DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-33 are pending.
Claim Interpretation
Previous interpretation of claims under 11(f) has been withdrawn in view of amendments made by the applicant.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 recites the limitation “wherein the control unit controls…” in lines 10-11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the control unit” limitation in the claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments as filed have been considered and entered, however, applicant’s arguments filed on 01/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, see remarks pages 2-3, that cited references such as Kikuchi and Tamura fail to teach all the newly amended features of claim 1 such as “newly calculating position data corresponding to a boundary between the common portion and the different portion according to the first defect data and the second defect data, the position data including coordinates different from the vertices included in the first defect data and the second defect data”.
In reply, examiner disagrees and asserts that in view of the amendments filed, the new grounds of rejection(s) have been made in view of Nogami and combination of Kikuchi with Tamura and Nogami has been successfully shown to teach all the limitations of claim 1 as currently recited.
For instance, Tamura teaches acquiring first defect data and second defect data generated on a basis of images imaged of an identical target (first edge and second edge images are extracted from first and second image data from the same surface to be measured, paragraph 7), and to newly calculate position data (same edge image as the first edge image shown in FIG. 2 (a) is used for one pixel P in the second image shown in FIG. 2 (b), paragraph 36) corresponding to a boundary between the common portion and the different portion according to the first defect data and the second defect, the position data included in the first defect data and the second defect data (pixel P corresponds to boundary between position data of crack 58 and position data of crack 76 as show in fig. 2b).
Wherein, new reference, Nogami teaches each of defect data including information relating to coordinates of vertices that correspond to a start point and an end point of a line segment (line segments such as polyline 711 as shown in fig. 7B are formed to highlight the crack positions, paragraph 91, wherein, the defect separating unit 113 may take an angle formed by line segments connecting the starting points and ending points of each of polylines as the angle between the polylines. For example, the angle formed by a line segment connecting the point 402 and the point 405 and a line segment connecting the point 403 and the point 405 may be calculated as the angle between the polyline connecting the endpoint 402 and the branch point 405 and the polyline connecting the endpoint 403 and the branch point 405, paragraph 69, 65), and the position data including coordinates different from the vertices included in the defect data (attribute determination unit 116 determines the attribute information of the defect using the defect feature amount v, e.g., the above-described histogram feature amount, extracted from the partial image of the defect. The attribute determination unit 116 can determine the attributes for each of a plurality of defects. In other words, it is determined which of a plurality of classes the attributes of a defect belongs to, using a classifier which has been trained in advance and which provides classes corresponding to feature amounts, for example, positions of respective cracks as polylines 711 and 712 by entering a point 730 and the like so as to approximate the crack using line segments, i.e., the maximum crack width of the crack 701 in FIG. 7A is 0.60 mm, and thus the person applies a class label C2 indicating “a crack width greater than or equal to 0.5 mm and less than 1.0 mm”. In this manner, an obtainment unit of the training device obtains the position of a defect (a crack) in the input image (an image of a crack), as well as attribute information (the maximum crack width) of the defect, paragraphs 84, 90).
Applicant further argues, see remarks pages 3-4, that cited references fail to teach all the newly amended features of claim 16 such as “in accordance with the first defect data being the reference data, to display, on a display unit, defect data of the common portion and defect data of the different portion of the first defect data, and (2) in accordance with the second defect data being the reference data, to display, on the display unit, defect data of the common portion and defect data of the different portion of the second defect data”.
In reply, examiner disagrees and asserts that it appears that applicant is treating the rejection as a 102 based only on Kikuchi and not as a 103 combination based on both Kikuchi and Tamura, for instance, Kikuchi teaches that in accordance with the first defect data being the reference data, to display on a display unit (display unit 116, paragraph 29) defect data of the common portion and defect data of the different portion of the first defect data (fig.14 shows display of the damage figure, wherein, the layers LA1 and LA2 are superimposed, and the cracks C1 to C4 extracted in the past are indicated by solid lines, and the differences Δ1 to Δ4 (newly extracted cracks where cracking has progressed) is indicated by a solid line (a mode different from the past cracks), paragraphs 55-56).
Wherein, Tamura teaches acquiring first defect data and second defect data generated on a basis of images imaged of an identical target (first edge and second edge images are extracted from first and second image data from the same surface to be measured, paragraph 7); obtain (obtaining a difference between the specific pixel in the second edge image and the pixel in the first edge image corresponding to the specific pixel, paragraph 9), on a basis of the first defect data (first edge image, paragraph 9) and the second defect data (second edge image, paragraph 9), a common portion (conventional crack 58, fig. 2a) of the first defect data and the second defect data (conventional crack 58 that is common between first edge image and second edge image, paragraphs 25, 33) and a different portion (new crack 76, fig. 2d) of the first defect data or the second defect data (new crack 76 shown in second edge image as different portion between first edge image and second edge image, paragraphs 33, 28).
Applicant further argues, see remarks pages 5-7, that claims now recite a tangible matter such as processor or circuit and therefore claims do not recite a mathematical concept or a human activity such as mental process since claims represent a practical application with additional elements such as providing improvements in terms of accuracy for detecting defects by inspector.
In reply examiner disagrees and asserts that just by reciting a generic processor or generic circuit does not constitute a particular machine solving a particular problem. Moreover, claims do not positively recite a practical application per se where accuracy is being improved and to be able to better detect defects by the inspector is same as human operator performing the steps as human activity and observing, evaluating and judging the results.
For instance, steps of acquiring first and second defect image data belonging to same target is just data gathering or an extra solution activity in the field of endeavor. And steps of identifying common and different portions between plurality of data gathered to calculate the changed/difference features including start/end points representing vertices and line segments corresponding to defects in said portions and evaluating different segments belonging to different portions and thereby reflecting/displaying a state change between two identified portions is an abstract idea and can all be considered mental processes and can be fully accomplished mentally by looking at the acquired images with defects while having a pen and paper. Furthermore, claims do not recite any additional elements which integrate the judicial exception into a practical application other than mere recitation of generic computing devices performing the process, which are all well-understood routine practices and are purely generic.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents 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 of this title.
Claims 1-33 are directed toward an apparatus, system, method and computer readable program which falls within one of the four statutory categories of invention but do not meet the three-prong test for patentability.
Regarding independent claim 1, under step 1, the claim is directed to an apparatus, which is one of the categories of eligible inventions.
Under step 2A Prong 1, the claim recites a method of optimizing human activity, specifically an apparatus executing a method to detect plurality of defect data and finding a common portion and different portion to be able to draw/calculate changes between the two portions, which is an abstract idea, comprising:
“An information processing apparatus comprising: a device including at least one processor and/or at least one circuit, the device being configured to function as a plurality of units comprising: (1) an acquisition unit configured to acquire first defect data and second defect data generated on a basis of images imaged of an identical target, each of the first defect data and the second defect data including information relating to coordinates of vertices that correspond to a start point and an end point of a line segment, wherein a shape of a defect is represented as a polyline made of one or a plurality of line segments; (2) a calculation unit configured to (a) obtain, on a basis of the first defect data and the second defect data, (i) a common portion of the first defect data and the second defect data and (ii) a different portion of the first defect data and the second defect data and (b) newly calculate position data corresponding to a boundary between the common portion and the different portion according to the first defect data and the second defect, the position data including coordinates different from the vertices included in the first defect data and the second defect data; and (3) a generation unit configured to generate state change data indicating a change in a defect included in the common portion and the different portion using the position data”.
For instance, steps of acquiring first and second defect image data belonging to same target is just data gathering or an extra solution activity in the field of endeavor. And steps of identifying common and different portions between plurality of data gathered to calculate the changed/difference features including start/end points representing vertices and line segments corresponding to defects in said portions and evaluating different segments belonging to different portions and thereby reflecting/displaying a state change between two identified portions is an abstract idea and can all be considered mental processes and can be fully accomplished mentally by looking at the acquired images with defects while having a pen and paper.
Under step 2A Prong 2, the claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. There are no additional elements recited such as use of a particular machine or components.
Moreover, all of the limitations in the recited method can be accomplished without reliance on any specific machine and could be accomplished by human minds and interactions between humans as they are not specifically tailored for execution in any specific machine. The claim as a whole does not present a practical application of the abstract idea.
Under Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea judicial exception because, as discussed in step 2A, there is merely a recitation of generic computing devices performing the process, which are all well-understood routine practices and are purely generic. This finding is consistent with the level of detail of the specification and the well-understood and conventional nature of these elements is broadly covered under court decisions (i) and (iv) from MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) related to receiving and retrieving information in a generic computer environment. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 2, it merely adds to claim 1 and further details wherein the calculation unit uses either the first defect data or the second defect data as reference data and uses the other as comparison data and sets an expanded region based on the comparison data, and uses defect data of a portion of the reference data enclosed by the expanded region as the common portion and uses other defect data of the reference data as the different portion and sets coordinates of an intersection point between the reference data and the expanded region as the position data. This again only provides further extra solution activity of acquiring first and second image data, comparison of data and setting coordinates which is a mental process on a generic device, that could be performed unaided by a human, recited as performed by a generic computing device, and thus, as in the claim do not constitute practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 3, it merely adds to claim 2 and further details wherein the defect data includes information of at least one line segment composing a defect; and in a case where there are a plurality of line segments of the comparison data for a line segment of the reference data, the generation unit sets a line segment, from among line segments of the comparison data, with a longest length overlapping the expanded region as the line segment of the comparison data. This again only provides further extra solution activity of acquiring defect data, comparison of data and generating line segments of comparison data, which is a mental process on a generic device, that can be performed by a human mind with the mere recitation of execution by a generic computing device and communication between generic computing devices which, as in the claim do not constitute practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 4, it merely adds to claim 3 and further details wherein in a case where a plurality of expanded regions overlap, the expanded region is set to a region where all overlap. This again only provides further extra solution activity of acquiring image data and manipulation of data which is a mental process on a generic device, that could be performed unaided by a human, recited as performed by a generic computing device, and thus, as in claim do not constitute practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 5, it merely adds to claim 2 and further details wherein the defect data includes identification information of each defect, width of defect, number of vertices of line segment composing defect, and vertex coordinates; and data of the expanded region includes identification information of each defect and coordinates of a contour of the expanded region. This again only provides a mental process on a generic device, that can be performed by a human mind with the mere recitation of execution by a generic computing device and communication between generic computing devices which, as in claim do not constitute practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 6, it merely adds to claim 2 and further details wherein the generation unit generates as the state change data defect data of the common portion, defect data of the different portion, and corresponding relationship data indicating a corresponding relationship between the common portion of the reference data and the comparison data. This again only provides a mental process on a generic device with mathematical computation, that can be performed by a human mind with the mere recitation of execution by a generic computing device and communication between generic computing devices which, as in claim do not constitute practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 7, it merely adds to claim 6 and further details wherein the acquisition unit reads out the first defect data from a first defect data table in which the first defect data is registered and reads out the second defect data from a second defect data table in which the second defect data is registered; and the generation unit generates a defect data table of the common portion where defect data of the common portion is to be registered and a defect data table of the different portion where defect data of the different portion is to be registered, registers the position data in a defect data table of the common portion and a defect data table of the different portion, and generates a corresponding relationship data table where the corresponding relationship data is to be registered. This again only provides a mental process on a generic device with mathematical computation, that can be performed by a human mind with the mere recitation of execution by a generic computing device and communication between generic computing devices which, as in claim do not constitute practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 8, it merely adds to claim 6 and further details wherein the corresponding relationship data includes information indicating width of defect data of the common portion. This again only provides a mental process on a generic device with mathematical computation, that can be performed by a human mind with the mere recitation of execution by a generic computing device and communication between generic computing devices which, as in claim do not constitute practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 9, it merely adds to claim 1 and further details wherein the calculation unit obtains a common portion and a different portion using the first defect data as reference data and the second defect data as comparison data, and obtains a common portion and a different portion using the second defect data as reference data and the first defect data as comparison data; and the generation unit generates the state change data for each obtained result. This again only provides a mental process on a generic device with mathematical computation, that can be performed by a human mind with the mere recitation of execution by a generic computing device and communication between generic computing devices which, as in claim do not constitute practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 10, it merely adds to claim 2 and further details wherein the calculation unit includes a second calculation unit configured to calculate a degree of match between reference data enclosed by the expanded region and the comparison data, and a filter unit configured to further narrow down defect data as the common portion on a basis of the degree of match. This again only provides a mental process of performing a second calculation on a generic device with mathematical computation, that can be performed by a human mind with the mere recitation of execution by a generic computing device and communication between generic computing devices which, as in claim do not constitute practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 11, it merely adds to claim 10 and further details w wherein the second calculation unit calculates the degree of match from a distance to the comparison data and an angle with the comparison data. This again only provides detecting changes with taking distances into account as an abstract idea and do not constitute practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 12, it merely adds to claim 10 and further details wherein the second calculation unit calculates the degree of match for each line segment composing the reference data. This again only provides a mental process on a generic device with mathematical computation, that can be performed by a human mind with the mere recitation of execution by a generic computing device and communication between generic computing devices which, as in claim do not constitute practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 13, it merely adds to claim 12 and further details wherein the second calculation unit obtains a moving average following connections in the reference data of scores of the degree of match calculated for each line segment. This again only provides a mental process of performing processes on a generic device with mathematical computation, that can be performed by a human mind with the mere recitation of execution by a generic computing device and communication between generic computing devices which, as in claim do not constitute practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 14, it merely adds to claim 10 and further details wherein the second calculation unit performs the narrowing down by removing outliers with less than a threshold for the degree of match. This again only provides performing calculation via thresholds as an abstract idea and do not constitute practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 15, it merely adds to claim 10 and further details wherein the filter unit narrows down on a basis of defect data characteristics. This again only provides performing calculation via certain characteristics as an abstract idea and do not constitute practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding independent claim 16, under step 1, the claim is directed to an apparatus, which is one of the categories of eligible inventions.
Under step 2A Prong 1, the claim recites a method of optimizing human activity, specifically an apparatus executing a method to detect plurality of defect data and finding a common portion and different portion to be able to draw/calculate changes between the two portions, which is an abstract idea, comprising:
“An image processing apparatus comprising: a device including at least one processor and/or at least one circuit, the device being configured to function as a plurality of units comprising: (1) an acquisition unit configured to acquire first defect data and second defect data generated on a basis of images imaged of an identical target; (2) a calculation unit configured to (a) use either the first defect data or the second defect data as reference data and use the other as comparison data and (b) obtain (i) a common portion that is common between the first defect data and the second defect data and (ii) a different portion that exists in either the first defect data or the second defect data, and [[a]] wherein the control unit controls, (1) in accordance with the first defect data being the reference data, to display, on a display unit, defect data of the common portion and defect data of the different portion of the first defect data, and (2) in accordance with the second defect data [[is]] being the reference data, to display, on the display unit, defect data of the common portion and defect data of the different portion of the second defect data”.
It is further noted that steps of acquiring first and second defect image data belonging to same target is just data gathering or an extra solution activity in the field of endeavor. And steps of identifying common and different portions between plurality of data gathered to calculate and display the changed/difference features and thereby reflecting/displaying a state change between two identified portions is an abstract idea and can all be considered mental processes and can be fully accomplished mentally by looking at the acquired images with defects while having a pen and paper.
Under step 2A Prong 2, the claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. There are no additional elements recited such as use of a particular machine or components.
Moreover, all of the limitations in the recited method can be accomplished without reliance on any specific machine and could be accomplished by human minds and interactions between humans as they are not specifically tailored for execution in any specific machine. The claim as a whole does not present a practical application of the abstract idea.
Under Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea judicial exception because, as discussed in step 2A, there is merely a recitation of generic computing devices performing the process, which are all well-understood routine practices and are purely generic. This finding is consistent with the level of detail of the specification and the well-understood and conventional nature of these elements is broadly covered under court decisions (i) and (iv) from MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) related to receiving and retrieving information in a generic computer environment. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 17, it merely adds to claim 16 and further details wherein the plurality of units further comprises a selection unit configured to select whether to display the first defect data or the second defect data as the reference data, wherein the control unit controls (1) accordance with the first defect data being selected as the reference data, to display, on the display unit, defect data of the common portion and defect data of the different portion of the first defect data and defect data of the different portion of the second defect data, and (2) in accordance with the second defect data [[is]] being selected as the reference data, to display, on the display unit, defect data of the common portion and defect data of the different portion of the second defect data and defect data of the different portion of the first defect data. This again only provides an abstract idea and do not constitute practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 18, it merely adds to claim 16 and further details wherein the control unit controls to identifiably display, on the display unit, defect data of the common portion and defect data of the different portion. This again only provides an abstract idea and do not constitute practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 19, it merely adds to claim 16 and further details wherein the control unit controls to identifiably display, on the display unit, a portion of defect data of the common portion with a changed defect width. This again only provides a mental process on a generic device with mathematical computation, that can be performed by a human mind with the mere recitation of execution by a generic computing device and communication between generic computing devices which, as in claim do not constitute practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 20, it merely adds to claim 16 and further details wherein in accordance with defect data of the different portion of the comparison data with the reference data being discontinuous with the reference data, the control unit controls to display, on the display unit, defect data of the different portion and the reference data connected as one piece of defect data. This again only provides displaying generic processing on generic device as an abstract idea and do not constitute practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 21, it merely adds to claim 16 and further details wherein the control unit controls to combine and display, on the display unit, common portions of the reference data and different portions of the comparison data. This again only provides displaying generic processing on generic device as an abstract idea and do not constitute practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 22, it merely adds to claim 16 and further details wherein the control unit controls to overlap and display, on the display unit, common portions of the comparison data on common portions and different portions of the reference data. This again only provides displaying generic processing on generic device as an abstract idea and do not constitute practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 23, it merely adds to claim 16 and further details a generation unit configured to use either the first defect data or the second defect data as reference data and the other as comparison data, set an expanded region based on the comparison data, and generate state change data in which defect data of a portion of the reference data enclosed by the expanded region is used as the common portion and use other defect data of the reference data is used as the different portion. This again only provides an abstract idea and do not constitute practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 24, it merely adds to claim 23 and further details wherein the generation unit generates as the state change data defect data of the common portion, defect data of the different portion, and corresponding relationship data indicating a corresponding relationship between the common portion of the reference data and the comparison data. This again only provides a mental process on a generic device with mathematical computation, that can be performed by a human mind with the mere recitation of execution by a generic computing device and communication between generic computing devices which, as in claim do not constitute practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 25, it merely adds to claim 1 and further details wherein the first defect data is defect data generated from an image imaged of an inspection target in a first time; and the second defect data is defect data generated from an image imaged of the inspection target in a second time after the first time. This again only provides a mental process on a generic device with mathematical computation, that can be performed by a human mind with the mere recitation of execution by a generic computing device and communication between generic computing devices which, as in claim do not constitute practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 26, it merely adds to claim 1 and further details wherein the defect data is data relating to a crack. This again only provides a mental process on a generic device with mathematical computation, that can be performed by a human mind with the mere recitation of execution by a generic computing device and communication between generic computing devices which, as in claim do not constitute practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 27, it merely adds to claim 16 and further details wherein the first defect data is defect data generated from an image imaged of an inspection target in a first time; and the second defect data is defect data generated from an image imaged of the inspection target in a second time after the first time. This again only provides a mental process on a generic device with mathematical computation, that can be performed by a human mind with the mere recitation of execution by a generic computing device and communication between generic computing devices which, as in claim do not constitute practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 28, it merely adds to claim 16 and further details wherein the defect data is data relating to a crack. This again only provides a mental process on a generic device with mathematical computation, that can be performed by a human mind with the mere recitation of execution by a generic computing device and communication between generic computing devices which, as in claim do not constitute practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding independent claim 29, under step 1, the claim is directed to an apparatus, which is one of the categories of eligible inventions.
Under step 2A Prong 1, the claim recites a method of optimizing human activity, specifically an apparatus executing a method to detect plurality of defect data and finding a common portion and different portion to be able to draw/calculate changes between the two portions, which is an abstract idea, comprising:
“An information processing system including: an input device; and an information processing apparatus, wherein the input device comprises an input unit configured to input first defect data and second defect data generated on a basis of images imaged of an identical target, and wherein the information processing apparatus comprises a device including at least one processor and/or at least one circuit, the device being configured to function as a plurality of units comprising: (1) an acquisition unit configured to acquire the first defect data and the second defect data from the input device, each of the first defect data and the second defect data including information relating to coordinates of vertices that correspond to a start point and an end point of a line segment, wherein a shape of a defect is represented as a polyline made of one or a plurality of line segments; (2) a calculation unit configured to (a) obtain, on a basis of the first defect data and second defect data, (i) a common portion of the first defect data and the second defect data and (ii) a different portion of the first defect data and the second defect data and (b) newly calculate position data corresponding to a boundary between the common portion and the different portion according to the first defect data and the second defect data, the position data including coordinates different from the vertices included in the first defect data and the second defect data; and (3) a generation unit configured to generate state change data indicating a change in a defect included in the common portion and the different portion using the position data.
It is further noted that steps of acquiring defect image data is just data gathering or an extra solution activity in the field of endeavor. And steps of identifying common and different portions between plurality of data gathered to calculate a changed/difference feature and thereby reflecting a state change is an abstract idea and can all be considered mental processes and can be fully accomplished mentally by looking at the acquired images with defects while having a pen and paper.
Under step 2A Prong 2, the claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. There are no additional elements recited such as use of a particular machine or components.
Moreover, all of the limitations in the recited method can be accomplished without reliance on any specific machine and could be accomplished by human minds and interactions between humans as they are not specifically tailored for execution in any specific machine. The claim as a whole does not present a practical application of the abstract idea.
Under Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea judicial exception because, as discussed in step 2A, there is merely a recitation of generic computing devices performing the process, which are all well-understood routine practices and are purely generic. This finding is consistent with the level of detail of the specification and the well-understood and conventional nature of these elements is broadly covered under court decisions (i) and (iv) from MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) related to receiving and retrieving information in a generic computer environment. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding independent claim 30, under step 1, the claim is directed to an apparatus, which is one of the categories of eligible inventions.
Under step 2A Prong 1, the claim recites a method of optimizing human activity, specifically an apparatus executing a method to detect plurality of defect data and finding a common portion and different portion to be able to draw/calculate changes between the two portions, which is an abstract idea, comprising:
“An image processing method of detecting a change in a state of a defect, the method comprising: acquiring first defect data and second defect data generated on a basis of images imaged of an identical target, each of the first defect data and the second defect data including information relating to coordinates of vertices that correspond to a start point and an end point of line segment, wherein a shape of a defect is represented as a polyline made of one or a plurality of line segments; on a basis of the first defect data and the second defect data, (a) obtaining (i) a common portion of the first defect data and the second defect data and (ii) a different portion of the first defect data [[or]] and the second defect data and (b) newly calculating position data corresponding a boundary between the common portion and the different portion according to the first defect data and the second defect data, the position data including coordinates different from the vertices included in the first defect data and the second defect data; and generating state change data indicating a change in a defect included in the common portion and the different portion using the position data”.
It is further noted that steps of acquiring defect image data is just data gathering or an extra solution activity in the field of endeavor. And steps of identifying common and different portions between plurality of data gathered to calculate a changed/difference feature and thereby reflecting a state change is an abstract idea and can all be considered mental processes and can be fully accomplished mentally by looking at the acquired images with defects while having a pen and paper.
Under step 2A Prong 2, the claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. There are no additional elements recited such as use of a particular machine or components.
Moreover, all of the limitations in the recited method can be accomplished without reliance on any specific machine and could be accomplished by human minds and interactions between humans as they are not specifically tailored for execution in any specific machine. The claim as a whole does not present a practical application of the abstract idea.
Under Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea judicial exception because, as discussed in step 2A, there is merely a recitation of generic computing devices performing the process, which are all well-understood routine practices and are purely generic. This finding is consistent with the level of detail of the specification and the well-understood and conventional nature of these elements is broadly covered under court decisions (i) and (iv) from MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) related to receiving and retrieving information in a generic computer environment. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding independent claim 31, under step 1, the claim is directed to an apparatus, which is one of the categories of eligible inventions.
Under step 2A Prong 1, the claim recites a method of optimizing human activity, specifically an apparatus executing a method to detect plurality of defect data and finding a common portion and different portion to be able to draw/calculate changes between the two portions, which is an abstract idea, comprising:
“An image processing method of detecting a change in a state of a defect, the method comprising: acquiring first defect data and second defect data generated on a basis of images imaged of an identical target; using either the first defect data or the second defect data as reference data and using the other as comparison data; [[and]] obtaining (1) a common portion that is common between the first defect data and the second defect data and (2) a different portion that exists in either the first defect data or the second defect data; in accordance with the first defect data being the reference data, displaying, on a display unit, defect data of the common portion and defect data of the different portion of the first defect data; and in accordance with the second defect data [[is]] being the reference data, displaying, on the display unit, defect data of the common portion and defect data of the different portion of the second defect data”.
It is further noted that steps of acquiring defect image data is just data gathering or an extra solution activity in the field of endeavor. And steps of identifying common and different portions between plurality of data gathered to calculate a changed/difference feature and thereby reflecting a state change is an abstract idea and can all be considered mental processes and can be fully accomplished mentally by looking at the acquired images with defects while having a pen and paper.
Under step 2A Prong 2, the claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. There are no additional elements recited such as use of a particular machine or components.
Moreover, all of the limitations in the recited method can be accomplished without reliance on any specific machine and could be accomplished by human minds and interactions between humans as they are not specifically tailored for execution in any specific machine. The claim as a whole does not present a practical application of the abstract idea.
Under Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea judicial exception because, as discussed in step 2A, there is merely a recitation of generic computing devices performing the process, which are all well-understood routine practices and are purely generic. This finding is consistent with the level of detail of the specification and the well-understood and conventional nature of these elements is broadly covered under court decisions (i) and (iv) from MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) related to receiving and retrieving information in a generic computer environment. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding independent claim 32, under step 1, the claim is directed to an apparatus, which is one of the categories of eligible inventions.
Under step 2A Prong 1, the claim recites a method of optimizing human activity, specifically an apparatus executing a method to detect plurality of defect data and finding a common portion and different portion to be able to draw/calculate changes between the two portions, which is an abstract idea, comprising:
“A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program for causing a computer to execute an image processing method of detecting a change in a state of a defect, the method comprising: acquiring first defect data and second defect data generated on a basis of images imaged of an identical target, each of the first defect data and the second defect data including information relating to coordinates of vertices that correspond to a start point and an end point of line segment, wherein a shape of a defect is represented as a polyline made of one or a plurality of line segments; on a basis of the first defect data and the second defect data, (a) obtaining (i) a common portion of the first defect data and the second defect data and (ii) a different portion of the first defect data [[or]] and the second defect data and (b) newly calculating position data corresponding a boundary between the common portion and the different portion according to the first defect data and the second defect data, the position data including coordinates different from the vertices included in the first defect data and the second defect data; and generating state change data indicating a change in a defect included in the common portion and the different portion using the position data”.
It is further noted that steps of acquiring defect image data is just data gathering or an extra solution activity in the field of endeavor. And steps of identifying common and different portions between plurality of data gathered to calculate a changed/difference feature and thereby reflecting a state change is an abstract idea and can all be considered mental processes and can be fully accomplished mentally by looking at the acquired images with defects while having a pen and paper.
Under step 2A Prong 2, the claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. There are no additional elements recited such as use of a particular machine or components.
Moreover, all of the limitations in the recited method can be accomplished without reliance on any specific machine and could be accomplished by human minds and interactions between humans as they are not specifically tailored for execution in any specific machine. The claim as a whole does not present a practical application of the abstract idea.
Under Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea judicial exception because, as discussed in step 2A, there is merely a recitation of generic computing devices performing the process, which are all well-understood routine practices and are purely generic. This finding is consistent with the level of detail of the specification and the well-understood and conventional nature of these elements is broadly covered under court decisions (i) and (iv) from MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) related to receiving and retrieving information in a generic computer environment. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding independent claim 33, under step 1, the claim is directed to an apparatus, which is one of the categories of eligible inventions.
Under step 2A Prong 1, the claim recites a method of optimizing human activity, specifically an apparatus executing a method to detect plurality of defect data and finding a common portion and different portion to be able to draw/calculate changes between the two portions, which is an abstract idea, comprising:
“A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program for causing a computer to execute an image processing method of detecting a change in a state of a defect, the method comprising: acquiring first defect data and second defect data generated on a basis of images imaged of an identical target; using either the first defect data or the second defect data as reference data and using the other as comparison data; [[and]] obtaining (1) a common portion that is common between the first defect data and the second defect data and (2) a different portion that exists in either the first defect data or the second defect data; in accordance with the first defect data being the reference data, displaying, on a display unit, defect data of the common portion and defect data of the different portion of the first defect data; and in accordance with the second defect data [[is]] being the reference data, displaying, on the display unit, defect data of the common portion and defect data of the different portion of the second defect data”.
It is further noted that steps of acquiring defect image data is just data gathering or an extra solution activity in the field of endeavor. And steps of identifying common and different portions between plurality of data gathered to calculate a changed/difference feature and thereby reflecting a state change is an abstract idea and can all be considered mental processes and can be fully accomplished mentally by looking at the acquired images with defects while having a pen and paper.
Under step 2A Prong 2, the claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. There are no additional elements recited such as use of a particular machine or components.
Moreover, all of the limitations in the recited method can be accomplished without reliance on any specific machine and could be accomplished by human minds and interactions between humans as they are not specifically tailored for execution in any specific machine. The claim as a whole does not present a practical application of the abstract idea.
Under Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea judicial exception because, as discussed in step 2A, there is merely a recitation of generic computing devices performing the process, which are all well-understood routine practices and are purely generic. This finding is consistent with the level of detail of the specification and the well-understood and conventional nature of these elements is broadly covered under court decisions (i) and (iv) from MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) related to receiving and retrieving information in a generic computer environment. The claim is not patent eligible.
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.
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.
Claims 1-5, 9-15, 25-26, 29-30 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kikuchi et al., JP 2018-185146 in view of Tamura et al., JP 2007-026255 further in view of Nogami et al., US 2020/0118263.
Regarding claim 1, Kikuchi discloses an information processing apparatus (damage map creation apparatus 100, paragraph 29) comprising:
a device including at least one processor and/or at least one circuit, the device being configured to function as a plurality of units comprising (apparatus 100 includes circuitry to function as, paragraph 29):
(1) an acquisition unit (“bridge 1 is photographed using the camera 102 (image acquiring unit)”, paragraph 29) configured to acquire first defect data and second defect data generated on a basis of images imaged of an identical target (“plurality of images of the bridge 1 are input in accordance with the examination range, and information on shooting date and time is added to the input image by the camera 102”, paragraph 31);
(2) a calculation unit (damaged chart creating unit 112, paragraph 29) configured to (a) obtain (damage diagram is displayed, paragraph 51), (i) a common portion of the first defect data and the second defect data (past cracks in the layer are indicated by dotted lines representing common portion, paragraphs 55-56) and (ii) a different portion of the first defect data and the second defect data (on the other hand, newly extracted cracks or the differences of newly extracted cracks, where cracking has progressed in the layer are indicated by solid lines representing different portion, paragraphs 55-56).
Kikuchi fails to explicitly disclose each of the first defect data and the second defect data including information relating to coordinates of vertices that correspond to a start point and an end point of a line segment, wherein a shape of a defect is represented as a polyline made of one or a plurality of line segments;
(a) obtain, on a basis of the first defect data and the second defect data, (i) a common portion of the first defect data and the second defect data and (ii) a different portion of the first defect data and the second defect data and
(b) newly calculate position data corresponding to a boundary between the common portion and the different portion according to the first defect data and the second defect, the position data including coordinates different from the vertices included in the first defect data and the second defect data;
and (3) a generation unit configured to generate state change data indicating a change in a defect included in the common portion and the different portion using the position data.
However, Tamura teaches acquiring first defect data and second defect data generated on a basis of images imaged of an identical target (first edge and second edge images are extracted from first and second image data from the same surface to be measured, paragraph 7), each of the first defect data and the second defect data including information relating to common portion (conventional crack 58 that is common between first edge image and second edge image, paragraphs 25, 33);
(a) obtain (obtaining a difference between the specific pixel in the second edge image and the pixel in the first edge image corresponding to the specific pixel, paragraph 9), on a basis of the first defect data (first edge image, paragraph 9) and the second defect data (second edge image, paragraph 9), (i) a common portion (conventional crack 58, fig. 2a) of the first defect data and the second defect data (conventional crack 58 that is common between first edge image and second edge image, paragraphs 25, 33) and (ii) a different portion (new crack 76, fig. 2d) of the first defect data or the second defect data (new crack 76 shown in second edge image as different portion between first edge image and second edge image, paragraphs 33, 28)
and (b) newly calculate position data (same edge image as the first edge image shown in FIG. 2 (a) is used for one pixel P in the second image shown in FIG. 2 (b), paragraph 36) corresponding to a boundary between the common portion and the different portion according to the first defect data and the second defect, the position data included in the first defect data and the second defect data (pixel P corresponds to boundary between position data of crack 58 and position data of crack 76 as show in fig. 2b);
and (3) a generation unit (“extracting the progress status” paragraph 7) configured to generate state change data indicating a change in a defect included in the common portion and the different portion using the position data (changes in defect crack areas 58 and 76 using position data as shown in fig. 4b).
Kikuchi and Tamura are combinable because they both are in the same field of endeavor dealing with analysis of defect data and depicting changes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Kikuchi with the teachings of Tamura for the benefit of developing an effective method for extracting various kinds of information from the developed image by removing and only emphasizing the progressing portion of the deformed portion such as a crack as taught by Tamura at paragraphs 5-6.
Kikuchi with Tamura fails to explicitly teach each of defect data including information relating to coordinates of vertices that correspond to a start point and an end point of a line segment, wherein a shape of a defect is represented as a polyline made of one or a plurality of line segments; and the position data including coordinates different from the vertices included in the defect data.
However, Nogami teaches each of defect data including information relating to coordinates of vertices that correspond to a start point and an end point of a line segment (line segments such as polyline 711 as shown in fig. 7B are formed to highlight the crack positions, paragraph 91, wherein, the defect separating unit 113 may take an angle formed by line segments connecting the starting points and ending points of each of polylines as the angle between the polylines. For example, the angle formed by a line segment connecting the point 402 and the point 405 and a line segment connecting the point 403 and the point 405 may be calculated as the angle between the polyline connecting the endpoint 402 and the branch point 405 and the polyline connecting the endpoint 403 and the branch point 405, paragraph 69, 65), wherein a shape of a defect is represented as a polyline made of one or a plurality of line segments (polyline conversion process on the lines between one endpoint and another endpoint so that a polyline indicating a crack is obtained, expressed by line segments passing through the points 402 to 409 as indicated in FIG. 4E and each segment of a polyline separated by branch points may be handled as a single crack, and the attribute information may be calculated for each crack between an endpoint and a branch point, and between one branch point and another branch point, of the polyline, paragraphs 65, 109);
and the position data including coordinates different from the vertices included in the defect data (attribute determination unit 116 determines the attribute information of the defect using the defect feature amount v, e.g., the above-described histogram feature amount, extracted from the partial image of the defect. The attribute determination unit 116 can determine the attributes for each of a plurality of defects. In other words, it is determined which of a plurality of classes the attributes of a defect belongs to, using a classifier which has been trained in advance and which provides classes corresponding to feature amounts, for example, positions of respective cracks as polylines 711 and 712 by entering a point 730 and the like so as to approximate the crack using line segments, i.e., the maximum crack width of the crack 701 in FIG. 7A is 0.60 mm, and thus the person applies a class label C2 indicating “a crack width greater than or equal to 0.5 mm and less than 1.0 mm”. In this manner, an obtainment unit of the training device obtains the position of a defect (a crack) in the input image (an image of a crack), as well as attribute information (the maximum crack width) of the defect .paragraphs 84, 90).
Kikuchi and Tamura are combinable with Nogami because they all are in the same field of endeavor dealing with analysis of defect data and analyzing cracks (defects) in image data.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Kikuchi and Tamura with the teachings of Nogami for the benefit of improving the accuracy of determinations in a technique that determines the attributes of a defect of an object appearing in an image as taught by Nogami at paragraph 6.
Regarding claim 2, Combination of Kikuchi with Tamura further teaches wherein the calculation unit (1) (Kikuchi, damaged chart creating unit 112, paragraph 29) uses either the first defect data or the second defect data as reference data and uses the other as comparison data (Kikuchi, image combining step of generating a composite image of a plurality of images with the coordinate system as a reference and a comparison step of comparing the extracted damage with the damage already recorded, paragraph 21) and sets an expanded region based on the comparison data, and (2) uses defect data of a portion of the reference data enclosed by the expanded region as the common portion and uses other defect data of the reference data as the different portion and sets coordinates of an intersection point between the reference data and the expanded region as the position data (Tamura, expanded region being represented by an ellipse as shown in fig. 4 and furthermore, figs. 2 and 4 show that based on expanded region, comparison between crack data 58 and 76 is performed where coordinates of intersection between the two is shown as position data as pixel P).
Kikuchi and Tamura are combinable because they both are in the same field of endeavor dealing with analysis of defect data and depicting changes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Kikuchi with the teachings of Tamura for the benefit of developing an effective method for extracting various kinds of information from the developed image by removing and only emphasizing the progressing portion of the deformed portion such as a crack as taught by Tamura at paragraphs 5-6.
Regarding claim 3, Combination of Kikuchi with Tamura fail to further teach wherein the defect data includes information of at least one line segment composing a defect, and wherein in a case where there are a plurality of line segments of the comparison data for a line segment of the reference data, the generation unit sets a line segment, from among line segments of the comparison data, with a longest length overlapping the expanded region as the line segment of the comparison data.
However, Nogami teaches wherein defect data includes information of at least one line segment composing a defect (line segments such as polyline 711 as shown in fig. 7B are formed to highlight the crack positions, paragraph 91), and wherein in a case where there are a plurality of line segments of the comparison data for a line segment of the reference data, the generation unit sets a line segment, from among line segments of the comparison data, with a longest length overlapping the expanded region as the line segment of the comparison data (training device extracts a partial image of the input image including the defect from a range (the ROI) defined according to the position of the defect (the position of the crack) and extraction parameters (x). Specifically, an ROI 721 is set to a range of x pixels surrounding the crack on the basis of the crack position indicated by a polyline 711 in FIG. 7B, paragraph 91).
Kikuchi and Tamura are combinable with Nogami because they all are in the same field of endeavor dealing with analysis of defect data and analyzing cracks (defects) in image data.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Kikuchi and Tamura with the teachings of Nogami for the benefit of improving the accuracy of determinations in a technique that determines the attributes of a defect of an object appearing in an image as taught by Nogami at paragraph 6.
Regarding claim 4, Combination of Kikuchi with Tamura and Nogami further teaches wherein in a case where a plurality of expanded regions overlap, the expanded region is set to a region where all overlap (Nogami, entirety of these patch regions serve as the ROI region in which the feature amount for determining the attribute information of the crack 1301 is calculated. The method for setting the plurality of patch regions is not particularly limited. The patch regions may be set so as to overlap with each other by adjusting the center positions of the patch regions, paragraph 150).
Kikuchi and Tamura are combinable with Nogami because they all are in the same field of endeavor dealing with analysis of defect data and analyzing cracks (defects) in image data.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Kikuchi and Tamura with the teachings of Nogami for the benefit of improving the accuracy of determinations in a technique that determines the attributes of a defect of an object appearing in an image as taught by Nogami at paragraph 6.
Regarding claim 5, Combination of Kikuchi with Tamura and Nogami further teaches wherein the defect data includes identification information of each defect, width of defect, number of vertices of line segment composing defect, and vertex coordinates, and wherein and data of the expanded region includes identification information of each defect and coordinates of a contour of the expanded region (Nogami, attribute determination unit 116 determines the attribute information of the defect using the defect feature amount v, e.g., the above-described histogram feature amount, extracted from the partial image of the defect. The attribute determination unit 116 can determine the attributes for each of a plurality of defects. Although the method of determining the attributes using the feature amount is not particularly limited, the present embodiment will describe a method in which multi-class classification is used. In other words, it is determined which of a plurality of classes the attributes of a defect belongs to, using a classifier which has been trained in advance and which provides classes corresponding to feature amounts, paragraph 84).
Kikuchi and Tamura are combinable with Nogami because they all are in the same field of endeavor dealing with analysis of defect data and analyzing cracks (defects) in image data.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Kikuchi and Tamura with the teachings of Nogami for the benefit of improving the accuracy of determinations in a technique that determines the attributes of a defect of an object appearing in an image as taught by Nogami at paragraph 6.
Regarding claim 9, Combination of Kikuchi with Tamura further teaches wherein the calculation unit (1) (Kikuchi, damaged chart creating unit 112, paragraph 29) obtains a common portion and a different portion using the first defect data as reference data and the second defect data as comparison data (Kikuchi, image combining step of generating a composite image of a plurality of images with the coordinate system as a reference and a comparison step of comparing the extracted damage with the damage already recorded, paragraph 21), and (2) obtains a common portion and a different portion using the second defect data as reference data and the first defect data as comparison data (Kikuchi, image combining step of generating a composite image of a plurality of images with the coordinate system as a reference and a comparison step of comparing the extracted damage with the damage already recorded, paragraph 21); and wherein, the generation unit (Tamura, “extracting the progress status” paragraph 7) generates the state change data for each obtained result (changes in defect crack areas 58 and 76 using position data as shown in fig. 4b).
Kikuchi and Tamura are combinable because they both are in the same field of endeavor dealing with analysis of defect data and depicting changes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Kikuchi with the teachings of Tamura for the benefit of developing an effective method for extracting various kinds of information from the developed image by removing and only emphasizing the progressing portion of the deformed portion such as a crack as taught by Tamura at paragraphs 5-6.
Regarding claim 10, Combination of Kikuchi with Tamura and Nogami further teaches wherein calculation unit (Nogami, information processing device 100 including a processor, paragraph 44) includes (1) a second calculation unit (Nogami, defect determination unit 112 that calculates, paragraph 52) configured to calculate a degree of match (Nogami, degree of crack resemblance, paragraph 52) between reference data enclosed by the expanded region and the comparison data (Nogami, score map expresses scores indicating the crack resemblance for each pixel in the crack region, paragraph 58), and (2) a filter unit (Nogami, defect separating unit 113, paragraph 58) configured to further narrow down defect data as the common portion on a basis of the degree of match (Nogami, unit 113 may carry out the thinning on the basis of the crack score calculated by the defect determination unit 112 by thinning so that the thin lines pass through the positions where the score is at a peak, the defect separating unit 113 can carry out the thinning so that pixels having the highest likelihood of indicating a crack are included, paragraph 58).
Kikuchi and Tamura are combinable with Nogami because they all are in the same field of endeavor dealing with analysis of defect data and analyzing cracks (defects) in image data.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Kikuchi and Tamura with the teachings of Nogami for the benefit of improving the accuracy of determinations in a technique that determines the attributes of a defect of an object appearing in an image as taught by Nogami at paragraph 6.
Regarding claim 11, Combination of Kikuchi with Tamura and Nogami further teaches wherein the second calculation unit calculates the degree of match from a distance to the comparison data and an angle with the comparison data (Nogami, the distance of the HOG feature amount from an identification plane can be found, and that distance can be used as a score expressing the crack resemblance of the pixel of interest between points and straight line with angle formed by line segments connecting the starting points and ending points of each of polylines as the angle between the polylines, paragraphs 52, 63, 69).
Kikuchi and Tamura are combinable with Nogami because they all are in the same field of endeavor dealing with analysis of defect data and analyzing cracks (defects) in image data.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Kikuchi and Tamura with the teachings of Nogami for the benefit of improving the accuracy of determinations in a technique that determines the attributes of a defect of an object appearing in an image as taught by Nogami at paragraph 6.
Regarding claim 12, Combination of Kikuchi with Tamura and Nogami further teaches wherein the second calculation unit calculates the degree of match for each line segment composing the reference data (Nogami, scores indicating the crack resemblance for each pixel in the crack region by carrying out the thinning so that the thin lines pass through the positions where the score is at a peak, so that pixels having the highest likelihood of indicating a crack are included, paragraph 58).
Kikuchi and Tamura are combinable with Nogami because they all are in the same field of endeavor dealing with analysis of defect data and analyzing cracks (defects) in image data.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Kikuchi and Tamura with the teachings of Nogami for the benefit of improving the accuracy of determinations in a technique that determines the attributes of a defect of an object appearing in an image as taught by Nogami at paragraph 6.
Regarding claim 13, Combination of Kikuchi with Tamura and Nogami further teaches wherein the second calculation unit obtains a moving average following connections in the reference data of scores of the degree of match calculated for each line segment (Nogami, scores indicating the crack resemblance for each pixel in the crack region by carrying out the thinning so that the thin lines pass through the positions where the score is at a peak and angle formed by line segments connecting the starting points and ending points of each of polylines as the angle between the polylines. For example, the angle formed by a line segment connecting the point 402 and the point 405 and a line segment connecting the point 403 and the point 405 may be calculated as the angle between the polyline connecting the endpoint 402 and the branch point 405 and the polyline connecting the endpoint 403 and the branch point 405, paragraphs 58, 69).
Kikuchi and Tamura are combinable with Nogami because they all are in the same field of endeavor dealing with analysis of defect data and analyzing cracks (defects) in image data.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Kikuchi and Tamura with the teachings of Nogami for the benefit of improving the accuracy of determinations in a technique that determines the attributes of a defect of an object appearing in an image as taught by Nogami at paragraph 6.
Regarding claim 14, Combination of Kikuchi with Tamura and Nogami further teaches wherein the second calculation unit performs the narrowing down by removing outliers with less than a threshold for the degree of match (Nogami, defect determination unit 112 calculates a score expressing the likelihood that the pixel of interest corresponds to a defect (a crack resemblance), wherein, when the score exceeds the predetermined threshold, that pixel can be determined to represent a defect (a crack). Specifically, by subjecting the score map to a thresholding process using the predetermined threshold, a region constituted by pixels having a high crack score can be specified as a defect region (a crack region), paragraph 52).
Kikuchi and Tamura are combinable with Nogami because they all are in the same field of endeavor dealing with analysis of defect data and analyzing cracks (defects) in image data.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Kikuchi and Tamura with the teachings of Nogami for the benefit of improving the accuracy of determinations in a technique that determines the attributes of a defect of an object appearing in an image as taught by Nogami at paragraph 6.
Regarding claim 15, Combination of Kikuchi with Tamura and Nogami further teaches wherein the filter unit narrows down on a basis of defect data characteristics (Nogami, defect separating unit may carry out the thinning on the basis of the crack score calculated by the defect determination unit, and the score map expresses scores indicating the crack resemblance for each pixel in the crack region, wherein, by carrying out the thinning so that the thin lines pass through the positions where the score is at a peak, so that pixels having the highest likelihood of indicating a crack are included and to carry out a process for leaving the pixels having the highest score in the direction of the slope, paragraph 58).
Kikuchi and Tamura are combinable with Nogami because they all are in the same field of endeavor dealing with analysis of defect data and analyzing cracks (defects) in image data.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Kikuchi and Tamura with the teachings of Nogami for the benefit of improving the accuracy of determinations in a technique that determines the attributes of a defect of an object appearing in an image as taught by Nogami at paragraph 6.
Regarding claim 25, Combination of Kikuchi with Tamura further teaches wherein the first defect data is defect data generated from an image imaged of an inspection target at a first time and wherein the second defect data is defect data generated from an image imaged of the inspection target at a second time after the first time (Tamura, extracts an image edge based on the first actual image data on the surface to be measured, and extracts an image edge based on the second actual image data after a predetermined time on the same surface to be measured, paragraph 7).
Kikuchi and Tamura are combinable because they both are in the same field of endeavor dealing with analysis of defect data and depicting changes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Kikuchi with the teachings of Tamura for the benefit of developing an effective method for extracting various kinds of information from the developed image by removing and only emphasizing the progressing portion of the deformed portion such as a crack as taught by Tamura at paragraphs 5-6.
Regarding claim 26, Combination of Kikuchi with Tamura further teaches wherein the defect data is data relating to a crack (Tamura, obtained difference is output as an advanced deformation point, it does not appear in the first image, but only the abnormal point such as a crack newly generated in the second image is processed, paragraph 9, such as convention crack 58, new crack 79 shown in fig. 2B, paragraphs 33, 35).
Kikuchi and Tamura are combinable because they both are in the same field of endeavor dealing with analysis of defect data and depicting changes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Kikuchi with the teachings of Tamura for the benefit of developing an effective method for extracting various kinds of information from the developed image by removing and only emphasizing the progressing portion of the deformed portion such as a crack as taught by Tamura at paragraphs 5-6.
Regarding claim 29, Kikuchi further discloses an information processing system (apparatus 100 with camera 102 as shown in fig. 2) including an input device (camera 102, paragraph 29) and an information processing apparatus (damage map creation apparatus 100, paragraph 29), wherein the input device comprises an input unit configured to input first defect data and second defect data generated on a basis of images imaged of an identical target (bridge 1 is photographed using the camera 102 (image acquiring unit), and the photographed image is input to the image input unit 104 (image input unit) by wireless communication, paragraph 29, wherein, “plurality of images of the bridge 1 are input in accordance with the examination range, and information on shooting date and time is added to the input image by the camera 102”, paragraph 31), Rest of the claim recites similar features as claim 1, thus is rejected on the same rationale.
Regarding claim 30, recites similar features, as claim 1, except claim 30 is a method claim. Thus, arguments made for claim 1 are applicable for claim 30.
Regarding claim 32, which recites a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium version of claim 1, see rationale as applied above. Note that non-transitory computer-readable storage medium is taught by Nogami in paragraph 10.
Claims 16-23, 27-28, 31 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kikuchi et al., JP 2018-185146 in view of Tamura et al., JP 2007-026255.
Regarding claim 16, Kikuchi discloses an information processing apparatus (damage map creation apparatus 100, paragraph 29) comprising:
a device including at least one processor and/or at least one circuit, the device being configured to function as a plurality of units comprising (apparatus 100 includes circuitry to function as, paragraph 29):
(1) an acquisition unit (“bridge 1 is photographed using the camera 102 (image acquiring unit)”, paragraph 29) configured to acquire first defect data and second defect data generated on a basis of images imaged of an identical target (“plurality of images of the bridge 1 are input in accordance with the examination range, and information on shooting date and time is added to the input image by the camera 102”, paragraph 31);
(2) a calculation unit (damaged chart creating unit 112, paragraph 29) configured to (a) use either the first defect data or the second defect data as reference data and use the other as comparison data (comparison step of comparing the extracted damage with the damage already recorded, paragraph 21),
and (b) a (i) common portion between the first defect data and the second defect data (past cracks in the layer are indicated by dotted lines representing common portion, paragraphs 55-56) and (ii) a different portion that exists in either the first defect data or the second defect data (on the other hand, newly extracted cracks or the differences of newly extracted cracks, where cracking has progressed in the layer are indicated by solid lines representing different portion, paragraphs 55-56);
and wherein the control unit (apparatus 100, paragraph 29) controls in accordance with the first defect data being the reference data, to display on a display unit (display unit 116, paragraph 29) defect data of the common portion and defect data of the different portion of the first defect data (fig.14 shows display of the damage figure, wherein, the layers LA1 and LA2 are superimposed, and the cracks C1 to C4 extracted in the past are indicated by solid lines, and the differences Δ1 to Δ4 (newly extracted cracks where cracking has progressed) is indicated by a solid line (a mode different from the past cracks), paragraphs 55-56), and in accordance with the second defect data being the reference data, to display on the display unit (display unit 116, paragraph 29), defect data of the common portion and defect data of the different portion of the second defect data (since the comparison is relative and not absolute, the layers LA1 and LA2 are overlapped and displayed in a slightly shifted manner, further, the cracks (past cracks) in the layer LA1 are indicated by dotted lines and the cracks (newly extracted cracks) in the layer LA2 are indicated by solid lines it's shown. In FIG. 13, the layers LA1 and LA2 are superimposed, the cracks C2-1 to C2-4 in the layer LA2 are thickened, and the color is changed with the cracks C1-1 to C1-4 in the layer LA1 and displayed, paragraph 55).
Kikuchi fails to explicitly disclose to obtain, a common portion that is common between first defect data and second defect data and a different portion that exists in either the first defect data or the second defect data.
However, Tamura teaches acquiring first defect data and second defect data generated on a basis of images imaged of an identical target (first edge and second edge images are extracted from first and second image data from the same surface to be measured, paragraph 7); obtain (obtaining a difference between the specific pixel in the second edge image and the pixel in the first edge image corresponding to the specific pixel, paragraph 9), on a basis of the first defect data (first edge image, paragraph 9) and the second defect data (second edge image, paragraph 9), a common portion (conventional crack 58, fig. 2a) that is common between the first defect data and the second defect data (conventional crack 58 that is common between first edge image and second edge image, paragraphs 25, 33) and a different portion (new crack 76, fig. 2d) that exists in either the first defect data or the second defect data (new crack 76 shown in second edge image as different portion between first edge image and second edge image, paragraphs 33, 28).
Kikuchi and Tamura are combinable because they both are in the same field of endeavor dealing with analysis of defect data and depicting changes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Kikuchi with the teachings of Tamura for the benefit of developing an effective method for extracting various kinds of information from the developed image by removing and only emphasizing the progressing portion of the deformed portion such as a crack as taught by Tamura at paragraphs 5-6.
Regarding claim 17, Combination of Kikuchi with Tamura further teaches wherein the plurality of units further comprises a selection unit configured to select whether to display the first defect data or the second defect data as the reference data (mode of display can be selected by an operation unit (not shown) of the damage diagram making apparatus 100, paragraph 51), wherein the control unit controls (1) in accordance with the first defect data being selected as the reference data, to display on a display unit, defect data of the common portion and defect data of the different portion of the first defect data and defect data of the different portion of the second defect data (comparison result of the extracted damage with the past damage analysis is displayed as the created damage diagram, paragraph 51, wherein, the extracted damage and past damage in different modes can be displayed as described in paragraphs 54-56 such that fig.14 shows display of the damage figure, wherein, the layers LA1 and LA2 are superimposed, and the cracks C1 to C4 extracted in the past are indicated by solid lines, and the differences Δ1 to Δ4 (newly extracted cracks where cracking has progressed) is indicated by a solid line - a mode different from the past cracks), and (2) in accordance with the second defect data being selected as the reference data, to display on a display unit, defect data of the common portion and defect data of the different portion of the second defect data and defect data of the different portion of the first defect data (comparison result of the extracted damage with the past damage analysis is displayed as the created damage diagram, paragraph 51, wherein, the extracted damage and past damage in different modes can be displayed as described in paragraphs 54-55 such that layers LA1 and LA2 are overlapped and displayed in a slightly shifted manner, further, the cracks (past cracks) in the layer LA1 are indicated by dotted lines and the cracks (newly extracted cracks) in the layer LA2 are indicated by solid lines. In FIG. 13, the layers LA1 and LA2 are superimposed, the cracks C2-1 to C2-4 in the layer LA2 are thickened, and the color is changed with the cracks C1-1 to C1-4 in the layer LA1 and displayed, paragraph 55).
Regarding claim 18, Combination of Kikuchi with Tamura further teaches wherein the control unit controls to identifiably display on a display unit (display unit 116, paragraph 29), defect data of the common portion and defect data of the different portion (the color is changed with the cracks in the layer and displayed, paragraph 55).
Regarding claim 19, Combination of Kikuchi with Tamura further teaches wherein the control unit controls to identifiably display on a display unit (display unit 116, paragraph 29), a portion of defect data of the common portion with a changed defect width (layers are superimposed, the cracks C2-1 to C2-4 in the layer are thickened, and the color is changed with the cracks in the layer and displayed, paragraph 55).
Regarding claim 20, Combination of Kikuchi with Tamura further teaches wherein in accordance with defect data of the different portion of the comparison data with the reference data being discontinuous with the reference data, the control unit controls to display on the display unit, defect data of the different portion and the reference data connected as one piece of defect data (to superimpose and display a plurality of kinds of damage instead of displaying only cracks and other types of damage. For the extracted damage, a diagram showing the structure of the bridge 1 created from data such as CAD may be superimposed, paragraph 57).
Regarding claim 21, Combination of Kikuchi with Tamura further teaches wherein the control unit controls to combine and display on the display unit (display unit 116, paragraph 29), common portions of the reference data (layer on the front surface. In the past layer, cracks are extracted, and in the newly extracted layer, the crack progresses to become C2-1 to C2-4, paragraph 54) and different portions of the comparison data (layers LA1 and LA2 are superimposed, and the cracks C1 to C4 extracted in the past are indicated by solid lines, and the differences Δ1 to Δ4 (newly extracted cracks where cracking has progressed) is indicated by a solid line - a mode different from the past cracks, paragraph 56).
Regarding claim 22, Combination of Kikuchi with Tamura further teaches wherein the control unit controls to overlap and display on the display unit (display unit 116, paragraph 29), common portions of the comparison data on common portions and different portions of the reference data (layers LA1 and LA2 are overlapped and displayed in a slightly shifted manner, further, the cracks (past cracks) in the layer LA1 are indicated by dotted lines and the cracks (newly extracted cracks) in the layer LA2 are indicated by solid lines, paragraph 55).
Regarding claim 23, Combination of Kikuchi with Tamura further teaches wherein the plurality of units further comprises a generation unit configured to (1) use either the first defect data or the second defect data as reference data and the other as comparison data (Kikuchi, image combining step of generating a composite image of a plurality of images with the coordinate system as a reference and a comparison step of comparing the extracted damage with the damage already recorded, paragraph 21), (2) set an expanded region based on the comparison data, and (3) generate state change data in which (a) defect data of a portion of the reference data enclosed by the expanded region is used as the common portion and (b) other defect data of the reference data is used as the different portion (Tamura, expanded region being represented by an ellipse as shown in fig. 4 and furthermore, figs. 2 and 4 show that based on expanded region, comparison between crack data 58 and 76 is performed where coordinates of intersection between the two is shown as position data as pixel P).
Kikuchi and Tamura are combinable because they both are in the same field of endeavor dealing with analysis of defect data and depicting changes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Kikuchi with the teachings of Tamura for the benefit of developing an effective method for extracting various kinds of information from the developed image by removing and only emphasizing the progressing portion of the deformed portion such as a crack as taught by Tamura at paragraphs 5-6.
Regarding claim 27, Combination of Kikuchi with Tamura further teaches wherein the first defect data is defect data generated from an image imaged of an inspection target at a first time; and wherein the second defect data is defect data generated from an image imaged of the inspection target at a second time after the first time (Tamura, extracts an image edge based on the first actual image data on the surface to be measured, and extracts an image edge based on the second actual image data after a predetermined time on the same surface to be measured, paragraph 7).
Kikuchi and Tamura are combinable because they both are in the same field of endeavor dealing with analysis of defect data and depicting changes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Kikuchi with the teachings of Tamura for the benefit of developing an effective method for extracting various kinds of information from the developed image by removing and only emphasizing the progressing portion of the deformed portion such as a crack as taught by Tamura at paragraphs 5-6.
Regarding claim 28, Combination of Kikuchi with Tamura further teaches wherein the defect data is data relating to a crack (Tamura, obtained difference is output as an advanced deformation point, it does not appear in the first image, but only the abnormal point such as a crack newly generated in the second image is processed, paragraph 9, such as convention crack 58, new crack 79 shown in fig. 2B, paragraphs 33, 35).
Kikuchi and Tamura are combinable because they both are in the same field of endeavor dealing with analysis of defect data and depicting changes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Kikuchi with the teachings of Tamura for the benefit of developing an effective method for extracting various kinds of information from the developed image by removing and only emphasizing the progressing portion of the deformed portion such as a crack as taught by Tamura at paragraphs 5-6.
Regarding claim 31, recites similar features, as claim 16, except claim 31 is a method claim. Thus, arguments made for claim 16 are applicable for claim 31.
Regarding claim 33, which recites a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium version of claim 16, see rationale as applied above. Note that non-transitory computer-readable storage medium is taught by Nogami in paragraph 10.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kikuchi et al., JP 2018-185146 in view of Tamura et al., JP 2007-026255 further in view of Nogami et al., US 2020/0118263 as applied in claim 1 above and further in view of Kuwabara, US 2020/0103353.
Regarding claim 6, Combination of Kikuchi with Tamura further teaches the generation unit (Tamura, “extracting the progress status” paragraph 7) generates as the state change data defect data of the common portion, defect data of the different portion (Tamura, changes in defect crack areas 58 and 76 using position data as shown in fig. 4b) and changes between the common portion of the reference data and the comparison data (Tamura, expanded region being represented by an ellipse as shown in fig. 4 and furthermore, figs. 2 and 4 show that based on expanded region, comparison between crack data 58 and 76 is performed where coordinates of intersection between the two is shown as position data as pixel P).
Kikuchi and Tamura are combinable because they both are in the same field of endeavor dealing with analysis of defect data and depicting changes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Kikuchi with the teachings of Tamura for the benefit of developing an effective method for extracting various kinds of information from the developed image by removing and only emphasizing the progressing portion of the deformed portion such as a crack as taught by Tamura at paragraphs 5-6.
Combination of Kikuchi with Tamura and Nogami fails to further teach corresponding relationship data indicating a corresponding relationship between first lines of reference data and second lines of comparison data as state change data.
However, Kuwabara teaches corresponding relationship data indicating a corresponding relationship between first lines of reference data and second lines of comparison data as state change data (assignment unit assigns the display state change order to each of the plurality of lines, and outputs the resulting display state change order to the display control unit, wherein, the display state change order assigned to each of the plurality of lines is managed by using a table, paragraph 42).
Kikuchi, Tamura and Nogami are combinable with Kuwabara because they all are in the same field of endeavor dealing with analysis of imaging defect data such as cracks.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Kikuchi, Tamura and Nogami with the teachings of Kuwabara for the benefit of the making the operation for checking errors in the line connection more efficient as taught by Kuwabara at paragraphs 3-4.
Regarding claim 7, Combination of Kikuchi with Tamura, Nogami and Kuwabara further teaches wherein the acquisition unit reads out the first defect data from a first defect data table in which the first defect data is registered (Kuwabara, acquisition unit 114 acquires information stored in the line information storage unit 115 and the background image storage unit 116, and supplies the information to the assignment unit 112 and the display control unit 113. The line information storage unit 115 stores information about the plurality of lines defined to express the defect occurring in the structure in a table, as shown and depicted in figs. 2A, paragraphs 32-35 and note that plurality of lines 301 to 307 is displayed on the background image 309 in a superimposed manner based on the information stored in the line information table of FIG. 2A, paragraph 88) and reads out the second defect data from a second defect data table in which the second defect data is registered (Kuwabara, the assignment unit 112 identifies a connection relationship between the lines and generates a connecting line table illustrated in FIG. 11B by using the line information table illustrated in FIG. 2B, paragraph 100), and wherein the generation unit (1) generates a defect data table of the common portion where defect data of the common portion is to be registered and a defect data table of the different portion where defect data of the different portion is to be registered, (2) registers the position data in a defect data table of the common portion and a defect data table of the different portion, and (3) generates a corresponding relationship data table where the corresponding relationship data is to be registered (Kuwabara, assignment unit assigns the display state change order to each of the plurality of lines, and outputs the resulting display state change order to the display control unit, wherein, the display state change order assigned to each of the plurality of lines is managed by using a table, figs. 5A to 5D are diagrams illustrating examples of an order table for managing the display state change order. Records 501 to 507 in the order tables of figs. 5A to 5D correspond to the records 201 to 207 of the line information table in FIG. 2A, respectively. For the information about the order (column 509), numerical values indicating the display state change order assigned to the lines of the respective records are stored. By using the connecting point table and the order table, the assignment unit 112 assigns an order, to each of a plurality of lines constituting a connecting point, to change a timing at which the display state is changed based on an instruction to change the display state).
Kikuchi, Tamura and Nogami are combinable with Kuwabara because they all are in the same field of endeavor dealing with analysis of imaging defect data such as cracks.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Kikuchi, Tamura and Nogami with the teachings of Kuwabara for the benefit of the making the operation for checking errors in the line connection more efficient as taught by Kuwabara at paragraphs 3-4.
Regarding claim 8, Combination of Kikuchi with Tamura, Nogami and Kuwabara further teaches wherein the corresponding relationship data includes information indicating width of defect data of the common portion (Kuwabara, detection result of cracks includes not only the positions and shapes of the cracks but also various types of additional information, such as width and degrees of extension at respective observation points, paragraph 25, wherein, information, such as a crack width, may be expressed in color in an initial state before the acceptance of an instruction to change the display state, paragraph 73).
Kikuchi, Tamura and Nogami are combinable with Kuwabara because they all are in the same field of endeavor dealing with analysis of imaging defect data such as cracks.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Kikuchi, Tamura and Nogami with the teachings of Kuwabara for the benefit of the making the operation for checking errors in the line connection more efficient as taught by Kuwabara at paragraphs 3-4.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kikuchi et al., JP 2018-185146 in view of Tamura et al., JP 2007-026255 as applied in claims 16 above and further in view of Kuwabara, US 2020/0103353.
Regarding claim 24, Combination of Kikuchi with Tamura further teaches wherein the generation unit (Tamura, “extracting the progress status” paragraph 7) generates as the state change data (1) defect data of the common portion, (2) defect data of the different portion (Tamura, changes in defect crack areas 58 and 76 using position data as shown in fig. 4b), and changes between the common portion of the reference data and the comparison data (Tamura, expanded region being represented by an ellipse as shown in fig. 4 and furthermore, figs. 2 and 4 show that based on expanded region, comparison between crack data 58 and 76 is performed where coordinates of intersection between the two is shown as position data as pixel P).
Kikuchi and Tamura are combinable because they both are in the same field of endeavor dealing with analysis of defect data and depicting changes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Kikuchi with the teachings of Tamura for the benefit of developing an effective method for extracting various kinds of information from the developed image by removing and only emphasizing the progressing portion of the deformed portion such as a crack as taught by Tamura at paragraphs 5-6.
Combination of Kikuchi with Tamura fail to further teach (3) corresponding relationship data indicating a corresponding relationship between first lines of reference data and second lines of comparison data as state change data.
However, Kuwabara teaches (3) corresponding relationship data indicating a corresponding relationship between first lines of reference data and second lines of comparison data as state change data (assignment unit assigns the display state change order to each of the plurality of lines, and outputs the resulting display state change order to the display control unit, wherein, the display state change order assigned to each of the plurality of lines is managed by using a table, paragraph 42).
Kikuchi, Tamura are combinable with Kuwabara because they all are in the same field of endeavor dealing with analysis of imaging defect data such as cracks.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Kikuchi, Tamura and Nogami with the teachings of Kuwabara for the benefit of the making the operation for checking errors in the line connection more efficient as taught by Kuwabara at paragraphs 3-4.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mitsumoto, US 2020/0134840
Nakagomi, US 2019/0333221
Mitsumoto et al., US 2017/0039453
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 PAWANDEEP DHINGRA whose telephone number is (571) 270-1231. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:00.
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, Abderrahim Merouan can be reached at (571) 270-5254. 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.
/PAWAN DHINGRA/Examiner, Art Unit 2683
/ABDERRAHIM MEROUAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2683
Prosecution Insights