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 .
Requirement for Information
An examiner or other Office employee may require from individuals identified under 37 CFR 1.56(c), the submission of such information as may be reasonably necessary to properly examine or treat a matter in a pending or abandoned application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111, in a pending or abandoned application that has entered the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371, in a patent, or in a reexamination proceeding. The scope of 37 CFR 1.105 is extended to any assignee or anyone to whom there is an obligation to assign the application because the information required may be known to some members of the assignee or obligated assignee even if not known by the inventors.
The provisional patent application shows what appears to be a working embodiment of the present invention. See, e.g., Figs. 9 and 15 of 63/528,270 as well as many of the figures showing what appear to be screenshots (e.g., Fig. 14). See also, e.g., 63/528,270 [0019] “Figure 9 is a diagram 900 showing a tape and reel machine vision system integrated with a tape and reel machine, according to some embodiments of the present disclosure” and [0033] “Figure 15 is a diagram 1500 showing a tape and reel machine vision system integrated with a tape and reel machine, according to some embodiments of the present disclosure.” Corresponding sentences are found in the non-provisional patent application.
The technology shown and described appears to be based on old technology. See, e.g., specification, [0018] “the MVS 110 can include a PC Pentium III 500 Megahertz (MHz) dual-processor … Frame grabber PXR 800 Imagenation , STC-1100B Sentech camera.” According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_III, “Intel officially declared end-of-life and discontinued Pentium III processors on July 14, 2009.” https://archive.org/details/manualzilla-id-6922927/page/n1/mode/2up, page ii, shows a copyright date of 2001-2003 for the Imagenation PXR800 Frame Grabber. An internet search suggests that the imagenation brand is no longer being sold. Similarly, https://cybarcode.com/sites/cy/files/specsheets/sentech/stc-1100_product_catalog.pdf is a 2003 catalog that includes the STC-1100B camera and http://www.sentechamerica.com/ is no longer operational.
That many of the components were introduced more than twenty years ago raises the question as to when the embodiments shown were developed.
The examiner is requiring the below information because if this machine has been used by Applicant for sales (e.g., to inspect potentially defective components that are then sold) outside of the grace period, such a use constitutes a forfeiture. MPEP 2133.03(c)(III). See also, MPEP 2152.02(d) explaining that MPEP 2133.03(c)(III) applies to AIA cases, “The phrase “on sale” in AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) is treated as having the same meaning as “on sale” in pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b). For a discussion of “on sale” as used in pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b), see generally MPEP § 2133.03(b) et seq.” Note that “The sale or use of the invention need not occur in the United States to qualify.” MPEP 2152.05.
Had the machine(s) shown in either Fig. 9 or 15 been used to inspect a component, module, or other item that was sold by July 20, 2022? Had an earlier version of the machine(s) shown in either Fig. 9 or 15 been used to inspect a component, module, or other item that was sold by July 20, 2022? The examiner will grant an interview if Applicant has questions regarding this requirement (the examiner was not able to raise this in an interview because there are practitioners of record).
If the answer is “yes,” Applicant may wish to proactively submit evidence or explanation as to why such use is not an on sale bar.
Specification
The specification is objected to for not including a brief description of the drawings. MPEP 608.01(f).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 (all claims) are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 9524543 and 10109047 in view of Stoeber (see the prior art rejection).
This application, claim 1
US9524543B2, claim 1
1. A tape and reel machine vision inspection system comprising:
a camera; a lens; one or more lights; a printed circuit board (PCB) interface configured to interface the tape and reel machine vision inspection system with a tape and reel machine configured to process a plurality of components in a packaging process; a frame grabber; and a computing device including a processor configured to:
determine one or more templates for inspecting the plurality of components processed by the tape and reel machine; obtain at least one image of a component that is processed by the tape and reel machine using the camera and the lens; compare the image of the component that is processed by the tape and reel machine with the one or more templates to determine whether the image of the component and the one or more templates match within a specified threshold; and determine whether the component passes or fails inspection.
1. A method of identifying potentially defective individual packaged modules, the method comprising:
receiving a Printed Circuit Board (PCB) including a set of individual module substrates;
capturing an image of a first side of the PCB;
loading a PCB recipe associated with the PCB; and
for each individual module substrate of the set of individual module substrates, comparing a portion of the image of the first side of the PCB corresponding to the individual module substrate to the PCB recipe, determining based on the comparison whether the individual module substrate matches the PCB recipe within a degree of tolerance, in response to determining that the individual module substrate does not match the PCB recipe within the degree of tolerance, storing a location of the individual module substrate within a map of the PCB, the map identifying individual module substrates of the PCB that are potentially defective, and creating a marking at a location on a second side of the PCB corresponding to the individual module substrate, the second side opposite to the first side of the PCB.
As explained in the prior art rejection, the recipes on the right teach the templates claimed on the left. Many differences in wording (e.g., “match within a specified threshold” v. “match the PCB recipe within the degree of tolerance”) are anticipatory. The present claim recites hardware that the claim on the right does not. As per below, Stoeber teaches these (including the lights, see Stoeber [0014]).
The conflicting claims are combined with Stoeber as per the below prior art rejection.
The analysis for US10109047B2 corresponds to that for US9524543B2.
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 1-20 (all claims) 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.
Claims 1 and 16 recite “tape and reel machine vision inspection system,” but this is new terminology. MPEP 2173.05(a).
Claims 5, 11, and 18 recite “regions of interest,” but the claim does not provide sufficient context to evaluate what the region of interest is. In other words, why isn’t the region of interest simply the entire image?
Claim 8 recites “training option” (twice) but this is new terminology. MPEP 2173.05(a). In particular, “training” in the context of image analysis usually refers to artificial intelligence, but the present application does not disclose use of artificial intelligence.
Dependent claims are likewise rejected.
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 1-20 (all claims) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (mental process) without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claim 1 (and its dependents) recite a system, and machines satisfy Step 1 of the eligibility test.
Claim 16 (and its dependents) recite a method, and processes satisfy Step 1 of the eligibility test.
Step 2A, prong one: All of the elements of the claims are a mental process because a person can look at a part and decide if it looks right. See, e.g., “manual inspection” in Specification [0028] and Fig. 14. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) explains that use of a generic computer or in a computer environment is still a mental process. In particular, this section begins by citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 US 63 (1972). “The Supreme Court recognized this in Benson, determining that a mathematical algorithm for converting binary coded decimal to pure binary within a computer’s shift register was an abstract idea.” In Benson the Supreme Court did not separately analyze the computer hardware at issue; the specifics of what hardware was claimed is only included in an appendix to the decision.
Because there are no additional elements, no further analysis is required for Step 2A, prong two or Step 2B.
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.
Claims 1-20 (all claims) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20170206651A1 (“Skyworks”) in view of EP1607220A2 (“Stoeber”). Citations for Stoeber are to the attached machine translation.
1. A tape and reel machine vision inspection system comprising:
a camera; (Skyworks, Fig. 5A, camera system 512)
a lens; (Skyworks, Fig. 5A, camera system 512)
one or more lights; (Skyworks, [0167] “For instance, if the marking substance reflects a different wavelength or set of wavelengths of light”)
a printed circuit board (PCB) interface configured to interface the tape and reel machine vision inspection system with a tape and reel machine configured to process a plurality of components in a packaging process; and (Skyworks, [0064] “an automated machine that is fed with SMT devices from tape reels.”)
a computing device including a processor configured to: (Skyworks, Fig. 5A, image processor 510)
determine one or more templates for inspecting the plurality of components processed by the tape and reel machine; (Skyworks, Fig. 5A, PCB recipe store 518. Skyworks’s PCB recipes teach the claimed templates. See, e.g., [0009] “the system can include an image processor configured, for each individual module substrate of the set of individual module substrates, to compare a portion of the image corresponding to the individual module substrate to the PCB recipe.”)
obtain at least one image of a component that is processed by the tape and reel machine using the camera and the lens; (Skyworks, Fig. 5A, camera system 512)
compare the image of the component that is processed by the tape and reel machine with the one or more templates to determine whether the image of the component and the one or more templates match within a specified threshold; and (Skyworks, [0009] “The image processor can be further configured to determine based on the comparison whether the individual module substrate matches the PCB recipe within a degree of tolerance.”)
determine whether the component passes or fails inspection. (Skyworks, [0009] “The image processor can be further configured to determine based on the comparison whether the individual module substrate matches the PCB recipe within a degree of tolerance.” See also [0008] describing how a substrate might or might not “match” the tolerance.)
Skyworks is not relied on for the below claim language.
However, Stoeber teaches a frame grabber (Stoeber, [0064] “The image capture module (frame grabber) converts the incoming video image into a digital video stream.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Stoeber to the teachings of Skyworks such that Stoeber provides implementation details (such as the use of a frame grabber or LEDs).
Based on the above, this is an example of “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.” MPEP 2143.
2. The tape and reel machine vision inspection system of claim 1 wherein the tape and reel machine vision inspection system is configured to adjust one or more of: a light intensity, contrast control, gamma control, or focus of the lens. (Stoeber, “This video stream undergoes brightness adjustment (shading correction), perception-oriented color adjustment, and color space transformation in the frame grabber.”)
3. The tape and reel machine vision inspection system of claim 1 wherein the one or more lights include a light-emitting diode (LED). (Stoeber, [0105] “high-luminosity light-emitting diodes 07 or as laser diodes 07.”)
4. The tape and reel machine vision inspection system of claim 1 wherein the PCB interface includes one or more optocouplers for signal conditioning between the tape and reel machine and the tape and reel machine vision inspection system. (Stoeber, [0071] “A human-machine interface is implemented on a control room computer, with all connections preferably made via optocouplers.”)
5. The tape and reel machine vision inspection system of claim 1 wherein the processor is further configured to generate a template from an image of a component obtained by the camera and the lens, wherein the template includes one or more regions of interest. (Skyworks, Fig. 5A, PCB recipe store 518. See also, [0113] “Generally, the PCB recipe includes an image of the PCB without defective individual module substrates.”)
6. The tape and reel machine vision inspection system of claim 5 wherein the template includes one or more of: a part number, a lot number, or a reference pin. (Skyworks, [0134] “In the example illustrated in FIG. 8, the PCB identifier corresponds to the PCB identifier of entry 710 in the PCB map 700.” See also, Fig. 7, “Part ID.” Additionally, the claimed values are nonfunctional descriptive material because the content is not processed. MPEP 2111.05(III))
7. The tape and reel machine vision inspection system of claim 1 wherein the processor is further configured to determine and use multiple templates for inspecting components. (Skyworks, Fig. 5A, PCB recipe store 518.)
8. The tape and reel machine vision inspection system of claim 1 wherein the processor is further configured to:
determine a first template using a main training option; and (Skyworks, Fig. 10, steps 1004-1008. Skyworks’s PCB recipe teaches the claimed first template.)
determine a second template using an auxiliary training option. (Skyworks, Fig. 10, steps 1008-1010. Skyworks’s map teaches the claimed second template.)
9. The tape and reel machine vision inspection system of claim 8 wherein the processor is further configured to:
inspect the component based on the first template; and (Skyworks, Fig. 10, steps 1004-1008. Skyworks’s PCB recipe teaches the claimed first template.)
inspect the component based on the second template in response to determining that the component fails inspection based on the first template. (Skyworks, Fig. 10, steps 1008-1010 and 1016. Skyworks’s map teaches the claimed second template.)
10. The tape and reel machine vision inspection system of claim 1 wherein the frame grabber is configured to obtain one or more images of a component. (Stoeber, [0064] “The image capture module (frame grabber) converts the incoming video image into a digital video stream.”)
11. The tape and reel machine vision inspection system of claim 1 wherein the determining whether the image of the component and the one or more templates match within a specified threshold includes determining whether the image of the component matches one or more regions of interest in the one or more templates by the specified threshold. (Skyworks, [0009] “The image processor can be further configured to determine based on the comparison whether the individual module substrate matches the PCB recipe within a degree of tolerance.” See also [0008] describing how a substrate might or might not “match” the tolerance.)
12. The tape and reel machine vision inspection system of claim 1 wherein the processor is further configured to synchronize a counter of the tape and reel machine and a counter of the tape and reel machine vision inspection system. (Skyworks, Fig. 7. Fig. 7’s part IDs and PCB IDs teach the claimed synchronization.)
13. The tape and reel machine vision inspection system of claim 1 wherein the processor is further configured to detect an empty cavity in a roll. (Skyworks, [0158] “For example, the image processor 510 may in some instances be able to identify missing devices or SMT components that should have been attached, misplaced devices or SMT components, missing or poorly formed wire bonds, etc.”)
14. The tape and reel machine vision inspection system of claim 1 wherein the processor is further configured to provide in a user interface one or more of: a number of components that passed, a number of components that failed, a total number of components, a counter of the tape and reel machine, a counter of the tape and reel machine vision inspection system, or an indicator of inspection result. (Skyworks, Fig. 7)
15. The tape and reel machine vision inspection system of claim 1 wherein the processor is further configured to identify a defect selected from one or more of: an incorrect part, an incorrect lot, an incomplete component, an empty cavity, a misoriented placement, or a poor quality marking. (Skyworks, [0158] “For example, the image processor 510 may in some instances be able to identify missing devices or SMT components that should have been attached, misplaced devices or SMT components, missing or poorly formed wire bonds, etc.”)
Claims 16-20 are rejected as per their counterpart claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID ORANGE whose telephone number is (571)270-1799. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9-5.
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, Gregory Morse can be reached at 571-272-3838. 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.
/DAVID ORANGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2663
Prosecution Insights