DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status.
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. Claims 1-7 filed on 12/12/2024 are pending and being examined. Claims 1, 6, and 7 are independent form.
Priority
3. This application is a CON of PCT/JP2023/013733 03/31/2023, where the benefit of foreign priority was further claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed inventions are directed to non-statutory subject matter (an abstract idea without significantly more).
5-1. Regarding independent claim 1, the claim recites an information processing apparatus comprising at least one processor, the at least one processor being configured to determine, based on an image capturing condition including an image capturing direction of a radiographic image captured by irradiating an inspection target object with radiation and structure information representing a three-dimensional structure of the inspection target object, whether to re-capture the radiographic image.
Step 1:
With regard to step (1), claim 1, is directed to an information processing apparatus comprising at least one processor. The claim 1 therefore is one of statutory categories of invention, i.e., a machine and/or manufacture.
Step 2A-1:
With regard to 2A-1, The elements recited in claim 1, as drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass a process(es) which can be practically performed in human mind. For example, “determine, based on an image capturing condition including an image capturing direction of a radiographic image captured by irradiating an inspection target object with radiation and structure information representing a three-dimensional structure of the inspection target object, whether to re-capture the radiographic image” in the context of this claim, encompasses mental observation, evaluations, judgments, opinions, and/or activities that “can be performed in human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”, therefore the limitation falls within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Claim 1 therefore recites an abstract idea. If a claim limitation is directed to organizing human activity, can be practically performed in human mind, or falls within mathematical concepts, then the claim recites an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
Step 2A-2:
The 2019 PEG defines the phrase "integration into a practical application" to require an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception. In the instant case, there is no any additional element in the claim, but for the recitation of “at least one processor”. However, ‘at least one processor” is recited at high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using generic processors. Therefore, the claim as a whole does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
As explained above, the information processing apparatus comprising at least one processor, is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements present mere instructions to apply an exception, which cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim therefore is ineligible.
5-2. Regarding dependent claims 2-5, they are dependent from claim 1 and viewed individually, these additional elements are under its broadest reasonable interpretation, either covers performance of the limitation in the mind, performing a mathematical algorithm or extra solution activity for data gathering and do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. And, when the claims are viewed as a whole, they do not improve a technology by allowing the technology to perform a function that it previously was not capable of performing; and they do not provide any limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a broad technological environment (i.e., computer-based analysis of generic data). Hence, the claimed invention does not constitute significantly more than the abstract idea, so the claims are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
5-3. Regarding independent claims 6 and 7, the claims recite a method (claim 6) and a non-transitory storage medium (claim 7) and each of which is analogous to apparatus claim 1, grounds of rejection analogous to those applied to claim 1 are applicable to claims 6 and 7. Furthermore, the claim is a method that does not recite any additional elements, and according to step 2A-2 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not recite any additional elements that impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim recites an abstract idea.
Because the claim fails under (2A), the claim is further evaluated under (2B). The claim herein does not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. 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 of this title, 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.
8. Claim 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adler et al (US2021/0012499, hereinafter “Adler”).
Regarding claim 1, Adler discloses an information processing apparatus comprising at least one processor (the X-ray inspection system; see fig.1B), the at least one processor being configured to determine, based on an image capturing condition including an image capturing direction of a radiographic image captured by irradiating an inspection target object with radiation and structure information representing a see para.101, lines 3-7: “the automated high-speed X-ray inspection system may generate a second X-ray image of the inspected sample at a second direction (e.g., an oblique direction) different from the first direction and use the second X-ray image to confirm or invalidate the detected defective elements of the inspected sample. [,] For example, the automated high-speed X-ray inspection system may determine the one or more second features by comparing the first X-ray image and the second X-ray image. In particular embodiments, the one or more second features may include, for example, but are not limited to, a stacking order of two or more layers, a position change of the element of interest, a shape change of the element of interest, a position change of an interfering element, a shape change of an interfering element, one or more grayscale value changes associated with the element of interest, one or more grayscale value changes associated with an interfering element, any difference between the first X-ray image and the second X-ray image, etc”). As such, when the x-ray inspection system in Adler is not sure whether the detected result based on the first X-ray image at the first direction is validate, the X-ray inspection system needs to recapture a second X-ray image of the inspected sample at a second direction and consider the shape or the shape change of the inspected sample. Stated different, whether it is necessary to recapture a second X-ray image of the inspected sample at a second direction for the X-ray inspection system in Adler is based on the first incident direction and the shape of the inspected sample. Regarding “a three-dimensional structure of the inspection target object”, Adler, see para.42, lines 7-13, further teaches: whether “the defects in the device package may be solder contact defects including, for example, but not limited to a head-in-pillow defect, a snowman defect, a missing solder defect, a low solder volume [3D] defect, a high solder volume [3D] defect, a solder bridging defect, a partially-wet defect, a misalignment defect, a micro-bump defect, a cracked solder [3D] ball, a solder [3D] ball void, or a defective solder contact diameter.” Adler discloses or suggests each and every element recited in claim 1, and the claim 1 thus is unpatentable over Adler.
Regarding claim 2, Adler discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to determine to re-capture the radiographic image in a case where, when the image capturing direction of the radiographic image that has been captured is set as a viewpoint direction, it is determined, based on the structure information, that a region where a flaw present in the inspection target object does not appear in the radiographic image is present in the inspection target object (the system captures two x-ray images in two directions to cover the 3D shape of the inspected object including the two cylinders element 4901 and element 4902; see the 1st view image shown by fig.3A and the 2nd view image shown by fig.3B. It should be noticed that each of the cylinders may include “a volume defect” as stated in para.42).
Regarding claim 3, Adler discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to determine to re-capture the radiographic image in a case where a flaw is detected from the radiographic image that has been captured and it is determined, based on the structure information, that the inspection target object has a thickness equal to or greater than a certain thickness along a straight line connecting the flaw and a radiation source (see para.100, wherein “the one or more first features may include, for example, but are not limited to, a material thickness value, a material thickness variation, a material thickness profile, an element shape, an element size, a distance between the element of interest to another element, a position of the element of interest in the first X-ray image, a relative position of the element of interest to another element, a geometric signature associated with the element of interest, etc.”).
Regarding claim 4, Adler discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to in a case where it is determined to re-capture the radiographic image, derive the image capturing condition for re-capturing, based on the image capturing condition of the radiographic image that has been captured (the system captures two x-ray images in two directions to cover the 3D shape of the inspected object including the two cylinders element 4901 and element 4902; see the 1st view image shown by fig.3A and the 2nd view image shown by fig.3B).
Regarding claim 5, Adler discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the at least one processor is configured to in a case where it is determined to re-capture the radiographic image, derive the image capturing condition for re-capturing, based on the structure information and the image capturing condition of the radiographic image that has been captured (the system captures two x-ray images in two directions to cover the 3D shape of the inspected object including the two cylinders element 4901 and element 4902; see the 1st view image shown by fig.3A and the 2nd view image shown by fig.3B).
Regarding claims 6, 7, each of them is an inherent variation of claim 1, thus it is interpreted and rejected for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Conclusion
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUIPING LI whose telephone number is (571)270-3376. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am--5:30pm.
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, HENOK SHIFERAW can be reached on (571)272-4637. 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; 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.
/RUIPING LI/Primary Examiner, Ph.D., Art Unit 2676
Prosecution Insights