www.uspto.gov
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`17/782,032
`
`06/02/2022
`
`Yu MOROOKA
`
`091478-0524
`
`3866
`
`Rimon PC - Panasonic Corporation
`8300 Greensboro Dr.
`Suite 500
`McLean, VA 22102
`
`COUSO,JOSE L
`
`2667
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`09/17/2024
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
`following e-mail address(es):
`USPTOmail @rimonlaw.com
`
`eofficeaction @appcoll.com
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`1-11 is/are pending in the application.
`)
`Claim(s)
`5a) Of the above claim(s) _ is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`C} Claim(s)__ is/are allowed.
`Claim(s) 1-11 is/are rejected.
`(] Claim(s)__ is/are objectedto.
`C] Claim(s
`are subjectto restriction and/or election requirement
`)
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, you maybeeligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/pph/index.jsp or send an inquiry to PPHfeedback@uspto.gov.
`
`) ) ) )
`
`Application Papers
`10)C The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`11) The drawing(s) filed on 2 June 2022 is/are:
`a)(¥¥] accepted or b)() objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121(d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`12)£) Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d)or (f).
`Certified copies:
`_—_c)L) None ofthe:
`b)L) Some**
`a)Q) All
`1.1) Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.1.) Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No. |
`3.2.) Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been receivedin this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`*“ See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1)
`
`Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`2)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3)
`
`4)
`
`(LJ Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`(Qj Other:
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mail Date 20240807
`
`Application No.
`Applicant(s)
`17/782,032
`MOROOKA etal.
`
`Office Action Summary Art Unit|AIA (FITF)StatusExaminer
`JOSE LCOUSO
`2667
`Yes
`
`
`
`-- The MAILING DATEof this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORYPERIOD FOR REPLYIS SET TO EXPIRE 3 MONTHS FROM THE MAILING
`DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensionsof time may be available underthe provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply betimely filed after SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing
`date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, evenif timely filed, may reduce any earned patent term
`adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`1) Responsive to communication(s) filed on 2 June 2022.
`C} A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/werefiled on
`
`2a)() This action is FINAL. 2b)¥)This action is non-final.
`3) An election was madeby the applicant in responseto a restriction requirement set forth during the interview
`on
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`4)(2) Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Exparte Quayle, 1935 C.D. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/782,032
`Art Unit: 2667
`
`Page 2
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Notice of Pre-AlA or AIA Status
`
`1.
`
`The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined
`
`underthe first inventor to file provisions of the AIA.
`
`Priority
`
`2.
`
`Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which
`
`papers have beenplacedof recordin the file.
`
`Information Disclosure Statement
`
`3.
`
`The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on June 2, 2022 complies
`
`with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statementis
`
`being considered by the examiner.
`
`CLAIM INTERPRETATION
`
`4.
`
`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 meansor 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.
`
`5.
`
`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 oneof ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonableinterpretation of
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/782,032
`Art Unit: 2667
`
`Page 3
`
`a claim element (also commonlyreferred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the
`
`description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is invoked.
`
`As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the
`
`following three-prongtestwill be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
`
`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 alwayslinked bythe transition word “for” (e.g.,
`
`“means for’) or anotherlinking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
`
`C)
`
`the term “means”or “step” or the generic placeholderis 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C.
`
`112(f), is rebutted whenthe claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts
`
`to entirely perform the recited function.
`
`Absenceof 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C.
`
`112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient
`
`structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/782,032
`Art Unit: 2667
`
`Page 4
`
`Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means”(or “step”) are
`
`being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), 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), except as otherwise
`
`indicated in an Office action.
`
`6.
`
`This application includes one or moreclaim limitations that do not use the word
`
`“means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because the
`
`claim limitations use a generic placeholderthat is coupled with functional language
`
`without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic
`
`placeholderis not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “an
`
`extraction unit” configured to “acquireafirst difference and a second difference and
`
`extract, as a potential defect, either the first difference or the second difference,
`
`whicheversatisfies a particular condition, the first difference being a difference between
`
`a non-defective product image, covering a non-defective product sampleto be classified
`
`as a non-defective product among the plurality of targets, and a reference model, the
`
`second difference being a difference between a defective product image, covering a
`
`defective product sample to be classified as a defective product among the plurality of
`
`targets, and the reference model’in claim 1, “a calculation unit” configured to “calculate
`
`at least one feature quantity with respect to the potential defect extracted by the
`
`extraction unit”, “the calculation unit” being configured to “when the defective product
`
`sample includes a plurality of defective product samples and respective feature
`
`quantities of the potential defects extracted from the plurality of defective product
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/782,032
`Art Unit: 2667
`
`Page 5
`
`samples have multiple different values, specify at least one of the feature quantities that
`
`has an Nth largest one of the multiple different values as an indicator, where N is a
`
`natural number’in claim 1, “a presentation unit” configured to “present the indicator
`
`specified by the calculation unit” in claim 1, “an input acceptance unit” configured to
`
`“accept a decision threshold value entered by a user based on the indicator presented
`
`by the presentation unit’ in claim 2, “a go/no-go decision unit” configured to “determine
`
`a given one of the plurality of targets to be the non-defective product when finding the
`
`feature quantity of the potential defect falling within a decision range to be specified by
`
`the decision threshold value accepted by the input acceptance unit and determine the
`
`given target to be the defective product when finding the feature quantity of the potential
`
`defect falling outside of the decision range”in claim 3, “the go/no-go decision unit” is
`
`configured to “when finding, with respect to a given one ofthe plurality of targets, the
`
`feature quantity of the potential defect falling within a second decision range, determine
`
`the given target to be a product to be reinspected, the second decision range being
`
`different from the first decision range and specified by the first decision threshold value
`
`and a second decision threshold value, the second decision threshold value having
`
`been accepted by the input acceptance unit and being different from the first decision
`
`threshold value” in claim 4, “an image capturing unit” configured to “capture the non-
`
`defective product image and the defective product image’in claim 5, “the presentation
`
`unit” is configured to “present the potential defect of the non-defective product sample
`
`and the potential defect of the defective product sample distinguishably from each
`
`other’in claim 6, “a borderline defect selecting unit” configured to “select, from the
`
`potential defects of the defective product samples, a borderline defect that allows the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/782,032
`Art Unit: 2667
`
`Page 6
`
`defective product sample to be determined to be the defective product, wherein the
`
`presentation unit is configured to further present the feature quantity of the borderline
`
`defect selected by the borderline defect selecting unit” in claim 7, “the presentation unit”
`
`is configured to “ present, as a graph, the respective feature quantities of the potential
`
`defects” in claim 8, “the calculation unit” is configured to “calculate two or more feature
`
`quantities, one of which is the feature quantity, with respect to the potential defect
`
`extracted by the extraction unit” in claim 9.
`
`Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f),
`
`they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure describedin the
`
`specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
`
`FIG.
`
`1
`
`is a schematic diagram showing the hardware configuration of the setting
`
`system 10. The above-mentioned configuration of the setting system 10 is a functional
`
`configuration achieved by cooperation of the hardware configuration shown in FIG. 1
`
`and a program. As shownin FIG. 1, the setting system 10 includes a processor,
`
`memory and an input/output as a hardware configuration. These are connected to each
`
`other by a bus. The processor controls another configuration in accordance with a
`
`program stored in the memory, performs data processing in accordance with the
`
`program, and stores the processing result in the memory. The processor can be a
`
`microprocessor. The memory stores a program executed by the processor and data.
`
`The memory can be a ROM (Read Only Memory).
`
`If applicant does not intend to havetheselimitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C.
`
`112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted
`
`under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/782,032
`Art Unit: 2667
`
`Page 7
`
`function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient
`
`structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under
`
`35 U.S.C. 112(f).
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
`
`7.
`
`35 U.S.C. §101 reads as follows:
`
`Whoeverinvents 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
`ofthis title.
`
`8.
`
`Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 becausethe claimed invention is
`
`directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
`
`The following analysis is based on the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter
`
`Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) published on January 7, 2019 (84 Fed. Reg. 50). See
`
`Also MEPE 2106.04(a)(2)(II).
`
`With regard to claim 1:
`
`Step 1:
`
`Claim 1 meets step 1 requirementas they are directed towards a machine which
`
`is statutory subject matter.
`
`In this case, “a system”satisfies a “machine” category.
`
`Step 2A, prong 1 test:
`
`Doesthe claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
`
`Yes, claim 1 as a whole recites a methodfacilitating steps of organizing humanactivity
`
`e.g., mental process as explained in details below.
`
`
`
`Claim 1 in general is about how the system providesfor “acquireafirst difference
`
`and a second difference and extract, as a potential defect, either the first difference or
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/782,032
`Art Unit: 2667
`
`Page 8
`
`the seconddifference, whicheversatisfies a particular condition, the first difference
`
`being a difference between a non-defective product image, covering a non-defective
`
`product sample to beclassified as a non-defective product among theplurality of
`
`targets, and a reference model, the second difference being a difference between a
`
`defective product image, covering a defective product sample to be classified as a
`
`defective product among the plurality of targets, and the reference model, calculate at
`
`least one feature quantity with respect to the potential defect extracted, when the
`
`defective product sample includesa plurality of defective product samples and
`
`respective feature quantities of the potential defects extracted from the plurality of
`
`defective product samples have multiple different values, specify at least one of the
`
`feature quantities that has an Nth largest one of the multiple different values as an
`
`indicator, where N is a natural number, present the indicator specified”.
`
`The limitations of “acquire a first difference and a second difference and extract,
`
`as a potential defect, either the first difference or the second difference, whichever
`
`satisfies a particular condition, the first difference being a difference between a non-
`
`defective product image, covering a non-defective product sample to be classified as a
`
`non-defective product among the plurality of targets, and a reference model, the second
`
`difference being a difference between a defective product image, covering a defective
`
`product sampleto be classified as a defective product among the plurality of targets,
`
`and the reference model, calculate at least one feature quantity with respectto the
`
`potential defect extracted, when the defective product sample includesa plurality of
`
`defective product samples and respective feature quantities of the potential defects
`
`extracted from the plurality of defective product samples have multiple different values,
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/782,032
`Art Unit: 2667
`
`Page 9
`
`specify at least one of the feature quantities that has an Nth largest one of the multiple
`
`different values as an indicator, where N is a natural number, present the indicator
`
`specified” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation,
`
`covers performance ofthe limitation in a mental process/step (a mathematical
`
`relationship, formula, or calculation). That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the
`
`processing from being performed as a mental process, or merely on pencil and paper.
`
`If a claim limitation, underits broadest reasonable interpretation, covers
`
`performance of a mental step which could be performed with pen and paper,thenitfalls
`
`within the “mental steps” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an
`
`abstract idea.
`
`Step 2A, prong 2 test:
`
`Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into
`
`a practical application? No as explained below.
`
`The claim recites the physical elements — “an extraction unit, a calculation unit,
`
`and a presentation unit” for receiving and processing various tasks. Aswill be
`
`explained below, these various tasks can be performed as mental steps. With respect to
`
`the function of “acquire a first difference and a second difference and extract, asa
`
`potential defect, either the first difference or the second difference, whicheversatisfies a
`
`particular condition, the first difference being a difference between a non-defective
`
`product image, covering a non-defective product sample to beclassified as a non-
`
`defective product among the plurality of targets, and a reference model, the second
`
`difference being a difference between a defective product image, covering a defective
`
`product sampleto be classified as a defective product among the plurality of targets,
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/782,032
`Art Unit: 2667
`
`Page 10
`
`and the reference model, calculate at least one feature quantity with respect to the
`
`potential defect, when the defective product sample includes a plurality of defective
`
`product samples and respective feature quantities of the potential defects extracted
`
`from the plurality of defective product samples have multiple different values, specify at
`
`least one of the feature quantities that has an Nth largest one of the multiple different
`
`values as an indicator, where N is a natural number, present the indicator specified” the
`
`broadest reasonableinterpretation would have encompassedany forms of calculating
`
`inclusive of mental calculations (a mathematical relationship, formula, or calculation).
`
`The an extraction unit, a calculation unit, and a presentation unit used in the steps are
`
`recited at a high level of generality, (i.e., as generic processing for performing a generic
`
`computer function of processing data (the “acquire a first difference and a second
`
`difference and extract, as a potential defect, either the first difference or the second
`
`difference, whicheversatisfies a particular condition, the first difference being a
`
`difference between a non-defective product image, covering a non-defective product
`
`sample to be classified as a non-defective product among theplurality of targets, and a
`
`reference model, the seconddifference being a difference between a defective product
`
`image, covering a defective product sample to be classified as a defective product
`
`among the plurality of targets, and the reference model, calculate at least one feature
`
`quantity with respect to the potential defect extracted, when the defective product
`
`sample includes a plurality of defective product samples and respective feature
`
`quantities of the potential defects extracted from the plurality of defective product
`
`samples have multiple different values, specify at least one of the feature quantities that
`
`has an Nth largest one of the multiple different values as an indicator, where N isa
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/782,032
`Art Unit: 2667
`
`Page 11
`
`natural number, present the indicator specified”), such that it amounts no more than
`
`mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
`
`Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical
`
`application becauseit does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract
`
`idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
`
`Step 2B:
`
`Doesthe claim recite additional elements that amountto significantly more than
`
`the judicial exception? No as explained below.
`
`If a claim limitation, underits broadest reasonable interpretation, covers
`
`performanceofthe limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer
`
`components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
`
`Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
`
`This judicial exception does not amountto significantly more because the
`
`additional elements, i.e. an extraction unit, a calculation unit, and a presentation unit,
`
`amount to no more than mereinstructions to apply the exception using a generic
`
`computer component, i.e. a convolutional neural network.
`
`In particular, the claims recite
`
`“acquire a first difference and a second difference and extract, as a potential defect,
`
`eitherthe first difference or the second difference, whicheversatisfies a particular
`
`condition, the first difference being a difference between a non-defective product image,
`
`covering a non-defective product sample to be classified as a non-defective product
`
`among the plurality of targets, and a reference model, the second difference being a
`
`difference between a defective product image, covering a defective product sample to
`
`be classified as a defective product among the plurality of targets, and the reference
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/782,032
`Art Unit: 2667
`
`Page 12
`
`model, calculate at least one feature quantity with respect to the potential defect
`
`extracted, when the defective product sample includes a plurality of defective product
`
`samples and respective feature quantities of the potential defects extracted from the
`
`plurality of defective product samples have multiple different values, specify at least one
`
`of the feature quantities that has an Nth largest one of the multiple different values as
`
`an indicator, where N is a natural number, present the indicator specified” steps
`
`amounts to no more than mereinstructions to apply the exception using a generic
`
`computer component, i.e. an extraction unit, a calculation unit, and a presentation unit.
`
`Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical
`
`application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract
`
`idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
`
`With respect to the function of “presenting”, the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation (BRI) would have encompassed anyforms of displaying inclusive of
`
`manually displaying. The claim does not preclude manualdisplay options. With respect
`
`to “present the indicator specified”, this is not a practical application as such activity is
`
`routinely practiced in the field on a daily basis. By utilizing the presentation unit to
`
`facilitate a visualization related to the condition does not add anything that these
`
`practitioners do routinely in the field.
`
`With regard to claims 2-9:
`
`Step 1:
`
`Claims 2-9 meet step 1 requirementas they are directed towards a machine
`
`which is statutory subject matter.
`
`In this case, “a system” satisfies a “machine”
`
`category.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/782,032
`Art Unit: 2667
`
`Step 2A, prong 1 test:
`
`Page 13
`
`Do the claims recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
`
`Yes, claims 2-9 as a whole recites a system facilitating steps of organizing human
`
`activity e.g., mental process as explained in details below.
`
`Claims 2-9 in general are about how the system provides for “accept a decision
`
`threshold value entered by a user based on the indicator presented, determine a given
`
`one of the plurality of targets to be the non-defective product when finding the feature
`
`quantity of the potential defect falling within a decision range to be specified by the
`
`decision threshold value accepted, and determine the given target to be the defective
`
`product when finding the feature quantity of the potential defect falling outside of the
`
`decision range”, “the decision threshold value is defined asa first decision threshold
`
`value and the decision range is defined asafirst decision range, whenfinding, with
`
`respect to a given one ofthe plurality of targets, the feature quantity of the potential
`
`defectfalling within a second decision range, determine the given target to be a product
`
`to be reinspected, the second decision range being different from the first decision
`
`range and specified by the first decision threshold value and a second decision
`
`threshold value, the second decision threshold value having been accepted, and being
`n
`tt
`different from the first decision threshold value”, “capture the non-defective product
`
`image and the defective product image’, “present the potential defect of the non-
`
`defective product sample and the potential defect of the defective product sample
`
`distinguishably from each other’, “select, from the potential defects of the defective
`
`product samples, a borderline defect that allows the defective product sample to be
`
`determined to be the defective product, present the feature quantity of the borderline
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/782,032
`Art Unit: 2667
`
`Page 14
`
`defect selected”, “present, as a graph, the respective feature quantities of the potential
`
`defects”, and “calculate two or more feature quantities, one of which is the feature
`
`quantity, with respect to the potential defect extracted”.
`
`The limitations of “accept a decision threshold value entered by a user based on
`
`the indicator presented, determine a given one ofthe plurality of targets to be the non-
`
`defective product whenfinding the feature quantity of the potential defect falling within a
`
`decision range to be specified by the decision threshold value accepted, and determine
`
`the given target to be the defective product whenfinding the feature quantity of the
`
`potential defect falling outside of the decision range’, “the decision threshold value is
`
`defined as a first decision threshold value and the decision range is defined asa first
`
`decision range, whenfinding, with respect to a given one of the plurality of targets, the
`
`feature quantity of the potential defect falling within a second decision range, determine
`
`the given target to be a product to be reinspected, the second decision range being
`
`different from the first decision range and specified by the first decision threshold value
`
`and a second decision threshold value, the second decision threshold value having
`n
`tt
`been accepted, and being different from the first decision threshold value’, “capture the
`
`non-defective product image and the defective product image’, “present the potential
`
`defect of the non-defective product sample and the potential defect of the defective
`
`product sample distinguishably from each other’, “select, from the potential defects of
`
`the defective product samples, a borderline defect that allows the defective product
`
`sample to be determined to be the defective product, present the feature quantity of the
`
`borderline defect selected’, “present, as a graph, the respective feature quantities of the
`
`potential defects”, and “calculate two or more feature quantities, one of whichis the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/782,032
`Art Unit: 2667
`
`Page 15
`
`feature quantity, with respect to the potential defect extracted” as drafted, is a process
`
`that, underits broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance ofthe limitation
`
`in a mental process/step (a mathematical relationship, formula, or calculation). Thatis,
`
`nothing in the claim element precludes the processing from being performed as a
`
`mental process, or merely on pencil and paper.
`
`If a claim limitation, underits broadest reasonable interpretation, covers
`
`performance of a mental step which could be performed with pen and paper,thenit falls
`
`within the “mental steps” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an
`
`abstract idea.
`
`Step 2A, prong 2 test:
`
`Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into
`
`a practical application? No as explained below.
`
`The claims recite the physical elements — “an input acceptance unit, a go/no-go
`
`decision unit, an image capturing unit, the presentation unit, a borderline defect
`
`selecting unit” for receiving and processing various tasks. Aswill be explained below,
`
`these various tasks can be performed as mental steps. With respect to the function of
`
`“accept a decision threshold value entered by a user based on the indicator presented,
`
`determinea given one ofthe plurality of targets to be the non-defective product when
`
`finding the feature quantity of the potential defect falling within a decision range to be
`
`specified by the decision threshold value accepted, and determine the given target to be
`
`the defective product whenfinding the feature quantity of the potential defectfalling
`
`outside of the decision range”, “the decision threshold value is defined as a first decision
`
`threshold value and the decision range is defined as a first decision range, when
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/782,032
`Art Unit: 2667
`
`Page 16
`
`finding, with respect to a given one ofthe plurality of targets, the feature quantity of the
`
`potential defect falling within a second decision range, determine the given target to be
`
`a productto be reinspected, the second decision range being different from thefirst
`
`decision range and specified by the first decision threshold value and a second decision
`
`threshold value, the second decision threshold value having been accepted, and being
`n
`tt
`different from thefirst decision threshold value”, “capture the non-defective product
`
`image and the defective product image’, “present the potential defect of the non-
`
`defective product sample and the potential defect of the defective product sample
`
`distinguishably from each other’, “select, from the potential defects of the defective
`
`product samples, a borderline defect that allows the defective product sample to be
`
`determined to be the defective product, present the feature quantity of the borderline
`
`defect selected”, “present, as a graph, the respective feature quantities of the potential
`
`defects”, and “calculate two or more feature quantities, one of which is the feature
`
`quantity, with respect to the potential defect extracted” the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation would have encompassedanyforms of calculating inclusive of mental
`
`calculations (a mathematical relationship, formula, or calculation). The an input
`
`acceptance unit, a go/no-go decision unit, an image capturing unit, the presentation
`
`unit, a borderline defect selecting unit used in the system arerecited at a high level of
`
`generality,(i.e., as a generic a convolutional neural network for performing a generic
`
`computer function of processing data (the “accept a decision threshold value entered by
`
`a user based on the indicator presented, determine a given one ofthe plurality of
`
`targets to be the non-defective product whenfinding the feature quantity of the potential
`
`defectfalling within a decision range to be specified by the decision threshold value
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/782,032
`A