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 .
Notice to Applicants
This communication is in response to the Application filed on 1/2/2025.
Claims 1-19 are pending.
Drawings
Color photographs and color drawings (Figures 4A-4B, 6A-6B) are not accepted in utility applications unless a petition filed under 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2) is granted. Any such petition must be accompanied by the appropriate fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h), one set of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system or three sets of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if not submitted via the via USPTO patent electronic filing system, and, unless already present, an amendment to include the following language as the first paragraph of the brief description of the drawings section of the specification:
The patent or application file contains at least one drawing executed in color. Copies of this patent or patent application publication with color drawing(s) will be provided by the Office upon request and payment of the necessary fee.
Color photographs will be accepted if the conditions for accepting color drawings and black and white photographs have been satisfied. See 37 CFR 1.84(b)(2).
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.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea – mental process) without significantly more. Claim 1 is used as an example. Claims 10 and 11 recite a non-transitory computer-readable medium and a system, respectively, having a processor. The two-part test to identify claims that are directed to a judicial exception (Step 2A) and to then evaluate if additional elements of the claim provide an inventive concept (Step 2B) are:
(1) Are the claims directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter;
(2A) Prong One: Are the claims directed to a judicially recognized exception, i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea;
Prong Two: If the claims are directed to a judicial exception under Prong One, then is the judicial exception integrated into a practical application;
(2B) If the claims are directed to a judicial exception and do not integrate the judicial exception, do the claims provide an inventive concept.
Claim 1. An inspection method to identify flaws in a printed circuit board (PCB) wire assembly formed by an automated electrical connection system, the method comprising:(a) capturing a first image of an array of electrical wires aligned over an array of tinned pads of a PCB, wherein the capturing is responsive to receiving an indication from the automated electrical connection system verifying the alignment;(b) classifying pixels of the first image to three categories thereby yielding a first classified image; whereby the three categories comprise: category of pixels associated with tinned pads, category of pixels associated with PCB surface in spacings between said tinned pads, and category of pixels associated with said wires;(c) capturing a second image of the array of tinned pads of the PCB whereby the second image is captured after joining of the set of wires to the respective tinned pads;(d) classifying pixels of the second image to said three categories and thereby yielding a second classified image;(e) identifying flaw in the wire assembly formed by the automated electrical connection system based on a detected change in relative positioning of the pixels associated with the three categories between the first and second images; and(f) rendering the second image on a display together with a report indicative of existence of flaws in the wire assembly. [emphasis added].
With regard to (1), the instant claims recite a system and a method, therefore the answer is "yes".
With regard to (2A), Prong One: Yes. When viewed under the broadest most reasonable interpretation, the instant claims are directed to a Judicial Exception – an abstract idea belonging to the group of mental process – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). The steps of (b), (d) and (e) (above in emphasized claim 1) are generically recited and nothing in these steps precludes the steps from practically being performed by a human equipped with an appropriate apparatus. It can be interpreted as merely looking at the data and determining a proper group to list pixels in according to identified flaw. There is nothing in the claim that requires more than an operation that a human, armed with the appropriate apparatus, pen and a paper, can not perform. The classifying and identifying, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. The claim encompasses the user thinking that the once the images are received, different types of pixels can be classified/grouped in different categories, essentially used in identifying flaw. This way, essentially one can present/output information about the image that represents flaw in an wire assembly, for example. Thus, these limitations are a mental process.
With regard to (2A), Prong Two: No. The instant claims do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception of (a) and (c) “capturing”, (f) “rendering”, and therefore does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The use of a system/processor to capture an image (i.e., “data”) at a high level of generality such that said “data” can be used in the operation of the recited judicial exception (the mental step of “capturing”). Supplying “data” (i.e., “capturing” and “rendering”) does not provide for “integration” of the abstract idea into a practical application, as said data do not change the way in which said system operates. There are no specifics on how the data is received. This can be interpreted as “visualization”. The step of “rendering” is insignificant post solution activity as one would have outputted what has been identified. Even if this step is by a “processor” that may be, for example, a camera. Page 1 lines 17-20 of the specification discloses that this process can be done as a manual process. A camera/sensor is well known in the field, and receiving data from a camera/sensor is also well known.
This generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. In conclusion, the claim as a whole does not provide for “integration” of the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
With regard to (2B), as discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The pending claims do not show what is more than a routine in the art presented in the claims, i.e., the additional elements are nothing more than routine and well-known steps. There is no improvement to technology here. There is only steps of (b), (d) and (e) with additional elements of (a), (c), and (f), and it has not been shown that the mental process allows the “technology” to do something that it previously was not able to do. Rendering on a display (f) and reciting a processor are at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. This limitation therefore remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and do not amount to significantly more.
Therefore, the claims 1, 10, and 11 are ineligible.
With regard to dependent claims 2-9 and 12-19, similar analysis is applied and therefore does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application – does not provide significant more than the judicial exception. These claims are similarly rejected for the same reasons discussed in view of steps recited in claim 1 and not repeated herewith.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2024/0428399 – discloses hybrid MB/ML techniques for automated printed circuit board (PCB) defect detection. In one example, a PCB inspection system implements a hybrid solution using model based (MB) and machine learning (ML) technologies to detect possible defects in a PCB via an automated image capture device and processing methodology. The processing methodology fuses features from MB and ML at the latent representation. An autoencoder can be used to learn the fused data by training a neural network to produce a reconstructed image that can be compared to an original image to generate a reconstruction error value. The system produces an output indicating detection of a defect in one or more features of interest based on the reconstruction error value transgressing a threshold value.
CN 114820439A – discloses circuit board detection and an AOI-based PCB bare board defect detection system, which comprises a camera positioning module, an image acquisition module, an image positioning module, an image preprocessing module, an image feature extraction module, a target identification module, an image transmission module and a result output and display module, the camera positioning module is used for positioning three-dimensional coordinates of a camera; and the image positioning module is used for accurately positioning the PCB to be detected. According to the invention, the two cameras are used for simultaneously carrying out positioning, image acquisition and preprocessing on the PCB bare board to be detected, so that the defects are separated from the images, thereby detecting the defects of line width and line distance of the PCB and the defects of short circuit, open circuit, cavity, depression, bulge and scratch; and meanwhile, the defects on the PCB are subjected to classified statistics according to a circuit layer, a carbon wire layer, a bonding pad layer and a mechanical layer, so that a user can conveniently look up and monitor the defects, problems can be quickly found, and relatively high practicability is achieved.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHEFALI D. GORADIA whose telephone number is (571)272-8958. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8AM-6PM, Friday 8AM-12PM.
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 at 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. 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.
SHEFALI D. GORADIA
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2676
/SHEFALI D GORADIA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2676
Prosecution Insights