CTNF 18/912,745 CTNF 90396 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. 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. 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 10/11/2024 has been considered by the examiner. Oath/Declaration Oath/Declaration as file 10/11/2024 is noted by the Examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 is directed to “… perform a locating processing to locate positions of defect candidates of the display device in the image captured by the image acquisition processing; perform a contour generation processing to generate a contour of the defect candidate of the display device based on the position of the defect candidate of the display device; and perform a determination processing to determine whether the defect candidate is a defect of the display device based on a perimeter of the contour.” , which are mathematical-calculations and/or mental process perform by a processor. The additional elements “ An inspection apparatus for defect detection in a display device having an array of a plurality of pixels, comprising: a processor; and a memory storing a program which, when executed by the processor, causes the inspection apparatus to: perform an image acquisition processing to acquire an image of the pixels of the display device with sensor pixels …” are data collection and an extra-solution activity that is simply the outputting the result of the mathematical-calculations, which both elements simply include routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Claim 1 is Ineligible due to the following analysis: 4.1) Step 1 (Statutory Category) : Claim 1 is directed to an inspection apparatus for defect detection in a display device having an array of a plurality of pixels, therefore, it is directed to a statutory category, i.e., a device (Step 1: YES) . 4.2) Step 2A, Prong-1 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea) : Claim 1 recites: “… perform a locating processing to locate positions of defect candidates of the display device in the image captured by the image acquisition processing; perform a contour generation processing to generate a contour of the defect candidate of the display device based on the position of the defect candidate of the display device; and perform a determination processing to determine whether the defect candidate is a defect of the display device based on a perimeter of the contour.” , which are mathematical-calculations and/or mental process . Therefore, it is directed to a judicial exception/abstract-idea (Step 2A, Prong-1: YES) . Step 2A, Prong-2 ( the claim is evaluated to determine whether the judicial-exception/abstract-idea is integrated into a Practical Application ) : Claim 1 do not claim a particular machine in which the judicial-exception/abstract-idea is implemented and/or integrated , and do not claim any transformation of a particular article to a different state in which the judicial exception/abstract-idea is implemented and/or integrated. Consequently, the claimed mathematical-calculations and/or mental process above are not integrated into a practical application and/or apply, rely on, or use to an additional element or elements in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the mathematical-calculations and/or mental process, thus, monopolizing the mathematical-calculations and/or mental process in variety of technologies (Step 2A, Prong-2: NO, because there is no integration of the judicial exception/abstract-idea into a practical application) . 4.3) Step 2B ( the claim is evaluated to determine whether recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept, or also, the additional elements are significantly more than the recited the judicial-exception/abstract-idea ) : Claim 1 recites the additional element(s) “ An inspection apparatus for defect detection in a display device having an array of a plurality of pixels, comprising: a processor; and a memory storing a program which, when executed by the processor, causes the inspection apparatus to: perform an image acquisition processing to acquire an image of the pixels of the display device with sensor pixels …”, which are/is simply routine and conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry that includes microprocessors for acquiring data and outputted the calculated result, which fall in the category of data collection and extra-solution activity . Therefore, the claim does not include additional element(s) significantly more, or, does not amount to more than the judicial-exception/abstract-idea itself and the claim is not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO). Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 2 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims. In addition, claim 2 is further recites the element(s) “…wherein the determination processing distinguishes a defect in the display device from a defect in the sensor pixels based on a size of a defect contained in the image acquired by the image acquisition processing.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry. Furthermore, Claim 2 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 3 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims. In addition, claim 3 is further recites the element(s) “…wherein the image acquisition processing acquires an image of one of the plurality of pixels of the display device using a plurality of sensor pixels.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry. Furthermore, Claim 3 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 4 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims. In addition, claim 4 is further recites the element(s) “…wherein the determination processing obtains a defect determination threshold, compares the perimeter of the contour generated by the contour generation processing with the defect determination threshold, and determines whether the defect candidate is a defect in the display device based on a result of the comparison.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry. Furthermore, Claim 4 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 5 depends on claim 4, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims. In addition, claim 5 is further recites the element(s) “…wherein the defect determination threshold is a perimeter of a contour of one pixel of the display device in the image acquired by the image acquisition processing.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry. Furthermore, Claim 5 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 6 depends on claim 4, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims. In addition, claim 6 is further recites the element(s) “…wherein the defect determination threshold is a perimeter of a contour allowing the determination processing to detect a defect of a visible size.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry. Furthermore, Claim 6 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 7 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims. In addition, claim 7 is further recites the element(s) “…wherein the determination processing obtains a defect determination threshold, and determines that the defect candidate is a defect in the display device when the perimeter of the contour is equal to or more than the defect determination threshold.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry. Furthermore, Claim 7 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 8 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims. In addition, claim 8 is further recites the element(s) “…the program further causes the inspection apparatus to: perform a notification processing to provide a notification of a result of determination of a defect in the display device by the determination processing.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry. Furthermore, Claim 8 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 9 depends on claim 8, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims. In addition, claim 9 is further recites the element(s) “…wherein the notification processing provides a notification that the image acquired by the image acquisition processing contains a defect in the display device or a defect in the sensor pixels.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry. Furthermore, Claim 9 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 10 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims. In addition, claim 10 is further recites the element(s) “…wherein the locating processing generates a binarized image that indicates the position of the defect candidate based on a result of comparison between pixel values of the sensor pixels and a feature calculated from pixel values of surrounding sensor pixels.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry. Furthermore, Claim 10 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 11 depends on claim 10, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims. In addition, claim 11 is further recites the element(s) “…wherein the locating processing calculates the feature using a median filter.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry. Furthermore, Claim 11 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 12 depends on claim 10, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims. In addition, claim 12 is further recites the element(s) “…wherein the locating processing calculates the feature using a mean filter.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry. Furthermore, Claim 12 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 13 depends on claim 10, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims. In addition, claim 13 is further recites the element(s) “…wherein the locating processing performs complementation on a pixel value between pixels of the binarized image.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry. Furthermore, Claim 13 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 14 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims. In addition, claim 14 is further recites the element(s) “…wherein the sensor pixels have a pixel size that is one ninth or less of a pixel size of the display device.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry. Furthermore, Claim 14 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 15 is directed to “… locating a position of a defect candidate of the display device in the image captured in the image acquisition step; generating a contour of the defect candidate of the display device based on the position of the defect candidate of the display device; and determining whether the defect candidate is a defect of the display device based on a perimeter of the contour.” , which are mathematical-calculations and/or mental process perform by a processor. The additional elements “ A method of manufacturing organic light-emitting devices comprising the steps of: acquiring an image, with sensor pixels, of a plurality of pixels that are organic light-emitting devices arrayed in a display device …” are data collection and an extra-solution activity that is simply the outputting the result of the mathematical-calculations, which both elements simply include routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Claim 15 is Ineligible due to the following analysis: 4.1) Step 1 (Statutory Category) : Claim 15 is directed to a method of manufacturing organic light-emitting devices, therefore, it is directed to a statutory category, i.e., a method (Step 1: YES) . 4.2) Step 2A, Prong-1 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea) : Claim 15 recites: “… locating a position of a defect candidate of the display device in the image captured in the image acquisition step; generating a contour of the defect candidate of the display device based on the position of the defect candidate of the display device; and determining whether the defect candidate is a defect of the display device based on a perimeter of the contour.” , which are mathematical-calculations and/or mental process . Therefore, it is directed to a judicial exception/abstract-idea (Step 2A, Prong-1: YES) . Step 2A, Prong-2 ( the claim is evaluated to determine whether the judicial-exception/abstract-idea is integrated into a Practical Application ) : Claim 15 do not claim a particular machine in which the judicial-exception/abstract-idea is implemented and/or integrated , and do not claim any transformation of a particular article to a different state in which the judicial exception/abstract-idea is implemented and/or integrated. Consequently, the claimed mathematical-calculations and/or mental process above are not integrated into a practical application and/or apply, rely on, or use to an additional element or elements in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the mathematical-calculations and/or mental process, thus, monopolizing the mathematical-calculations and/or mental process in variety of technologies (Step 2A, Prong-2: NO, because there is no integration of the judicial exception/abstract-idea into a practical application) . 4.3) Step 2B ( the claim is evaluated to determine whether recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept, or also, the additional elements are significantly more than the recited the judicial-exception/abstract-idea ) : Claim 15 recites the additional element(s) “ A method of manufacturing organic light-emitting devices comprising the steps of: acquiring an image, with sensor pixels, of a plurality of pixels that are organic light-emitting devices arrayed in a display device …”, which are/is simply routine and conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry that includes microprocessors for acquiring data and outputted the calculated result, which fall in the category of data collection and extra-solution activity . Therefore, the claim does not include additional element(s) significantly more, or, does not amount to more than the judicial-exception/abstract-idea itself and the claim is not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO). Claims 16-20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same reasons stated for the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of Claim 15; as the limitations of Claim 15 are also part of Claims 16-20. Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sakai et al. US 2012/0141012 - A defect inspection apparatus includes an illumination optical system which irradiates an inspection subject under a predetermined optical condition, a detection optical system which obtains image data by detecting a scattered light from the inspection subject irradiated by the illumination optical system, and an image processing unit provided with a defect candidate detection unit which detects defect candidates with respect to plural image data obtained by the detection optical system under different conditions. Ogi et al. US 2006/0133660 - In a defect detection apparatus 1, in a reference image inspection circuit 42 compared are a reference image representing a pattern in a die which is determined as a reference on a substrate 9 and a plurality of supervisory images which represent patterns in selected block areas, respectively, to detect defects included in the reference image. Sakai et al. US 2011/0304725 - An apparatus for inspecting pattern defects, the apparatus including: an image acquisition unit which acquires an image of a specimen and stores the acquired image in an image memory; a defect candidate extraction unit which performs a defect candidate extraction process by using the acquired image, which is read from the image memory. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAUL J RIOS RUSSO whose telephone number is (571)270-3459. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 10am-6pm, EST. 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, Huy Phan can be reached at 571-272-7924. 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. /RAUL J RIOS RUSSO/Examiner, Art Unit 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/912,745 Page 2 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/912,745 Page 3 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/912,745 Page 4 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/912,745 Page 5 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/912,745 Page 6 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/912,745 Page 7 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/912,745 Page 8 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/912,745 Page 9 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/912,745 Page 10 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/912,745 Page 11 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/912,745 Page 12 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/912,745 Page 13 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/912,745 Page 14 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/912,745 Page 15 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/912,745 Page 16 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/912,745 Page 17 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/912,745 Page 18 Art Unit: 2858
Prosecution Insights