Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Applicants Remarks/Arguments
In regards to the applicants remarks that the amendments are supported by the specifications [0032]-[0039], [0044], [0045], and [0053], the examiner respectfully disagrees. As best as the examiner could determine, the specifications do not contain the claim 1 and 7 amended language as further detailed in the 112a rejection below.
Examiner is persuaded by applicants argument that Banno and Namiki do not disclose, teach or suggest the concept of “cut off, from each of the images, a partial image to be used for learning, and to create small-size learning data containing the partial images and the label without a remaining portion of the cut image; and store the small-size learning data in association with the image processing program,…wherein the processor deletes the learning data after creating the small-size learning data, when performing machine learning on the small-size learning data…wherein the image processing program uses a model pattern to detect the images of the object to determine whether the images of the object are detected correctly.”
Claims 1 and 3-9 would be allowable if a showing is made overcome the rejection under 112a.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 7 and dependents thereof are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically claim language “to create small- size learning data containing the partial images and the label without a remaining portion of the cut image;” is not stated in the specifications as best the examiner could determine nor in the paragraphs which are stated in the Applicant Arguments/Remarks document. Applicant identifies certain paragraphs in the response at p. 5. However, these paragraphs appear to discard images with no label. Taking [0044] as an example, the specification appears to discard images with no label rather than creating a smaller image that has a label and then discarding something. In order for the smaller image to have “the label” it must have come from a “label assigned to the image” earlier in the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 3-9 would be allowable if the response shows possession of the claimd subject matter to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) set forth in this Office action.
The following is an examiner’s statement for reasons for allowance. The claimed features “cut off, from each of the images, a partial image to be used for learning, and to create small-size learning data containing the partial images and the label without a remaining portion of the cut image; and store the small-size learning data in association with the image processing program,…wherein the processor deletes the learning data after creating the small-size learning data, when performing machine learning on the small-size learning data…wherein the image processing program uses a model pattern to detect the images of the object to determine whether the images of the object are detected correctly.” in combination with the remaining limitations of the claims, are neither anticipated nor obvious in view of the prior art of record.
Banno et al US20210166374 discloses training a deep learning model with a labeled image segment for patten detection to inspect an object but does not render obvious the claimed combination as a whole
Namiki et al US20180260628 discloses cutting out a partial image for use in training a detection algorithm to detect a defective object but does not render obvious the claimed combination as a whole
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Namiki et al US20190012579 teaches cutting out only the portion needed for training as shown in figure 9.
Bagherinezhad et al US20190325269 teaches cropping images to generate sets of labeled training data
Kawka et al US20180357756 teaches cropping images after labeling them to generate sets of labeled training data for inspection defect detection
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 OWAIS MEMON whose telephone number is (571)272-2168. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (7:00am - 4:00pm) CST.
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, Gregory Morse can be reached on (571) 272-3838. 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.
/OWAIS IQBAL MEMON/Examiner, Art Unit 2663
/GREGORY A MORSE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2698
Prosecution Insights