DETAILED ACTION
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements submitted on 11/25/2024 have been considered by the Examiner and made of record in the application file.
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: appearance defect vision inspection apparatus, data storage, AI retraining support inspection apparatus, teaching AI model unit, multiclass classification teaching AI model, data filtering unit, model retraining unit and data preprocessing unit in claims 1 and 5-8.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-4, 9-14 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsubaki (US 2023/0096532 A1) in view of Kaneko (US 2018/0299389 A1) and in further view of Chickering (US 2016/0162802 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Tsubaki discloses a vision inspection method for vehicle manufacturing, the visual inspection method comprising:
inspecting, by an appearance defect vision inspection apparatus, appearance defects using an appearance defect vision inspection artificial intelligence (AI) model (Tsubaki discloses an inspection device 10 that performs a quality determination for a product by AI that uses a learning model. The inspection processing unit 15 performs the quality determination process to which the AI is applies and determines whether the inspection target site matches the specification indicated by the production instruction information, with the AI for which the selected learning model is used, see paragraphs 20 and 29) based on product image data captured by a camera; (Tsubaki discloses capturing product images with camera 20 and uses those images for preprocessing and AI inspection, see paragraphs 21, 27 and 33.)
(see paragraphs 30-31 and 37; learning model generation unit 17 reads stored inspection images and generates a learning model; the learning may be performed by a device different from inspection device 10) (paragraph 38; Tsubaki’s learning model generation unit 17 reads stored learning images, uses production instruction information as teaching data, generates a learning model and saves the generated model in learning model saving unit 14)
Tsubaki fails to specifically disclose transmitting inspection data comprising the product image data and determination result data of an appearance defect inspection to a data storage so that the data storage stores the inspection data and the determination result data; and incorrect determination data among the determination result data using teaching AI models based on the inspection data and the determination result data input from the data storage,
In related art, Kaneko discloses transmitting inspection data comprising the product image data and determination result data of an appearance defect inspection to a data storage so that the data storage stores the inspection data and the determination result data. (paragraphs 69 and 73-74; Kaneko discloses that test object inspection result data D10, which includes possible defect and diagnosis result data, is associated with test object imaging data D100 and recorded in recording unit 24. Kaneko further states that D10 may include part of D100 and may be transmitted to and accumulated in product database 200, thereby storing both the image data and corresponding inspection result data).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Kaneko into the teachings of Tsubaki to efficiently check whether defects are present.
Furthermore, in related, Chickering discloses identifying incorrect determination data among the determination result data using teaching AI models. (paragraphs 36 and 50-53; auxiliary machine learning model 112 and target machine learning model 114 generate respective scores for the same observation, and comparison component 118 compares those scores to determine whether the target model produced a false positive, false negative, or other error. The reason for false positive and false negative determinations is retained to improve accuracy through iterative refinement of target model 114. The erroneous observation is converted into a newly labeled observation, features are selected based on the comparison and the target model is refined. The process iterates using newly labeled observations.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Chickering into the teachings of Tsubaki and Kaneko to achieve better accuracy through iterative refinement of the target machine learning model.
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Tsubaki, as modified by Kaneko and Chickering, discloses the claimed invention wherein the camera is a vision camera. (Tsubaki: paragraphs 21, 33 and 42)
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Tsubaki, as modified by Kaneko and Chickering, discloses the claimed invention wherein the appearance defect inspection is carried out by the appearance defect inspection AI model. (Tsubaki: paragraphs 20, 28 and 36)
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Tsubaki, as modified by Kaneko and Chickering, discloses the claimed invention wherein the incorrect determination data is identified using teaching AI models. (Chickering: paragraphs 30, 36 and 50-53)
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Tsubaki, as modified by Kaneko and Chickering, discloses the claimed invention wherein the AI retraining support inspection apparatus is provided to transmit the appearance defect vision inspection AI model modified through the model retraining process to the appearance defect vision inspection apparatus to update the appearance defect vision inspection AI model of the appearance defect vision inspection apparatus. (Tsubaki: paragraphs 21-22, 28-37; Chickering: paragraphs 15 and 21)
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Tsubaki, as modified by Kaneko and Chickering, discloses the claimed invention wherein vehicle manufacturing assembly comprising the vision inspection system of claim 1. (Tsubaki: paragraphs 20-25)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8 and 15-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BOBBAK SAFAIPOUR whose telephone number is (571)270-1092. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Stephen Koziol can be reached at (408) 918-7630. 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.
/BOBBAK SAFAIPOUR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2665
Prosecution Insights