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 03/07/2025 and 07/06/2026 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: image storage unit, AI processing unit, rule-based processing unit, comprehensive determination unit and determination rule setting unit in claims 1 and 3-14
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 § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Iwanaga (US 2019/0220972 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Iwanaga an article inspection apparatus that inspects an article based on a captured image, (Iwanaga’s apparatus inspects a semiconductor wafer based on an image captured by an imaging device and determines whether defects are present and the type of detected defect, see paragraphs 30-36.) the article inspection apparatus comprising:
an image storage unit that stores the captured image of the article captured by an imaging unit; (Iwanaga provides storage parts for storing image data generated from the wafer image captured by the imaging part, including the first and second image data used by the respective defect classification paths, see paragraph 104 and figure 9)
an AT processing unit that outputs first determination data indicating a quality state of the article captured in the captured image using a learning model that has been trained with an image in advance; (Iwanaga’s first estimation part performs defect classification using a deep learning system, such as a CNN, based on image data containing the detected defect region. The deep learning model is trained beforehand by supervised learning using training images associated with correct defect classifications, and the trained system outputs a first estimated defect type representing the condition or quality state of the inspected wafer, see paragraphs 41, 52 and 55-58.)
a rule-based processing unit that performs image processing on the captured image using a predetermined image processing algorithm and outputs second determination data indicating the quality state of the article captured in the captured image; and (Iwanaga generates binarized image data from the captured wafer image, extracts characteristics of a detected defect region such as shape, area, dimensions, grayscale information and position, and applies predetermined conditional expressions of a rule-based system to those image derived characteristics, see paragraphs 76 and 83-84.)
a comprehensive determination unit that performs comprehensive determination of the quality state of the article captured in the captured image based on the first determination data and the second determination data. (Iwanaga’s comprehensive determination part receives the defect classification generated by the deep learning path and the defect classification generated by the rule based path and determines the final defect type based on both results. Where the two results differ, Iwanaga uses predetermined priority information, including a priority matrix, to select the appropriate comprehensive result, see paragraphs 96-101.)
Regarding claim 2, Iwanaga discloses the claimed invention wherein, in a case where the first determination data and/or the second determination data includes a defect in the quality state of the article, position information of a defective portion in the captured image is further included. (Iwanaga’s second estimation path determines the position of each detected defect region and associates that position with the defect being classified. The position information may include the coordinate position of the defect on the wafer and its distance from the wafer center, thereby identifying where the defective portion occurs within the inspected article, see paragraphs 76 and 83.)
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Iwanaga discloses the claimed invention wherein the AI processing unit outputs the first determination data using a plurality of the learning models. (Iwanaga has two deep learning stages, feature region extraction part 2 employs a trained deep learning system since the coefficients are determined through supervised learning and defect candidate output part 5 separately uses a deep learning system to produce the defect scores used for the estimation result, see paragraphs 41, 50 and 52-56.)
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 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwanaga in view of Adolf (US 2024/0046617 A1).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Iwanaga discloses the claimed invention wherein the comprehensive determination unit performs the comprehensive determination of the quality state in accordance with the set rule. (Iwanaga performs its comprehensive determination according to predetermined priority criteria governing whether the deep learning classification or rule-based classification controls when the two results differ. The priority matrix therefore functions as a predetermined rule governing the comprehensive determination, see paragraphs 96-101.) but fails to disclose a determination rule setting unit that sets a rule for determination of the comprehensive determination unit.
In related art, Adolf discloses a determination rule setting unit that sets a rule for determination of the comprehensive determination unit. (paragraphs 47 and 60, also see figures 2 and 6)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Adolf into the teachings of Iwanaga to effectively allow the determination criteria to be adapted to a particular inspection application rather than remaining fixed.
Claims 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwanaga in view of Iwamoto (US 2022/0308438 A1).
Regarding claims 8-10, Iwanaga discloses the claimed invention except for wherein in a case where a first defective portion is included in the first determination data and a second defective portion different from the first defective portion is included in the second determination data, the comprehensive determination unit determines that both the first defective portion and the second defective portion are defective portions of the article.
In related art, Iwamoto discloses in a case where a first defective portion is included in the first determination data and a second defective portion different from the first defective portion is included in the second determination data, (Iwamoto recognizes defects that are uniquely detected by two different inspection processes. Iwamoto identifies a first unmatching defect that is detected only by the first inspection and not by the second inspection and a second unmatching defect that is detected only the second defect inspection and not by the first inspection. Thus, the respective inspection results can contain different defective portions, see paragraphs 141 and 152-153.) the comprehensive determination unit determines that both the first defective portion and the second defective portion are defective portions of the article. (Iwamoto compares the first and second defect information, identifies both first and second unmatching defects and generates defect information that preserves defects uniquely identified by the respective inspection techniques. A defect identified only by the first inspection and a different defect identified only by the second inspection are both treated as defects rather than discarding one merely because it was not detected by the other technique, see paragraphs 139, 141 and 152-153.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Iwamoto into the teachings of Iwanaga to effectively obtain accurate defect information.
Claims 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwanaga in view of Langmatz (US 2012/0057773 A1).
Regarding claims 13-14, Iwanaga discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the rule-based processing unit performs the image processing on the captured image using a plurality of the image processing algorithms, and outputs the second determination data based on an image processing result of each image processing algorithm.
In related art, Langmatz discloses performing the image processing on the captured image using a plurality of the image processing algorithms, and outputs the second determination data based on an image processing result of each image processing algorithm. (paragraphs 13-139 and figure 13)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Langmatz into the teachings of Iwanaga to effectively determine the presence of defects while minimizing false defect detection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7 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
