DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
1- This office action is a response to an application filed on 8/12/2024, in which claims 1-11 are currently pending. The Application claims foreign priority to 202421024373, filed 03/27/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
2- The submitted information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) is(are) in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is(are) being considered by the examiner.
Specification
3- The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which application may become aware in the specification.
Drawings
4- The drawings were received on 12/31/2018. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5- 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 of this title, 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.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
In addition, the functional recitation in the claims (e.g. "configured to" or "adapted to" or the like) that does not limit a claim limitation to a particular structure does not limit the scope of the claim. It has been held that the recitation that an element is "adapted to", "configured to", "designed to", or "operable to" perform a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform and may not constitute a limitation in a patentable sense. In re Hutchinson, 69 USPQ 139. (See MPEP 2111.04); see also In In re Giannelli, 739 F.3d 1375, 1378, 109 USPQ2d 1333, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Also, it should be noted that it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed device is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed device from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations Ex-parte Masham 2 USPQ2d 1647 1987).
The claimed system in the instant application is capable of performing the claimed functionality, as is the prior art used in the present office action. The Examiner notes that where the patent office has reason to believe that a functional limitation asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in the claimed subject matter may, in fact, be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, it possesses the authority to require the applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on. In re Swinehart and sfiligoj, 169 USPQ 226 (C.C.P.A. 1971).
6- Claims 1-11 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroi et al. (US Patent No. 4641527) in view of Nayar et al. (US Patent 4988202).
As to claims 1, 8-10, Hiroi teaches a device, and its method of use, for detecting defects in on a weld surface (Abstract, Col/ll. 4/1-10 for ex., Figs. 1-21; weld surface of leads 7/8/9 soldered to circuit board 6), comprising: a memory configured to store one or more executable components; and a processor operatively coupled to the memory (internal to 26); a laser emitter (12/13) configured to emit as beam of laser light on to the weld surface being inspected (Figs. 4,7, 10, 13, 18-19 for ex); a laser receiving sensor (17, 33, 35 or equivalents) configured to capture the reflected laser light contours from the weld surface (Figs. 3, 6, 9, 12 and 14 for ex. show soldering patches with their respective edges/contours), wherein, the processor is configured to execute instructions to: receive and process the captured laser contours to filter laser lines and extract contours of the weld surface; classify a type of the weld surface based on the extracted contours (Figs. 3, 6, 9, 12 and 14 show contours of speckled images and differentiate acceptable joints/contours 27 from defective joints 28); adjust an angle and position of the laser emitter based on the classified type of weld surface (Figs. 18-19 and Col/ll. 11/65-12/36, 13/52-56; the inclination and position of the laser emitter with respect to the sensor is adjusted off-axis to improve the detection of the defects); detect deviation patterns of the weld surface by comparing the extracted contours with reference points using one or more pretrained statistical models; and determine the weld defects based on detected deviation patterns (Figs. 12 and Col/ll. 8/37-50 for ex.; defective joints are detected by frequencies of their vibrations, i.e. deviation patterns, exceeding predetermined threshold values, i.e. statistical means from previous studies/training); (Claim 1) wherein the one or more weld defects comprise convex defects or concave defects (Figs. 2, and light intensities in detected signals of Figs. 6, 9 show curved surfaces, i.e. concave, where the defects are detected).
Hiroi does not teach expressly wherein the device is a handheld device; automatically adjust the angle and position of the laser emitter based on the classified type of weld surface; (claim 9) wherein the laser receiving sensor comprises a complementary metal oxide semiconductor -CMOS- sensor; (claim 10) wherein the handheld device is configured to analyze weld surfaces comprising single weld bead or multiple weld beads.
.
However, as to the device being handheld, it has been held that the fact that a claimed device is portable or movable, i.e. handheld, is not sufficient by itself to patentably distinguish over an otherwise old device unless there are new or unexpected results (In re Lindberg, 194 F.2d 732, 93 USPQ 23 (CCPA 1952)). In addition, and as to the angular change of the inspection, Nayar, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a device, and its method of use, for detecting defects in on a weld surface (Abstract, Figs. 1-14) with automatic change of the angle between the light source 24 and detector 26 to inspect welded surface 21 while inspecting the solder joints based on the acceptable and unacceptable joints/defective shapes (Figs. 2, 4-5, 7-8 and Col/ll. 13/34-51 for ex.). Moreover, Nayar teaches using the genus camera (26) of which the CMOS camera species is an obvious choice (See MPEP 2144.08 II A- 4(a). Sections 4 (c-e) can also be considered). As to claim 10, Hiroi discloses inspecting single welded leads (Fig 19 for ex.) and multiple leads (Figs. 6, 9) whereas Nayar teaches also inspecting multiple welded leads (Fig. 5 for ex.); welded beads are a species of a limited genus of welded leads (See MPEP 2144.08 II A- 4(a). Sections 4 (c-e) can also be considered).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the apparatus of Hiroi in view of Nayar’s suggestions so that the device is a handheld device; automatically adjust the angle and position of the laser emitter based on the classified type of weld surface; wherein the laser receiving sensor comprises a complementary metal oxide semiconductor -CMOS- sensor; wherein the handheld device is configured to analyze weld surfaces comprising single weld bead or multiple weld beads, with the advantage of effectively optimizing detecting soldering/welding defects in electronic circuits.
(Claim 11) wherein the handheld device employs a laser line extraction process and a pixel width measurement process to detect deviation patterns on the weld surface (Col/ll. 5/49-63 for ex.; the vibration/deviation of the speckle size, i.e. with respect to the detector resolution, is used to detect vibration frequency and quality of the solder).
(Claim 2) wherein the beam of laser light comprises one of a single thin beam laser light and multiple thin beam laser lights (Fig. 4 for ex.; single thin laser beam from 12).
(Claim 3) wherein the extracted weld surface profile comprises at least one of surface patterns, surface material, and surface dimensions (Figs. 6, 9; dimensions extracted from the spatial distribution of light scattered).
(Claims 4-5) wherein the convex defects comprise at least one of undercut defects, porosity defects, and cracks; (Claim 5) wherein the concave defects comprise at least one or spatter defects and overlap defects (the fluid characteristics of beads, including solder beads and their geometries, are well known in the art. The references cited in the conclusion, and not relied upon here in the rejection, provide clear evidence thereof).
(Claim 6) wherein the weld surface being inspected comprises at least one of surface joints, lap joints, butt joints, corner joints and tee joint (Col/ll. 5/28-48 for ex.).
(Claim 7) wherein the detection of deviation patterns on the weld surface is performed by employing an ensemble of a laser line extraction process and a pixel width measurement process (Col/ll. 5/49-63 for ex.; the vibration/deviation of the speckle size, i.e. with respect to the detector resolution, is used to detect vibration frequency and quality of the solder; and Figs. 6, 9; dimensions extracted from the spatial distribution of light scattered).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicants' disclosure:
JP H08215852, JP H0332472 A, SU 1486294, JP S636315 appear to be relevant to the rejection of claims 4-5.
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED K AMARA whose telephone number is (571)272-7847. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday: 9:00-17:00
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached on (571-272-2287. 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.
/Mohamed K AMARA/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877