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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: It appears that “recorded by during” in line 2 should be changed to “recorded by an optical inspection station during”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite in that it fails to point out what is included or excluded by the claim language. This claim is an omnibus type claim.
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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim 1-2 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,205,274. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the present claims are either anticipated by or obvious variants of the patent claims. The following table shows the corresponding limitations between representative claim(s) and representative patent claim(s).
Present Application Claims
Patent claims
1. A method comprising: accessing a first set of inspection images of a first set of assembly units recorded by during production of the first set of assembly units; for each inspection image in the first set of inspection images: detecting a set of features in the inspection image; and generating a feature profile, in a first set of feature profiles, representing the set of features in a multi-dimensional feature space; identifying a first feature profile, in the first set of feature profiles, occupying a first region of the multi-dimensional feature space offset from a target region of the multi-dimensional feature space; and predicting a defect in a first assembly unit, in the first set of assembly units, based on proximity of the first feature profile in the first region to the target region within the multi-dimensional feature space.
1. A method comprising: accessing a first set of inspection feeds of a first set of assembly units recorded by during production of the first set of assembly units; for each inspection feed in the first set of inspection feeds: detecting a set of features in the inspection feed; and generating a feature profile, in a first set of feature profiles, representing the set of features in a multi-dimensional feature space; identifying a first cluster of feature profiles, in the set of feature profiles, occupying a first region of the multi-dimensional feature space; identifying a first feature profile, in the first set of feature profiles, occupying a second region of the multi-dimensional feature space offset from the first region of the multi-dimensional feature space; and predicting a defect in a first assembly unit, in the first set of assembly units, based on proximity of the first feature profile in the second region to the first region within the multi-dimensional feature space.
Claim 1-2 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,380,553. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the present claims are either anticipated by or obvious variants of the patent claims. The following table shows the corresponding limitations between representative claim(s) and representative patent claim(s).
Present Application Claims
Patent claims
1. A method comprising: accessing a first set of inspection images of a first set of assembly units recorded by during production of the first set of assembly units; for each inspection image in the first set of inspection images: detecting a set of features in the inspection image; and generating a feature profile, in a first set of feature profiles, representing the set of features in a multi-dimensional feature space; identifying a first feature profile, in the first set of feature profiles, occupying a first region of the multi-dimensional feature space offset from a target region of the multi-dimensional feature space; and predicting a defect in a first assembly unit, in the first set of assembly units, based on proximity of the first feature profile in the first region to the target region within the multi-dimensional feature space.
1. A method for predicting manufacturing defects, the method comprising: accessing a first set of inspection images of a first set of assembly units, of a particular assembly type, recorded during production of the first set of assembly units; for each inspection image in the first set of inspection images: detecting a first set of features in the inspection image; and generating a feature profile, in a set of feature profiles, representing the first set of features in a multi-dimensional feature space; grouping neighboring feature profiles, in the set of feature profiles, in the multi-dimensional feature space into a set of feature profile groups; and in response to receipt of a first inspection result indicating a defect in a first assembly unit, in the first set of assembly units, associated with a first feature profile in a first feature profile group, in the set of feature profile groups: labeling the first feature profile group with the defect; predicting the defect in a second assembly unit, in the first set of assembly units, based on proximity of a second feature profile, in the first feature profile group, to the first feature profile; and flagging the second assembly unit associated with the second feature profile as exhibiting characteristics of the defect.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHUOC TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7399. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm.
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, Vu Le can be reached at 571-272-7332. 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.
/PHUOC TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2668
Prosecution Insights