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 .
Claim Interpretation
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: “component inspection device”, “imaging section”, “storage section”, and “processing section” in claim 4.
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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 and 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to mental process abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites:
“extracting a pixel having a luminance value in a predetermined range corresponding to the color of the component among pixels constituting the color image as a specific pixel”, which can reasonably be interpreted as a human observer viewing a displayed image and mentally extracting image region(s) based on a visually perceived range of displayed luminance value color; and
“determining whether the component is mounted at a correct position by performing edge detection on the color image subjected to the emphasis processing”, which can reasonably be interpreted as a human observer viewing a displayed image and mentally determining whether a component is mounted at a correct position by visually perceiving and mentally detecting an edge of the component.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because additional elements:
“imaging an upper surface of a board on which a component is mounted to acquire a color image in which a color of each pixel is represented by luminance values of multiple primary colors” are generically recited insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering; and
“performing emphasis processing of emphasizing the luminance value of the extracted specific pixel” are generically recited.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because additional elements:
“imaging an upper surface of a board on which a component is mounted to acquire a color image in which a color of each pixel is represented by luminance values of multiple primary colors” are insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering; and
“performing emphasis processing of emphasizing the luminance value of the extracted specific pixel” are well-understood, routine, conventional.
Depending claim 3 does not remedy this deficiency because it also recites limitations that pertain to insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering.
As per claim(s) 4, arguments made in rejecting claim(s) 1 are analogous. Claim 4 further recites, “component inspection device”, “storage section”, and “processing section”, which are interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) as incorporating disclosed structure and equivalents thereof. These limitations are generically recited computer elements that do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. Also, these limitations are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). Limitations “imaging section” pertain to insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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(s) 1 and 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 107945184 A (Hao) in view of US 20190357396 A1 (Matsumoto).
Claim 1. (Original) A component inspection method comprising (Hao:
Page 3, middle para:
PNG
media_image1.png
183
1695
media_image1.png
Greyscale
):
imaging an upper surface of a board on which a component is mounted to acquire a color image in which a color of each pixel is represented by luminance values of multiple primary colors (Hao:
PNG
media_image2.png
314
1719
media_image2.png
Greyscale
page 3, near end of page:
PNG
media_image3.png
264
1641
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
793
1009
media_image4.png
Greyscale
color imaging top surface of integrated circuit board on which a component is mounted. Figures and associated text show that the circuit board is image from above);
extracting a pixel having a luminance value in a predetermined range corresponding to the color of the component among pixels constituting the color image as a specific pixel (Hao:
page 3, near end of page:
PNG
media_image5.png
68
1654
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Page 5, middle of page:
PNG
media_image6.png
63
1124
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Page 7, third-to-last para:
PNG
media_image7.png
86
1108
media_image7.png
Greyscale
segmenting based on intensity ranges in each color channel);
performing emphasis processing of emphasizing the luminance value of the extracted specific pixel (Hao:
page 3, near end of page:
PNG
media_image8.png
67
1646
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Page 5, middle of page:
PNG
media_image9.png
73
1134
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
594
710
media_image10.png
Greyscale
perform enhancement (e.g. alignment) on the segmented region); and
determining whether the component is mounted at a correct position by performing edge detection on the color image subjected to the emphasis processing (Hao:
page 3, near end of page:
PNG
media_image11.png
109
998
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Page 5, middle of page:
PNG
media_image12.png
84
1142
media_image12.png
Greyscale
End of page 10 to beginning of page 11:
PNG
media_image13.png
553
1108
media_image13.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image14.png
752
1076
media_image14.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image15.png
605
874
media_image15.png
Greyscale
determining whether the component is mounted at a correct position by performing edge detection on the enhanced segmented image).
Matsumoto also teaches imaging an upper surface of a board on which a component is mounted (Matsumoto:
Para 64: “imaging device 26 moves above circuit board 12 and images circuit board 12”;
Para 91: “the position of a specified black circle 482 from imaging of plate 480 loaded on the upper surface of stage 156 is calculated as X1, and the position of the specified black circle 482 from imaging of plate 480 10 mm above the upper surface of stage 156 is calculated as X2. Further, the position of the specified black circle 482 from imaging of plate 480 20 mm above the upper surface of stage 156 is calculated as X3, and the position of the specified black circle 482 from imaging of plate 480 30 mm above the upper surface of stage 156 is calculated as X4.”;
PNG
media_image16.png
636
462
media_image16.png
Greyscale
).
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to filing, to implement the teachings of Matsumoto into Hao since both Hao and Matsumoto suggest a practical solution and field of endeavor of imaging components on a circuit board in general and Matsumoto additionally provides teachings that can be incorporated into Hao in that the top surface of the circuit board is imaged as to so that “work head 60 or 62 holding the component moves above circuit board 12, and mounts the held component on circuit board 12 after correcting for the error in the holding position of circuit board 12 and the error in the holding position of the component and so on” (Matsumoto: para 64). The teachings of Matsumoto can be incorporated into Hao in that the top surface of the circuit board is imaged. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and, in combination, each component functions the same as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination would be predictable.
As per claim 3, Hao in view of Matsumoto teaches the component inspection method according to Claim 1. Hao in view of Matsumoto, as cited above, is silent regarding the component is a bottom electrode component having an electrode portion on a bottom surface.
Matsumoto further teaches limitations (Matsumoto:
Para 60: “two leads 414 that protrude from the bottom surface of component”;
PNG
media_image17.png
423
565
media_image17.png
Greyscale
imaging the upper surface of a board on which a bottom electrode (i.e. electrical connection) component is mounted).
As per claim(s) 4, arguments made in rejecting claim(s) 1 are analogous. Hao also teaches a component inspection device comprising: an imaging section; a storage section; and a processing section (Hao: See arguments and citations offered in rejecting claim 1 above;
Page 3, near end of page: camera;
Page 5, first para: camera;
Page 6, middle paras: “detection device”, “computer processing system”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hao in view of Matsumoto as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of machine translation of CN 108961275 A (Fei).
As per claim 2, Hao in view of Matsumoto teaches the component inspection method according to Claim 1, wherein in the predetermined range, the luminance value of each primary color is equal to or less than a predetermined value (Hao: See arguments and citations offered in rejecting claim 1 above;
Page 5, middle of page:
PNG
media_image6.png
63
1124
media_image6.png
Greyscale
segmenting based on intensity ranges (e.g. below a threshold) in each color channel of an RGB image ).
Hao does not teach a luminance difference of each primary color is equal to or less than a predetermined difference.
Fei teaches a luminance difference of each primary color is equal to or less than a predetermined difference (Fei:
Page 4, middle paras:
PNG
media_image18.png
372
1054
media_image18.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image19.png
235
810
media_image19.png
Greyscale
Page 7, middle paras:
PNG
media_image20.png
327
1040
media_image20.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image21.png
230
793
media_image21.png
Greyscale
Page 10, middle paras:
PNG
media_image22.png
454
1049
media_image22.png
Greyscale
the intensity differences (e.g. within tolerance) between color channels).
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to filing, to implement the teachings of Fei into Hao since both Hao and Fei suggest a practical solution and field of endeavor of a capturing color image of circuit and component and analyzing the image for component positioning based on color segmentation in general and Fei additionally provides teachings that can be incorporated into Hao in that the color segmentation involves color channel differences as to “standard for differentiating black region” (Fei: page 7, para 3). The teachings of Fei can be incorporated into Hao in that the color segmentation involves color channel differences. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and, in combination, each component functions the same as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination would be predictable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Atiba Fitzpatrick whose telephone number is (571) 270-5255. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10:00am-6pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Bee can be reached on (571) 270-5183. The fax phone number for Atiba Fitzpatrick is (571) 270-6255.
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.
Atiba Fitzpatrick
/ATIBA O FITZPATRICK/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2677