Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendment filed on February 18, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1 and 16 – 17 have been amended. Claims 2 – 4, 6 – 8 and 13 have been canceled. No claims have been added. Claims 1, 5, 9 – 12 and 14 – 20 are still pending in this application, with claims 1, 16 and 17 being independent.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 18, 2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding rejection under 35 USC § 101
The Applicant alleges: “
claims 1, 16 and 17 proposed during the interview. However, the § 101 rejection should still be addressed because independent claims 1, 16 and 17 now recite that (i) the plurality of fragment images are extracted from a test image of at least a part of an image of a side face of a cylindrical ceramic honeycomb structure, and (ii) the image of the side face of the cylindrical ceramic honeycomb structure is an image obtained by illuminating the side face of the cylindrical ceramic honeycomb structure with one or more illuminators, and capturing reflected light from the side face of the cylindrical ceramic honeycomb structure, which are not mathematical concepts or mental processes that could have been performed by the human mind. As such, amended claims 1, 16 and 17, when each are individually considered as a whole, now recite additional elements that provide significantly more than an abstract idea (i.e., mathematical concepts or mental processes that could have been performed within the human mind). Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests Examiner Yang to reconsider and withdraw the rejection.”
Examiner’s response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Applicant does not follow proposed claims amendment in the interview of February 9, 2026.
The claims only added additional limitation of “
wherein the image of the side face of the cylindrical ceramic honeycomb structure is an image obtained by illuminating the side face of the cylindrical ceramic honeycomb structure with one or more illuminators, and capturing reflected light from the side face of the cylindrical ceramic honeycomb structure.”
This limitation is considered as an additional element of abstract idea. It is considered as data gathering of adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g).
It is also simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Thus, the recited generic additional element (e.g., general computer elements and data gathering) perform no more than their basic computer function. Generic computer-implementation of a method is not a meaningful limitation that alone can amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Moreover, when viewed as a whole with such additional element considered as an ordered combination, claims modified by adding a generic memory are nothing more than a purely conventional computerized implementation of an idea in the general field of computer processing and do not provide significantly more than an abstract idea.
Therefore, the §101 rejection is still maintained.
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, 5, 9 – 12 and 14 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In regarding claims 1, 16 and 17:
Step 1:
Claims 1, 16 and 17 are directed towards a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter which is/are statutory subject matter.
Step 2A:
Prong 1:
Claims 1, 16 and 17 are directed an idea for detecting defect type, which is an abstract idea.
Consideration of the claimed elements:
The claims in the instant application include:
A test apparatus comprising:
a memory being configured to store a plurality of fragment images, which are extracted from a test image of at least a part of an image of a side face of a cylindrical ceramic honeycomb structure; and
a processor coupled to the memory, being configured to:
execute individual judgment processing that inputting each of the plurality of fragment images into a learning model which receives an image as input and outputs a type and judging, with respect to each of the plurality of fragment images, the type of the fragment image; and
execute entire judgment processing that includes judging whether or not a defect of a specified defect type is captured in the test image, on the basis of whether the judged type with respect to each of the plurality of fragment images is the specified defect type or not,
wherein the entre judgment processing further includes determining whether an arrangement of fragment images judged as capturing a defect, in a one-dimensional or two-dimensional direction satisfies a predetermined condition for judging that the specified defect type is captured,
wherein the predetermined condition includes: (a) fragment images judged as capturing a defect are continuously aligned in the one-dimensional or two-dimensional direction in a number equal to or greater than a predetermined number, or (b) a density of fragment maces judged as capturing a defect is equal to or greater than a predetermined density,
wherein, even if one or more fragment images judged as capturing a non-defect in the individual judgement are located between the fragment images judged as capture a defect, the processor changes the judgement result of each of the one or more fragment judged as capturing the non-detect to result where the fragment image is judged as capturing a defect when a distance between fragment images judged as capturing detect is less than an allowable distance; and
wherein the image of the side face of the cylindrical ceramic honeycomb structure is an image obtained by illuminating the side face of the cylindrical ceramic honeycomb structure with one or more illuminators, and capturing reflected light from the side face of the cylindrical ceramic honeycomb structure.
For the limitation of “execute individual judgment processing that inputting each of the plurality of fragment images into a learning model which receives an image as input and outputs a type and judging, with respect to each of the plurality of fragment images, the type of the fragment image”, it can be interpreted as inputting a plurality of fragment images into an algorithm to judge a type of the fragment image whether it has a defect. The claims can be broadly read as Mathematical Concepts or Mental Processes.
For the limitation of “execute entire judgment processing that includes judging whether or not a defect of a specified defect type is captured in the test image, on the basis of whether the judged type with respect to each of the plurality of fragment images is the specified defect type or not”, it can be interpreted as a person can judge, by looking at the image and output of image type, whether each of the plurality of fragment images is the specified defect type or not. The claims can be broadly read as Mental Processes.
For the limitation of
“wherein the entre judgment processing further includes determining whether an arrangement of fragment images judged as capturing a defect, in a one-dimensional or two-dimensional direction satisfies a predetermined condition for judging that the specified defect type is captured,
wherein the predetermined condition includes: (a) fragment images judged as capturing a defect are continuously aligned in the one-dimensional or two-dimensional direction in a number equal to or greater than a predetermined number, or (b) a density of fragment maces judged as capturing a defect is equal to or greater than a predetermined density, and
wherein, even if one or more fragment images judged as capturing a non-defect in the individual judgement are located between the fragment images judged as capture a defect, the processor changes the judgement result of each of the one or more fragment judged as capturing the non-detect to result where the fragment image is judged as capturing a defect when a distance between fragment images judged as capturing detect is less than an allowable distance.”
It can be interpreted as further limitations for the defect type, whether it is in a one-dimensional or two-dimensional direction, whether it is in a continuous condition or a discontinuous condition. The claims can be broadly read as Mathematical Concepts or Mental Processes.
Prong 2:
The claims include additional elements of
a test apparatus, a memory, a processor, a learning model (claim 1);
a computer, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (claims 16 and 17);
wherein the image of the side face of the cylindrical ceramic honeycomb structure is an image obtained by illuminating the side face of the cylindrical ceramic honeycomb structure with one or more illuminators, and capturing reflected light from the side face of the cylindrical ceramic honeycomb structure.
A test apparatus, a memory, a processor, a learning model, a computer, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium are general computer elements.
For the limitation of “
wherein the image of the side face of the cylindrical ceramic honeycomb structure is an image obtained by illuminating the side face of the cylindrical ceramic honeycomb structure with one or more illuminators, and capturing reflected light from the side face of the cylindrical ceramic honeycomb structure”,
it is considered as data gathering of adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)
Moreover, the claim limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Thus, the above recited additional elements perform no more than their basic computer function. Generic computer-implementation of a method is not a meaningful limitation that alone can amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Moreover, when viewed as a whole with such additional element considered as an ordered combination, claims modified by adding a generic memory and processor are nothing more than a purely conventional computerized implementation of an idea in the general field of computer processing and do not provide significantly more than an abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claims are directed to an idea of itself, and therefore not patent eligible.
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception such as improvements to another technology or technical field, or other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Moreover, the claim language that may be separate from the abstract idea (i.e., additional elements) include general computer elements. The additional elements (e.g. general computer elements, and data gathering) perform only basic function, which would be common to every additional element (e.g. general computer elements, and data gathering). They are simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Thus, the recited generic additional element (e.g. general computer elements, and data gathering) perform no more than their basic computer function. Generic computer-implementation of a method is not a meaningful limitation that alone can amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Moreover, when viewed as a whole with such additional element considered as an ordered combination, claims modified by adding a generic memory are nothing more than a purely conventional computerized implementation of an idea in the general field of computer processing and do not provide significantly more than an abstract idea.
Consequently, the identified additional elements taken into consideration individually or in combination fails to amount of significantly more than the abstract idea above.
Regarding claims 5, 9 – 12, 15 and 18 – 20, the rejection is based on the same rationale described for claim 1, because the claims include/inherit the same/similar type of problematic limitation(s) as claim 1, wherein limitations regarding "is …", “judges …”, “changes …”, “displays …”, “captured …”, “execute …”, “input …”, “learns …” and/or “extract …” is/are of sufficient breadth that it would be substantially directed to or reasonably interpreted as a part of the “mental processes” as the abstract idea (similar to claim 1 as stated above). It is noted that further additional limitation is merely generic/conventional computer component/steps to implement the abstract idea, which is, individually or in combination, not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the claimed invention as a whole is directed to an ineligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
No reference is found to teach, or in a combination to teach, the claimed limitations of independent claims.
Reference Tada et al. (US 2020/0173933, IDS) teaches a identifier that has learned the images is made to identify whether an extracted inspection image obtained by segmenting the inspection image of the inspection article includes the defect and the identification results of the identifier are used to determine whether a defect is present in the inspection article. However, Tada, along or in a combination, fails to teach the claimed limitations in independent claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QIAN YANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7239. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8am-6pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Bee can be reached on 571-270-5183. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/QIAN YANG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2677
Prosecution Insights