Article Inspection System Defect Mode Classification

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Existing article inspection systems face challenges in efficiently processing defective articles, often requiring manual correction due to insufficient mechanical processing, leading to increased workload and waste, and failing to accurately determine defect modes for appropriate processing.

Innovation Solution

An article inspection system with a quality state determination unit and processing request selection means that selects between automatic and manual processing based on inspection results, allowing for precise defect mode identification and appropriate processing methods, reducing manual workload and increasing reliability.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Extent of automation

If mechanical additional processing (cutting-out, perforating) is used to remove defective portions, then the processing speed and automation level increase, but the processing reliability becomes insufficient for complex defect modes and manual correction is still required

Engineering Contradiction:

Improveautomation level of additional processingVSAvoidreliability of defect removal

Core Design Contradiction:

Extent of automationVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

The patent segments the additional processing into two distinct paths: automatic processing for simple defect modes and manual processing for complex defect modes. The defect mode classification unit divides defects into multiple categories, and the system selectively routes articles to different processing paths based on the classified defect type, thereby achieving both high automation for suitable cases and high reliability for complex cases

Inventive Principle:

Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The system dynamically adjusts the processing method based on the defect mode classification. The processing selection unit changes the processing path in real-time according to the classified defect type, switching between automatic and manual processing modes. This dynamic adaptation allows the system to optimize for automation when appropriate while ensuring reliability when needed

Inventive Principle:

Principle #15Dynamics

2Device complexity

If all defective products are subjected to the same additional processing method, then the system complexity is reduced, but processing waste increases and manual workload cannot be sufficiently reduced

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvecomplexity of processing systemVSAvoidwaste from rough removal work

Core Design Contradiction:

Device complexityVSLoss of substance

Solution Approach 1:

The patent applies different processing methods to different defect modes rather than using a uniform approach. The defect mode classification unit identifies specific defect characteristics, and the system tailors the processing method to each defect type. This localized processing approach minimizes waste by applying only the necessary processing intensity and type for each specific defect, avoiding over-processing

Inventive Principle:

Principle #3Local quality

Solution Approach 2:

The system changes the processing parameters based on the defect mode classification. Different defect modes trigger different processing configurations, such as varying the cutting depth, water jet pressure, or processing method type. This parameter adaptation allows optimal processing for each defect type, reducing material waste while maintaining effectiveness

Inventive Principle:

Principle #35Parameter changes

3Reliability

If manual correction processing is performed for all defective articles, then the processing reliability is maintained, but the workload becomes large and processing efficiency decreases

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvereliability of additional processingVSAvoidprocessing efficiency

Core Design Contradiction:

ReliabilityVSProductivity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent applies manual processing only partially - specifically for complex defect modes that require human judgment and dexterity. For simple defect modes, automatic processing is sufficient. This partial application of manual action maintains reliability where needed while avoiding the excessive manual workload that would occur if all articles required manual processing

Inventive Principle:

Principle #16Partial or excessive action

Solution Approach 2:

The system replaces manual mechanical processing with automated processing for suitable defect modes. The automatic additional processing unit substitutes human operators for routine, simple defect removal tasks. This substitution maintains adequate reliability for simple cases while dramatically improving productivity by eliminating manual labor from the majority of processing cases

Inventive Principle:

Principle #28Mechanics substitution (Replace mechanical system)

Data Source

PatentUS20240114913A1Article inspection system

Publication Date: 2024.04.11 ANRITSU CORP

AI summary

There is provided an article inspection system including: an additional processing control unit that executes additional processing on an article determined to be defective among inspected articles, according to an inspection result of an article inspection unit, in which the additional processing control unit includes a quality state determination unit that determines which one of a plurality of preset quality states the inspection result corresponds to, and processing request selection means for selecting any one of first processing request information for requesting a working machine to perform first additional processing work by the working machine and second processing request information for requesting second manual additional processing work, according to a determination result of the quality state determination unit.