DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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.
31066.. Claims 1, 2, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al (US Pub: 2021/0073972) and in further view of Chen et al (US Pub: 2021/0319266) and Shaubi et al (US Pub: 2020/0226420).
Claim 1 has been analyzed and rejected with regard to claim 8.
Regarding claim 2, the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Claim 2 had been analyzed and rejected with regard to claim 8.
Regarding claim 8, Wu et al teaches: A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a set of computer-readable instructions for a computer configured to perform processing on image data, the set of computer-readable instructions, when executed by the computer, causing the computer to perform [claim 12]: and generating output data by executing a third image process on the processed original image data and the processed captured image data, the output data being related to a defect in an appearance of the target object, wherein the third image process comprises a process using a machine learning model that has been trained [p0056, p0057],
Wu et al does not teach the first or the second image process. In the same field of endeavor, Chen et al teaches: generating processed original image data by executing a first image process on original image data, the original image data representing an object image which is a design image of a target object; wherein the first image process comprises a first process, the first process being not included in the second image process [p0065]; wherein the first process comprises a pre-process, the pre-process comprising at least one of a noise adding process and a blurring process, the noise adding process, when executed on first target image data representing a first target image, adding noise to the first target image, the blurring process, when executed on second target image data representing a second target image, blurring the second target image [p0065, p0072]; and wherein the machine learning model has been trained using training image data, the training image data being generated by executing processes including a process identical to the pre-process on the original image data [fig. 4, p0006, p0123].
Chen et al performs two processes on two different images without differentiating the images. In the same field of endeavor, Shaubi et al teaches: generating processed captured image data by executing a second image process on captured image data, the captured image data representing a captured object image, the captured object image being obtained by capturing an image of the target object; wherein the second image process comprises a second process, the second process being not included in the first image process [abstract, p0068, p0069]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of all to introduce blur/noise augmentation technique of Chen et al to Shaubi et al’s real world image sample to train ML defect detection system of Wu et al to improve defect detection model to noise, blur, and other variabilities.
41066.. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al (US Pub: 2021/0073972), Chen et al (US Pub: 2021/0319266), and Shaubi et al (US Pub: 2020/0226420); and in further view of Luo et al (CN Pub: 109829903).
Regarding claim 9, the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 8 has been incorporated herein. Wu et al in view of Chen et al and Shaubi et al does not specify defect removal. In the same field of endeavor, Luo et al teaches: The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium according to claim 8, wherein the machine learning model has been trained to generate generated image data from input image data representing an image of the target object, the generated image data representing a defect-free object image [page 4: p05..p10]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of all to generate defect free image data from input for comparison and improving detecting precision.
51066.. Claims 3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al (US Pub: 2021/0073972), Chen et al (US Pub: 2021/0319266), and Shaubi et al (US Pub: 2020/0226420); and in further view of Pitie et al (US Pub: 2008/0089581).
Regarding claim 10, the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 8 has been incorporated herein. Wu et al in view of Chen et al and Shaubi et al does not adjust color distribution between images. In the same field of endeavor, Pitie et al teaches: The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium according to claim 8, wherein the first process comprises a first color adjustment process, the first color adjustment process, when executed on first target image data representing a first target image, adjusting color distribution in the first target image to be closer to color distribution in a second target image represented by second target image data based on the captured image data, and wherein the second process comprises a second color adjustment process, the second color adjustment process, when executed on third target image data representing a third target image, adjusting color distribution in the third target image to be closer to color distribution in a fourth target image represented by fourth target image data based on the original image data [fig. 3A]. Therefore, given Pitie et al’s illustration on adjusting color of an image to match that of another image, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Pitie et al’s color matching technique to Wu et al in view of Chen et al and Shaubi et al’s teaching for better color consistency.
Regarding claim 3, the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Claim 3 had been analyzed and rejected with regard to claim 10.
61066.. Claims 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al (US Pub: 2021/0073972), Chen et al (US Pub: 2021/0319266), and Shaubi et al (US Pub: 2020/0226420); and in further view of DeWeert et al (US Pub: 2019/0228506).
Regarding claim 11, the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 8 has been incorporated herein. Wu et al in view of Chen et al and Shaubi et al does not specify denoising or deblurring. In the same field of endeavor, DeWeert et al teaches: The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium according to claim 8, wherein the second process comprises a pre-process, the pre-process comprising at least one of a noise reduction process and a blur reduction process, the noise reduction process, when executed on first target image data representing a first target image, reducing noise in the first target image, the blur reduction process, when executed on second target image data representing a second target image, reducing blur in the second target image [abstract, p0007]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of all to denoise/deblur image data as preprocessing for providing reliable target data for defect comparison.
Regarding claim 4, the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Claim 4 had been analyzed and rejected with regard to claim 11.
71066.. Claims 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al (US Pub: 2021/0073972), Chen et al (US Pub: 2021/0319266), and Shaubi et al (US Pub: 2020/0226420); and in further view of Zhu et al (CN Pub: 107452030).
Regarding claim 12, the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 8 has been incorporated herein. Wu et al in view of Chen et al and Shaubi et al does not specify outline process. In the same field of endeavor, Zhu et al teaches: The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium according to claim 8, wherein the first process comprises an outline matching process, the outline matching process, when executed on first target image data representing a first target image, matching an outline of a portion of the first target image corresponding to the object image with an outline of the captured object image [abstract]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of all for outline matching processing on targe image to suppress misalignment.
Regarding claim 5, the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Claim 5 had been analyzed and rejected with regard to claim 12.
81066.. Claims 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al (US Pub: 2021/0073972), Chen et al (US Pub: 2021/0319266), and Shaubi et al (US Pub: 2020/0226420); and in further view of Pitie et al (US Pub: 2008/0089581) and Zhu et al (CN Pub: 107452030).
Regarding claim 13, the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 8 has been incorporated herein. Claim 13 has been analyzed and rejected with regard to claims 10 and 12.
Regarding claim 6, the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 2 has been incorporated herein. Claim 6 had been analyzed and rejected with regard to claim 13.
91066.. Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al (US Pub: 2021/0073972), Chen et al (US Pub: 2021/0319266), and Shaubi et al (US Pub: 2020/0226420); and in further view of Luo et al (CN Pub: 109829903) and Minkin et al (US Patent: 7,346,227).
Regarding claim 14, the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 8 has been incorporated herein. Wu et al in view of Chen et al and Shaubi et al does not specify a difference image of overlapping the difference image and original image. In the same field of endeavor, Luo et al teaches: The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium according to claim 8, wherein the third image process comprises: a difference image generation process executed on the processed captured image data representing a processed captured image to generate difference image data representing a difference image, the difference image depicting difference of a portion of the processed captured image corresponding to the captured object image from a defect-free object image, an output data generation process executed on the difference image data and the processed original image data to generate the output data, [page 4: p05..p10, pages 20, 21 (The residual represents difference image.)].
Luo et al does not disclose superimposing a difference image and an original image. In the same field of endeavor, Minkin et al teaches: the output data representing a superimposed image of the difference image and a processed original image represented by the processed original image data [col 7: lines 34-36]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of all to superimpose a difference image to an original image to obtain a new converted image for training purpose.
Regarding claim 7, the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Claim 7 had been analyzed and rejected with regard to claim 14.
101066.. Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al (US Pub: 2021/0073972), Chen et al (US Pub: 2021/0319266), and Shaubi et al (US Pub: 2020/0226420); and in further view of Spivakovsky et al (US Pub: 2018/0131815).
Claim 15 has been analyzed and rejected with regard to claim 8. Wu et al in view of Chen et al and Shaubi et al does not specify a printed object image. In the same field of endeavor, Spivakovsky et al teaches: the captured object image being obtained by capturing an image of a printed object, the printed object being produced by printing an object image [fig. 2]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of all to capture a printed image to detect a defect based on comparison.
Regarding claim 16, the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 15 has been incorporated herein. Claim 16 had been analyzed and rejected with regard to claim 8.
111066.. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al (US Pub: 2021/0073972), Chen et al (US Pub: 2021/0319266), Shaubi et al (US Pub: 2020/0226420), and Spivakovsky et al (US Pub: 2018/0131815); and in further view of Pitie et al (US Pub: 2008/0089581).
Regarding claim 17, the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 15 has been incorporated herein. Claim 17 had been analyzed and rejected with regard to claim 10.
121066.. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al (US Pub: 2021/0073972), Chen et al (US Pub: 2021/0319266), Shaubi et al (US Pub: 2020/0226420), and Spivakovsky et al (US Pub: 2018/0131815); and in further view of DeWeert et al (US Pub: 2019/0228506).
Regarding claim 18, the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 15 has been incorporated herein. Claim 18 had been analyzed and rejected with regard to claim 11.
131066.. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al (US Pub: 2021/0073972), Chen et al (US Pub: 2021/0319266), Shaubi et al (US Pub: 2020/0226420), and Spivakovsky et al (US Pub: 2018/0131815); and in further view of Zhu et al (CN Pub: 107452030).
Regarding claim 19, the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 15 has been incorporated herein. Claim 19 had been analyzed and rejected with regard to claim 12.
141066.. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al (US Pub: 2021/0073972), Chen et al (US Pub: 2021/0319266), Shaubi et al (US Pub: 2020/0226420), and Spivakovsky et al (US Pub: 2018/0131815); and in further view of Pitie et al (US Pub: 2008/0089581) and Zhu et al (CN Pub: 107452030).
Regarding claim 20, the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 16 has been incorporated herein. Claim 20 had been analyzed and rejected with regard to claim 13.
151066.. Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al (US Pub: 2021/0073972), Chen et al (US Pub: 2021/0319266), Shaubi et al (US Pub: 2020/0226420), and Spivakovsky et al (US Pub: 2018/0131815); and in further view of Luo et al (CN Pub: 109829903) and Minkin et al (US Patent: 7,346,227).
Regarding claim 21, the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 15 has been incorporated herein. Claim 21 had been analyzed and rejected with regard to claim 14.
Contact
16. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FAN ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3751. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00-5:00.
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, Benny Tieu can be reached on 571-272-7490. 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.
/Fan Zhang/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2682