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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
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: input unit, second input unit, processing unit, output unit in claim 1.
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 (1-11) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter, specifically an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims (1-11) are directed to the abstract idea of Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion).
“receive an inspection image to be inspected, which is obtained by imaging a product manufactured based on design data; receive a reference data including the design data; subject the inspection image input to the first input unit and the reference data input to the second input unit to a process; output a grouping result of the inspection image as a processing result of the processing unit”.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite additional limitations such “receive an inspection image to be inspected, which is obtained by imaging a product manufactured based on design data; receive a reference data including the design data; subject the inspection image input to the first input unit and the reference data input to the second input unit to a process; output a grouping result of the inspection image as a processing result of the processing unit”. However, these limitations are not enough to qualify as “practical application” being recited in the claims along with the abstract idea since these limitations are merely invoked as a tool to perform instruction of abstract idea in a particular technological environment and/or are generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, and merely applying and abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting use of an abstract idea to a particular field or a technological environment do not provide practical application for an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05 (f) & (h)). The claims do not amount to "practical application" for the abstract idea because they neither (1) recite any improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) recite any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims recite additional limitations which are “processing device, input unit, second input unit, processing unit, neural network, output unit”. However, these limitations are not enough to qualify as “significantly more” being recited in the claims along with the abstract idea since these limitations are merely invoked as a tool to perform instruction of Abstract idea in a particular technological environment and/or are generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, and merely applying and abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting use of an abstract idea to a particular field or a technological environment do not provide significantly more to an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f) & (h)). The claims do not amount to "significantly more" than the abstract idea because they neither (1) recite any improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) recite any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field; (6) add unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application; nor (7) provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claims (1-11) that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and looking at the limitations as a combination and as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually, claims (1-11) are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 (1-11) are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims (1-2, 4-10, 15) of U.S. Patent No. 11,436,717 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following reasons:
Instant application
US Patent
1. A processing device comprising: a first input unit structured to receive an inspection image to be inspected, which is obtained by imaging a product manufactured based on design data; a second input unit structured to receive a reference data including the design data; a processing unit structured to subject the inspection image input to the first input unit and the reference data input to the second input unit to a process in a learned neural network; and an output unit structured to output a grouping result of the inspection image as a processing result of the processing unit.
1. A processing device comprising: a first input unit that receives an inspection image subject to inspection; a second input unit that receives a normal reference image that should be referred to; a processing unit that subjects the inspection image input to the first input unit and the reference image input to the second input unit to a process in a neural network, wherein the neural network used in the processing unit is a convolutional neural network in which a fully connected layer is excluded, and a filter of the convolutional layer in the convolutional neural network is trained to learn a processing result having a 1×1 spatial dimension; and an output unit that outputs information that results from the process in the processing unit and relates to an item of defect included in the inspection image.
11. A processing method comprising the steps of: receiving an inspection image to be inspected, which is obtained by imaging a product manufactured based on design data; receiving a reference data including the design data; subjecting the received inspection image and the received reference data to a process in a learned neural network; and outputting a grouping result of the inspection image as a processing result.
15. A processing method comprising: receiving an inspection image subject to inspection; receiving a normal reference image that should be referred to; subjecting the inspection image input and the reference image input to a process in a neural network, wherein the neural network used in the processing is a convolutional neural network in which a fully connected layer is excluded, and a filter of the convolutional layer in the convolutional neural network is trained to learn a processing result having a 1×1 spatial dimension; and outputting information that results from the process and relating to an item of defect included in the inspection image.
The instant application differs from the US Patent based on the underlined portion. However, the underlined portion is considered to be well known in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art to incorporate this obvious variation into the US Patent, in the manner as claimed and as taught by the Instant application, for the benefit of optimizing the defect detection system. Claims (2-10) have been analyzed and rejected w/r to claims (2, 4-10).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) (1-11) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang et al. (hereinafter Zhang)(US Publication 2020/0327654 A1)
Re claim 1, Zhang discloses a processing device comprising: a first input unit structured to receive an inspection image to be inspected, which is obtained by imaging a product manufactured based on design data (See fig. 2: 200, 202; ¶ 54-56, 70 where it teaches inputting test images to be inspected for defects); a second input unit structured to receive a reference data including the design data (See fig. 2: 204; ¶ 54-56, 70 where it teaches inputting a reference image/design image.); a processing unit structured to subject the inspection image input to the first input unit and the reference data input to the second input unit to a process in a learned neural network (See fig. 2; ¶ 54-55, 70-75 where it teaches processing the images using neural network technology.); and an output unit structured to output a grouping result of the inspection image as a processing result of the processing unit. (See fig. 2: 238; ¶ 75 where it teaches generating a final label (defective or not))
Re claim 2, Zhang discloses wherein the reference data input to the second input unit includes the design data and a reference image, which is obtained by imaging a normal product manufactured based on the design data, and the processing unit subjects the design data to the process in the learned neural network and subjects the reference image to the process in the learned neural network as processing of the learned neural network for the reference data received by the second input unit. (See fig. 2; ¶ 54-56, 70-75)
Re claim 3, Zhang discloses wherein the design data includes a plurality of pieces of layer information, and the reference data input to the second input unit includes information obtained by combining the plurality of pieces of layer information. (See fig. 2; ¶ 54-60)
Re claim 4, Zhang discloses wherein the design data includes a plurality of pieces of layer information, and the reference data input to the second input unit includes at least one of the plurality of pieces of layer information. (See fig. 2; ¶ 54-60)
Re claim 5, Zhang discloses wherein the processing unit (1) combines the inspection image and the reference data, and then (2) subjects a combination to at least one of a process in a convolutional layer or a process in a pooling layer. (See fig. 2; ¶ 70-75)
Re claim 6, Zhang discloses wherein the processing unit (1) subjects the inspection image to at least one of a process in a convolutional layer or a process in a pooling layer and subjects the reference data to at least one of the process in the convolutional layer or the process in the pooling layer, (2) combines a result of processing the inspection image and a result of processing the reference data, and (3) subjects a combination to at least one of the process in the convolutional layer or the process in the pooling layer. (See fig. 2; ¶ 70-75)
Re claim 7, Zhang discloses wherein the processing unit (1) subjects the inspection image to at least one of a process in a convolutional layer or a process in a pooling layer and subjects the reference data to at least one of the process in the convolutional layer or the process in the pooling layer, and (2) combines a result of processing the inspection image and a result of processing the reference data. (See fig. 2; ¶ 70-75)
Re claim 8, Zhang discloses wherein the processing unit (1) combines the inspection image and the reference data, and then (2) subjects a combination to a process in a fully connected layer. (See fig. 2; ¶ 70-75)
Re claim 9, Zhang discloses wherein the processing unit (1) subjects the inspection image to a process in a fully connected layer and subjects the reference data to the process in the fully connected layer, (2) combines a result of processing the inspection image and a result of processing the reference data, and (3) subjects a combination to the process in the fully connected layer. (See fig. 2; ¶ 70-75)
Re claim 10, Zhang discloses wherein the processing unit (1) subjects the inspection image to a process in a fully connected layer and subjects the reference data to the process in the fully connected layer, and (2) combines a result of processing the inspection image and a result of processing the reference data. (See fig. 2; ¶ 70-75)
Claim 11 has been analyzed and rejected w/r to claim 1 above.
Claim(s) (1, 11) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Junhui Wu et al (hereinafter Wu) “Spot the Difference by Object Detection”, arXiv 2018.
Re claim 1, Wu discloses a processing device comprising: a first input unit structured to receive an inspection image to be inspected, which is obtained by imaging a product manufactured based on design data (See section 1; fig. 3 & 6); a second input unit structured to receive a reference data including the design data (See section 1; fig. 3 & 6); a processing unit structured to subject the inspection image input to the first input unit and the reference data input to the second input unit to a process in a learned neural network (See section 1; fig. 3 & 6); and an output unit structured to output a grouping result of the inspection image as a processing result of the processing unit. (See section 1 & 4.2.1; fig. 3 & 6)
Claim 11 has been analyzed and rejected w/r to claim 1 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kwon et al (US 2019/0188840 A1) disclose semiconductor defect classification device.
Ebizuka et al (US 2022/0335594 A1) disclose defect inspection apparatus.
Lee et al US 2023/0169641 A1) disclose defect detection method of deep learning-based semiconductor device.
Qu et al (US 2023/0267599 A1) disclose a system for defect detection.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEON FLORES whose telephone number is (571)270-1201. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am - 6pm.
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, HENOK SHIFERAW can be reached at 571-272-4637. 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.
/LEON FLORES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2676 June 17, 2026
Prosecution Insights