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 .
Claim Status
Preliminary amendments have been filed. Claims 9 and 11-12 have been amended, claim 6 has been canceled, and claim 13 had been added. Claim 1-5 and 7-13 are pending.
Priority
The present application is a National Phase Application filed under 35 U.S.C. 371 as a national stage of PCT/CN2022/093233, filed on May 17, 2022, an application claiming the priority to Chinese Patent Application No. 202110564422.1 filed with the CNIPA on May 24, 2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed 11/03/23 and 06/23/25 are considered.
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 terminal" in claim 10
“image processing terminal” in claim 10
The “terminal” is described in [0028]. It is not understood as a limited to a typical computer terminal (from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_terminal, “A computer terminal is an electronic or electromechanical hardware device that can be used for entering data into, and transcribing data from, a computer or a computing system. Most early computers only had a front panel to input or display bits and had to be connected to a terminal to print or input text through a keyboard. Teleprinters were used as early-day hard-copy terminals[1][2] and predated the use of a computer[1] screen by decades.” While no specific definition is presented in [0028], the examples include a mobile phone and a drone. Thus, “terminal” is used as a nonce word rather than as a specific structure.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid 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 limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid 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
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, 7, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WANG et al. (CN 105069790 A Hereinafter “WANG”) in view of LIU et al. (CN 110460155 A Hereinafter “LIU”).
Regarding claim 1, WANG teaches an image processing method, comprising:
searching for and acquiring, based on an identifier of a (Page 4, paragraph 3: “Step J1) image acquisition is carried out to gear to be checked, obtain image to be checked by the mode of back-lit projection”. The acquired image acts as the target image and there must be an identifier of the gear if the gear is “to be checked”), and stores the acquired (Page 4, paragraph 8: “J1) adopt industrial camera and utilize the mode of back-lit projection to gather image to host computer”. The image being gathered to the host computer is the storing of the target image and identifier);
performing image preprocessing on the target (Page 1, abstract: “J2) preprocessing and extracting features”. This preprocessing a feature extraction is performed on the image to be checked), and converting the target (Page 8, last 10 lines: “As shown in figs, step J3) specifically comprise the steps: Step J3.1) image to be checked and Rough Inspection template image are carried out threshold division respectively, the binary map of both acquisitions”. The binary map acts as grayscale processing); and
comparing the feature grayscale image with a standard (Page 4, seventh paragraph: “Step J5) image to be checked examine template image with essence to carry out XOR and draw differential image, the defect area obtained in differential image also carries out essence inspection judgement, rejecting rejected part”. The image to be checked is examined with the template image to obtain a difference image), and determining, according to a comparison result, whether a (Page 4, seventh paragraph: “Step J5) image to be checked examine template image with essence to carry out XOR and draw differential image, the defect area obtained in differential image also carries out essence inspection judgement, rejecting rejected part”. The difference image is used to determine if an area of the gear is defective, and can reject the part if it is not).
WANG does not expressly disclose this process being done in the context of feeder line coming from base stations.
However, LIU teaches image analysis on feeder lines from base stations (Page 3, first paragraph: “Has the fault monitoring method of the line feed terminals of image processing and comparison function, by the normal of digital camera acquisition Digital image information is stored as standard value, the real-time digital image information that digital camera acquires is compared with standard value, such as When the difference of both fruits is more than pre-set standard deviation, CPU module sends failure letter to distribution main website by communication module Number”. The line feed terminals refer to terminals for feeder lines “the invention discloses a kind of with the feeder line of image processing and comparison function end and its fault monitoring method”).
At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify WANG’s image processing and comparison to include LIU’s use of image processing and comparison in line feeder inspection because such a modification is based on the use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way. More specifically, LIU’s use of image processing and comparison is comparable to WANG’s image processing and comparison because they both process images and compare the processed images to standard version to determine if the object of interest in the image is abnormal. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify WANG’s image processing and comparison to include LIU’s use of image processing and comparison in line feeder inspection in order to obtain the predictable result of an effective detection of abnormal line feeders in line feeder images.
Regarding claim 7, the content of claim 7 is similar to the content of claim 1, therefore it is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, the content of claim 10 is similar to the content of claim 1, with the additional teachings of an image acquisition terminal and image processing terminal. WANG also discloses this information (Page 4, paragraph 8: “J1) adopt industrial camera and utilize the mode of back-lit projection to gather image to host computer”. The industrial camera acts as the image acquisition terminal and the computer acts as the image processing terminal). Therefore, claim 10 is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as claim 1, along with the additional teachings above.
Regarding claim 11, WANG teaches an electronic device, comprising: a processor; and a memory storing computer-executable instructions thereon which, when executed by the processor (Page 4, paragraph 8: “J1) adopt industrial camera and utilize the mode of back-lit projection to gather image to host computer”. The computer contains a processor and memory to perform the functions described), the processor to perform the image processing method according to claim 1 as taught by the combination of WANG and LIU.
Regarding claim 12, WANG teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having one or more programs stored thereon which, when executed by one or more processors (Page 4, paragraph 8: “J1) adopt industrial camera and utilize the mode of back-lit projection to gather image to host computer”. The computer contains a processor and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium to perform the functions described), cause the one or more processors to implement the image processing method according to claim 1 as taught by the combination of WANG and LIU.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WANG et al. (CN 105069790 A Hereinafter “WANG”) in view of LIU et al. (CN 110460155 A Hereinafter “LIU”) in further view of POHL et al. (US 20200258028 A1 Hereinafter “POHL”).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of WANG and LIU teaches the detection method for a base-station feeder line according to claim 7, wherein the image acquisition terminal
LIU further teaches image analysis on feeder lines from base stations (Page 3, first paragraph: “Has the fault monitoring method of the line feed terminals of image processing and comparison function, by the normal of digital camera acquisition Digital image information is stored as standard value, the real-time digital image information that digital camera acquires is compared with standard value, such as When the difference of both fruits is more than pre-set standard deviation, CPU module sends failure letter to distribution main website by communication module Number”. The line feed terminals refer to terminals for feeder lines “the invention discloses a kind of with the feeder line of image processing and comparison function end and its fault monitoring method”).
At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify WANG’s image processing and comparison to include LIU’s use of image processing and comparison in line feeder inspection because such a modification is based on the use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way. More specifically, LIU’s use of image processing and comparison is comparable to WANG’s image processing and comparison because they both process images and compare the processed images to standard version to determine if the object of interest in the image is abnormal. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify WANG’s image processing and comparison to include LIU’s use of image processing and comparison in line feeder inspection in order to obtain the predictable result of an effective detection of abnormal line feeders in line feeder images.
The combination of WANG and LIU does not expressly disclose the image acquisition terminal being contact or non-contact image capturing devices.
However, POHL teaches the image acquisition terminal is a non-contact image capturing device, and the acquiring, by the image acquisition terminal, the ([0051]: “The example task objective 365 of the illustrated example of FIG. 3 is a structure and/or a region that is to be photographed by the task executor 370. In the illustrated example of FIG. 3, the example task objective 365 is a cellular tower operated by a wireless service provider. The example wireless service provider may wish to have a task executor (e.g., the task executor 370) periodically survey the cellular tower to confirm that there has been no damage”. The “or” limitation means only one of the limitation need to be taught, so POHL teaches the non-contact image capturing device) comprises:
capturing, by the non-contact image capturing device, the ([0019]: “For example, the task execution facilitation system may maintain issue non-financial compensation (e.g., awards, medals, achievements, etc.) to the task executors (e.g., users) based on the tasks that the task executor has completed”).
At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify WANG and LIU’s imaging system to include POHL’s drone imaging system because such a modification is the result of applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. More specifically POHL’s drone imaging system permits remote capturing of the area of interest of a cellular tower based on user control. This known benefit in POHL is applicable to WANG and LIU’s imaging system as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to imaging cellular towers to analyze the condition of the tower. Therefore, it would have been recognized that modifying WANG and LIU’s imaging system to include POHL’s drone imaging system would have yielded predictable results because (i) the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate POHL’s drone imaging system in imaging cellular towers to analyze the condition of the tower and (ii) the benefits of such a combination would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WANG et al. (CN 105069790 A Hereinafter “WANG”) in view of LIU et al. (CN 110460155 A Hereinafter “LIU”) in further view of Lee et al. (US 20200218903 A1 Hereinafter “Lee”).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of WANG and LIU teaches the detection method for a base-station feeder line according to claim 7, in addition, WANG further teaches wherein the storing, by the image acquisition terminal, the acquired
sending, by the image acquisition terminal, the acquired (Page 4, paragraph 8: “J1) adopt industrial camera and utilize the mode of back-lit projection to gather image to host computer”. The image being gathered to the host computer is the storing of the target image and identifier), and
the searching for and acquiring, by the image processing terminal, the matched target
searching for and acquiring, based on the identifier of the target (Page 4, paragraph 3: “Step J1) image acquisition is carried out to gear to be checked, obtain image to be checked by the mode of back-lit projection”. The acquired image acts as the target image and there must be an identifier of the gear if the gear is “to be checked”).
LIU further teaches image analysis on feeder lines from base stations (Page 3, first paragraph: “Has the fault monitoring method of the line feed terminals of image processing and comparison function, by the normal of digital camera acquisition Digital image information is stored as standard value, the real-time digital image information that digital camera acquires is compared with standard value, such as When the difference of both fruits is more than pre-set standard deviation, CPU module sends failure letter to distribution main website by communication module Number”. The line feed terminals refer to terminals for feeder lines “the invention discloses a kind of with the feeder line of image processing and comparison function end and its fault monitoring method”).
At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify WANG’s image processing and comparison to include LIU’s use of image processing and comparison in line feeder inspection because such a modification is based on the use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way. More specifically, LIU’s use of image processing and comparison is comparable to WANG’s image processing and comparison because they both process images and compare the processed images to standard version to determine if the object of interest in the image is abnormal. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify WANG’s image processing and comparison to include LIU’s use of image processing and comparison in line feeder inspection in order to obtain the predictable result of an effective detection of abnormal line feeders in line feeder images.
The combination of WANG and LIU does not expressly disclose storing the image on a cloud server and communication with the cloud server.
However, Lee teaches storing the image on a cloud server and communication with the cloud server. ([0078]: “The communicator 270 may communicate with the CCTV camera 100 and the cloud server 300 to transmit and receive image data.”).
At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify WANG and LIU’s image storage to include Lee’s cloud server and cloud server communication because such a modification is the result of applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. More specifically Lee’s cloud server and cloud server communication permits storage of image data in a second location which can be more readily accessed by users in different locations. This known benefit in Lee is applicable to WANG and LIU’s image storage as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to storing images captured by image capturing devices. Therefore, it would have been recognized that modifying WANG and LIU’s image storage to include Lee’s cloud server and cloud server communication would have yielded predictable results because (i) the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate Lee’s cloud server and cloud server communication in storing images captured by image capturing devices and (ii) the benefits of such a combination would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WANG et al. (CN 105069790 A Hereinafter “WANG”) in view of LIU et al. (CN 110460155 A Hereinafter “LIU”) in further view of POHL et al. (US 20200258028 A1 Hereinafter “POHL”) in further view of Lee et al. (US 20200218903 A1 Hereinafter “Lee”).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of WANG, LIU and POHL teaches the detection method for a base-station feeder line according to claim 8, in addition WANG further teaches wherein the storing, by the image acquisition terminal, the acquired
sending, by the image acquisition terminal, the acquired (Page 4, paragraph 8: “J1) adopt industrial camera and utilize the mode of back-lit projection to gather image to host computer”. The image being gathered to the host computer is the storing of the target image and identifier), and
the searching for and acquiring, by the image processing terminal, the matched target
searching for and acquiring, based on the identifier of the target (Page 4, paragraph 3: “Step J1) image acquisition is carried out to gear to be checked, obtain image to be checked by the mode of back-lit projection”. The acquired image acts as the target image and there must be an identifier of the gear if the gear is “to be checked”).
LIU further teaches image analysis on feeder lines from base stations (Page 3, first paragraph: “Has the fault monitoring method of the line feed terminals of image processing and comparison function, by the normal of digital camera acquisition Digital image information is stored as standard value, the real-time digital image information that digital camera acquires is compared with standard value, such as When the difference of both fruits is more than pre-set standard deviation, CPU module sends failure letter to distribution main website by communication module Number”. The line feed terminals refer to terminals for feeder lines “the invention discloses a kind of with the feeder line of image processing and comparison function end and its fault monitoring method”).
At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify WANG’s image processing and comparison to include LIU’s use of image processing and comparison in line feeder inspection because such a modification is based on the use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way. More specifically, LIU’s use of image processing and comparison is comparable to WANG’s image processing and comparison because they both process images and compare the processed images to standard version to determine if the object of interest in the image is abnormal. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify WANG’s image processing and comparison to include LIU’s use of image processing and comparison in line feeder inspection in order to obtain the predictable result of an effective detection of abnormal line feeders in line feeder images.
The combination of WANG and LIU does not expressly disclose storing the image on a cloud server and communication with the cloud server.
However, Lee teaches storing the image on a cloud server and communication with the cloud server. ([0078]: “The communicator 270 may communicate with the CCTV camera 100 and the cloud server 300 to transmit and receive image data.”).
At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify WANG, LIU, and POHL’s image storage to include Lee’s cloud server and cloud server communication because such a modification is the result of applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. More specifically Lee’s cloud server and cloud server communication permits storage of image data in a second location which can be more readily accessed by users in different locations. This known benefit in Lee is applicable to WANG, LIU, and POHL’s image storage as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to storing images captured by image capturing devices. Therefore, it would have been recognized that modifying WANG, LIU, and POHL’s image storage to include Lee’s cloud server and cloud server communication would have yielded predictable results because (i) the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate Lee’s cloud server and cloud server communication in storing images captured by image capturing devices and (ii) the benefits of such a combination would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
WARNER et al. (WO 2018208751 A1) teaches cell tower image inspection where the image of the tower is compared with a gold standard.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEFANO A DARDANO whose telephone number is (703)756-4543. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 11:00 - 7:00.
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, Greg Morse can be reached at (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.
/STEFANO ANTHONY DARDANO/Examiner, Art Unit 2663
/GREGORY A MORSE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2698