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 .
Notice to Applicants
This communication is in response to the Application filed on 10/23/2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 16-20 are newly added.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/23/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
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 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.
Claim 1 lines 10-11 recites “determining whether the plurality of inspection images have a second type defect in a non-masked area”. This is unclear as to what the applicant is trying to determine here. In order to determine second type of defect, the applicant seem to refer back to “plurality of inspection images”, which are non-masked initially anyways. The mask area seems to correspond to the average image of the plurality of inspection images. Therefore, does the applicant mean to determined second type of defect in the non-masked area of the plurality of inspection images? If this is the case, ALL of the areas on the plurality of inspection images are considered to be non-masked. If the applicant mean to determined second type of defect in the non-masked area of the average image of the plurality of inspection images, then the last limitation as it stand is unclear. Please file appropriate amendment to pending claims. Independent claims 10 and 16 are similarly rejected. Depend claims are rejected for the same reasons.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea - mathematical concept/formulation) without significantly more. Claim 1 is used as an example.
(1) Are the claims directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter;
(2A) Prong One: Are the claims directed to a judicially recognized exception, i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea;
Prong Two: If the claims are directed to a judicial exception under Prong One, then is the judicial exception integrated into a practical application;
(2B) If the claims are directed to a judicial exception and do not integrate the judicial exception, do the claims provide an inventive concept.
With regard to (1), the instant claims recite an apparatus and a non-transitory computer readable medium, therefore the answer is "yes".
With regard to (2A), Prong One: Yes. When viewed under the broadest most reasonable interpretation, the instant claims are directed to a Judicial Exception – an abstract idea belonging to the group of mathematical concept and a mental process. The steps of “generating”, “detecting”, “determining”, “comparing”, and “determining” are generically recited because there is no description of how this is accomplished. It can be interpreted as merely looking at the data. There is nothing in the claim that requires more than an operation that a human, armed with the appropriate apparatus executing a mathematical algorithm can perform.
Claims recites “generating…images”, “generating an average image of the…images”, “detecting a first type defect”, “determining a mask area”, and “determining whether the…images have second type defect”. These steps are reciting generic mental steps in combination with mathematical concept. The data received and processed is used to determine an average. Further, “detecting a type defect” are well known in the art. These steps are using the data to perform the abstract calculation of defect from an average image. One can simply identify a box on the image that identifies a defect within that (mask) area.
With regard to (2A), Prong Two: No. The instant claims do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception of “generating…images”, “generating an average image of the…images”, “detecting a first type defect”, “determining a mask area”, and “determining whether the…images have second type defect”, and therefore does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The use of an apparatus/processor to acquire “data” at a high level of generality such that said “data” can be used in the operation of the recited judicial exception (the mental step of “acquiring”). Supplying “data” does not provide for “integration” of the abstract idea into a practical application, as said data do not change the way in which said apparatus operates. There are no specifics on how the data is acquired from/by the processor. This can be interpreted as “visualization”. Even if this step is by a “an apparatus…comprising: a memory…and processor…to perform:” that may be, for example, a beam tool within inspection system. These are well known in the field and acquiring a plurality of inspection images is also well known.
The steps of “generating/determining” is interpreted as a mental step of math formulation because it is using ‘acquired’ data to calculate the average. The processor is a generic tool to perform the steps recited in the claims, one can do these steps using a generic computer, as recited. There is nothing in the claim that is recited that integrally requires a specific processor to perform such steps. Therefore, these steps are considered to be nothing more than mental data of math formulation. There are no steps to define what it is in the claim and thus interpreting it in a broad manner is expected and fair given the lack of specifics here.
In conclusion, the claim as a whole does not provide for “integration” of the abstract idea into a practical application.
With regard to (2B), the pending claims do not show what is more than a routine in the art presented in the claims, i.e., the additional elements are nothing more than routine and well-known steps. There is no improvement to technology here. There is only “acquiring…images”, “generating…images”, “generating an average image of the…images”, “detecting a first type defect”, “determining a mask area”, and “determining whether the…images have second type defect”, steps, and it has not been shown that the mental process allows the “technology” to do something that it previously was not able to do.
With regard to claims 10 and 16, similar analysis is applied and therefore does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional limitation of “comparing images” is also considered to be a mental process that one can simply compare the two types of images and see if they are similar or different. These claims are similarly rejected for the same reasons discussed in view of steps recited in claim 1 and not repeated herewith. None of the dependent claims 2-9, 11-5 and 17-20 integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. These claims are similarly rejected for the same reasons discussed in view of steps recited in claim 1.
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 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 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2022/204788A1 to Bakhshmand et al. (hereafter, “Bakhshmand”) in combination with US 2018/0130199 to Brauer et al. (hereafter, “Brauer”).
With regard to claim 1, Bakhshmand teaches an apparatus for transient defect inspection using an inspection image (Fig. 1, system 10 for visual inspection), comprising: a memory storing a set of instructions (paragraphs [0063-0064], devices 12, 14, 16, 18 may include one or more of a memory); and at least one processor configured to execute the set of instructions to cause the apparatus to perform (paragraphs [0064-0066]; device 12, 14, 16, 18 may include multiple of any one or more of processors): acquiring a plurality of inspection images (paragraph [0104]; system 300 includes a camera 304. The camera 304 captures image data of a target article 306); [generating an average image of the plurality of inspection images;] detecting a first type defect in the [average] image (paragraph [0103]; computer system 300 for visual inspection using adaptive ROI segmentation, according to an embodiment. The system 300 can be used to visually inspect a target article. The visual inspection may include any one or more of defect detection, defect classification, and anomaly detection); determining a mask area corresponding to the first type defect (paragraph [0109]; adaptive ROI segmentation component 312 receives the inspection image as input and generates a masked image as output. The masked image includes ROIs and non-ROIs. The nROIs correspond to masked regions of the masked image); and determining whether the plurality of inspection images have a second type defect in a non-masked area (paragraphs [0111-0122]; the image analysis component 316 is configured to generate output data identifying another type of artifact in the image, such as an anomaly… perform a defect classification process to classify defect types; paragraphs [0123-0125]; image analysis components 316 may include further models and/or components for analyzing the input image and/or the masked image). However, Bakhshmand does not expressly teach generating an average image of the plurality of inspection images.
Brauer teaches generating an average image of the plurality of inspection images (Figures 4-5, paragraphs [0121-0123]; images generated for the wafer to an average of multiple reference frames… average 500 shown in FIG. 5 of frames F0, F1, F2, F4, F5, and F6 may be generated).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bakhshmand’s reference to have generated an average image of the plurality of images of Brauer’s reference. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to have a frame be compared to an average of reference frames and the results of the comparison can be used to detect defects in the candidate or test frame, as suggested by Brauer at paragraphs [0121-0126].
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Brauer with Bakhshmand to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
With regard to claim 2, Bakhshmand in combination with Brauer teaches an apparatus of claim 1, wherein, in determining whether the plurality of inspection images have the second type defect, the at least one processor is configured to execute the set of instructions (see claim 1) to cause the apparatus to further perform: [comparing a first inspection image of the plurality of inspection images to the average image for the non-masked area]. Brauer teaches comparing a first inspection image of the plurality of inspection images to the average image for the non-masked area (paragraphs [0119-0123, 0133-0135, etc. throughout the reference]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bakhshmand’s reference to have images be compared as in Brauer’s reference. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to have a frame be compared to an average of reference frames and the results of the comparison can be used to detect defects in the candidate or test frame, as suggested by Brauer at paragraphs [0121-0126].
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Brauer with Bakhshmand to obtain the invention as specified in claim 2.
With regard to claim 3, Brauer teaches generating a difference image between the first inspection image and the average image for the non-masked area; and determining whether the first inspection image has the second type defect based on the difference image (Figure 5, diff. image 502, paragraphs [0121-0124], Figure 8, Diff. image 816, paragraph [0140]).
With regard to claim 4, Bakhshmand in combination with Brauer teaches masking the average image and a first inspection image of the plurality of inspection images for a region corresponding to the mask area (Brauer discloses average image 500, for example, as seen in Figure 5. Bakhshmand discloses masking as discussed in claim 1, not repeated herein); and comparing the first inspection image of the plurality of inspection images to the average image for the non-masked area (Brauer: paragraphs [0119-0123, 0133-0135, etc. throughout the reference]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bakhshmand’s reference to have images be compared as in Brauer’s reference and average image of Brauer be masked as in Bakhshmand’s reference. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to have a frame be compared to an average of reference frames and the results of the comparison can be used to detect defects in the candidate or test frame, as suggested by Brauer at paragraphs [0121-0126].
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Brauer with Bakhshmand to obtain the invention as specified in claim 4.
With regard to claim 5, Bakhshmand discloses comparing a first inspection image of the plurality of inspection images to a second inspection image of the plurality of inspection images for the non-masked area (paragraph [0179], comparison module 808, Figure 8, paragraphs [0210-0212]).
With regard to claim 6, Bakhshmand discloses generating a difference image between the first inspection image and the second inspection image for the non-masked area; and determining whether the plurality of inspection images have the second type defect based on the difference image (Figure 8, 806 and 812, paragraphs [0210, 0221-0225]).
With regard to claim 7, Bakhshmand in combination with Brauer discloses masking a first inspection image and a second inspection image of the plurality of inspection images for a region corresponding to the mask area; and comparing the first inspection image to the second inspection image for the non-masked area. (Bakhshmand: Figure 7, paragraph [0201] where image 702a and mask area of image 702b, etc. is illustrated; paragraph [0179], comparison module 808, Figure 8, paragraphs [0210-0212]).
With regard to claim 8, Brauer discloses combining the first type defect and the second type defect (paragraphs [0099, 0102]).
With regard to claim 9, Bakhshmand in combination with Brauer discloses wherein, in determining the mask area corresponding to the first type defect, the at least one processor is configured to execute the set of instructions to cause the apparatus to perform: determining the mask area to cover a region containing the first type defect (Bakhshmand: Figure 7, paragraph [0201] where mask area cover a region containing defect).
With regard to claims 10 and 16, claims 10 and 16 are rejected same as claim 1 and the arguments similar to that presented above for claim 1 are equally applicable to claims 10 and 16. Bakhshmand in combination with Brauer discloses comparing individual inspection images of the plurality of inspection images to the average image for a non-masked area (see claim 2 above, and Brauer: paragraphs [0119-0123, 0133-0135, etc. throughout the reference]), and all of the other limitations similar to claim B are not repeated herein, but incorporated by reference.
With regard to claims 11-12, claims11- 12 is rejected same as claim 3 and the arguments similar to that presented above for claim 3 are equally applicable to claims 11-12, and all of the other limitations similar to claim 3 are not repeated herein, but incorporated by reference.
With regard to claim 13, claim 13 is rejected same as claim 4 and the arguments similar to that presented above for claim 4 are equally applicable to claim 13, and all of the other limitations similar to claim 4 are not repeated herein, but incorporated by reference.
With regard to claim 14, claim 14 is rejected same as claim 8 and the arguments similar to that presented above for claim 8 are equally applicable to claim 14, and all of the other limitations similar to claim 8 are not repeated herein, but incorporated by reference.
With regard to claim 15, claim 15 is rejected same as claim 9 and the arguments similar to that presented above for claim 9 are equally applicable to claim 15, and all of the other limitations similar to claim 9 are not repeated herein, but incorporated by reference.
With regard to claim 17, claim 17 is rejected same as claim 2 and the arguments similar to that presented above for claim 2 are equally applicable to claim 17, and all of the other limitations similar to claim 2 are not repeated herein, but incorporated by reference.
With regard to claim 18, claim 18 is rejected same as claim 3 and the arguments similar to that presented above for claim 3 are equally applicable to claim 18, and all of the other limitations similar to claim 3 are not repeated herein, but incorporated by reference.
With regard to claim 19, claim 19 is rejected same as claim 4 and the arguments similar to that presented above for claim 4 are equally applicable to claim 19, and all of the other limitations similar to claim 4 are not repeated herein, but incorporated by reference.
With regard to claim 20, claim 20 is rejected same as claim 5 and the arguments similar to that presented above for claim 5 are equally applicable to claim 20, and all of the other limitations similar to claim 5 are not repeated herein, but incorporated by reference.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
WO 2023/127119 A1 – discloses a printed matter inspection device (20) that inspects printed matter to which an OVD has been pasted. The printed matter inspection device (20) comprises: a matching template generation unit (21) that generates a matching template image for specifying a pasting position of an OVD through template matching; and a defect detection unit (22) that specifies the pasting position of the OVD in an image to be inspected which has been captured by photographing printed matter by using the matching template image, masks the specified pasting position of the OVD, and detects a defect in the image to be inspected on the basis of a difference image between the image to be inspected in which the pasting position of the OVD has been masked and an inspection template image.
US 2018/0101944 A1 – discloses an apparatus for inspecting a defect from an image of an inspection object obtained by using an ultrasonic wave, an x-ray, or the like, and specifically to an inspection method suitable for an inspection of an inspection body having a multi-layer structure and a non-destructive inspection apparatus using the same.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHEFALI D. GORADIA whose telephone number is (571)272-8958. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8AM-6PM, Friday 8AM-12PM.
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.
SHEFALI D. GORADIA
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2676
/SHEFALI D GORADIA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2676
Prosecution Insights