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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/12/2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s Amendments filed on 07/07/2025 has been entered and made of record.
Currently pending Claim(s)
1, 3–5, 7–21
Independent Claim(s)
1, 5
Amended Claim(s)
1, 3, 5, 7, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18
Response to Arguments
This office action is responsive to Applicant’s Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment received on November 12, 2025.
In view of the claim amendments and applicant arguments [Remarks] filed on November 12, 2025, the claim objections to claims 17 and 18 are withdrawn.
In view of the new claim amendments and applicant arguments [Remarks] filed on July 7, 2025 with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(b) claim rejections have been carefully considered and the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for claims 1, 3,5, 7, 10–13, and 16 are withdrawn.
In view of Applicant’s amendments [Remarks] filed on November 12, 2025 with respect to U.S.C. 112(f) claim interpretation have been carefully considered. However, Applicant has not clarified why the claimed limitations do not invoke 112(f). According to MPEP 2181, 35 USC 112(f) is applicable to claim limitation if it meets the 3-prong analysis set forth in the previous Office Action. Applicant did not specifically point out why any of these prongs have not been met, and as such, the claims continue to be treated under 112(f) by, e.g., modifying the “means” or generic placeholder with specific structure, with careful consideration that no new matter is introduced.
Applicant’s Arguments/Remarks with respect to independent claims 1 and 5, on the bottom of page 11-13, have been considered but are moot because the arguments are rejected by newly cited art Nishina et al. (‘US 2020/0064549 A1’) as explained in the body of the rejection below.
Further, on the bottom of page 11, the applicant argues, in summary, the applied prior art of Kazama (JP 2006/058474 A) does not teach or suggest the following limitations described in amended independent claims 1 and 5:
“[...] a process of determining a state of the end face based on a threshold for the feature value that is set in advance” in claim 1 and “[...] determine a state of the end face based on a threshold for the feature value that is set in advance” in claim 5.
However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s line of reasoning. The Examiner has thoroughly reviewed the Applicant’s arguments but respectfully believes that the cited reference to reasonably and properly meet the claimed limitations.
Regarding the limitations “[...] a process of determining a state of the end face based on a threshold for the feature value that is set in advance” in claim 1 and “[...] determine a state of the end face based on a threshold for the feature value that is set in advance” in claim 5 with a broad interpretation, the Examiner understands Kazama teaches determining the state of the end face based on a threshold for the feature value that is set in advance by determining if the cut portion of the end face is good or bad by comparing the cut angle to a predetermined threshold [¶0066, 0071]. In addition, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the cut angle can be the feature value and the predetermined threshold can be the threshold for the feature value that is set in advance.
Furthermore, the remaining dependent claims 3–4 and 21 of independent claim 1 and 7–20 of independent claim 5 are rejected with 103 rejections based on the new 103 rejections from the independent claims.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
“image acquisition unit that images the end face” in claim 5;
“brightness waveform output unit that calculates brightness of an image“ in claims 5, 7–9 and 17–19;
“an end face state determination unit that extracts a feature value ... and determines a state of the end face” in claims 5, 10, and 11;
“deterioration estimation unit that estimates whether or not the blade is deteriorated” in claims 5 and 10–20.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Claim 5: “image acquisition unit that images the end face” corresponds to Fig.
4 – element 21b. The image storage unit 23 stores the image of the end face F1 of the optical fiber F acquired by the image acquisition unit 21b, Applicant Pub ¶[0036];
Claims 5, 7–9 and 17–19: “brightness waveform output unit that calculates
brightness of an image“ corresponds to Fig. 4 – element 21c. The brightness waveform output unit 21c outputs a brightness waveform of the image, Applicant Pub ¶[0032];
Claims 5, 10, and 11: “an end face state determination unit that extracts a
feature value ... and determines a state of the end face” corresponds to Fig. 4 – element 21. The end face state determination unit 21 has an image acquisition unit 21 b that acquires the side surface observation image of the end face of the optical fiber imaged by the camera 19 and a brightness waveform output unit 21 c that outputs the brightness waveform of the image of the end face of the optical fiber acquired by the image acquisition unit 21b, Applicant Pub [¶0030].
Claims 5 and 10–20: “deterioration estimation unit that estimates whether or
not the blade is deteriorated” corresponds to Fig. 4 – element 22. The deterioration estimation unit 22 may estimate from the brightness waveform output by the brightness waveform output unit 21c whether or not the blade 9A is deteriorated, Applicant Pub ¶[0035].
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 3–5, 7–16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazama et al. (JP 2006/058474 A) (hereafter, “Kazama”) in view of Nishina et al. (US 2020/0064549 A1) (hereafter, “Nishina”)
Regarding claim 1, Kazama discloses a deterioration estimation method being a deterioration estimation method for estimating deterioration of a blade of an optical fiber cutter that cuts an optical fiber [according to the present invention the deterioration state of the blade is confirmed based on the condition of the end of the optical fiber and/or fusion splicing condition, para 0043], comprising: a process of imaging an end face cut by the blade [Figure 3a-3b; the imaging unit 14 includes an X-axis camera ... that images, from the X-axis direction, the connection points of the optical fibers B1 and B2 placed on the mounting table where fusion splicing is performed, and a Y-axis camera 14b that images, from the Y-axis direction ... the cut portions of the optical fibers B1 and B2 are imaged using the imaging unit 14, para 0046, 0065]; a process of determining a state of the end face based on a threshold for the feature value that is set in advance [the captured images are analyzed to calculate the inclination angle θ of each cut portion with respect to the longitudinal direction of the optical fiber ... when the cut angle θ exceeds a preset threshold value θ1, the cut portion becomes defective ... it is determined whether the cutting angle θ exceeds the threshold θ1 (i.e., whether the cut portion is good or bad), and if the cutting angle θ exceeds the threshold value θ1, i.e., if the cut portion is bad, para 0065, 0066, 0071]; a process of outputting the determined state of the end face [a re-cutting instruction for the optical fiber (the optical fiber whose cutting angle θ exceeds the threshold value θ1) is displayed on the monitor 15, para 0074]; and a process of estimating whether or not the blade is deteriorated based on the state of the end face [the fusion splicer 100 provided in the optical fiber cutting and connecting system 1 not only determines whether the number of cuts exceeds a predetermined threshold, but also determines whether the shape of the cut portion is defective (i.e., whether the cut angle exceeds a predetermined threshold θ1), and as a result, if the number of cuts exceeds the threshold N and the cut angle θ exceeds the threshold θ1, a request for blade adjustment and/or replacement is notified to the cutting device, para 0076].
Kazama fails to explicitly disclose a process of calculating brightness of an image of the imaged end face; a process of extracting a feature value at a predetermined characteristic portion from a brightness waveform of the calculated brightness.
However, Nishina teaches a process of calculating brightness of an image of the imaged end face [the brightness profile extracting unit 15 extracts the brightness profile data of the pair of optical fibers, para 0081]; a process of extracting a feature value at a predetermined characteristic portion from a brightness waveform of the calculated brightness [the features extracting unit 16 extracts the features of the brightness profile data of the pair of optical fibers ... the features extracting unit 16 reduces the number of dimensions N of the brightness profile data of the pair of optical fibers acquired from the brightness profile extracting unit 15 to be the number of dimensions n (n<N) by principal component analysis and the like, for example, thereby extracting the features of the brightness profile data, para 0083].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kazama’s reference and incorporate the teachings of Nishina with brightness analysis of the end face to perform fusion splices with high finished quality, as recognized by Nishina [¶0005].
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above with known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Nishina with Kazama to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, which claim 1 is incorporated, Kazama discloses wherein, in the process of estimating, it is estimated based on a result obtained by accumulating a determination result for the end face [after step S1, it is determined whether the cutting angle θ exceeds the threshold value θ1 (i.e., whether the cut portion is good or bad), para 0067] and analyzing a plurality of determination results for one blade in time series whether or not the blade is deteriorated [if the cutting angle θ of at least one of the optical fibers B1 and B2 exceeds the threshold value θ1, the process proceeds to step S4 ... In step S4, if the number of cuts (counter value) exceeds the specified number N (step S4; Yes), an alert is sent to the cutting device 200 (step S5) ... if the number of cuts exceeds the threshold N and the cut angle θ exceeds the threshold θ1, a request for blade adjustment and/or replacement is notified to the cutting device 200, para 0071, 0074, 0076].
Regarding claim 4, which claim 3 is incorporated, Kazama discloses wherein, in the process of estimating, it is estimated from a moving average of the plurality of determination results whether or not the blade is deteriorated [the cut angle θ, the virtual line of first approximation, the average cut angle θave, etc. are observed in either or both of the X-axis and Y-axis directions ... the determination may be made based on the average of the X-axis and Y-axis directions, para 0070].
Regarding claim 5, Kazama discloses a deterioration estimation system being a deterioration estimation system that estimates deterioration of a blade of an optical fiber cutter that cuts an optical fiber [according to the present invention, the deterioration state of the blade is confirmed based on the condition of the end of the optical fiber ... and the optical fiber cutting device body and the blade are adjusted and/or replaced, para 0043], comprising: an image acquisition unit that images an end face cut by the blade [Figure 3a-3b; the imaging unit 14 includes an X-axis camera ... that images, from the X-axis direction, the connection points of the optical fibers B1 and B2 placed on the mounting table where fusion splicing is performed, and a Y-axis camera 14b that images, from the Y-axis direction, para 0046]; [an end face state determination unit that extracts a feature value at a predetermined characteristic portion from the brightness waveform of the calculated brightness], and determines a state of the end face based on a threshold for the feature value that is set in advance [the captured images are analyzed to calculate the inclination angle θ of each cut portion with respect to the longitudinal direction of the optical fiber ... when the cut angle θ exceeds a preset threshold value θ1, the cut portion becomes defective ... it is determined whether the cutting angle θ exceeds the threshold θ1 (i.e., whether the cut portion is good or bad), and if the cutting angle θ exceeds the threshold value θ1, i.e., if the cut portion is bad, para 0065, 0066, 0071]; and a deterioration estimation unit that estimates whether or not the blade is deteriorated based on the determined state of the end face [the fusion splicer 100 provided in the optical fiber cutting and connecting system 1 not only determines whether the number of cuts exceeds a predetermined threshold, but also determines whether the shape of the cut portion is defective (i.e., whether the cut angle exceeds a predetermined threshold θ1), and as a result, if the number of cuts exceeds the threshold N and the cut angle θ exceeds the threshold θ1, a request for blade adjustment and/or replacement is notified to the cutting device, para 0076].
Kazama fails to explicitly disclose a brightness waveform output unit that calculates brightness of an image of the imaged end face and outputs a brightness waveform of the calculated brightness; an end face state determination unit that extracts a feature value at a predetermined characteristic portion from the brightness waveform of the calculated brightness, [and determines a state of the end face based on a threshold for the feature value that is set in advance].
However, Nishina teaches a brightness waveform output unit that calculates brightness of an image of the imaged end face and outputs a brightness waveform of the calculated brightness [the brightness profile extracting unit 15 extracts the brightness profile data of the pair of optical fibers ... the imaging unit 14 acquires the image data of the pair of optical fibers, para 0081, 0080]; an end face state determination unit that extracts a feature value at a predetermined characteristic portion from the brightness waveform of the calculated brightness, [and determines a state of the end face based on a threshold for the feature value that is set in advance] [the features extracting unit 16 extracts the features of the brightness profile data of the pair of optical fibers ... the features extracting unit 16 reduces the number of dimensions N of the brightness profile data of the pair of optical fibers acquired from the brightness profile extracting unit 15 to be the number of dimensions n (n<N) by principal component analysis and the like, for example, thereby extracting the features of the brightness profile data, para 0083].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kazama’s reference and incorporate the teachings of Nishina with brightness analysis of the end face to perform fusion splices with high finished quality, as recognized by Nishina [¶0005].
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above with known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Nishina with Kazama to obtain the invention as specified in claim 5.
Regarding claim 7, which claim 5 is incorporated, Kazama fails to explicitly disclose wherein the brightness waveform output unit outputs a brightness waveform of the image from a side surface observation image of a pair of optical fibers.
However, Nishina discloses wherein the brightness waveform output unit outputs a brightness waveform [Figure 6; the brightness profile extracting unit 15 extracts the brightness profile data of the pair of optical fibers, para 0081] of the image from the side surface observation image of a pair of optical fibers [the brightness profile extracting unit 15 acquires, from the imaging unit 14, the image data that is imaged from the radial direction of the pair of optical fibers ... the side view image data 6 is image data including brightness profile in the radial direction of the optical fiber, para 0081, 0066].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kazama’s reference and incorporate the teachings of Nishina that outputs a brightness waveform from a side image of the optical fibers due to the refractive-index difference between the core portion and cladding portion of the optical fiber, as recognized by Nishina [¶0039].
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above with known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Nishina with Kazama to obtain the invention as specified in claim 7.
Regarding claim 8, which claim 5 is incorporated, Kazama fails to explicitly disclose wherein the brightness waveform output unit calculates a relationship between an x axis extending in a direction intersecting the optical fiber and brightness.
However, Nishina discloses wherein the brightness waveform output unit calculates a relationship between an x axis extending in a direction intersecting the optical fiber and brightness [Figure 6; the brightness profile extracting unit 15 extracts the brightness profile data indicating brightness profile in the radial direction of the pair of optical fibers based on the image data acquired from the imaging unit 14, para 0081].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kazama’s reference and incorporate the teachings of Nishina due to the refractive index profile in the radial direction, as recognized by Nishina [¶0028].
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above with known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Nishina with Kazama to obtain the invention as specified in claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, which claim 5 is incorporated, Kazama fails to explicitly disclose wherein the brightness waveform output unit calculates a relationship between an axis extending in a longitudinal direction of the optical fiber and the brightness.
However, Nishina teaches wherein the brightness waveform output unit calculates a relationship between an axis extending in a longitudinal direction of the optical fiber and the brightness [the brightness profile extracting unit 15 extracts partial image data 7 including brightness profile in the radial direction at an axial direction predetermined position of the optical fiber from a predetermined position in the side view image data 6 of the optical fiber, para 0067].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kazama’s reference and incorporate the teachings of Nishina to show the brightness of various rotation angles of the optical fiber, as recognized by Nishina [¶0066].
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above with known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Nishina with Kazama to obtain the invention as specified in claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, which claim 5 is incorporated, Kazama discloses a server that includes an end face state determination unit and the deterioration estimation unit [the fusion splicer control unit 10 includes a CPU (Central Processing Unit), a ROM (Read Only Memory), and a RAM (Random Access Memory) ... and executes various programs stored in the ROM to comprehensively control each part of the fusion splicer and perform fusion splicing processing on the optical fibers B1 and B2, para 0049].
Regarding claim 11, which claim 5 is incorporated, Kazama discloses a fusion splicing device that includes an end face state determination unit and the deterioration estimation unit [the fusion splicer 100 ... determines whether the number of cuts exceeds a predetermined threshold, but also determines whether the shape of the cut portion is defective ... if the number of cuts exceeds the threshold N and the cut angle θ exceeds the threshold θ1, a request for blade adjustment and/or replacement is notified, para 0076].
Regarding claim 12, which claim 5 is incorporated, Kazama discloses wherein a deterioration estimation unit accumulates a determination result in association with a specific blade of the used optical fiber cutter [the fusion splicer 100 provided in the optical fiber cutting and connecting system 1 not only determines whether the number of cuts exceeds a predetermined threshold, but also determines whether the shape of the cut portion is defective ... and as a result, if the number of cuts exceeds the threshold N and the cut angle θ exceeds the threshold θ1, a request for blade adjustment and/or replacement is notified to the cutting device 200, para 0076].
Regarding claim 13, which claim 5 is incorporated, Kazama discloses wherein the deterioration estimation unit analyzes a date and time of cutting the optical fiber, a date and time of observing the cut optical fiber, or the number of times of cutting the optical fiber [the fusion splicer 100 provided in the optical fiber cutting and connecting system 1 not only determines whether the number of cuts exceeds a predetermined threshold, para 0076], and a determination result for a state of the end face [but also determines whether the shape of the cut portion is defective (i.e., whether the cut angle θ exceeds a predetermined threshold θ1), para 0076].
Regarding claim 14, which claim 5 is incorporated, Kazama discloses wherein the deterioration estimation unit analyzes a rate of good end faces by obtaining a moving average for a specific period or for each specific number of times of cutting [when determining the cutting angle, the cutting position and/or cutting angle can be determined for the end of a single optical fiber at any width in the longitudinal direction (optical axis) of the optical fiber, and the average value of these can be used as the new cutting position and/or cutting angle ... the cut angles of a plurality of opposing and/or parallel optical fibers can be averaged to obtain θave, and the quality of the cut portion can be determined based on θave, para 0067, 0069].
Regarding claim 15, which claim 14 is incorporated, Kazama discloses wherein the deterioration estimation unit estimates that the blade is deteriorated when the moving average of an end face goodness rate drops below a certain value [the fusion splicer 100 provided in the optical fiber cutting and connecting system 1 not only determines whether the number of cuts exceeds a predetermined threshold, but also determines whether the shape of the cut portion is defective (i.e., whether the cut angle θ exceeds a predetermined threshold θ1) and as a result, if the number of cuts exceeds the threshold N and the cut angle θ exceeds the threshold θ1, a request for blade adjustment and/or replacement is notified to the cutting device 200., para 0076].
Regarding claim 16, which claim 5 is incorporated, Kazama discloses wherein the deterioration estimation unit estimates the deteriorated state of the blade from a result obtained by accumulating and analyzing a determination result for the end face of the cut optical fiber over time [the fusion splicer control unit 10 may be configured to count the actual number of cut optical fiber cores from the captured image of the cutting portion, and the count value may be notified to the cutting device 200 ... this makes it possible to count the number of cut optical fibers, and to obtain the timing for adjusting and/or replacing the cutting device itself or the blade, para 0079].
Claims 17 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazama (JP 2006/058474 A) in view of Nishina (US 2020/0064549 A1), as applied above, and further in view of Chethan et al. (Chethan, Y. D., et al. "Machine vision for correlating tool status and machined surface in turning nickel-base super alloy." 2015 International Conference on Emerging Research in Electronics, Computer Science and Technology (ICERECT). IEEE, 2015) (hereafter, “Chetan”).
Regarding claim 17, which claim 5 is incorporated, Kazama discloses [wherein the deterioration estimation unit estimates from the brightness waveform output by the brightness waveform output unit] whether or not the blade is deteriorated [based on the notification, the cutting device 200 issues an alert to the operator indicating blade adjustment and/or replacement, para 0076].
However, neither Kazama nor Nishina appears to explicitly disclose wherein the deterioration estimation unit estimates from the brightness waveform output by the brightness waveform output unit [whether or not the blade is deteriorated].
Chethan discloses wherein the deterioration estimation unit estimates from the brightness waveform output by the brightness waveform output unit [whether or not the blade is deteriorated] [Figure 5-7; tool condition was determined by comparing histogram intensity of tool with histogram of work piece texture, from the Fig.5 and 6 it can be seen that histogram profiles are distributed for worn tool and its corresponding surface texture, pg. 51, B. Work piece status visualization and monitoring, right column, first paragraph].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kazama’s reference in view of Nishina and incorporate the teachings of Chethan because the histogram shape changes as the wear state of the tool increases, as recognized by Chethan [Abstract].
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above with known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Chethan with Kazama and Nishina to obtain the invention as specified in claim 17.
Regarding claim 21, which claim 1 is incorporated, neither Kazama nor Nishina appears to disclose the process of estimating includes estimating whether or not the blade is deteriorated from a number of peaks of the outputted brightness waveform.
However, Chethan teaches the process of estimating includes estimating whether or not the blade is deteriorated from a number of peaks of the outputted brightness waveform [Figure 7; the changing shape of the feed marks on the surface with different feed rate is evident in the gradual but consistent change in the histogram shape; i.e. a larger number of higher intensity grey level pixels for the worn tool, pg. 52, B. Work piece status visualization and monitoring, second paragraph].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kazama’s reference in view of Nishina and incorporate the teachings of Chethan to use the peaks from the tool’s texture to determine worn tools, as recognized by Chethan.
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above with known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Chethan with Kazama and Nishina to obtain the invention as specified in claim 21.
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazama (JP 2006/058474 A) in view of Nishina (US 2020/0064549 A1), as applied above, and further in view Onozaki et al. (US 8,903,157 B2) (hereafter, “Onozaki”).
Regarding claim 18, which claim 5 is incorporated, Kazama discloses wherein the deterioration estimation unit estimates the presence or absence of the deterioration of the blade [by comparing the brightness of the end face output by the brightness waveform output unit with a brightness of an end face stored in an image storage unit] [based on the notification, the cutting device 200 issues an alert to the operator indicating blade adjustment and/or replacement, para 0076].
However, neither Kazama nor Nishina appears to explicitly disclose [wherein the deterioration estimation unit estimates the presence or absence of the deterioration of the blade] by comparing the brightness of the end face output by the brightness waveform output unit with a brightness of an end face stored in an image storage unit.
Onozaki discloses [wherein the deterioration estimation unit estimates the presence or absence of the deterioration of the blade] by comparing the brightness of the end face output by the brightness waveform output unit with a brightness of an end face [the created luminance distribution is compared with preliminarily registered data of a reference luminance distribution of a reference optical fiber, Col 4, line 34-36] stored in an image storage unit [the created reference luminance distribution is stored in the database 30, Col 4, line 45-46].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kazama’s reference in view of Nishina and incorporate the teachings of Onozaki with brightness comparison to improve system accuracy, as recognized by Onozaki.
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above with known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Onozaki with Kazama and Nishina to obtain the invention as specified in claim 18.
Regarding claim 19, which claim 18 is incorporated, Kazama discloses the deterioration estimation unit estimates that the blade is not deteriorated [the deterioration state of the blade is confirmed based on the condition of the end of the optical fiber and/or the fusion splicing condition, and the optical fiber cutting device body and the blade are adjusted and/or replaced, para 0043].
However, neither Kazama nor Nishina appears to explicitly disclose wherein when the brightness of the end face output by the brightness waveform output unit matches the brightness of the image of the normal end face stored in the image storage unit.
Onozaki discloses wherein when the brightness of the end face output by the brightness waveform output unit matches the brightness of the image of the normal end face [when the luminance distribution of the optical fiber 2 is within a tolerance of the reference luminance distribution, the optical fiber 2 is determined to be the same type, Col 4, line 37-40] stored in the image storage unit [the created reference luminance distribution is stored in the database 30, Col 4, line 45-46].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kazama’s reference in view of Nishina and incorporate the teachings of Onozaki with brightness comparison to improve system accuracy, as recognized by Onozaki.
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above with known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Osawa with Kazama and Nishina to obtain the invention as specified in claim 19.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazama (JP 2006/058474 A) in view of Nishina (US 2020/0064549 A1), as applied above, and further in view of He et al. (CN 118229608 A) (hereafter, “He”).
Regarding claim 20, which claim 5 is incorporated, Kazama discloses the deterioration estimation unit estimates that the blade is not deteriorated [the deterioration state of the blade is confirmed based on the condition of the end of the optical fiber and/or the fusion splicing condition, and the optical fiber cutting device body and the blade are adjusted and/or replaced, para 0043].
However, neither Kazama nor Nishina appears to explicitly disclose wherein when the deterioration estimation unit determines that the captured image of the end face matches the image of the end face having defects not caused by the deterioration of the blade.
He discloses wherein when the deterioration estimation unit determines that the captured image of the end face matches the image of the end face having the defects not caused by the deterioration of the blade [inputting the end face image of the optical fiber to be detected into a target detection FasterRCNN model, wherein the FasterRCNN model is trained by a negative sample image set of data amplification, and the FasterRCNN model is used for determining defect detection information according to the end face image of the optical fiber to be detected, para 0037].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kazama’s reference in view of Nishina and incorporate the teachings of He to accurate determine the defects of the end face, as recognized by He.
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above with known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine He with Kazama and Nishina to obtain the invention as specified in claim 20.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2020/0056960 A1 to Kise et al. discloses a system and method for extracting brightness profile data based on side view image data of an optical fiber.
WO 2015/146744 A1 to Ishizaki et al. discloses a tool inspection method and device that images a tool, creates a grayscale image, and generates a histogram to display the distribution of brightness values to determine the state of the tool.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TOLUWANI MARY-JANE IJASEUN whose telephone number is (571)270-1877. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30AM-4PM.
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, Henok Shiferaw can be reached on (571) 272-4637. 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.
/TOLUWANI MARY-JANE IJASEUN/Examiner, Art Unit 2676
/Henok Shiferaw/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2676