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 .
Amendment
1- The amendment filed on 04/23/2026 has been entered and fully considered. Claims 1-11 remain pending in the application, where the independent claims have been amended. New claim 12 has been added.
Response to Arguments
2- Applicants’ amendments and their corresponding arguments with respect to the rejections of the pending claims under 35 USC §103 have been fully considered but are found not persuasive to overcome the prior art used in the previous office action, despite the fact that the amendments have changed the scope of the invention and overcome the rejection as written in the previous office action mailed 1/26/2026.
3- Therefore, the amendments necessitated, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection using additional teachings from the same references used in the previous office action. The new limitations are addressed in the rejections here under in more details.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4- 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:
5- 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 amended claims 1, 8-10, Hiroi teaches a device, and its method of use, for detecting defects 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 a beam of laser light on to a 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 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 light 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 based on comparison the extracted contours with reference points using one or more pretrained statistical models; and determine weld defects on the weld surface 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. In Fig. 9, Col/ll. 6/49-59 for ex., the spatial depiction of the weld surface as a function of location is considered to detect acceptable vs defective lead joint/solder); (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 the weld surface 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 the weld surface 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, or 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, or cracks; (Claim 5) wherein the concave defects comprise at least one of spatter defects or 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 or 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).
(Claim 12) wherein the pixel width measurement process comprises analysing variations in pixel width associated with the laser lines to identify the one or more weld defects on the weld surface [
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.
Allowable Subject Matter
20- Claim 1-7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for the possibly allowable matter:
As to claim 1, the prior art of record, taken either
ORRR
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance:
As to independent apparatus claims 1, 10, 13 and method claims 17 and 19 the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious:
An optical tomographic imaging apparatus and its methods of use, comprising or using:
a selection unit configured to select either a third beam or the second beam, the
third beam being based on a second combined beam formed by combining a return beam from the inspection object irradiated with a second measuring beam and a reference beam corresponding to the second measuring beam;
a computer;
a first acquisition unit executed by the computer, configured to acquire, if the second beam is selected by the selection unit, a tomographic image indicating polarization information of the inspection object based on the first beam and the second beam; and a second acquisition unit executed by the computer, configured to acquire, if the third beam is selected by the selection unit, a tomographic image indicating a plurality of pieces of intensity information of the inspection object based on the first beam and the third beam,
in combination with the other limitations.
The closest prior art found that pertains to the invention, with emphasis added, is Kubo, Harmer, Christian and Georis. However, the prior art fail to teach, suggest or render obvious the entire invention as claimed.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled "Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance."
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicants’ disclosure:
- reference (US patent No. XX to XXX et al.) can be reviewed as it appears to be relevant to claim 1. See also (PGPUB XXXX) to XXX.
- (XXX) in (US PGPUB No. XXX by XXX), and (PGPUB No. US XXX by XXX et al.) where a planar grating is chosenXXX.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
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.
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED 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
Prosecution Insights