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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment received 3/28/2026 has been entered and made of record in response to the petition to revive granted 6/8/2026. Claims 1-21 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 3/28/2026 in response to the Non-Final Rejection mailed 1/28/2025 have been considered but are moot in view of 112 issues that preclude the examiner from doing a reasonable search as fully disclosed below. As such, the action is made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding independent claims 1 and 12, the amended claims disclose “remove non-weld area from each image slice or sub-slice to obtain a processed image slice comprising weld-related regions”. According to the applicant’s originally filed specification in Par. [0059], it is stated, “Next, the excessive non-weld portions are removed from the image slice at step 212. As described above, non-weld portions of the image slices refer to upper and lower areas of the images that are outside the HAZ portions 154.” Nothing is stated that the non-weld area is also removed from a sub-slice; only the image slice. As such, the amendments present new matter that is not supported in the originally filed specification. Dependent claims 2-11 and 13-21 are also rejected for its dependency on independent claims 1 and 12.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4-10 and 15-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 4 and 15, the claims disclose to “identify a centerline of each of the plurality of image slices” but independent claims 1 and 12, which both claim 4 and 15 depend upon respectfully, disclose “determine a centerline of each image slice” so it is unclear if it is referring to the same centerline or not.
Regarding claims 5 and 16, the claims disclose “a uniform centerline weld region of the weldment” but independent claims 1 and 12, which both claim 5 and 16 depend upon respectfully, also disclose “a uniform centerline weld region of the weldment” so it is unclear if it is referring to the same weld region or not.
Regarding claim 6, the claim discloses “remove non-weld area from each image slice or sub-slice to obtain a processed image slice comprising weld-related regions” but independent claim 1, which claim 6 depend upon respectfully, also discloses “remove non-weld area from each image slice or sub-slice to obtain a processed image slice comprising weld-related regions” so it is unclear if it is referring to the same thing or not.
Regarding claims 7 and 17, the claims disclose “a central weld region from surrounding regions” but independent claims 1 and 12, which both claim 7 and 17 depend upon respectfully, also disclose “a central weld region from surrounding regions” so it is unclear if it is referring to the same central weld region or not.
Regarding claims 8 and 18, the claims disclose tag “pixels corresponding to the segmented regions of interest and pixels corresponding to welding anomalies” but independent claims 1 and 12, which both claim 8 and 18 depend upon respectfully, also disclose tagging “pixels corresponding to the segmented regions of interest and pixels corresponding to welding anomalies” so it is unclear if it is referring to the same pixels or not.
Regarding claims 9 and 19, the claims disclose “the truth data comprises a plurality of pixel-based annotated images corresponding to a plurality of truth welding anomalies” but independent claims 1 and 12, which both claim 8 and 18 depend upon respectfully, also disclose tagging “pixels corresponding to the segmented regions of interest and pixels corresponding to welding anomalies” so it is unclear if it is referring to the same pixels or not.
Regarding claims 10 and 20, the claims disclose tag “using a neural artificial network comprising a convolutional neural network” but independent claims 1 and 12, which both claims 10 and 20 depend upon respectfully, disclose “a neural network” so it is unclear if it is referring to the same neural network or a different one. If it is a different one, then both claims 10 and 20 should refer to Par. [0055] of the applicant’s originally filed specification, which states, “One or more initial neural network layers are convolutional neural network layers”. This is different than what is claimed as stated above.
Regarding claim 21, the claim discloses “outputting a confidence value for each identified anomaly” but independent claim 12, which claim 21 depend upon respectfully, discloses “identify a confidence value for each identified anomaly” so it is unclear if the confidence value being outputted is the same one as the one identified or not.
Appropriate correction is required on all the 112(a) and 112(b) issues raised above.
Examiner’s Comments
The Office has established rejections under 35 USC 112(a) and 112(b) with regard to claims 1-21. The scope of claims 1-21 cannot be determined because of the identified issues presented above. The numerous rejections to claims 1-21 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b) render applicant's claims as being incomprehensible as to preclude a reasonably detailed search of the prior art by the examiner. The examiner has attempted to identify all grounds for rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b). However, the number of issues with regard to claims 1-21 cannot be ascertained. The examiner suggests that the applicant carefully review the claims in order to fix any and all issues that have and have not been highlighted by this office action.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Vincent Rudolph whose telephone number is (571)272-8243. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM - 3:30 PM.
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.
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.
/VINCENT RUDOLPH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2671
Prosecution Insights