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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the applicant's communication filed on 02/24/2025. In virtue of this communication, claims 1-10 filed on 02/24/2025 are currently pending in the instant application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information Disclosure statement (IDS) form PTO-1449, filed on 02/24/2025 and 06/30/2026are in compliance with the provisions of CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosed therein was considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings received on 02/24/2025 have been reviewed by Examiner and they are acceptable.
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: “a region-of-interest setting unit”, “a mask image generation unit”, “a restored image generation unit”, “a difference evaluation value calculation unit”, “a foreign matter determination unit” in claim 1, “a foreign matter candidate region specification unit ”, in claims 4, 5, and 6.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 7, and 10 and is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 2023/0260110), in view of Xiao et al.( US 2022/0036533).
As per claim 1, A foreign matter inspection device that detects a foreign matter included in an inspection object based on an image, the foreign matter inspection device comprising;”(Wang, ¶[0019] discloses the image to be processed is an industrial product image, and the abnormal region is a damaged region or a scratched region. ¶[0115] discloses speculate a clean image without foreign matters.)
“a region-of-interest setting unit that sets a region of interest including a foreign matter candidate region, which is likely to include an image of the foreign matter in the inspection object, in an inspection image in which the foreign matter candidate region has been specified;”(Wang, ¶[0058] discloses the region to be examined may be any one pixel in the image to be processed, and the region to be examined is a region where a certain disturbing object is located. ¶[0098] discloses the “holes” masking the abnormal region may be determined according to the first threshold.)
“a mask image generation unit that generates a mask image obtained by masking the foreign matter candidate region in an image of the region of interest;”( Wang, ¶[0063] These “holes” are used as masks to superimpose on a region where a certain pixel to be processed is located. All original pixel values in the “holes” may be set to 0 to form a masked region. ¶[0098] discloses the “holes” masking the abnormal region may be determined according to the first threshold. ¶[0100] discloses applying the hole to the abnormal region before inpainting.)
“and a foreign matter determination unit that determines whether or not the foreign matter candidate region includes the image of the foreign matter based on a comparison between the difference evaluation value and a predetermined threshold value.”(Xiao, ¶[0079] discloses whether the pixel belongs to the abnormal region in the image to be processed is judged, according to whether the difference between the first error distribution and the second error distribution is greater than the first threshold. ¶[0082] discloses the first threshold may be determined according to a standard deviation of the difference. For example, 3 times the standard deviation of the cross entropy may be taken as the first threshold. ¶[0121] discloses The determining circuit 44 determines whether the region to be examined belongs to the abnormal region in the image to be processed, according to the first error distribution. )
However, Wang does not explicitly disclose the following which would have been obvious in view of Xiao from similar filed of endeavor “a restored image generation unit that generates a restored image from the mask image based on a restoration algorithm of a model obtained by learning a good product image of the inspection object;”(Xiao, ¶[0040] discloses a restored image corresponding to the to-be-detected image may be obtained based on the to-be-detected image, at least one mask image group and a plurality of defect-free positive sample images. A positive sample image is an image that is related to the acquired to-be-detected image and includes no defect. ¶[0041] discloses unsupervised training of an image completion mode using a plurality of defect-free positive samples. The to-be-detected image and the binary images in the mask image groups may be sequentially input to the image completion model so that a restored image corresponding to the to-be-detected image is obtained. ¶[0043] discloses the restored image corresponding to the to-be-detected image is a defect-free image. )
“a difference evaluation value calculation unit that calculates a difference evaluation value for evaluating a difference between the image of the region of interest and the restored image;”(Xiao, ¶[0046] discloses the difference between the to-be-detected defective image and the restored image may be calculated.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Xiao technique of image defect detection into Wang technique to provide the known and expected uses and benefits of Xiao technique over processing abnormal region in image technique of Wang. The proposed combination would have constituted a mere arrangement of old elements with each performing their known function, the combination yielding no more than one would expect from such an arrangement.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Xiao into Wang in order to accurately detect defect in product. (Refer to Xiao paragraph [0003].)
As per claim 4, The foreign matter inspection device according to claim 1, further comprising: “a foreign matter candidate region specification unit that specifies the foreign matter candidate region in the inspection image.” (Xiao, ¶[0121] discloses The defect location module 830 is configured to locate a defect of the to-be-detected image based on the to-be-detected image. ¶[0130] the defect location module 830 includes a defect area determination submodule. ¶[0133] discloses the defect area determination submodule is configured to perform binary segmentation of the target thermodynamic diagram to obtain a defect area in the to-be-detected image. )
Claim 10 has been analyzed and is rejected for the reasons indicated in claim 4 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3, 5-6, 8-9 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 and on the pending conditions of the rejected and objected matter set forth in this action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record, alone or in combination, fails to teach or suggest the limitations set forth by each of claims 2-3, 5-6, 8-9.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAGHAYEGH AZIMA whose telephone number is (571)272-1459. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:30-6:30.
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, Vincent Rudolph can be reached at (571)272-8243. 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.
/SHAGHAYEGH AZIMA/Examiner, Art Unit 2671
Prosecution Insights