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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/18/25 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Minami, JP 4219489
Regarding claim 1, Minami teaches an electric leakage detection method for detecting an electric leakage region of a component to be tested including a first surface and a second surface, the first surface being provided over at least part of the second surface (Fig. 6; circuit board PC to be inspected having multiple surfaces), the electric leakage detection method comprising: arranging a first conductive element on a side of the first surface away from the second surface (Fig 6; ¶[0005]; a probe 3b disposed above or below the circuit board PC to be inspected), and applying a voltage between the first conductive element and the second surface (Fig. 6; ¶[0005] “applying an inspection DC signal SDC of about 100 V”); moving the first conductive element relative to the first surface (¶[0005]; probe moved for multiple conductor patterns) and determining, under a condition that a resistance between the first conductive element and the second surface is less than a preset resistance, a projection region of the first conductive element on the first surface as the electric leakage region (¶[0005]; “control device 32 determines that there is an insulation failure in the conductor pattern P when the measured insulation resistance is less than a predetermined threshold value”).
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.
Claim 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minami, JP 4219489 in view of Kawata et al., US 20120123699
Regarding claim 2, Minami teaches wherein moving the first conductive element relative to the first surface, and determining, under the condition that the resistance between the first conductive element and the second surface is less than the preset resistance, the projection region of the first conductive element on the first surface as the electric leakage region comprises: moving the first conductive element relative to the first surface along a first direction, and determining, under the condition that the resistance between the first conductive element and the second surface is less than the preset resistance, moving the first conductive element relative to the first surface along a second direction, and determining, under the condition that the resistance between the first conductive element and the second surface is less than the preset resistance (¶[0005]; probe moved along surface for multiple patterns)
Minami is silent in determining a distance the first conductive element moves along the first direction as a first coordinate value, a distance the first conductive element moves along the second direction as a second coordinate value, wherein the first direction intersects the second direction; and obtaining the electric leakage region based on a coordinate set obtained by permutation and combination of the first coordinate value and the second coordinate value. Kawata teaches determining a distance the first conductive element moves along the first direction as a first coordinate value, a distance the first conductive element moves along the second direction as a second coordinate value (Fig. 2, Fig. 14; sensor moves along inspection object in x and y direction; ¶[0076] ), wherein the first direction intersects the second direction (Fig. 14; scanning path in x direction and y direction); and obtaining a defect region based on a coordinate set obtained by permutation and combination of the first coordinate value and the second coordinate value (¶[0076]- [0077]; defect determined based on x and y coordinate values). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to incorporate the teaching of Kawata into Minami for the benefit of determining a position of a defect.
Claim(s) 3, 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minami, JP 4219489 in view of Kawata et al., US 20120123699 in view of Wood, US 4473795
Regarding claim 3, Minami is silent in determining whether a number of positions in the first surface corresponding to the coordinate set is one; and determining, under a condition that the number of the positions is one, the position in the first surface corresponding to the coordinate set as the electric leakage region; and detecting, under a condition that the number of the positions is more than one, electric leakage information of the positions each to determine the electric leakage region. Wood discloses determining whether a number of positions in the first surface corresponding to the coordinate set is one; and determining, under a condition that the number of the positions is one, the position in the first surface corresponding to the coordinate set as the electric leakage region; and detecting, under a condition that the number of the positions is more than one, electric leakage information of the positions each to determine the electric leakage region (Col. 4 lines 66- Col. 5 lines 15; Fig. 1-2; multiple defects detected and location of defects mapped out on a map). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to incorporate the teaching of Wood into Minami for the benefit of providing a comprehensive defect data analysis of the component.
Regarding claim 5, Minami is silent in acquiring picture information of each of the positions; and determining, under a condition that the picture information contains defect information, a position corresponding to the defect information as the electric leakage region. Wood teaches acquiring picture information of each of the positions; and determining, under a condition that the picture information contains defect information, a position corresponding to the defect information as the electric leakage region (Col. 6 lines 25-40; map of defects is produced after scanning and a location and size of defect is determined). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to incorporate the teaching of Wood into Minami for the benefit of providing a comprehensive defect data analysis of the component.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minami, JP 4219489 in view of Hamada, US 4914395
Regarding claim 7, Minami teaches an electric leakage detection apparatus for detecting an electric leakage region of a component to be tested including a first surface and a second surface, the first surface being provided over at least part of the second surface (Fig. 6; circuit board PC to be inspected having multiple surfaces), the electric leakage detection apparatus comprising: a voltage supply device (¶[0005]; applying an inspection DC signal SDC of about 100 V;); a detection device (Fig. 6; control device 32 with probe moving mechanism 4a, 4b); and a power source connected to the component to be tested and/or the detection device to drive the component to be tested and the detection device to move relatively (Fig. 6; probe moving mechanism 4a receives power from control device 32 to move probe), so as to determine the electric leakage region under a condition that a resistance between the detection device and the second surface is less than a preset resistance (¶[0005]; “control device 32 determines that there is an insulation failure in the conductor pattern when…resistance is less than a predetermined threshold value”).
Minami is silent in a base configured to hold the component to be tested; the voltage supply device is arranged on the base, wherein one terminal of the voltage supply device is electrically connected to the second surface; a detection device electrically connected to the other terminal of the voltage supply device; wherein the detection device is arranged on a side of the first surface away from the second surface. Hamada teaches base configured to hold the component to be tested (Fig. 1-4; conveyor 14); the voltage supply device is arranged on the base (Fig. 4; impedance means 28), wherein one terminal of the voltage supply device is electrically connected to the second surface (Fig. 4; electrode on conveyor 14 connected to the impedance means 28); a detection device electrically connected to the other terminal of the voltage supply device (Fig. 1-4; elements of control circuit 20 connected to the conveyor belt 14 and impedance means 28); wherein the detection device is arranged on a side of the first surface away from the second surface (Fig. 1; control circuit 20 arranged away from bottom surface of packaging member 12 to be inspected). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to incorporate the teaching of Hamada into Minami for the benefit of securing the component to be tested to the test system so that reliable measurements can be made.
Claim(s) 8, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minami, JP 4219489 in view of Hamada, US 4914395 in view of Kawata et al., US 20120123699
Regarding claim 8, Minami teaches wherein the detection device comprises a first conductive element electrically connected to the voltage supply device, the first conductive element is arranged on the side of the first surface away from the second surface, and the power source is configured to drive the component to be tested and/or the first conductive element to move relatively along a first direction and a second direction respectively, so as to obtain, under a condition that a resistance between the first conductive element and the second surface is less than a preset resistance (¶[0005]; probe moved along surface and resistance is measured).
Minami is silent in a coordinate set and the electric leakage region, wherein the first direction intersects the second direction. Kawata teaches obtaining a coordinate set and a electric defect region, wherein the first direction intersects the second direction (¶[0076]- [0077]; defect determined based on x and y coordinate values). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to incorporate the teaching of Kawata into Minami for the benefit of determining a position of a defect.
Regarding claim 9, Minami is silent in wherein an outline shape of the first conductive element matches a shape of the first surface. Kawata teaches wherein an outline shape of a first conductive element matches a shape of a first surface of a component to be inspected (Fig. 2-3a; inspection object and scanner both having a rectangular shape) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to incorporate the teaching of Kawata into Minami since having similar shapes of inspection device and inspection object would allow the inspection device to easily scan the inspection object.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minami, JP 4219489 in view of Hamada, US 4914395 in view of Kawata et al., US 20120123699 in view of Hara, US 5146509
Regarding claim 12, Minami is silent in wherein the detection device further comprises a picture acquisition element configured to acquire picture information containing positions in the first surface corresponding to the coordinate set, and determine, under a condition that the picture information contains defect information, a position corresponding to the defect information as the electric leakage region. Hara teaches a picture acquisition element configured to acquire picture information containing positions in a first surface corresponding to the coordinate set, and determine, under a condition that the picture information contains defect information, a position corresponding to the defect information (Fig. 1; detect detection unit 3 to local image memory 12 and processor 13). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to incorporate the teaching of Hara into Minami for the benefit of producing an image signal of the part to be inspected for quick analysis of defects.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 6, 10-11, 13 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:
Regarding claim 4, prior art does not disclose or suggest: “arranging a second conductive element in each of the positions, and applying a voltage between the second conductive element and the second surface; and determining, under a condition that a resistance between the second conductive element and the second surface is less than a preset resistance, a projection region of the second conductive element on the first surface as the electric leakage region” in combination with all the limitations of claim 4.
Regarding claim 6, prior art does not disclose or suggest: “covering all the first surface with a third conductive element; and applying a voltage between the third conductive element and the second surface, and performing, under a condition that a resistance between the third conductive element and the second surface is less than a preset resistance, the step of arranging the first conductive element on the side of the first surface away from the second surface, and applying the voltage between the first conductive element and the second surface” in combination with all the limitations of claim 6.
Regarding claim 10, prior art does not disclose or suggest: “wherein the detection device further comprises a second conductive element electrically connected to the voltage supply device, and the second conductive element is arranged on the first surface at a position corresponding to the coordinate set and is configured to determine, under a condition that a resistance between the second conductive element and the second surface is less than a preset resistance, a projection region of the second conductive element on the first surface as the electric leakage region” in combination with all the limitations of claim 10.
Regarding claim 13, prior art does not disclose or suggest: “wherein the detection device further comprises a third conductive element electrically connected to the voltage supply device, wherein the third conductive element covers all the first surface and is configured to determine, under a condition that a resistance between the third conductive element and the second surface is less than a preset resistance, an electric leakage condition of the first surface” in combination with all the limitations of claim 13.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FEBA POTHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-9219. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00 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, Judy Nguyen can be reached on 571.272.2258. 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.
/FEBA POTHEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2858