DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
Claim Status
Claim 1 is pending.
Priority
This Application is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 17/491,213, filed on 30-SEP-2021, which is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 16/404,566, filed on 06-MAY-2019, which is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 15/407,158, filed on 16-JAN-2017, which claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No. 62/279,174, filed on 15-JAN-2016.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. US 12190418 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the limitations in the application can be found in claim 1 of the cited patent as shown below. In other words, this is an “anticipation-type” obviousness doble patenting rejection. See MPEP 804 (ii)(b)(2).
Note: For claim 1
#
(US 20250078370 A1) (18/955,660) (This Application)
#
(US 12190418 B2) (17/491,213) (Patent)
1
A method comprising
1
A method for automatically measuring a feature across multiple assembly units comprising:
1
accessing a first image recorded at an optical inspection station and representing a first assembly unit;
1
accessing a first image recorded at an optical inspection station and representing a first assembly unit;
1
selecting of a feature of interest in the first assembly unit;
1
selecting of a feature of interest in the first assembly unit;
1
projecting a dimension space onto the first image, the dimension space configured to compensate for optical distortion in the first image recorded at the optical inspection station;
1
projecting a dimension space onto the first image, the dimension space configured to compensate for optical distortion in the first image recorded at the optical inspection station;
1
extracting a first absolute length of the feature of interest in the first assembly unit from the first image according to the dimension space;
1
extracting a first absolute length of the feature of interest in the first assembly unit from the first image according to the dimension space;
defining a feature window encompassing the feature of interest, offset from the feature of interest, and located relative to a first global origin of the first image;
1
for each image in a set of images:
identifying a feature in an assembly unit represented in the image, the feature in the assembly unit analogous to the feature of interest in the first assembly unit; and
extracting an absolute length of the feature in the assembly unit from the image; and
1
for each image in a set of images:
locating the feature window in the image;
identifying a feature in an assembly unit represented in the image, the feature in the assembly unit analogous to the feature of interest in the first assembly unit; and
extracting an absolute length of the feature in the assembly unit from the image; and
1
aggregating the first absolute length and a set of absolute lengths extracted from the set of images into a digital container
1
aggregating the first absolute length and a set of absolute lengths extracted from the set of images into a digital container
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kulkarni et al. (US 9098891 B2 Hereinafter “Kulkarni”) in view of Chen et al. (“ROBUST HOMOGRAPHY FOR REAL-TIME IMAGE UN-DISTORTION” Hereinafter “Chen”) in further view of KLIMOV et al. (WO 2017/095259 Hereinafter “KLIMOV”).
Regarding claim 1, Kulkarni teaches a method comprising:
accessing a first image recorded at an optical inspection station and representing a first assembly unit (Col. 9, lines 6-10: “As shown in step 200 of FIG. 2, a whole die reference image may be acquired from an optical inspector”);
selecting of a feature of interest in the first assembly unit (Col. 9, lines 30-35: “5. A representative set of locations are chosen from each group for analysis on the second tool”);
for each image in a set of images:
identifying a feature in an assembly unit represented within the feature window in the image, the feature in the assembly unit analogous to the feature of interest in the first assembly unit (Col. 9, lines 42-48: “6. The images obtained from the second tool or from a stored high resolution die image at the selected locations are analyzed to determine regions of the images which have critical geometry, where the criticality can be defined by asset of geometrical-based rules applied to the geometrical features found in the one or more second images”); and
aggregating the (Col. 13, lines 58-66: “All of the methods described herein may include storing results of one or more steps of the method embodiments in a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”).
Kulkarni does not expressly disclose projecting a dimension space onto the first image, the dimension space configured to compensate for optical distortion in the first image recorded at the optical inspection station
However, Chen teaches projecting a dimension space onto the first image, the dimension space configured to compensate for optical distortion in the first image recorded at the optical inspection station (Pages 3-5: “Since the lens distortion should be fixed when the focal length and shooting distance are fixed, our method could estimate the distortion parameter from a calibration image containing a known planar object (such as a chessboard pattern) and “transfer” it to un-distort other images captured with the same camera configuration”).
At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kulkarni’s assembly line image inspection system to include Chen’s method for applying a dimension space to images to compensate for optical distortion because such a modification is the result of applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. More specifically, Chen’s method for applying a dimension space to images to compensate for optical distortion permits a method for improving image quality by compensating for optical distortion. This known benefit in Chen is applicable to Kulkarni’s assembly line image inspection system as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to using image processing to process images for further processes. Therefore, it would have been recognized that modifying Kulkarni’s assembly line image inspection system to include Chen’s method for applying a dimension space to images to compensate for optical distortion would have yielded predictable results because (i) the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate Chen’s method for applying a dimension space to images to compensate for optical distortion in using image processing to process images for further processes and (ii) the benefits of such a combination would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art.
The combination of Kulkarni and Chen does not expressly disclose extracting a first absolute length of the feature of interest in the first assembly unit from the first image according to the dimension space.
However, KLIMOV teaches extracting a first absolute length of the feature of interest in the first assembly unit from the first image according to the dimension space (Page 2: “The essence of the invention lies in the fact that the method of performing ZD measurements of an object is that by means of a projector”. A grid is projected onto an image and used to measure the ZD measurement of the image. This ZD measurement acts as the absolute length).
At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of Kulkarni and Chen’s assembly line image inspection system to include KLIMOV’s method of using a dimension space on an image to measure lengths of the image because such a modification is the result of applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. More specifically, KLIMOV’s method of using a dimension space on an image to measure lengths of the image permits a method for extracting measurements of an image using a dimension space. This known benefit in KLIMOV is applicable to the combination of Kulkarni and Chen’s assembly line image inspection system as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to using image analysis to extract measurements from images. Furthermore, Kulkarni makes decisions on whether a region has critical geometry based on measured dimensions (Col. 10, lines 30-50: “A set of user-defined rules can be used to categorize regions as critical or less critical. Given below are examples of rules one can use. The SEM images can be analyzed using any suitable morphological shape analysis algorithms to determine whether they satisfy a given rule”. The example rules that follow require measurement of dimensions), and Chen already provides a dimension space for correcting optical distortion, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to use that same dimension space to obtain the measurements that Kulkarni needs by using KLIMOV’s teachings. Therefore, it would have been recognized that modifying the combination of Kulkarni and Chen’s assembly line image inspection system to include KLIMOV’s method of using a dimension space on an image to measure lengths of the image would have yielded predictable results because (i) the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate KLIMOV’s method of using a dimension space on an image to measure lengths of the image in using image analysis to extract measurements from images and (ii) the benefits of such a combination would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Aimonen et al. (US 20050254701 A1) teaches detecting the same feature over multiple cameras on an assembly line for defect detection.
Lim et al. (US 9251582 B2) teaches matching key points between images and obtaining physical measurements of objects in the images.
Lyons et al. (US 20040247174 A1) teaches Matching features between images for generating a 3D model.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEFANO A DARDANO whose telephone number is (703)756-4543. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 11:00 - 7:00.
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, Greg Morse can be reached at (571) 272-3838. 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.
/STEFANO ANTHONY DARDANO/ Examiner, Art Unit 2663
/GREGORY A MORSE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2698
Prosecution Insights