CTNF 18/864,057 CTNF 80633 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority 02-26 AIA Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/08/2024 and 3/03/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 22-25, 27-29, and 37-42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Unisuga (JP2007309729A) . Regarding claim 22: Unisuga discloses a method for optimizing a reference group, the reference group comprising reference images of same type items, and the reference images being compared with an inspection image to perform visual inspection of an item in the inspection image, the method comprising: detecting a difference between the inspection image and previously captured images (see Tech-Solution in page 2 of English translation; “a difference between a reference image registered in advance and an inspection image of an inspection object is compared to determine whether it is acceptable”), and generating a signal to add or remove an image from the reference group in accordance with the detected difference (see lines 1-10 of page 3 of English translation; “Each time the inspection image is determined to be non-defective, the inspection image is updated as a reference image for determining non-defective products for the next inspection image”; also see lines 40-42 of page 3). Regarding claim 23: Unisuga discloses the method of claim 22, wherein the previously captured images comprise reference images (see lines 1-10 of page 3 of English translation; “Each time the inspection image is determined to be non-defective, the inspection image is updated as a reference image for determining non-defective products for the next inspection image”). Regarding claim 24: Unisuga discloses the method of claim 22, wherein the previously captured images comprise inspection images (see Advantageous-Effects in page 2 of the English translation; the newly obtained inspection images are being registered as new reference images when they are determined to be non-defective inspection; the reference images are previously captured images). Regarding claim 25: Unisuga discloses the method of claim 22, wherein the reference group comprises images of defect-free same-type items (see Advantageous-Effects in page 2 of the English translation; “since fluctuations over time, such as variations in stripes and hues that occur within the same lot, and variations in shadows due to changes over time in lighting, are not mistakenly detected as poor appearance”; Unisuga teaches an inspection method that inspects the same-type items). Regarding claim 27: Unisuga discloses the method of claim 22, further comprising: detecting a difference above a threshold (see lines 1-5 of page 3 of the English translation); wherein the threshold is dependent on a level of variability between the same-type items (see lines 47-49 of page 3 of the English translation; the threshold is set based on gradual difference between the same-type objects). Regarding claim 28: Unisuga discloses the method of claim 22, wherein the difference comprises a variation in a characteristic between the inspection image and the previously captured images (see lines 27-35 of page 3 of the English translation). Regarding claim 29: Unisuga discloses the method of claim 28, wherein the variation in the characteristic comprises a difference between a parameter of the item in the inspection image and a parameter of the same-type items in the previously captured images (see line 46 of page 2 to line 4 of page 3 of the English translation; the average value and maximum value of contrast and brightness corresponds to a parameter of the item). Regarding claim 37: Unisuga discloses the method of claim 22, wherein the generated signal indicates the inspection image should be added to the reference group (see lines 1-10 of page 3 of English translation; “Each time the inspection image is determined to be non-defective, the inspection image is updated as a reference image for determining non-defective products for the next inspection image”). Regarding claim 38: Unisuga discloses the method of claim 22, wherein the previously captured images comprise reference images; and wherein the method further comprises: detecting a difference between the inspection image and a reference image (see Tech-Solution in page 2 of English translation; “a difference between a reference image registered in advance and an inspection image of an inspection object is compared to determine whether it is acceptable”); and generating a signal to remove the reference image from the reference group in accordance with the detected difference (see lines 43-49 of page 3 of the English translation, “since this inspection image (n) is defective, the image data is erased (24)”). Regarding claim 39: Unisuga discloses the method of claim 38, further comprising: detecting a difference between a plurality of inspection images and a reference image (see lines 43-49 of page 3 of the English translation; when a new inspection item needs to be inspected, Unisuga inherently obtains the newly inspection image(s) and compares the newly inspection image with the reference image). Regarding claim 40: Unisuga discloses the method of claim 22, further comprising: conveying to a user a recommendation regarding the reference group based on the generated signal (see lines 11-13 and lines 27-42 of page 3 of the English translation; the result displayed on the monitor is interpreted as conveying a recommendation to a user). Regarding claim 41: Unisuga discloses a system for visual inspection (see Fig. 1), the system comprising: a processor operatively coupled to a camera which captures reference images and inspection images of same-type items (see Fig. 1; recording unit 7 and determination unit 8 corresponds to a processor); and a user interface operatively coupled to the processor (see Fig. 1, computer 9 is a user interface); wherein the processor detects a difference between an inspection image and previously captured images of same-type items (see Tech-Solution in page 2 of English translation; “a difference between a reference image registered in advance and an inspection image of an inspection object is compared to determine whether it is acceptable”) and, in accordance with the detected difference, generates a signal to add or remove an image from a reference group (see lines 1-10 of page 3 of English translation; “Each time the inspection image is determined to be non-defective, the inspection image is updated as a reference image for determining non-defective products for the next inspection image”; also see lines 40-42 of page 3). Regarding claim 42: Unisuga discloses the system of claim 41, wherein the processor caused conveyance of a recommendation to add or remove an image from the reference group to a user via the user interface (see lines 11-13 and lines 27-42 of page 3 of the English translation; the result displayed on the monitor is interpreted as a conveyance of a recommendation to add or remove an image) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 26, 31, 33, 34, and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Unisuga in view of Tanaka et al. (US 2017/0154234; hereinafter Tanaka) . Regarding claim 26: Unisuga discloses all the features in claim 22. Unisuga does not disclose the method of claim 22, wherein the reference group comprises images confirmed by a user. In the same field of endeavor, Tanaka discloses a method, wherein the reference group comprises images confirmed by a user (see paragraph [0099]; “the controller 501 may be configured to enable a user to update reference images by adding a reference image or replacing any one of the reference images with another reference image”). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Unisuga and Tanaka such that the reference group comprise images confirmed by a user. The combination would have yielded a predictable result of allowing a user to update the reference image according to user’s preference and/or requirement. Regarding claim 31: Unisuga discloses all the features in claim 29. Unisuga does not disclose the method of claim 29, further comprising: comparing the previously captured images to each other to obtain a number of areas of anomaly in the same-type item; wherein the variation in the characteristic comprises a difference between a number of areas of anomaly in the inspection image and the number of areas of anomaly in the same-type item. In the same field of endeavor, Tanaka discloses a method comprising: comparing the previously captured images to each other to obtain a number of areas of anomaly in the same-type item (see Fig. 7 and paragraph [0082]; based on the broadest reasonable interpretation, the calculation of the standard deviation for each region of the image corresponds to obtain a number of areas of anomaly in the same-type item); wherein the variation in the characteristic comprises a difference between a number of areas of anomaly in the inspection image and the number of areas of anomaly in the same-type item (see paragraphs [0083]-[0087]; the determination of the outlier has been interpreted as the variation in the characteristic). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Unisuga and Tanaka such that the method includes comparing the previously captured images to each other to obtain a number of areas of anomaly in the same-type item; wherein the variation in the characteristic comprises a difference between a number of areas of anomaly in the inspection image and the number of areas of anomaly in the same-type item. The combination would have yielded a predictable result of improving the accuracy of conformity determination by enhancing robustness of inspection in such a manner as to reduce detection sensitivity for a change within a normal range without reducing detection sensitivity for nonconforming states (see Tanaka, paragraph [0042]). Regarding claim 33: Unisuga discloses all the features in claim 29. Unisuga does not disclose the method of claim 29 wherein the variation in the characteristic comprises a difference between features utilized by machine learning algorithms to describe the item in the inspection image and features utilized by the machine learning algorithms to describe the same- type items in the previously captured images. In the same field of endeavor, Tanaka discloses a method, wherein the variation in the characteristic comprises a difference between features utilized by machine learning algorithms to describe the item in the inspection image and features utilized by the machine learning algorithms to describe the same- type items in the previously captured images (see paragraph [0062]-[0065]; feature values are obtained based on deep learning which is machine learning algorithms; the feature values determined on the inspection image and the reference images, and outlier is determined from those values; outlier is interpreted as the variation in the characteristic). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Unisuga and Tanaka such that the method includes wherein the variation in the characteristic comprises a difference between features utilized by machine learning algorithms to describe the item in the inspection image and features utilized by the machine learning algorithms to describe the same- type items in the previously captured images. The combination would have yielded a predictable result of improving the accuracy of conformity determination by enhancing robustness of inspection in such a manner as to reduce detection sensitivity for a change within a normal range without reducing detection sensitivity for nonconforming states (see Tanaka, paragraph [0042]). Regarding claim 34: Unisuga discloses all the features in claim 22. Unisuga does not disclose the method of claim 22, wherein the difference is related to a set up parameter. In the same field of endeavor, Tanaka discloses a method, wherein the difference is related to a set up parameter (see Fig.7 and paragraph [0077]; the system allows user to input various settings). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been oblivious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Unisuga and Tanaka such that the method includes wherein the difference is related to a set up parameter. The combination would have yielded a predictable result of allowing a user to adjust parameters according to user’s preference and/or requirement. Regarding claim 36: Unisuga and Tanaka discloses all the features in claim 34. Unisuga further discloses the method, wherein the difference comprises a variation between optical parameters of the inspection image and optical parameters of the previously captured images (see Background-Art in page 1 of the English translation; the objects being inspected are captured by camera, and the images are being processed such as binarization of the image information, which corresponds to optical parameters) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Unisuga in view of Podilchuk (US 2010/0268737) . Regarding claim 30: Unisuga discloses all the features in claim 29. Unisuga does not discloses the method of claim 29, further comprising: comparing the previously captured images to each other to obtain a correlation score of the previously captured images to themselves; wherein the variation in the characteristic comprises a difference between a correlation score of the inspection image to the previously captured images and the correlation score of the previously captured images to themselves. In the same field of endeavor, Podilchuk discloses a method comprising: comparing the previously captured images to each other to obtain a correlation score of the previously captured images to themselves (see Fig. 1, step 110 and paragraphs [0028]-[0029]), wherein the variation in the characteristic comprises a difference between a correlation score of the inspection image to the previously captured images and the correlation score of the previously captured images to themselves (see Fig. 1, step 130 and paragraph [0035]). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Unisuga and Podilchuk such that the method includes comparing the previously captured images to each other to obtain a correlation score of the previously captured images to themselves; wherein the variation in the characteristic comprises a difference between a correlation score of the inspection image to the previously captured images and the correlation score of the previously captured images to themselves. The combination would have yielded a predictable result of searching the database using similarity score . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 32 and 35 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. In regards to claim 32, none of the reference of record alone or in combination discloses the method of claim 29, further comprising: obtaining a prediction of defects in an area of anomaly in the previously captured images; wherein the variation in the characteristic comprises a difference between a prediction of defects in the areas of anomaly in the inspection image and the prediction of defects in the area of anomaly in the previously captured images. In regards to clam 35, none of the reference of record alone or in combination discloses or suggests the method of claim 34, wherein the difference comprises a variation between a 3D location of the item in the inspection image and a 3D location of the same-type items in the previously captured images. Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Itsuji (US 2023/0112498) discloses an inspection system capable of updating image to the reference pattern image. Magara (US 8,224,020) discloses an appearance inspection apparatus wherein an image inspection result based on a result of image-taking and image-analyzing a product to be inspected can be displayed with superposed on a visual field of an inspector inspecting the product to be inspected with an eye and in a position corresponding to an image in which the inspector is observing the product to be inspected is provided. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIXI CHOW SIMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-7571. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00am-3:00pm. 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, William Boddie can be reached at 517-272-0666. 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. /LIXI C SIMPSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2625 Application/Control Number: 18/864,057 Page 2 Art Unit: 2625 Application/Control Number: 18/864,057 Page 3 Art Unit: 2625 Application/Control Number: 18/864,057 Page 4 Art Unit: 2625 Application/Control Number: 18/864,057 Page 5 Art Unit: 2625 Application/Control Number: 18/864,057 Page 6 Art Unit: 2625 Application/Control Number: 18/864,057 Page 7 Art Unit: 2625 Application/Control Number: 18/864,057 Page 8 Art Unit: 2625 Application/Control Number: 18/864,057 Page 9 Art Unit: 2625 Application/Control Number: 18/864,057 Page 10 Art Unit: 2625 Application/Control Number: 18/864,057 Page 11 Art Unit: 2625 Application/Control Number: 18/864,057 Page 12 Art Unit: 2625 Application/Control Number: 18/864,057 Page 13 Art Unit: 2625
Prosecution Insights