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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-11) in the reply filed on 12/16/25 is acknowledged.
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 07/02/24 has been acknowledged. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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:
a communication module in claim 1 and 11 (13 @ figure 2).
a communication means in claim 10.
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 § 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.
Claims 8 and 10 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 10; The claim limitation “a communication means” is a limitation that invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre- AJA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. No association between the structure and the function can be found in the specification. As such, there is no way to determine the metes and bounds of the claim, as there is no clearly defined structure which one can use, along with its equivalents, to provide a foundation with means for transmitting and means for receiving. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AUA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f or pre-AJA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(0) and 2181.
Regarding claim 8; the limitation recitation “a basis of the condition data of the additional capturing instead of or in addition to the predetermined pre-capturing conditions” is indefiniteness, since it is unclear whether limitation “instead of or” is required in the claim. For the purpose examination, the Examiner assumes that the limitation “instead of or in addition to the predetermined pre-capturing conditions” is deleted and is not part of the above limitation.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph 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 the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AJA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was hot 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 applications subject to pre - AJA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 10, the claim is rejected for a lack of written description for the reasons set forth above regarding 35 USC 112(b) and indefiniteness. This rejection is made because an indefinite, unbounded limitation would cover all structure that performs the claimed function. Because applicant has not clearly set forth the corresponding structure that would allow one having ordinary skill in the art to make the apparatus with the corresponding functionality, this indicates that applicant has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention. The instant specification does not disclose structure or algorithm to perform the claimed function of means for transmitting and means for receiving. See MPEP 2161.01. If the specification does not provide a disclosure of the communication means in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, for lack of written description must be made.
For more information regarding the written description requirement, see MPEP § 2162-§ 2163.07(b). MPEP 2181 section IV “When a claim containing a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation is found to be indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for failure to disclose sufficient corresponding structure (e.g., communication means) in the specification, means for transmitting that evokes 112(f) as seen above and is required that further detail be provided in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Suzuki et al (JP 2010 271055 A hereinafter “Suzuki”).
Regarding claims 1 and 10-11; Suzuki discloses an inspection system, method (1 @ figure 1), and a non-transitory computer-readable medium having embodied thereon a program for a visual appearance inspection device (3 @ figure 1) connected to a centralized control device (5 @ figure 1) via a network (4 @ figure 1) to perform appearance inspection of an inspection object (inspection object panel 11 @ figure 2: e.g., in the visual inspection apparatus 3 to be described later, the automatic inspection apparatus 2 takes in the inspection object panel 11, sets it on the set stage and conveys it to the inspection section, and the inspection panel conveyed to the inspection section) conveyed on an inspection line (1 @ figure 1) in accordance with operations of the centralized control device (5 @ figure 1), wherein the inspection line (1 @ figure 1) includes the visual appearance inspection device (3 @ figure 1) and an automatic appearance inspection device (2 @ figure 1) that automatically inspects the inspection object (11 @figure 2) prior to the inspection of the visual appearance inspection device (3 @ figures 1-2),
wherein the visual appearance inspection device (3 @ figures 1-2):
comprises a capturing camera (9 @ figure 2), a communication module (the input / output device 14 @ figure 3), and a visual inspection computer (7 @ figures 2-3);
receives position data of an inspection-required portion of the inspection object (11 @ figure 2) from a second database (a storage device 13 @ figure 3) connected via a network (4 @ figure 1) and stores automatic inspection data including a determination result of the automatic inspection performed by the automatic appearance inspection device (2 @ figure 1: e.g., When the reading of the identification ID is completed, the computer 12 automatically or after waiting for a command from the input/output device 14, the automatic inspection result for the inspection panel 11 of the read identification ID via the network 4. Request to send information. This request is made to the automatic inspection apparatus 2 when the automatic inspection result information is stored in the storage device of the automatic inspection apparatus 2, and to the management server 5 when stored in the management server 5) and defective portion data (figures 3-7: e.g., the marker pattern creation device 16 determines whether the defect is, for example, a point defect, a line, or the like for each of one or more defects determined to be present on the inspection panel 11 based on the transmitted automatic inspection result information. It is determined whether the defect is a defect or a mura defect, and the determination result is stored in the storage device 13 in association with each defect);
pre-captures the inspection-required portion of the inspection object (11 @ figure 2) under predetermined capturing conditions prior (figure 2: e.g., the set stage so that the inspection panel 11 set on the set stage is at a predetermined inspection position) to a visual inspection by an inspector (figures 2-3: e.g., This is visually inspected by an inspector, and a visual inspection is performed); and
stores a pre-captured image obtained by the pre-capturing in a first database (pattern storage device 15 @ figure 3: e.g., a plurality of types of test patterns are stored in the test pattern storage device 15, and the inspector selects the type of test pattern to be transmitted from the input/output device 14 to the pattern synthesis device 17 via the computer 12. You can select and specify each. In addition, the test pattern stored in the test pattern storage device 15 can be changed, updated, and replaced by the inspector as appropriate from the input/output device 14 via the computer 12). See figures 1-7
Regarding claim 2; Suzuki discloses the pre-captured image is a still image or a moving image (figures 1-3: e.g., The automatic inspection apparatus 2 includes an imaging device such as a television camera or a CCD camera as image data acquisition means for capturing the display screen of the inspection target panel on which the test pattern is displayed as image data… the image data captured for the inspection panel and / or the analysis result of the image data may be stored together).
Regarding claim 4; Suzuki discloses main visual inspection portions (loader unit 6, inspection unit 7, monitor screen 8, camera 9, and inspection panel 11 @ figures 2-3) for the visual appearance inspection device (3 @ figure 2-3) are set in advance and position data of the main visual inspection portions (6,7,8, 9, 11 @ figure 2) are stored in the first database (13 @ figure 3), and wherein, in the pre-capturing image camera (9 @ figure 2), the main visual inspection portions (6,7,8, 11 @ figure 2) are captured with reference to the position data of the main visual inspection portions (6, 7, 8, 9, 11 @ figure 2: e.g., in the inspection unit 7, alignment is performed using the alignment cameras 9 and 9 and the set stage so that the inspection panel 11 set on the set stage is at a predetermined inspection position).
Regarding claim 5; Suzuki discloses an inspector (figure 2: e.g., this is visually inspected by an inspector, and a visual inspection is performed) instructs the visual appearance inspection device (3 @ figure 2) to perform additional capturing in the visual inspection (9, 9 @ figure 2: e.g., 9 and 9 are alignment cameras provided in the inspection unit 7), the visual appearance inspection device (3 @ figure 2) performs additional capturing in accordance with the instruction from the inspector (figure 2: e.g., this is visually inspected by an inspector, and a visual inspection is performed), and wherein a real-time image (figures 5-7) captured by the additional capturing is displayed on a display unit (8 @ figure 2).
Regarding claim 6; Suzuki discloses condition data of the additional capturing image (figures 5-7: e.g., By repeating the above operation, the marker pattern creation device 16 calculates the addresses of the marker cells to be displayed for all the defects included in the received automatic inspection result information, and stores them together with the color of the marker) are stored in the first database (15 @ figure 3), and the visual appearance inspection device (3 @ figure 2) performs subsequent pre-capturing on a basis of the condition data of the additional capturing (figures 2-3: e.g., When the creation of the marker pattern is completed, the computer 12 transmits the marker pattern created by the marker pattern creation device 16 to the pattern synthesis device 17 automatically or after waiting for a command from the input/output device 14 and performs a test. An appropriate test pattern stored in the pattern storage device 15 is transmitted to the pattern synthesis device 17).
Regarding claim 9; Suzuki discloses the first database (15 @ figure 3) and the second database (13 @ figure 3) are integrated in one database.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al (JP 2010 271055 A hereinafter “Suzuki”) in view of Kitamura (US 2020/0273203).
Regarding claim 3; Suzuki discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for a correction value in a Z-axis direction of the inspection object is acquired in advance, wherein the correction value is stored in the first database, and wherein, in the pre-capturing, a correction in the Z-axis direction of the inspection object is performed with reference to the correction value. However, Kitamura teaches that it is known in the art to provide a correction value in a Z-axis direction (paragraph [0046]: e.g., a correction value ΔZwn with respect to the position of the inspection target object 4 in the Z-axis direction is calculated. The correction value ΔZwn can be calculated using the following Equation 3, based on a relationship between the position in the Z-axis direction and the error in the above-described Equation 1. FIG. 4 illustrates a relationship in Equation 3. Where, Zwn is a position in the Z-axis direction in the workpiece coordinates of the inspection target object 4) of the inspection object (4 of figure 1) is acquired in advance, wherein the correction value is stored in the first database (3 @ figure 1), and wherein, in the pre-capturing, a correction in the Z-axis direction of the inspection object (4 @ figure 1) is performed with reference to the correction value (paragraph [0046]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine inspection system of Suzuki with limitation above as taught Kitamura for the purpose improving calculation an accuracy correction value of inspection object.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al (JP 2010 271055 A hereinafter “Suzuki”) in view of Suzuki (JP 2008 102075 A submitted by IDS).
Regarding claim 7; Suzuki (‘055) discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for when performing a visual inspection by an inspector, the visual appearance inspection device waits at a position where a capturing camera which has performed the pre-capturing captured a first inspection portion on which the inspector performs a first visual inspection for the pre-captured image. However, Suzuki (‘075) teaches that it is known in the art to provide when performing a visual inspection by an inspector (12 @ figures 1 and 4), the visual appearance inspection device (11 @ figures 1 and 4) waits at a position where a capturing camera (abstract: e.g., plurality of visual inspection supporting devices 12 each having cameras that capture areas in a substrate to be examined are connected through communication units respectively and appearance inspection images are input) which has performed the pre-capturing captured a first inspection portion on which the inspector (12 @ figures 1 and 4) performs a first visual inspection for the pre-captured image (figures 1 and 4: e.g., input means connected to a plurality of visual inspection apparatuses each equipped with a camera for photographing the inspection region of the substrate via communication means, and an inspection region based on the visual inspection captured image). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine inspection system of Suzuki (‘055) with limitation above as taught Suzuki (‘075) for the purpose improving the efficiency of the visual inspection.
Regarding claim 8; Suzuki (‘055) discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for when performing a visual inspection by an inspector, the visual appearance inspection device waits at a position where a capturing camera which has performed the pre-capturing captured a first inspection portion on which the inspector performs a first visual inspection for the pre-captured image. However, Suzuki (‘075) teaches that it is known in the art to provide when performing a visual inspection by an inspector (12 @ figures 1 and 4), the visual appearance inspection device (11 @ figures 1 and 4) moves the capturing camera (abstract) which has performed the pre-capturing to a portion corresponding to a portion of the pre-captured image displayed on the display unit (33 @ figures 1 and 4). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine inspection system of Suzuki (‘055) with limitation above as taught Suzuki (‘075) for the purpose improving the efficiency of the visual inspection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1) Yasuhiro (JP 2009 031141 A) discloses an inspection process of applying a first set of inspections to a first display panel when the first display panel is carried into the automatic inspection device, and a processing process of applying a second set of processing to the first display panel when the second first display panel carried in following the first display panel is not detected by a sensor when the inspection process is completed.
2) Fumiaki et al (WO 2019 151393 A1) discloses food inspection system, a food inspection program, a food inspection method and a food production method that realize accurate and prompt selection of food raw material, and contribute to the production of high-quality food and the control of costs.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANG H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2425. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at 571-270-5789. 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.
/SN/
December 27, 2025
/SANG H NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877