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 .
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 claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. That is, “A means- (or step-) plus-function limitation that is found to be indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) based on failure of the specification to disclose corresponding structure, material or act that performs the entire claimed function also lacks adequate written description and may not be sufficiently enabled to support the full scope of the claim” and “When a claim containing a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation is found to be indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for failure to disclose sufficient corresponding structure (e.g., the computer and the algorithm) in the specification that performs the entire claimed function, it will also lack written description under section 112(a)” (MPEP 2181).
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.
Claim limitation “a measuring means” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. That is, the applicant’s disclosure is silent with regard to the corresponding structure for the measuring means. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f);
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to nonstatutory subject matter. That is, the claims recite a program comprising a “computer” but fail to mention any specific hardware even when interpreted in light of the specification. That is, since the specification does not limit the invention to hardware-only embodiments, the claimed computer could be logical or virtual implementations, for example. Therefore, claim 9 is directed to software per se.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claim 1 recites an abnormality determination device, comprising: a measuring means for measuring a plurality of factors that affect the quality of a product produced in a production facility; a control unit; and a storage unit, and the storage unit storing a causal relationship model that identifies causal relationships between the factors based on features calculated from the factors during production of normal products in the production facility, a predictive formula that takes at least one of the features as input and another of the features different from the input as output based on the causal relationship model, and a predicted range of the output, and the control unit being configured to determine whether the feature that becomes the output, among the features calculated from the factors measured in a production process of the production facility, is within the predicted range.
The limitations of ...a causal relationship model that identifies causal relationships between the factors based on features calculated from the factors during production of normal products in the production facility, a predictive formula that takes at least one of the features as input and another of the features different from the input as output based on the causal relationship model, and a predicted range of the output, and ... determine whether the feature that becomes the output, among the features calculated from the factors measured in a production process of the production facility, is within the predicted range, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mental processes but from the recitation of implementing them on generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a storage unit” and “the control unit being configured to” nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “a storage unit” and “the control unit being configured to” language, the limitations pertaining to “a causal relationship model that identifies”, “a predictive formula”, “determine whether the feature” in the context of this claim encompasses the user judging causal relationships between the factor, judges a predictive formula, and judges whether the feature is within the range. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 1).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of – an abnormality determination device, comprising: a measuring means for measuring a plurality of factors that affect the quality of a product produced in a production facility; a control unit; and a storage unit, and the storage unit storing a causal relationship model, ... and the control unit being configured to. The device, measuring means, product, production facility, control units, and storage unit are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer devices performing generic computer functions) and do not meaningfully limit the claim. The additional element pertaining to “storing” represent insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception and are mere data gathering steps. Accordingly, these additional elements, individually and in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 2).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element pertaining to “storing” represent insignificant extra-solution activities that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry. That is, these limitations represent well-understood, routine, conventional activities in the fields of data processing and/or data storage and retrieval and are merely directed to the well-understood, routine, conventional activity of storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Therefore, these limitations, both individually and in combination, fail to amount to an inventive concept because they merely append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, and thus, do not cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (Step 2B). Accordingly, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 8-9 similarly recite a step of identifying, among features calculated from a plurality of factors affecting the quality of a product produced in a production facility, causal relationships between the factors from the features during production of the product which is normal and generating a causal relationship model; a step of generating a predictive formula based on the causal relationship model, with at least one of the features as input, and another of the features different from the input as output; a step of generating a predicted range for the output; a step of calculating the features from the factors measured in a production process of the production facility; and a step of determining whether the feature that becomes the output, among the features calculated, is within the predicted range.
The limitations of identifying, among features calculated from a plurality of factors affecting the quality of a product produced in a production facility, causal relationships between the factors from the features during production of the product which is normal and generating a causal relationship model; a step of generating a predictive formula based on the causal relationship model, with at least one of the features as input, and another of the features different from the input as output; a step of generating a predicted range for the output; a step of calculating the features from the factors measured in a production process of the production facility; and a step of determining whether the feature that becomes the output, among the features calculated, is within the predicted range, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mental processes but from the recitation of implementing them on generic computer components. That is, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the limitations pertaining to “identifying”, “a step of generating a predictive formula”, “a step of calculating the features”, “and a step of determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user judging causal relationships between the factors, judging a predictive formula, and judging whether the feature is within the range. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, claims 8, 9 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 1).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of – an abnormality determination program, causing a computer to execute:. The computer and program are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer devices performing generic computer functions) and do not meaningfully limit the claim. The claim does not contain any other additional elements. Accordingly, these additional elements, individually and in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 2).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim does not contain any other additional elements. Therefore, these limitations, both individually and in combination, fail to amount to an inventive concept because they merely append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, and thus, do not cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (Step 2B). Accordingly, claims 8, 9 is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-7 depend on claims 1 and include all the limitations of this claim. Therefore, these claims are directed to the same abstract idea and the analysis must proceed to (Step 2A, Prong 2).
Claim 2 recites additional limitations pertaining to the control unit configured to notify. These additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and merely represent insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception and recite the use of generic computing components performing generic computing functions. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity previously known to the industry. That is, these limitations represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the fields of data processing and/or data storage and retrieval and are merely directed to the well-understood, routine, conventional activity of receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information). Therefore, these additional elements do not cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 3 recites additional limitations pertaining to a calculation. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements represent further mental process steps of judging a calculation that a degree of deviation of the feature from the predicted range. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. This additional step is considered an abstract idea (mental process step) and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements represent further mental process steps. Therefore, these additional limitations are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim 3 is not patent eligible.
Claim 4 similarly recite additional limitations pertaining to the control unit displaying. These additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and merely represent insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception and are mere data gathering steps. Further, the units, devices and/or components are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer devices performing generic computer functions) and do not meaningfully limit the claim. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity previously known to the industry. That is, these limitations represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field of data display and are merely directed to the well-understood, routine, conventional activity of presenting offers, OIP Technologies, 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93. Therefore, these additional elements do not cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 5 recite additional limitations pertaining to the control unit configuration to perform a determination. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Further, the units, devices and/or components are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer devices performing generic computer functions) and do not meaningfully limit the claim. The additional elements represent further mental process steps of judging the determining that the features are within the range, as in the independent claims. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. This additional step is considered an abstract idea (mental process step) and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements represent further mental process steps. Therefore, these additional limitations are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim 5 is not patent eligible.
Claim 6 recites additional limitations pertaining to defining the predicted range. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements represent further mental process steps of judging the predicted range. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. This additional step is considered an abstract idea (mental process step) and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements represent further mental process steps. Therefore, these additional limitations are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim 6 is not patent eligible.
Claim 7 recites additional limitations pertaining to output another of the factors. These additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and merely represent insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity previously known to the industry. That is, these limitations represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the fields of data processing and/or data storage and retrieval and are merely directed to the well-understood, routine, conventional activity of receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information). Therefore, these additional elements do not cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fujii (WO 2012/096003).
Regarding claim 1, Fujii discloses:
An abnormality determination device, comprising: a measuring means for measuring a plurality of factors that affect the quality of a product produced in a production facility; a control unit; and a storage unit ([Pg. 7]), and the storage unit storing a causal relationship model that identifies causal relationships between the factors based on features calculated from the factors during production of normal products in the production facility ([Pg. 13] with respect to a specific inspection performed by the soldering inspection machine 30, in advance, for each component type, in a causal relationship between the measurement parameter in the solder printing inspection machine 10 and the component inspection machine 20 and the measurement parameter in the soldering inspection machine A plurality of inspection standards are set and each program defining each inspection standard is edited into individual library data and registered in the inspection program management apparatus 101), a predictive formula that takes at least one of the features as input and another of the features different from the input as output based on the causal relationship model, and a predicted range of the output ([Pg. 11] In the example of FIG. 7, measurement values obtained from a considerable number of samples are plotted separately for a good sample and a bad sample on a plane where the X axis is the volume of the cream solder and the Y axis is the wetting height of the solder after reflowing , And a straight line E indicating the criterion value for each volume of cream solder is set based on the distribution range of these measured values. Of the measurement values, the measurement value in the range above the straight line E is judged as a non-defective item, and the measurement value in the range below the straight line E is judged as a defect. The straight line E is set so that all the measurement values of the defective sample group GNG are located under the straight line E and the measured values in the good sample group GOK are located on the straight line E as much as possible. Therefore, by registering the formula Y = αX + β of the obtained straight line E and applying the measured value X of the cream solder volume to this formula, the criterion value for the wetting height of the solder after reflowing is determined by the volume of the cream solder And can be varied. As a result, it becomes possible to finely adjust the criterion value.
In the case of adopting the method shown in FIG. 7, a selection rule including a formula defining Y = αX + β of the straight line E and a program defining that the formula of the straight line and the equation is used to calculate the criterion value And provides these to the soldering inspection machine 30. Thereby, in the soldering inspection machine 30, for each soldered portion of the object to be inspected, the volume of the cream solder measured by the solder printing inspection machine 10 for the land corresponding to that portion is acquired, and using this volume Calculation criteria value is calculated by calculation.
In any of the methods shown in FIGS. 6 and 7, in order to set an appropriate judgment reference value, a considerable number of samples showing the causal relation between the volume of the cream solder and the wetting height of the solder after reflowing are analyzed There is a need to. These samples are not limited to data obtained from a real substrate, but by obtaining a fillet shape obtained from cream solders of various volumes, for example, by a fluid simulation method, and by measuring the wetting height of this fillet, a large number May be prepared. Next, if the volume of the cream solder used for determining the judgment reference value is limited to the volume of the land protruding portion where the fillet is formed, it is possible to set a more appropriate judgment reference value. In order to determine the volume of the cream solder only in the projecting portion of the land, for example, as shown in FIG. 8, in the soldering inspection machine 30, based on the color distribution of lands in the image, a region N 1 , N 2 are specified and the inspection data management apparatus 102 uses the height data of the cream solder obtained by the solder printing inspection machine 10 for each pixel in the areas N 1 and N 2 to solder the solder in the areas N 1 and N 2 The volume of the sample is remeasured. Although the reliability of the measurement value is slightly inferior, when the solder printing inspection machine 30 performs an inspection, a measurement region is set in a range based on the standard size of the land protruding portion, and the cream solder in the measurement region May be obtained. In the embodiment explained so far, on the premise that the wetting height of the solder after reflowing in the soldering inspection machine 30 is measured, based on the volume of the cream solder obtained by the solder printing inspection machine 10, the judgment reference value is set to However, the inspection parameter to which the determination reference value is varied is not limited to the wetting rising height. For example, depending on the part type, there are cases where a specific color region (blue or red) is detected in the examination region to determine whether the position or area is appropriate or not, but also the criterion value used for these determinations is set to change Can be subject to. The measured value of the previous process used for determining the determination reference value is not limited to the volume of the cream solder but may be the average value of the height of the cream solder, the position and the area of the printing range of the cream solder with respect to the land, and the like . Alternatively, a combination of a plurality of measurement values may be used to determine the determination reference value), and the control unit being configured to determine whether the feature that becomes the output, among the features calculated from the factors measured in a production process of the production facility, is within the predicted range ([Pg. 10] In FIG. 6, the distribution of the measured value of the wetting-up height of solder after reflow of a certain part is within the range of "appropriate" (the standard value of the cream solder) volume of the cream solder and "solder excess" Something that is in the range of "solder inadequate", "something out of solder". In this example, the measured value from 70% or more to less than 130% is taken as "solder proper", the measured value of 130% or more as "solder excessive", and the measured value less than 70% Is defined as "solder excess", but the classification is not limited to this).
As per claim 2, claim 1 is incorporated, Fujii further discloses:
wherein the control unit is configured to notify the factor related to the feature when the feature that becomes the output is outside the predicted range ([Pg. 10] In FIG. 6, the distribution of the measured value of the wetting-up height of solder after reflow of a certain part is within the range of "appropriate" (the standard value of the cream solder) volume of the cream solder and "solder excess" Something that is in the range of "solder inadequate", "something out of solder". In this example, the measured value from 70% or more to less than 130% is taken as "solder proper", the measured value of 130% or more as "solder excessive", and the measured value less than 70% Is defined as "solder excess", but the classification is not limited to this [Pg. 13] In the example of FIG. 10, all of the inspections according to a plurality of inspection standards are executed in the soldering inspection machine 30, and those which are suitable for the pattern of measurement values obtained before the reflow process from the respective inspection results are Although it is effective, the method of inspection is not limited to this. For example, before the inspection by the soldering inspection machine 30 is started, the selection result of the inspection standard is notified from the inspection data management device 102, and according to the notification, the soldering inspection machine 30 performs only the inspection according to the selected inspection standard And may transmit the result to the inspection data management apparatus 102. In addition, the selection rule of the inspection standard is registered in the soldering inspection machine 30, the measurement data by the other inspection machines 10, 20 is read from the inspection data management device 102 in the soldering inspection machine 30, and these measurement data are set as selection rules By applying it, the inspection standard may be selected by the soldering inspection machine 30 itself).
As per claim 5, claim 1 is incorporated, Fujii further discloses:
wherein the control unit is configured to perform the determination using the features of a set of the factors that have been measured ([Pgs. 11-14] measurement values).
As per claim 6, claim 1 is incorporated, Fujii further discloses:
wherein the predicted range is defined based on a width of variation of a plurality of features derived from a plurality of normal data ([Pg. 10] inclination angle and width ).
As per claim 7, claim 1 is incorporated, Fujii further discloses:
wherein another of the factors of which value exceeds the predicted range is outputted based on the factor in the product determined to be abnormal ([Pg. 9] FIG. 5 is a schematic diagram showing the fillet 202 of the solder after reflow connecting the electrode 201 and the land 203 of the chip component 200 as an example, and the schematic view of the image obtained by imaging this fillet 202 The figure and the figure are associated up and down. In the schematic diagram of the image, each color region is indicated by a different painting pattern. In this embodiment, an inspection area (not shown) for a component is set in a range including the entire part 200 in the image to detect the component 200 and an inspection area F is set for each land 203, A red region, a green region, and a blue region in the inspection region F are detected. In an image of a fillet having a shape as shown in FIG. 5, in general, colors are distributed in the order of red, green, and blue along the direction from the location near the outer edge of the land 202 toward the component electrode 201 in the image. In addition, a dark region representing a sharp inclined surface beyond the range that can be represented by the blue region may occur in a place close to the part 200).
Regarding claim 8, Fujii discloses:
An abnormality determination method, comprising: a step of identifying, among features calculated from a plurality of factors affecting the quality of a product produced in a production facility, causal relationships between the factors from the features during production of the product which is normal and generating a causal relationship model ([Pg. 13] with respect to a specific inspection performed by the soldering inspection machine 30, in advance, for each component type, in a causal relationship between the measurement parameter in the solder printing inspection machine 10 and the component inspection machine 20 and the measurement parameter in the soldering inspection machine A plurality of inspection standards are set and each program defining each inspection standard is edited into individual library data and registered in the inspection program management apparatus 101), a step of generating a predictive formula based on the causal relationship model, with at least one of the features as input, and another of the features different from the input as output ([Pg. 11] In the example of FIG. 7, measurement values obtained from a considerable number of samples are plotted separately for a good sample and a bad sample on a plane where the X axis is the volume of the cream solder and the Y axis is the wetting height of the solder after reflowing , And a straight line E indicating the criterion value for each volume of cream solder is set based on the distribution range of these measured values. Of the measurement values, the measurement value in the range above the straight line E is judged as a non-defective item, and the measurement value in the range below the straight line E is judged as a defect. The straight line E is set so that all the measurement values of the defective sample group GNG are located under the straight line E and the measured values in the good sample group GOK are located on the straight line E as much as possible. Therefore, by registering the formula Y = αX + β of the obtained straight line E and applying the measured value X of the cream solder volume to this formula, the criterion value for the wetting height of the solder after reflowing is determined by the volume of the cream solder And can be varied. As a result, it becomes possible to finely adjust the criterion value. In the case of adopting the method shown in FIG. 7, a selection rule including a formula defining Y = αX + β of the straight line E and a program defining that the formula of the straight line and the equation is used to calculate the criterion value And provides these to the soldering inspection machine 30. Thereby, in the soldering inspection machine 30, for each soldered portion of the object to be inspected, the volume of the cream solder measured by the solder printing inspection machine 10 for the land corresponding to that portion is acquired, and using this volume Calculation criteria value is calculated by calculation. In any of the methods shown in FIGS. 6 and 7, in order to set an appropriate judgment reference value, a considerable number of samples showing the causal relation between the volume of the cream solder and the wetting height of the solder after reflowing are analyzed There is a need to. These samples are not limited to data obtained from a real substrate, but by obtaining a fillet shape obtained from cream solders of various volumes, for example, by a fluid simulation method, and by measuring the wetting height of this fillet, a large number May be prepared. Next, if the volume of the cream solder used for determining the judgment reference value is limited to the volume of the land protruding portion where the fillet is formed, it is possible to set a more appropriate judgment reference value. In order to determine the volume of the cream solder only in the projecting portion of the land, for example, as shown in FIG. 8, in the soldering inspection machine 30, based on the color distribution of lands in the image, a region N 1 , N 2 are specified and the inspection data management apparatus 102 uses the height data of the cream solder obtained by the solder printing inspection machine 10 for each pixel in the areas N 1 and N 2 to solder the solder in the areas N 1 and N 2 The volume of the sample is remeasured. Although the reliability of the measurement value is slightly inferior, when the solder printing inspection machine 30 performs an inspection, a measurement region is set in a range based on the standard size of the land protruding portion, and the cream solder in the measurement region May be obtained. In the embodiment explained so far, on the premise that the wetting height of the solder after reflowing in the soldering inspection machine 30 is measured, based on the volume of the cream solder obtained by the solder printing inspection machine 10, the judgment reference value is set to However, the inspection parameter to which the determination reference value is varied is not limited to the wetting rising height. For example, depending on the part type, there are cases where a specific color region (blue or red) is detected in the examination region to determine whether the position or area is appropriate or not, but also the criterion value used for these determinations is set to change Can be subject to. The measured value of the previous process used for determining the determination reference value is not limited to the volume of the cream solder but may be the average value of the height of the cream solder, the position and the area of the printing range of the cream solder with respect to the land, and the like . Alternatively, a combination of a plurality of measurement values may be used to determine the determination reference value);
a step of generating a predicted range for the output; a step of calculating the features from the factors measured in a production process of the production facility; and a step of determining whether the feature that becomes the output, among the features calculated, is within the predicted range ([Pg. 10] In FIG. 6, the distribution of the measured value of the wetting-up height of solder after reflow of a certain part is within the range of "appropriate" (the standard value of the cream solder) volume of the cream solder and "solder excess" Something that is in the range of "solder inadequate", "something out of solder". In this example, the measured value from 70% or more to less than 130% is taken as "solder proper", the measured value of 130% or more as "solder excessive", and the measured value less than 70% Is defined as "solder excess", but the classification is not limited to this).
Regarding claim 9, Fujii discloses:
An abnormality determination program, causing a computer to execute: a step of identifying, among features calculated from a plurality of factors affecting the quality of a product produced in a production facility, causal relationships between the factors from the features during production of the product which is normal and generating a causal relationship model([Pg. 13] with respect to a specific inspection performed by the soldering inspection machine 30, in advance, for each component type, in a causal relationship between the measurement parameter in the solder printing inspection machine 10 and the component inspection machine 20 and the measurement parameter in the soldering inspection machine A plurality of inspection standards are set and each program defining each inspection standard is edited into individual library data and registered in the inspection program management apparatus 101);
a step of generating a predictive formula based on the causal relationship model, with at least one of the features as input, and another of the features different from the input as output ([Pg. 11] In the example of FIG. 7, measurement values obtained from a considerable number of samples are plotted separately for a good sample and a bad sample on a plane where the X axis is the volume of the cream solder and the Y axis is the wetting height of the solder after reflowing , And a straight line E indicating the criterion value for each volume of cream solder is set based on the distribution range of these measured values. Of the measurement values, the measurement value in the range above the straight line E is judged as a non-defective item, and the measurement value in the range below the straight line E is judged as a defect. The straight line E is set so that all the measurement values of the defective sample group GNG are located under the straight line E and the measured values in the good sample group GOK are located on the straight line E as much as possible. Therefore, by registering the formula Y = αX + β of the obtained straight line E and applying the measured value X of the cream solder volume to this formula, the criterion value for the wetting height of the solder after reflowing is determined by the volume of the cream solder And can be varied. As a result, it becomes possible to finely adjust the criterion value. In the case of adopting the method shown in FIG. 7, a selection rule including a formula defining Y = αX + β of the straight line E and a program defining that the formula of the straight line and the equation is used to calculate the criterion value And provides these to the soldering inspection machine 30. Thereby, in the soldering inspection machine 30, for each soldered portion of the object to be inspected, the volume of the cream solder measured by the solder printing inspection machine 10 for the land corresponding to that portion is acquired, and using this volume Calculation criteria value is calculated by calculation. In any of the methods shown in FIGS. 6 and 7, in order to set an appropriate judgment reference value, a considerable number of samples showing the causal relation between the volume of the cream solder and the wetting height of the solder after reflowing are analyzed There is a need to. These samples are not limited to data obtained from a real substrate, but by obtaining a fillet shape obtained from cream solders of various volumes, for example, by a fluid simulation method, and by measuring the wetting height of this fillet, a large number May be prepared. Next, if the volume of the cream solder used for determining the judgment reference value is limited to the volume of the land protruding portion where the fillet is formed, it is possible to set a more appropriate judgment reference value. In order to determine the volume of the cream solder only in the projecting portion of the land, for example, as shown in FIG. 8, in the soldering inspection machine 30, based on the color distribution of lands in the image, a region N 1 , N 2 are specified and the inspection data management apparatus 102 uses the height data of the cream solder obtained by the solder printing inspection machine 10 for each pixel in the areas N 1 and N 2 to solder the solder in the areas N 1 and N 2 The volume of the sample is remeasured. Although the reliability of the measurement value is slightly inferior, when the solder printing inspection machine 30 performs an inspection, a measurement region is set in a range based on the standard size of the land protruding portion, and the cream solder in the measurement region May be obtained. In the embodiment explained so far, on the premise that the wetting height of the solder after reflowing in the soldering inspection machine 30 is measured, based on the volume of the cream solder obtained by the solder printing inspection machine 10, the judgment reference value is set to However, the inspection parameter to which the determination reference value is varied is not limited to the wetting rising height. For example, depending on the part type, there are cases where a specific color region (blue or red) is detected in the examination region to determine whether the position or area is appropriate or not, but also the criterion value used for these determinations is set to change Can be subject to. The measured value of the previous process used for determining the determination reference value is not limited to the volume of the cream solder but may be the average value of the height of the cream solder, the position and the area of the printing range of the cream solder with respect to the land, and the like . Alternatively, a combination of a plurality of measurement values may be used to determine the determination reference value);
a step of generating a predicted range for the output ;a step of calculating the features from the factors measured in a production process of the production facility; and a step of determining whether the feature that becomes the output, among the features calculated, is within the predicted range ([Pg. 10] In FIG. 6, the distribution of the measured value of the wetting-up height of solder after reflow of a certain part is within the range of "appropriate" (the standard value of the cream solder) volume of the cream solder and "solder excess" Something that is in the range of "solder inadequate", "something out of solder". In this example, the measured value from 70% or more to less than 130% is taken as "solder proper", the measured value of 130% or more as "solder excessive", and the measured value less than 70% Is defined as "solder excess", but the classification is not limited to this).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujii (WO 2012/096003) in view of Hattori (US 2018/0203439).
As per claim 3, claim 2 is incorporated, Fujii fails to disclose “wherein configuration is such that a degree of deviation of the feature from the predicted range is calculated”
However, Hattori teaches the above limitation ([0010] based on a predetermined algorithm that specifies a degree of association between the defect and the types of feature amounts, from the values of the types of feature amounts acquired at the normal time and the defective time, and a prediction model construction unit configured to construct a prediction model for predicting occurrence of the defect, using the selected feature amount, [0011]-[0012], [0014], [0093], [0095]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Hattori into the teaching of Fujii because the references similarly disclose the production of products and factories. Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to further modify the system as in Fujii to further include the calculating and display of deviation as in Hattori in order prevent costly and/or potentially problematic production.
As per claim 4, claim 3 is incorporated, Hattori further discloses:
wherein the control unit is configured to display the factor notified and the degree of deviation corresponding to the factor ([0129]-[0134]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM P BARTLETT whose telephone number is (469)295-9085. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 11:30-8:30, F 11-3.
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, Sherief Badawi can be reached on 571-272-9782. 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.
/WILLIAM P BARTLETT/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2169
Prosecution Insights