoshida in view of Oka teaches The master jig of claim 6.
In addition, Yoshida teaches wherein the second marking member includes a plurality of groups including the plurality of brightness areas, and wherein the plurality of groups are disposed to be spaced apart from each other. (Para. 30 see "the calibration jig 70 is a plate-shape member having an upper surface on which multiple points P are arranged in square grids. Note that the calibration jig 70 is not limited to a member on which circular points P are drawn. For example, a checkerboard pattern may be drawn on the upper surface of the calibration jig 70." See also Fig. 4-5. Para. 48 see "the first and second feature data 27 and 57 are position data of the points P of the calibration jig 70. Alternatively, the first and second feature data 27 and 57 may be data that indicates the brightness or color hue of pixels in the image." (Examiner note: Column of squares on a checkerboard may be groups including brightness areas where each square in the column is a brightness area. Each column is spatially separate.)).
Regarding claim 10, Yoshida in view of Oka teaches The master jig of claim 1.
In addition, Yoshida teaches wherein the marking member further includes a third marking member including the plurality of figures consecutively arranged, wherein the plurality of figures include: a first figure; and a second figure with a brightness lower than a brightness of the first figure, wherein the first figure and the second figure are alternately arranged, and wherein a left-right direction length of the third marking member is greater than a front-rear direction length of the third marking member. (Para. 30 see "the calibration jig 70 is a plate-shape member having an upper surface on which multiple points P are arranged in square grids. Note that the calibration jig 70 is not limited to a member on which circular points P are drawn. For example, a checkerboard pattern may be drawn on the upper surface of the calibration jig 70." See also Fig. 4-5. Para. 48 see "the first and second feature data 27 and 57 are position data of the points P of the calibration jig 70. Alternatively, the first and second feature data 27 and 57 may be data that indicates the brightness or color hue of pixels in the image." (Examiner note: Rows of squares on a checkerboard may be a third marking member where a plurality of figures (or squares) are consecutively arranged. Checkboard pattern means squares of different brightness or color. Each square may be a brightness area. Each square is alternately arranged. A row extends in the left-right direction. A checkerboard consists of squares, which by definition, means each side is equal in length. Therefore, a row with a plurality of squares will have a left-right direction of greater length than the front-rear direction.)).
Claims 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida et al. (US 20190066287 A1), hereinafter Yoshida, in view of Szigeti (US 20160154926 A1), hereinafter Szigeti.
Regarding claim 13, Yoshida teaches The equipment diagnosis method of claim 11.
Yoshida does not teach wherein the master jig image analysis step comprises a first marking member analysis step of extracting a length value of a reference line from an image of a shape marking member coupled to the outer surface of the master jig and comparing the length value with a preset length value.
However, Szigeti teaches wherein the master jig image analysis step comprises a first marking member analysis step of extracting a length value of a reference line from an image of a shape marking member coupled to the outer surface of the master jig and comparing the length value with a preset length value. (Abstract see "A random speckle pattern is displayed on a display screen and the image then undergoes an imposed geometric transformation, for example being shifted by an integer number of pixels." Para. 82 see "it may be that the imposed geometric transformation causes a shift, in the direction along the length of each line of pixels, of the random speckle pattern on the display screen by an integer number of pixels. The validation of the digital image correlation system may then be effected by means of a comparison between the known distance represented said integer number of pixels (of the shift effected by the imposed geometric transformation) and the corresponding distance of the shift in the speckle pattern as determined with the digital image correlation system. The distance of the shift, when only in the direction along the length of each line of pixels, is of course equal to the integer number of pixels shifted multiplied by the pixel pitch. The comparison may, for example, include calculating a value of the measured shift, in terms of the number (not necessary an integer) pixels shifted, in terms of an absolute distance, or in terms of some other measure, and compare that with the corresponding distance/measure of the known pixel shift. Alternatively, or additionally, a unitless quantity may be calculated that represents the closeness of the expected pixel shift amount and the observed pixel shift amount." (Examiner note: The comparison is done with a known pixel length and measuring a pixel length. The length value of pixels is known to perform a shift.)).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yoshida to incorporate the teachings of Szigeti to extract a length value and compare it to a known length value. Doing so would predictably increase the error detection accuracy by being able to calculate a difference value between a length value and an expected length value.
Regarding claim 14, Yoshida in view of Szigeti teaches The equipment diagnosis method of claim 13.
Yoshida does not teach wherein the length value is a number of pixels included in the image.
However, Szigeti teaches wherein the length value is a number of pixels included in the image. (Para. 82 see "calculating a value of the measured shift, in terms of the number (not necessary an integer) pixels shifted, in terms of an absolute distance, or in terms of some other measure, and compare that with the corresponding distance/measure of the known pixel shift. Alternatively, or additionally, a unitless quantity may be calculated that represents the closeness of the expected pixel shift amount and the observed pixel shift amount." (Examiner note: the length value of pixels is known to perform a shift.)).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yoshida and Szigeti to incorporate the teachings of Szigeti to determine a length value of pixel count. Doing so would predictably increase the accuracy of an image analysis by measuring a uniform unit of measurement that is native to an image data type.
Regarding claim 15, Yoshida in view of Szigeti teaches The equipment diagnosis method of claim 13.
In addition, Yoshida teaches wherein the shape marking member includes a plurality of figures, wherein the plurality of figures includes a first figure and a second figure that have different brightnesses and are alternately arranged, (Para. 30 see "the calibration jig 70 is a plate-shape member having an upper surface on which multiple points P are arranged in square grids. Note that the calibration jig 70 is not limited to a member on which circular points P are drawn. For example, a checkerboard pattern may be drawn on the upper surface of the calibration jig 70." See also Fig. 4-5. Para. 48 see "the first and second feature data 27 and 57 are position data of the points P of the calibration jig 70. Alternatively, the first and second feature data 27 and 57 may be data that indicates the brightness or color hue of pixels in the image." (Examiner note: checkboard pattern indicates squares of different brightness or color arranged in an alternating fashion. A checkerboard has two figure types where one figure type might be a black square and one figure type might be a white square.)).
Yoshida does not teach and wherein the reference line is a line that is able to measure a horizontal length or a vertical length of the figure.
However, Szigeti teaches and wherein the reference line is a line that is able to measure a horizontal length or a vertical length of the figure. (Para. 71 see "The lines of pixel may for example form columns and rows. Each pixel is preferably the same size. Adjacent pixels in each line are separated by a known pitch. It will be appreciated that the pixel pitch may be ascertained by measuring a suitable distance, for example, a centre-to-centre distance or an edge-to-edge distance." (Examiner note: columns and rows mean vertical and horizontal length.)).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yoshida and Szigeti to incorporate the teachings of Szigeti to allow the measuring of a horizontal or vertical length. Doing so would predictably increase measurement reliability by being able to measure a length regardless of two-dimensional orientation.
Regarding claim 16, Yoshida in view of Szigeti teaches The equipment diagnosis method of claim 13.
In addition, Yoshida teaches wherein the shape marking member includes a plurality of shape marking members and is coupled to several portions of the outer surface of the master jig, (Para. 40 see "the controller 51 determines, by using known interpolation, the correction amount at each of the positions between the points P on the image, and stores, in the storage device 54, the obtained correction amounts in the form of a correction amount table in association with the positions in the image." See also Fig. 5-6 (Examiner note: figs. 5-6 show there are a plurality of shape markings and each excepted position.)).
Yoshida does not teach and wherein the first marking member analysis step comprises comparing a length value of the reference line extracted from each of the plurality of shape marking members with the preset length value.
However, Szigeti teaches and wherein the first marking member analysis step comprises comparing a length value of the reference line extracted from each of the plurality of shape marking members with the preset length value. (Abstract see "A random speckle pattern is displayed on a display screen and the image then undergoes an imposed geometric transformation, for example being shifted by an integer number of pixels." Para. 82 see "it may be that the imposed geometric transformation causes a shift, in the direction along the length of each line of pixels, of the random speckle pattern on the display screen by an integer number of pixels. The validation of the digital image correlation system may then be effected by means of a comparison between the known distance represented said integer number of pixels (of the shift effected by the imposed geometric transformation) and the corresponding distance of the shift in the speckle pattern as determined with the digital image correlation system. The distance of the shift, when only in the direction along the length of each line of pixels, is of course equal to the integer number of pixels shifted multiplied by the pixel pitch. The comparison may, for example, include calculating a value of the measured shift, in terms of the number (not necessary an integer) pixels shifted, in terms of an absolute distance, or in terms of some other measure, and compare that with the corresponding distance/measure of the known pixel shift. Alternatively, or additionally, a unitless quantity may be calculated that represents the closeness of the expected pixel shift amount and the observed pixel shift amount." (Examiner note: The comparison is done with a known pixel length and measuring a pixel length. The length value of pixels is known to perform a shift.)).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yoshida and Szigeti to incorporate the teachings of Szigeti to extract a length value and compare it to a known length value for each of the plurality of shape marking members. Doing so would predictably increase the error detection accuracy by being able to calculate a difference value between a length value and an expected length value for each of the plurality of shape markings.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida et al. (US 20190066287 A1), hereinafter Yoshida, in view of Xie et al. (US 20180205865 A1), hereinafter Xie.
Regarding claim 17, Yoshida teaches The equipment diagnosis method of claim 11. wherein the master jig image analysis step comprises a second marking member analysis step of extracting a brightness value from an image of a brightness marking member coupled to the outer surface of the master jig (Para. 30 see "the calibration jig 70 is a plate-shape member having an upper surface on which multiple points P are arranged in square grids. Note that the calibration jig 70 is not limited to a member on which circular points P are drawn. For example, a checkerboard pattern may be drawn on the upper surface of the calibration jig 70." Para. 48 see "the first and second feature data 27 and 57 are position data of the points P of the calibration jig 70. Alternatively, the first and second feature data 27 and 57 may be data that indicates the brightness or color hue of pixels in the image." See also Fig. 4-5.).
Yoshida does not teach and comparing the brightness value with a preset brightness value.
However, Xie teaches and comparing the brightness value with a preset brightness value. (Para. 36 see "when the determined ambient brightness value is lower than the preset threshold value, the light fill-in device may be turned on.").
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yoshida to incorporate the teachings of Xie to compare a measured brightness value to a preset brightness value. Doing so would predictably increase the accuracy of detecting errors and calibrating the optical system by analyzing the measured brightness value and comparing it to an expected brightness value to determine if a calibration is needed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 2-3, 7, 18-20 is/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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Li et al. (US 20230316496 A1) discloses A method that receives a plurality of images of a test object, including a plurality of surfaces of the test object. The processor compares each region of interest with a corresponding profile image and identifying defects in each region of interest. The method includes grading, by the processor, a cosmetic appearance of each region of interest based on the identified defects.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER J VAUGHN whose telephone number is (571) 272-5253. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5.
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, ANDREW MOYER can be reached on (571) 272-9523. 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.
/ALEXANDER JOSEPH VAUGHN/Examiner, Art Unit 2675
/EDWARD PARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2675