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 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 an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) determining a defect detection rate, which can be an abstract idea done mentally. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the determining step is simply an implementation step that can be done mentally or on a computer. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient 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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-8, and 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Blendl (US 2014/0348305).
Regarding claim 1, Blendl discloses a test body (1) for checking an image quality during an X-ray examination of a (hypothetical) test object that has a first layer of test subjects to be checked and that has an intermediate layer on which the test subjects are arranged, wherein the test body (1) has a first test layer (every odd layer of 2) and a solid spacer plate (every even layer of 2) arranged thereon, wherein a thickness of the first test layer (within 2) corresponds to a thickness of the test subjects in the (hypothetical) test object, and a thickness of the spacer plate (within 2) corresponds to a thickness of the (hypothetical) intermediate layer, wherein the first test layer includes a plurality of first holes (4), the first holes (within 2) having depths in the first test layer that are equal to their diameters (of 4) and the first holes having sizes that correspond to a fraction of the sizes of the associated (hypothetical) test subjects that are to be detected as defects, wherein a material of the first test layer (within 2) has an absorption factor that corresponds to an absorption factor of the associated (hypothetical) test subjects, and wherein a material the spacer plate (within 2) has an absorption factor that corresponds to an absorption factor of the (hypothetical) intermediate layer.
Also note that the claim is structurally limited to the test body itself, which is not claimed in such a way to structurally differentiate the claimed test body from Blendl.
Regarding claim 2, Blendl discloses wherein the test body (1) necessarily can be associated with the (hypothetical) test object having a second layer of test subjects to be inspected that are arranged on a side of the intermediate layer facing away from the first layer, wherein the test body (1) has a second test layer (with 2) that is arranged on a side of the spacer plate (within 2) facing away from the first test layer, wherein a thickness of the second test layer corresponds to a thickness of the test subjects in the second layer (figs. 1-2), and wherein the second test layer is made of a material (within 2) having an absorption factor corresponding to that of a hypothetical material of the test subjects of the second layer, and wherein the second test layer includes a plurality of the first holes (4) having depths in the second test layer (2) that are equal to their diameters.
Again, note that the claim is structurally limited to the test body itself, which is not claimed in such a way to structurally differentiate the claimed test body from Blendl.
Regarding claim 3, Blendl discloses wherein the test body has at least one additional combination of an additional spacer plate and an additional test layer (2), the additional spacer plates and the additional test layers corresponding respectively to the spacer plate and the second test layer (2).
Regarding claim 4, Blendl discloses wherein the first test layer includes second holes that have diameters at least twice the diameters of the first holes, and wherein the second holes have depths in the first test layer that are equal to the depths of the first holes in the first test layer (figs. 4-5).
Regarding claim 7, Blendl discloses wherein the hypothetical test object is a circuit board and the test subjects are solder balls. Again, note that the claim is structurally limited to the test body itself, which is not claimed in such a way to structurally differentiate the claimed test body from Blendl.
Regarding claim 8, Blendl discloses wherein the first test layer is made of a material with an atomic number greater than 22 and/or the spacer plates are made of a material with an atomic number less than 14 (par. 33).
Regarding claim 11, Blendl discloses wherein the first holes have equal diameters (figs. 4-5).
Regarding claim 12, Blendl discloses wherein the first holes have depths less than a thickness of the first test layer (figs. 4-5).
Regarding claim 13, Blendl discloses wherein the second holes have equal diameters (figs. 4-5).
Regarding claim 14, Blendl discloses wherein the third holes have equal diameters (figs. 4-5).
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.
Claim(s) 5-6 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blendl as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sasazawa et al. (US 2018/0209924; hereinafter Sasazawa).
Regarding claim 5, Blendl discloses claim 1. Blendl further discloses wherein the first test layer includes third holes that have diameters, and wherein the third holes depths in the first test layer that are equal to the depths of the first holes in the first test layer (figs. 4-5). Blendl also discloses third holes with at least quadruple the diameters of the first holes (figs. 4-5).
However, Blendl fails to disclose wherein the first test layer includes holes with the three different diameters.
Sasazawa teaches wherein the first test layer includes holes with the three different diameters (fig. 3).
It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Blendl with the teaching of Sasazawa, since one would have been motivated to make such a modification for being able to detect more defects (Sasazawa: pars. 29-30).
Regarding claim 6, Blendl discloses wherein the first holes, the second holes, and/or the third holes are each arranged in in the first test layer in a matrix that extends over a large portion of a surface of the first test layer, wherein all holes are arranged in a common matrix (figs. 4-5).
Regarding claim 9, Sasazawa teaches a method using the test body, the method comprising determining a defect detection rate of the test object using the test body (title, abstract, and fig. 3).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blendl as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Li et al. (US 2006/0120506; hereinafter Li).
Blendl discloses claim 1.
However, Blendl fails to disclose a method comprising determining a depth of field of an X-ray system with a tube, a detector, and a holder arranged therebetween for receiving the test object, wherein a single X-ray image is taken of the test body that is located in a beam path instead of the test object at a location where the test object is located during an inspection, and this X-ray image is then evaluated.
Li teaches a method comprising determining a depth of field of an X-ray system with a tube, a detector, and a holder arranged therebetween for receiving the test object (par. 36: focal depth), wherein a single X-ray image is taken of the test body that is located in a beam path instead of the test object at a location where the test object is located during an inspection, and this X-ray image is then evaluated (par. 36).
It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Blendl with the teaching of Li, since one would have been motivated to make such a modification for improving quality (Li: par. 32).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 23, 2026, have been fully considered, but some arguments are not persuasive.
Regarding Blendl, applicant argues that Blendl fails to disclose holes in the layer, but instead holes between the layers. The Examiner disagrees. Blendl (pars. 49; figs. 4-5) discloses holes (4) in the layer (2). Blendl discloses both configurations with holes (i.e., spheres) in the layer (par. 49; claim 1: “spheres being in … the plates”), as well as holes between the layers (par. 50; claim 1: “spheres being … between at least some of the plates”).
Regarding claim 11, Blendl does disclose holes (4) having equal diameters (figs. 4-5), which also shows the holes (figs. 4-5:4) having different diameters (par. 100). In fig. 4a, for example, the fourth layer (2) on the right has two sets of holes having different diameters: one set, having holes with an equal diameter, that is smaller than the other set, having holes with an equal diameter. Regarding claim 12, Blendl (fig. 4a) also discloses holes (4) having depths less than a thickness of the test layer (2). Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive, and Blendl still applies.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Chih-Cheng Kao whose telephone number is (571)272-2492. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, David Makiya can be reached at (571) 272-2273. 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.
/Chih-Cheng Kao/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights