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 .
This action is responsive to the initial filing of 12/19/2024.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
the “image unit” introduced in independent claims 1 and 6, as well as the additional image units introduced in claims 3 and 10, interpreted as including a camera, as described in paragraph 13 of the specification;
each “conveyance unit” introduced in independent claims 1 and 6, interpreted in light of paragraph 28 of the specification as being a system combining pulleys and belts (conveyor belt system) or a system constituted of pulleys;
and the “control unit” introduced in independent claims 1 and 6, interpreted based on paragraph 21 of the specification as including any of the listed types of computer hardware (a CPU, a coprocessor such as a GPU (Graphics Processing Unit) or an FPU (Floating-point Processing Unit/Floating- Point Unit), a memory, or other LSI of any computer as hardware) or being performed by software, or both. Note that a generic computer performing the claimed functions would meet this interpretation of the control unit, absent evidence to the contrary.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Note that the “conveying unit” introduced in independent claims 1 and 6 was considered for interpretation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), but it is the Examiner’s position that the structure of the conveyance units (as interpreted above) claimed as part of the conveying unit is sufficient to perform the functions claimed for the conveying unit. As a result, it is unnecessary to separately interpret the conveying unit under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tanaka (foreign patent document JPH08166218).
Regarding claim 1, Tanaka teaches an inspection device, comprising:
an image unit that acquires image data of an inspection object (FIG. 1, imaging device 10 captures data of substrate 1);
a conveying unit that moves the inspection object (FIG. 2 shows substrate transport mechanism 20, including substrate transfer unit 25 as well as first substrate transport mechanism 14 and second substrate transport mechanism 15, which include conveyor belts 26 and conveyor belts 29); and
a control unit that controls operations of the image unit and the conveying unit, wherein the conveying unit includes at least two conveyance units connected in series in a moving direction in which the inspection object is moved (FIG. 4, conveyor belts 26 convey the substrate in the upstream portion, substrate transfer mechanism 25 moves the substrate from the standby area to the inspection area, and conveyor belts 29 remove the substrate, as described in paragraphs 25-26),
an operation of each of the conveyance units can be individually controlled by the control unit (paragraph 25, conveyor belts 26 are driven by motor 28, conveyor belts 29 are driven by motor 31, and substrate transfer mechanism 25 is driven by the piston inside guide cylinder 33. Also note that of the three sections, only substrate transfer mechanism 25 has to reverse direction when going from one substrate under test to another),
at least one conveyance unit of the conveyance units is a first conveyance unit arranged in an imaging area where image data can be acquired by the image unit (FIG. 2 shows imaging device 10 in the context of the rest of the system),
at least one conveyance unit of the remaining conveyance units is a second conveyance unit arranged in a standby area in front of or behind the imaging area in the moving direction, and the control unit causes (FIG. 4, conveyor belts 26 are in front (upstream) of the imaging area, while conveyor belts 29 are behind (downstream of) the imaging area),
when the control unit is individually controlling the conveyance units,
when the image unit is capturing an image of the inspection object having been moved to the imaging area by the first conveyance unit, the second conveyance unit to load another inspection object into the standby area or unload another inspection object from the standby area (paragraph 11. Also see FIG. 4).
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, 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (foreign patent document JPH08166218).
Regarding claim 4, Tanaka teaches the inspection device according to claim 1 (as described above).
Tanaka further teaches that a standby area is in front of the imaging area (FIG. 4(4) shows a substrate 1 in the standby area waiting for another substrate 1 to leave the imaging area).
While Tanaka does teach the use of a flipper machine (FIG. 8 shows the substrate 1 being flipped twice, in FIG. 8(4) and FIG. 8(7)), it is not disclosed to be part of the same embodiment as is primarily relied on in this action.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the inspection device of Tanaka with a flipper machine provided in the standby area, achieving the predictable result of being able to flip a substrate when desired, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 5, Tanaka teaches the inspection device according to claim 1 (as described above).
Tanaka is silent as to the details, including memory capacity of the image processing device used (not shown in figures, but discussed, for example, in paragraph 10). Tanaka does not explicitly state that the image processing device is integral to the device controlling the motors. Note that it was, well before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, typical for an image processing device to possess enough memory to store an entire image, and it is generally considered obvious to make separate components integral (see MPEP2144.04 V B), which comes with the additional benefit of making the device as a whole more compact.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the inspection device of Tanaka by including the imaging processing functions in the device controlling the conveyance units and by including the common image processing feature of memory capable of storing an image, with predictable results of making the device more compact and a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 2-3 and 6-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (foreign patent document JPH08166218) in view of Kohama (foreign patent document JP201415620).
Regarding claim 2, Tanaka teaches the inspection device according to claim 1 (as described above).
Tanaka does not explicitly teach that the control unit compares a length of the inspection object in the moving direction and lengths of the conveyance units in the moving direction with each other,
when the length of the inspection object is longer than the length of any of the conveyance units, controls operations of all of the conveyance units as one conveyance unit, and
when the length of the inspection object is equal to or shorter than the length of any of the conveyance units, controls operations of the conveyance units individually.
In the same field of endeavor of conveyance devices for manufacturing electronic devices, Kohama does teach that the control unit compares a length of the inspection object in the moving direction and lengths of the conveyance units in the moving direction with each other (paragraph 10),
when the length of the inspection object is longer than the length of any of the conveyance units, controls operations of all of the conveyance units as one conveyance unit (FIG. 5 shows a long substrate causing two sections of the conveyance unit to operate together as one), and
when the length of the inspection object is equal to or shorter than the length of any of the conveyance units, controls operations of the conveyance units individually (FIG. 3 and FIG. 4 show only one of the conveyance units operating on the current substrate). By operating different parts of the conveyance system independently when the shortness of the substrate allows, Kohama is able to provide buffer space without allocating a separate part of the transport path as a buffer (paragraph 9) and increase energy efficiency (paragraph 10) while still being able to handle longer substrates (FIG. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the inspection device of Tanaka by having multiple conveyance sections able to work either separately or together, as taught by Kohama, when imaging the substrate in order to predictably improve efficiency of the workflow.
Regarding claim 3, Tanaka teaches the inspection device according to claim 1 (as described above).
Tanaka further teaches an image unit for visual inspection (paragraph 35 describes how the image data can be displayed for an operator to visually inspect the substrate), and
the control unit acquires image data of the inspection object by the image unit for visual inspection when the inspection object is moved from the standby area (paragraph 11).
Tanaka does not explicitly teach that the standby area is behind the imaging area (so teaches the limitation of the inspection object moving to the standby area in reverse) or that the standby area has the image unit for visual inspection.
In the same field of endeavor of conveyance devices for manufacturing electronic devices, Kohama does teach that that the standby area is behind the imaging area (FIG. 3 shows this ordering, which would result in the processed substrate W moving from the inspection area to the standby area rather than Tanaka’s reversed order) and that processing can occur in an area used for standby (FIG. 4 shows the latter area used to process the substrate W, and FIG. 5 shows both areas used simultaneously). By allowing either the first area or the second area to be used to process the substrate, Kohama is able to make the process more flexible, allowing a wider variety of substrates and substrate sizes to be handled.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the inspection device of Tanaka by placing a buffer space after the existing inspection space and placing an imaging device for visual inspection in that buffer space, analogous to the use of two spaces by Kohama, predictably gaining the benefit of making the line as a whole more compact (see paragraph 9 of Kohama).
Regarding claim 6, Tanaka teaches an inspection device, comprising:
an image unit that acquires image data of an inspection object (FIG. 1, imaging device 10 captures data of substrate 1);
a conveying unit that moves the inspection object (FIG. 2 shows substrate transport mechanism 20, including substrate transfer unit 25 as well as first substrate transport mechanism 14 and second substrate transport mechanism 15, which include conveyor belts 26 and conveyor belts 29); and
a control unit that controls operations of the image unit and the conveying unit, wherein the conveying unit includes at least two conveyance units connected in series in a moving direction in which the inspection object is moved (FIG. 4, conveyor belts 26 convey the substrate in the upstream portion, substrate transfer mechanism 25 moves the substrate from the standby area to the inspection area, and conveyor belts 29 remove the substrate, as described in paragraphs 25-26),
an operation of each of the conveyance units can be individually controlled by the control unit (paragraph 25, conveyor belts 26 are driven by motor 28, conveyor belts 29 are driven by motor 31, and substrate transfer mechanism 25 is driven by the piston inside guide cylinder 33. Also note that of the three sections, only substrate transfer mechanism 25 has to reverse direction when going from one substrate under test to another),
While Tanaka does teach multiple conveyance units (FIG. 4, conveyor belts 26, substrate transfer unit 25, and conveyor belts 29) and that the control unit causes,
when the control unit is individually controlling the conveyance units (paragraph 25, conveyor belts 26 are driven by motor 28, conveyor belts 29 are driven by motor 31, and substrate transfer mechanism 25 is driven by the piston inside guide cylinder 33. Also note that of the three sections, only substrate transfer mechanism 25 has to reverse direction when going from one substrate under test to another),
when an image of the inspection object in one of the first conveyance unit and the second conveyance unit is being captured by the image unit, another inspection object to be moved by the other of the first conveyance unit and the second conveyance unit (paragraph 11. Also see FIG. 4), Tanaka does not show multiple of the conveyance units in the region where the substrate 1 is processed (by imaging device 10), so does not explicitly teach that at least two conveyance units of the conveyance units are a first conveyance unit and a second conveyance unit arranged in an imaging area where image data can be acquired by the image unit.
In the same field of endeavor of conveyance devices for manufacturing electronic devices, Kohama does teach that at least two conveyance units of the conveyance units are a first conveyance unit and a second conveyance unit arranged in a processing area (FIG. 3 and FIG. 4 each show cases where substrate W is in the area where transport belts 43 or where transport belts 48 are operated independently) where processing can occur (Kohama is performing manufacturing operations with the conveyance unit in addition to inspection). By having two conveyance units in the right area, Kohama is able to use one as a buffer (FIG. 3) or the other as a buffer (FIG. 4), or even operate the two units together when moving a larger substrate (FIG. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the inspection device of Tanaka by placing multiple conveyance units inside the imaging area as inspired by Kohama to increase the flexibility when handling substrates to be inspected.
Regarding claim 7, Tanaka, as modified by Kohama, teaches or renders obvious the inspection device according to claim 6 (as described above).
Tanaka does not explicitly teach that the control unit selects, when loading the inspection object, a conveyance unit to perform imaging of the inspection object from the first conveyance unit and the second conveyance unit.
In the same field of endeavor of conveyance devices for manufacturing electronic devices, Kohama does teach that the control unit selects, when loading the inspection object, a conveyance unit to perform imaging of the inspection object from the first conveyance unit and the second conveyance unit (FIG. 3 shows a first conveyance unit chosen for the processing and the second chosen as a buffer, whereas FIG. 4 shows the second conveyance unit used for processing while the first is used as a buffer). By making either conveyance unit usable as the processing area, either can be used as a buffer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the inspection device of Tanaka, as modified by Kohama, by having either of the two conveyance units in the imaging area be able to be used as the inspection area, with predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 8, Tanaka, as modified by Kohama, teaches or renders obvious the inspection device according to claim 6 (as described above).
Tanaka does not explicitly teach that the control unit compares a length of the inspection object in the moving direction and lengths of the first conveyance unit and the second conveyance unit in the moving direction with each other,
when the length of the inspection object is longer than the length of any of the first conveyance unit and the second conveyance unit, controls operations of the first conveyance unit and the second conveyance unit as one conveyance unit, and
when the length of the inspection object is equal to or shorter than the length of any of the first conveyance unit and the second conveyance unit, controls operations of the first conveyance unit and the second conveyance unit individually.
In the same field of endeavor of conveyance devices for manufacturing electronic devices, Kohama does teach that the control unit compares a length of the inspection object in the moving direction and lengths of the first conveyance unit and the second conveyance unit in the moving direction with each other (paragraph 10),
when the length of the inspection object is longer than the length of any of the first conveyance unit and the second conveyance unit, controls operations of the first conveyance unit and the second conveyance unit as one conveyance unit (FIG. 5 shows a long substrate causing two sections of the conveyance unit to operate together as one), and
when the length of the inspection object is equal to or shorter than the length of any of the first conveyance unit and the second conveyance unit, controls operations of the first conveyance unit and the second conveyance unit individually (FIG. 3 and FIG. 4 show only one of the conveyance units operating on the current substrate). By operating different parts of the conveyance system independently when the shortness of the substrate allows, Kohama is able to provide buffer space without allocating a separate part of the transport path as a buffer (paragraph 9) and increase energy efficiency (paragraph 10) while still being able to handle longer substrates (FIG. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the inspection device of Tanaka, as modified by Kohama, by having multiple conveyance sections able to work either separately or together, as taught by Kohama, when imaging the substrate in order to predictably improve efficiency of the workflow.
Regarding claim 9, Tanaka, as modified by Kohama, teaches or renders obvious the inspection device according to claim 6 (as described above).
Tanaka is silent as to the details, including memory capacity of the image processing device used (not shown in figures, but discussed, for example, in paragraph 10). Tanaka does not explicitly state that the image processing device is integral to the device controlling the motors. Note that it was, well before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, typical for an image processing device to possess enough memory to store an entire image, and it is generally considered obvious to make separate components integral (see MPEP2144.04 V B), which comes with the additional benefit of making the device as a whole more compact.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the inspection device of Tanaka, as modified by Kohama, by including the imaging processing functions in the device controlling the conveyance units and by including the common image processing feature of memory capable of storing an image, with predictable results of making the device more compact and a reasonable expectation of success.
Additionally, note that Kohama teaches an imaging device 17 which captures image data, and that mounting device 1 has a processor that acquires and processes the images, which has various types of memory (paragraph 23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have followed the example set by Kohama by including one or more storage media with the image processor of Tanaka, as modified by Kohama.
Regarding claim 10, Tanaka, as modified by Kohama, teaches or renders obvious the inspection device according to claim 2 (as described above).
Tanaka further teaches an image unit for visual inspection (paragraph 35 describes how the image data can be displayed for an operator to visually inspect the substrate), and
the control unit acquires image data of the inspection object by the image unit for visual inspection when the inspection object is moved from the standby area (paragraph 11).
Tanaka does not explicitly teach that the standby area is behind the imaging area (so teaches the limitation of the inspection object moving to the standby area in reverse) or that the standby area has the image unit for visual inspection.
In the same field of endeavor of conveyance devices for manufacturing electronic devices, Kohama does teach that that the standby area is behind the imaging area (FIG. 3 shows this ordering, which would result in the processed substrate W moving from the inspection area to the standby area rather than Tanaka’s reversed order) and that processing can occur in an area used for standby (FIG. 4 shows the latter area used to process the substrate W, and FIG. 5 shows both areas used simultaneously). By allowing either the first area or the second area to be used to process the substrate, Kohama is able to make the process more flexible, allowing a wider variety of substrates and substrate sizes to be handled.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the inspection device of Tanaka, as modified by Kohama, by placing a buffer space after the existing inspection space and placing an imaging device for visual inspection in that buffer space, analogous to the use of two spaces by Kohama, predictably gaining the benefit of making the line as a whole more compact (see paragraph 9 of Kohama).
Regarding claim 11, Tanaka, as modified by Kohama, teaches or renders obvious the inspection device according to claim 2 (as described above).
Tanaka further teaches that a standby area is in front of the imaging area (FIG. 4(4) shows a substrate 1 in the standby area waiting for another substrate 1 to leave the imaging area).
While Tanaka does teach the use of a flipper machine (FIG. 8 shows the substrate 1 being flipped twice, in FIG. 8(4) and FIG. 8(7)), it is not disclosed to be part of the same embodiment as is primarily relied on in this action.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the inspection device of Tanaka, as modified by Kohama, with a flipper machine provided in the standby area, achieving the predictable result of being able to flip a substrate when desired, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 12, Tanaka, as modified by Kohama, teaches or renders obvious the inspection device according to claim 2 (as described above).
Tanaka is silent as to the details, including memory capacity of the image processing device used (not shown in figures, but discussed, for example, in paragraph 10). Tanaka does not explicitly state that the image processing device is integral to the device controlling the motors. Note that it was, well before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, typical for an image processing device to possess enough memory to store an entire image, and it is generally considered obvious to make separate components integral (see MPEP2144.04 V B), which comes with the additional benefit of making the device as a whole more compact.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the inspection device of Tanaka, as modified by Kohama, by including the imaging processing functions in the device controlling the conveyance units and by including the common image processing feature of memory capable of storing an image, with predictable results of making the device more compact and a reasonable expectation of success.
Additionally, note that Kohama teaches an imaging device 17 which captures image data, and that mounting device 1 has a processor that acquires and processes the images, which has various types of memory (paragraph 23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have followed the example set by Kohama by including one or more storage media with the image processor of Tanaka, as modified by Kohama.
Regarding claim 13, Tanaka, as modified by Kohama, teaches or renders obvious the inspection device according to claim 7 (as described above).
Tanaka does not explicitly teach that the control unit compares a length of the inspection object in the moving direction and lengths of the first conveyance unit and the second conveyance unit in the moving direction with each other,
when the length of the inspection object is longer than the length of any of the first conveyance unit and the second conveyance unit, controls operations of the first conveyance unit and the second conveyance unit as one conveyance unit, and
when the length of the inspection object is equal to or shorter than the length of any of the first conveyance unit and the second conveyance unit, controls operations of the first conveyance unit and the second conveyance unit individually.
In the same field of endeavor of conveyance devices for manufacturing electronic devices, Kohama does teach that the control unit compares a length of the inspection object in the moving direction and lengths of the first conveyance unit and the second conveyance unit in the moving direction with each other (paragraph 10),
when the length of the inspection object is longer than the length of any of the first conveyance unit and the second conveyance unit, controls operations of the first conveyance unit and the second conveyance unit as one conveyance unit (FIG. 5 shows a long substrate causing two sections of the conveyance unit to operate together as one), and
when the length of the inspection object is equal to or shorter than the length of any of the first conveyance unit and the second conveyance unit, controls operations of the first conveyance unit and the second conveyance unit individually (FIG. 3 and FIG. 4 show only one of the conveyance units operating on the current substrate). By operating different parts of the conveyance system independently when the shortness of the substrate allows, Kohama is able to provide buffer space without allocating a separate part of the transport path as a buffer (paragraph 9) and increase energy efficiency (paragraph 10) while still being able to handle longer substrates (FIG. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the inspection device of Tanaka, as modified by Kohama, by having multiple conveyance sections able to work either separately or together, as taught by Kohama, when imaging the substrate in order to predictably improve efficiency of the workflow.
Regarding claim 14, Tanaka, as modified by Kohama, teaches or renders obvious the inspection device according to claim 7 (as described above).
Tanaka is silent as to the details, including memory capacity of the image processing device used (not shown in figures, but discussed, for example, in paragraph 10). Tanaka does not explicitly state that the image processing device is integral to the device controlling the motors. Note that it was, well before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, typical for an image processing device to possess enough memory to store an entire image, and it is generally considered obvious to make separate components integral (see MPEP2144.04 V B), which comes with the additional benefit of making the device as a whole more compact.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the inspection device of Tanaka, as modified by Kohama, by including the imaging processing functions in the device controlling the conveyance units and by including the common image processing feature of memory capable of storing an image, with predictable results of making the device more compact and a reasonable expectation of success.
Additionally, note that Kohama teaches an imaging device 17 which captures image data, and that mounting device 1 has a processor that acquires and processes the images, which has various types of memory (paragraph 23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have followed the example set by Kohama by including one or more storage media with the image processor of Tanaka, as modified by Kohama.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL D SCHNASE whose telephone number is (703)756-1691. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM ET.
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, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached at (571) 272-2287. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/PAUL SCHNASE/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights