DETAILED ACTION
This Action is in response to Applicant’s response filed on 02/23/2026. Claims 1-20 are still pending in the present application. This Action is made FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection in view of Zhao (US 2015/0213301 A1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 14-16 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shields (US 5,786,894) in view of Yao (US 2005/0266147 A1) and in further view of Zhao (US 2015/0213301 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 14 and 18, Shields discloses a method for determining a degree of fibrillation within pulp using image processing (col 2, In 58-64), the method comprising:
[claim 14: A system for determining a degree of fibrillation within pulp using image processing, the system comprising: a memory; and one or more processors communicatively coupled to the memory, the one or more processors configured to: (figure 5)]
[claim 18: A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations for determining a degree of fibrillation within pulp using image processing, the operations comprising: (figure 5)]
receiving, by one or more processors, image data indicating an image of pulp (col 3, In 9-25);
performing. by the one or more processors, morphological image processing on the plurality of sub-images to determine a sum of grey levels associated with the fibrils within the image (col 8, ln 39-54; col 9, In 10-43, contiguous gray level pixels are converted to objects.);
calculating, by the one or more processors, a degree of fibrillation associated with the pulp based at least in part on the fiber area and the sum of grey levels associated with the fibrils (col 5, In 3-16; col 9, ln 22-30, measurement of fiber fibrillation... analysis using calculations with size, shape, and compared with threshold gray level.); and
initiating, by the one or more processors, display of an output that indicates the degree of fibrillation (col 8, In 39-63)
Shields fails to specifically disclose dividing, by the one or more processors, the image into a plurality of sub-images; performing, by the one or more processors, size and shape analysis on the image to determine a fiber area of fibers within the image by performing adaptive thresholding on the image; performing, by the one or more processors, edge detection on the plurality of sub-images to determine a count of edges of fibrils within the image; calculating, by the one or more processors, a degree of fibrillation associated with the count of edges of the fibrils.
In related art, Yao discloses a method for determining a degree of fibrillation within pulp using image processing (para [0001], [0007]-[0009], determining degree of fibrous structure formation from vegetable protein.), comprising: dividing, by the one or more processors, the image into a plurality of sub-images (para [0010], [0067], [0073], [0093]); performing, by the one or more processors, edge detection on the plurality of sub-images to determine a count of edges of fibrils within the image (para [0010], [0069], [0093]); and calculating, by the one or more processors, a degree of fibrillation associated with the count of edges of the fibrils (para [0094]-[0095], number of regions formed from edges).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Yao into the teachings of Shields to effectively provide measurements of fibrillation In automated and real-time processing situations (Yao: para [0005]), because Shields and Yao are directed towards methods for determining a degree of fibrillation within pulp using image processing.
Furthermore, in related art, Zhao discloses performing, by the one or more processors, size and shape analysis on the image (paragraph 8: determining the rectangle that would most closely match to local fiber image at a given location; paragraph 11: operable to calculate the rectangle which at the most matches with the local fiber image; paragraph 27: PCA provides the orientation and size of the rectangle) to determine a fiber area of fibers within the image (paragraphs 7-8, 11 and 27: Zhao teaches determining a fiber area by first using an adaptive threshold to obtain fiber tracing seeds and then determining a rectangle that closely matches the local fiber image (with PCA providing the rectangle’s size), from which the fiber region’s area is determined, e.g., as the area of the matched rectangle fiber region.) by performing adaptive thresholding on the image. (paragraph 7: adaptive threshold method is used for obtaining initial tracing seeds) Zhao therefore teaches adaptive thresholding in a fiber analysis pipeline and also teaches shape modeling (rectangle fitting) of local fiber image regions.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Zhao into the teachings of Shields and Yao to effectively improve robustness and accuracy of fiber identification and measurement under variable imaging conditions.
Regarding claim 2, Shields, as modified by Yao and Zhao, discloses the claimed invention wherein determining local standard deviations of grey levels for multiple regions within the image (para [0069], [0074], [0100], thresholds used to determine regions of interest and depend on gray levels): comparing, for each of the multiple regions, a respective local standard deviation of grey levels to an average deviation of grey levels associated with the image (para [0069], [0096], [0100], fiber Index calculated from pixels using high average intensity and low standard deviation with thresholds that depend on gray levels.); identifying one or more regions of the multiple regions that correspond to fibers, fibrils, or a combination thereof, based on the comparisons (para [0067], [0096], [0098], calculating fiber index as a measure of fiber formation.); and refining the fiber area, the count of edges, the sum of grey levels, or a combination thereof, based on the identified fibers, the identified fibrils, or a combination thereof (para [0073]-[0074], [0094], calculating area of fiber index with intensity distributions.).
Regarding claim 3, Shields, as modified by Yao and Zhao, discloses the claimed invention wherein performing a Hough transform on the image to distinguish one or more fibers from other elements within the image (para [0066], [0072]); and prior to calculating the degree of fibrillation, refining the fiber area based on the one or more distinguished fibers (para [0072], [0093], high and low intensity regions are aligned before being Hough transformed.).
Regarding claim 15, Shields, as modified by Yao and Zhao, discloses the claimed invention wherein further comprising an image capture device communicatively coupled to the one or more processors and configured to capture the image (col 7, In 39-52).
Regarding claim 16, Shields, as modified by Yao and Zhao, discloses the claimed invention wherein the one or more processors are further configured to adaptively adjust one or more parameters associated with the size and shape analysis, the edge detection, the morphological image processing, or a combination thereof (para [0067], [0096], [0098], calculating fiber Index as a measure of fiber formation.), based on a lighting Intensity associated with the image, a contrast associated with the image, or a combination thereof (para [0072]-[0074], [0094], calculating area of fiber index with light intensity distributions.).
Regarding claim 19, Shields, as modified by Yao and Zhao, discloses the claimed invention wherein identifying one or more fibers (col 5, In 3-16; col 9, In 22-30, measurement of fiber fibrillation analysis using calculations with size, shape, and compared with threshold gray level.), one or more fibril clusters attached to fibers, one or more free fibril clusters, one or more fibrils attached to fibers, one or more free fibrils, or a combination thereof, based at least in part on the fiber area, the count of edges of the fibrils, and the sum of grey levels associated with the fibrils; and determining lengths, widths, distribution of sizes, or a combination thereof, associated with the one or more fibers, the one or more fibril clusters attached to fibers, the one or more free fibril clusters, the one or more fibrils attached to fibers, the one or more free fibrils, or a combination thereof (col 5, In 3-16; col 9, In 22-30, measurement of fiber fibrillation analysis using calculations with size, shape, and compared with threshold gray level.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-13, 17 and 20 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
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 BOBBAK SAFAIPOUR whose telephone number is (571)270-1092. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Stephen Koziol can be reached at (408) 918-7630. 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.
/BOBBAK SAFAIPOUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2665