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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed 05/22/2026 have been entered. Claim 4 has been canceled. Claims 1-3 and 5-8 are now pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the abstract and specification have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated 02/25/2026, hereinafter NFOA0225.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in NFOA0225.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection previously set forth in NFOA0225.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 8 have been considered but are moot because they pertain to amended claim limitations not present at the time of NFOA0225.
Nevertheless, for clarity of the record, Examiner notes that, in regards to Applicant’s arguments regarding the prior art Bondada’s disclosure of normalization, while Bondada does not explicitly disclose normalizing the image data according to a maximum value of the reflection intensity, it discloses normalizing the values (i.e., all of the data values in the set representing the image) of the image (i.e., equivalent to the data values of the generated image) in the range of [0, 1], which one of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand as dividing the elements of the data set by the largest value, which would naturally result in all values of the data set residing within the range of [0, 1], while normalizing based on any other value than the largest would result in at least one value exceeding the range. Accordingly, Bondada implicitly discloses normalizing according to the largest value of a data set of image data, as would be understood by an ordinarily skilled artisan. Bondada was not applied to teach any particular form of image data or data collection, and was applied solely to disclose a technique that is well represented across various arts, in a related image analysis application.
See below for a detailed discussion of amended claim limitations.
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: “…the measurement device, configured to measure unevenness of the surface of the metal structure…” and “…a mechanism unit configured to move the measurement device…” in claim 7.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/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.
The corresponding structure for the measurement unit is found in [0064]-[0065] of the PGPub. of the instant application, and the corresponding structure for the mechanism unit is found in [0060]-[0063] of the PGPub. of the instant application.
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 § 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 1-3, 5-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea judicial exception without significantly more.
The following analysis follows the MPEP subject matter eligibility test (See MPEP 2106, 2106.III).
In step 1 (See MPEP 2106.03), claims 1-3 and 5-7 are directed toward machines, and claim 8 to a method.
In step 2A (See MPEP 2106.04), a two pronged inquiry is required (MPEP 2106.04.II.A.1-2).
In step 2A, prong one, claims 1-3 and 4-8 recite abstract idea judicial exceptions.
In particular, claim 1 recites a device a device (i.e., one or more generic processors) that (1) takes in a premeasured light data (i.e., a set of data), (2) forms an image (i.e., a set of data) from the measurement data (i.e., ‘based’ thereon, performs data manipulation), (3) processes the set of image data (i.e., performs data manipulation), (4) analyzes/evaluates the set of processed image data to identify features thereof (i.e., performs data manipulation/analysis/evaluation to determine features of the set), (5) analyzes the features of the set of processed image data to make a judgement/evaluation thereof (i.e., performs data manipulation and/or makes a/an judgement/evaluation), and (6) provides a notification of the judgement/evaluation to a display (i.e., transfers data/information to an external element). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the only structure required by claim 1 is “one or more processors”. The device is required to be ‘configured to’ (understood as ‘capable of’ under the BRI of a device) perform various functionality. Accordingly, under the BRI, the claim requires no particular machine, and rather requires one or more generic processors that are capable of performing such functionality.
However, the functionality itself amounts to mere data manipulation and evaluation, as the structure is merely required be capable of taking in data, manipulating/evaluating the data, and outputting a result to an external device, as the claim does not require the display be an element of the device under the BRI. No particular means for generating the image from the measurement data is required, and thus, e.g., merely loading the input data into a viewing or analysis software on a generic computer would generate such an image. Normalizing and binarizing a data set are mere mathematical operations, capable of being performed by a generic computer. Additionally, these tasks can be performed in the human mind (i.e., by a human with a computer, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).III), as a human mind could reasonably perform the mathematical operations ‘by hand’, i.e., with a computer or calculator. No particular means for detecting the plurality of straight lines is required by the claim, and as such, this task can be performed in the human mind (i.e., by a human with a computer, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).III), as a human mind could reasonably ‘detect’ (i.e., identify, perceive) a plurality of straight lines on an image on a computer screen (e.g., on a viewing/analysis software on a generic computer). No particular means for determining the degree of deterioration of the metal structure by evaluating the plurality of straight lines is required by the claim, and as such, this task can be performed in the human mind (i.e., by a human with a computer, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).III), as a human mind could reasonably determine ‘a degree of deterioration’ of structure (e.g., high, low, moderate, greater or less than some threshold) based on some form of evaluation (not particularly limited) of the plurality of straight lines (e.g., viewed using viewing/analysis software on a generic computer, and/or, e.g., determining whether the number of straight lines is higher or lower than expected or comparing the number of straight lines to some threshold; i.e., the ‘evaluating’ not being particularly limited, nor the ‘degree of deterioration’). Providing a notification of (a) determined quantity/quality/data to a display amounts to the mere transmittal of said quantity/quality/data to generic computer equipment, and could be performed using a generic computer. Furthermore, a human is capable of providing a notification of such (a) quantity/quality/data to a display (e.g., by input into a generic computer, sending a message to a colleague or automated maintenance system, etc., as the notification and the providing are not particularly limited.)
Claim 8 is a method that comprises taking in a premeasured light data (i.e., a set of data), forms an image (i.e., a set of data) from the measurement data (i.e., ‘based’ thereon, performs data manipulation), processes the set of image data (i.e., performs data manipulation), analyzes/evaluates the set of processed image data to identify features thereof (i.e., performs data manipulation/analysis), analyzes the features of the set of processed image data to make a judgement/evaluation thereof (i.e., performs data manipulation and/or makes a/an judgement/ evaluation), and provides a notification of the judgement/evaluation to a display (i.e., transfers data/information), and thus, recites similar judicial exceptions to claim 1.
In step 2A, prong two (MPEP 2106.04.II.A.2), the inquiry ask whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, and 8 clearly do not have additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims merely recite the judicial exception (claim 1), or further expand thereon via limitations on how the evaluating/detecting/determining is performed (claims 2, 5-6) and which portions of the image are used (claim 3), or field of use limitations (claim 2). Claim 7 requires a measurement unit and a movement unit (see above discussion), however, this amounts to extra-solution activity, in the form of routine data gathering, as it pertains solely to how the data to be used in the judicial exception is physically acquired, and the claims and claimed functionality are not directed toward measurement of such data, rather toward the manipulation thereof to extract information. Accordingly, claim 7 does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. As such, claims 1-3 and 4-8 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, as they recite insignificant extra-solution activity, or additional judicial exceptions.
Under step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the only additional elements recited in the claims are those discussed in step 2A, prong two, which are all generic elements, or related to routine data gathering, and thus cannot amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As such, claims 1-3 and 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being patent ineligible as presently claimed for being directed toward a judicial exception without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fujiwara (JPO Doc. No. JP 2011107056 A).
Examiner notes that Fujiwara is Applicant provided prior art via the IDS dated 01/30/2026.
Regarding claim 1, Fujiwara teaches a deterioration determination device ([0001]-[0003]; [0012]-[0016]), comprising one or more processors ([0024]), configured to determine deterioration of a metal structure having an uneven structure ([0012]-[0016]; [0022]; Examiner notes that the described metal wire rope has ‘an uneven structure’), the deterioration determination device configured to (Understood as ‘capable of’ under the BRI):
receive measurement data comprising a reflection intensity of a terahertz wave indicating unevenness of a surface of the metal structure from a measurement device ([0012]-[0016]; Examiner notes that the measurement device is not required by the claim, and the device of Fujiwara is capable of receiving such data, e.g., via standard computer data transfer techniques, even if not explicitly disclosed as receiving it, which is not required, rather the capability to receive such data is required under the BRI);
generate an image based on the measurement data ([0012]-[0016]; Examiner notes that the device of Fujiwara is capable of generating an image of received data, e.g., via standard computer data reading/viewing techniques);
normalize the generated image using a maximum value of the reflection intensity ([0012]-[0016]; [0021]-[0034]; Examiner notes that under the BRI of such a device claim, the claim requires only structure capable of such functionality, i.e., one or more processing devices capable of such functionality, and further notes that the above disclosed portions of Fujiwara describe computer/processing structures to achieve the disclosed functionality that would be understood by an ordinarily skilled artisan to capable of performing such functionality, e.g., a generic computer can normalize a set of image data);
binarize the normalized image ([0012]-[0016]; [0021]-[0034]; Examiner notes that under the BRI of such a device claim, the claim requires only structure capable of such functionality, i.e., one or more processing devices capable of such functionality, and further notes that the above disclosed portions of Fujiwara describe computer/processing structures to achieve the disclosed functionality that would be understood by an ordinarily skilled artisan to capable of performing such functionality, e.g., a generic computer can binarize a normalized set of image data);
detect a plurality of straight lines form the binarized image ([0012]-[0016]; [0021]-[0034]; Examiner notes that under the BRI of such a device claim, the claim requires only structure capable of such functionality, i.e., one or more processing devices capable of such functionality, and further notes that the above disclosed portions of Fujiwara describe explicitly describe detecting a plurality of straight lines from image data and computer/processing structures to achieve the disclosed functionality; While not explicitly disclosed as being performed on a binarized image, under the BRI, this limitation requires that the device be capable of such functionality, and the processing/computing structures of Fujiwara would be understood by an ordinarily skilled artisan to capable of performing such functionality, as no additional processing/computing structures would be necessary to allow the disclosed extraction of the plurality of straight lines from the image to be performed on a binarized image);
determine a degree of deterioration of the metal structure by evaluating the plurality of straight lines ([0012]-[0016]; [0021]-[0034]; Examiner notes that under the BRI of such a device claim, the claim requires only structure capable of such functionality, i.e., one or more processing devices capable of such functionality; Examiner further notes that the above disclosed portions of Fujiwara explicitly describe detecting a plurality of straight lines from image data and computer/processing structures to achieve the disclosed functionality, and explicitly describe determining breakages (i.e., a degree of deterioration) by evaluating the straight lines); and
provide a notification of the degree of deterioration to a display ([0012]-[0016]; [0021]-[0034]; Examiner notes that under the BRI of such a device claim, the claim requires only structure capable of such functionality, i.e., one or more processing devices capable of such functionality, and further notes that the above portions of Fujiwara explicitly describe displaying the result (i.e., a notification) of the result and associated graphs determined therefrom, which would necessarily include ‘providing’ to the display).
For completeness: Examiner notes that the previously cited prior art Bondada discloses the use of normalizing image data to the range of [0, 1] as discussed above and could be reasonably combined with Fujiwara as a teaching reference for such a technique, and similarly, that Aihara discloses binarizing image data, and could also be reasonably combined with Fujiwara as a teaching reference for such a technique.
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 2-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujiwara (JPO Doc. No. JP 2011107056 A) in view of Winter (U.S. PGPub. No. US 2011/268313 A1).
Examiner notes that Winter is Applicant provided prior art via the IDS dated 01/30/2026.
Regarding claim 2, Fujiwara teaches the deterioration determination device according to claim 1.
Fujiwara further teaches wherein the metal structure is a linear structure comprising a plurality of twisted metal wires (See Figs. 8-9; [0001]-[0002]; Examiner notes that the disclosed wire ropes include a plurality of twisted metal wires), and
to evaluate the plurality of straight lines, the deterioration determination device is configured to:
identify one or more straight lines among the plurality of straight lines ([0012]-[0014]; [0023]; Examiner notes that under the BRI of such a device claim, the claim requires only structure capable of such functionality, i.e., one or more processing devices capable of such functionality, and further notes that the above disclosed portions of Fujiwara describe computer/processing structures capable of identifying particular lines among a plurality of lines),
determine deterioration of the linear structure based on a number of the identified one or more straight lines ([0012]-[0014]; [0023]; Examiner notes that under the BRI of such a device claim, the claim requires only structure capable of such functionality, i.e., one or more processing devices capable of such functionality, and further notes that the above disclosed portions of Fujiwara describe evaluating deterioration based on the number of straight lines compared to what is expected, which is interpreted as reading on ‘based on a number of the identified one or more straight lines’).
Fujiwara does not teach the deterioration determination device configured to: identify one or more straight lines among the plurality of straight lines, each of the one or more straight lines having an inclination angle less than a predetermined angle (Emphasis added by Examiner). (See Fig. 1, 2, and 5; [0014]; [0027]; [0034]; [0077]; [0080]-[0082]).
Winter teaches the deterioration determination device configured to: identify one or more straight lines among the plurality of straight lines, each of the one or more straight lines having an inclination angle less than a predetermined angle (See Fig. 1, 2, and 5; [0013]-[0023]; [0025]-[0032]; [0034]-[0042]; [0080]-[0082]; [0086]-[0088] Examiner notes that these disclosures include determining a plurality of straight lines, determining several relative angles, determining quality thresholds, including those having relative angles of particular lines exceeding/falling below a certain value being indicative of defects, which is interpreted as equivalent to the requirement of the limitations).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fujiwara to include the deterioration determination device configured to: identify one or more straight lines among the plurality of straight lines, each of the one or more straight lines having an inclination angle less than a predetermined angle (Emphasis added by Examiner), as taught by Winter.
Doing so represents combining known prior art techniques and elements according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results, and would allow one, as taught by Winter, use the lay angle and/or wire strand angle to contextually determine breakages/wear, providing Fujiwara with additional contextual analysis capabilities to better determined breakages/wear.
See also the prior art Oyama cited in NFOA0225.
Regarding claim 3, Fujiwara in view of Winter teaches the deterioration determination device according to claim 2.
Winter further teaches wherein the deterioration determination device is configured to detect the plurality of straight lines in a region of the image where a reflection intensity exceeds a predetermined threshold of binarization ([0018]; Examiner notes that Winter does not refer to a ‘threshold of binarization’, however, Winter discloses performing the disclosed techniques thereof to detect a plurality of straight lines in a region of the image where the intensity exceeds a predetermined threshold, which is dependent on the relative intensity, and thus, would be understood as functionally equivalent by an ordinarily skilled artisan, despite the different terminology).
See also the prior art Oyama cited in NFOA0225.
Regarding claim 5, Fujiwara in view of Winter teaches the deterioration determination device according to claim 2.
Fujiwara further teaches wherein the deterioration determination device is configured to:
calculate a precision metric of the linear structure to be a ratio between a total number of the plurality of straight lines and a number of the identified one or more straight lines ([0013]; [0023]; [0027]; Examiner notes that under the BRI of such a device claim, the claim requires only structure capable of such functionality, i.e., one or more processing devices capable of such functionality, and further notes that the above disclosed portions of Fujiwara describe computer/processing structures capable of identifying particular lines among a plurality of lines, and could readily determine a ratio therebetween; Examiner additionally notes the cited portion indicates identifying two straight lines where a single is expected, which is functionally equivalent, as determining ‘a plurality of straight lines are present in a portion where one straight line should exist’, in the context of such a wire rope, is equivalent to representing the two values of the straight lines (i.e., expected, actual) as a ratio and determining a value of the ratio to be greater than or equal to one; In other words, assuming x total straight wires are expected in a region (i.e., for a healthy region), where x>>1, and y wires are identified in the region, if y>x (as indicated in the example by Fujiwara, more lines detected than expected), then the ratio y/x>1, which is equivalent to ‘more lines than there should be’, while y/x=1 would indicate a healthy region; Accordingly, this disclosure is equivalent); and
determine the degree of deterioration of the linear structure based on the precision metric ([0012]-[0013]; [0023]; [0027]; Examiner notes that under the BRI of such a device claim, the claim requires only structure capable of such functionality, i.e., one or more processing devices capable of such functionality, and further notes that the above disclosed portions of Fujiwara describe computer/processing structures capable of identifying particular lines among a plurality of lines, and could readily determine a ratio therebetween, and evaluate such a ratio (e.g., according to the disclosed thresholds); Examiner additionally notes the cited portion indicates identifying two straight lines where a single is expected as a means to indicate defects (i.e. a degree of deterioration) which is functionally equivalent, as the precision metric is used to determine whether defects exist).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujiwara (JPO Doc. No. JP 2011107056 A) in view of Winter (U.S. PGPub. No. US 2011/268313 A1), or, in the alternative, over Fujiwara in view of Winter and Galambos (DOI: 10.1109/CVPR.1999.786993).
Examiner notes that Galambos is Applicant provided prior art via the IDS dated 01/30/2026.
Regarding claim 6, Fujiwara in view of Winter teaches the deterioration determination device according to claim 2.
Fujiwara does not explicitly teach wherein the deterioration determination device is configured to detect the plurality of straight lines using a progressive probabilistic Hough transform, and a threshold range of the progressive probabilistic Hough transform is [5, 20].
However, Examiner again notes that the claim is directed toward a device, and thus, under the BRI, the claim requires a device capable of such functional limitations. The disclosed device of Fujiwara is clearly capable of applying a probabilistic Hough transform with an arbitrary threshold range for the transform, as ‘one or more processors’ that are not particularly limited are all that is physically required to perform such functional limitations. As such, under the BRI, Fujiwara discloses a device capable of such limitations.
For completeness: Examiner notes, in the alternative:
Galambos teaches wherein the deterioration determination device is configured to detect the plurality of straight lines using a progressive probabilistic Hough transform, and (Abstract; Section 2).
Fujiwara in view of Galambos does not explicitly teach a threshold range of the progressive probabilistic Hough transform is [5, 20], however, Galambos teaches techniques for arbitrary threshold values, and discloses special cases for low number cases where N>1, which one of ordinary skill in the art would understand to disclose with sufficient specificity the range, as the device is capable of such a range, and an ordinarily skilled artisan could readily adapt the threshold range of a transformation via routine experimentation/optimization for a given application.
In other words, Fujiwara in view of Galambos discloses the claimed invention except for the particular threshold range. Galambos further indicates in Section 2 that the threshold would need to be chosen for the particular application and desired precision values (also indicated as dependent on application), indicating that the threshold is a result-effective variable.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fujiwara in view of Galambos to include a threshold range of the progressive probabilistic Hough transform is [5, 20], since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Doing so would allow one to adapt the PPHT to the particular applications as necessary, as disclosed by Galambos, by routine optimization of a result-effective variable.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fujiwara to include wherein the deterioration determination device is configured to detect the plurality of straight lines using a progressive probabilistic Hough transform, and a threshold range of the progressive probabilistic Hough transform is [5, 20], as taught by Galambos as modified.
Doing so represent combining know prior art techniques according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results, and would allow one to use a less computationally demanding algorithm for improved line detection, as disclosed by Galambos.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujiwara (JPO Doc. No. JP 2011107056 A) in view of Aihara (JPO Doc. No. JP 2021028622 A) and Maruki (JPO Doc. No. JP H09243573 A).
Examiner notes that Aihara and Maruki are Applicant provided prior art via the IDS dated 01/30/2026.
Regarding claim 7, Fujiwara teaches a deterioration determination system ([0001]-[0003]; [0012]-[0016]) comprising:
the deterioration determination device according to claim 1 (See claim 1 for claim mapping);
the measurement device, configured to measure unevenness of the surface of the metal structure ([0012]-[0016]; [0022]-[0034]); and
wherein the deterioration determination device is configured to determine the degree of deterioration of the metal structure using the generated image based on the measurement data from the measurement device ([0012]-[0016]; [0022]-[0034]).
Fujiwara does not teach a mechanism unit configured to move the measurement device in a longitudinal direction of the metal structure and a rotational direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction, as required by the above 112(f) interpretation and regarding the measurement unit, does not disclose using a terahertz wave to measure reflected intensity and thus unevenness required by the 112(f) interpretation.
However, Examiner notes that Fujiwara discloses moving the camera along the wire ropes to continuously measure image data, and merely lacks specific disclosure of the movement structures.
Aihara teaches a measuring jig that is capable of moving the measuring unit in a longitudinal direction along the metal structure (See Figs. 2, items 131-134), which Examiner interprets as reading on a mechanism unit configured to move the measurement device in a longitudinal direction of the metal structure, and teaches a measurement unit using a terahertz wave to measure reflected intensity and thus unevenness ([0002]; [0016]-[0019]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fujiwara to include a mechanism unit configured to move the measurement device in a longitudinal direction of the metal structure and a measurement unit using a terahertz wave to measure reflected intensity and thus unevenness, as taught by Aihara.
Doing so represents combining known prior art elements according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results, and would allow one, as taught by Aihara, to utilize the benefits of terahertz waves to allow one to safely image the target, even if covered by a protective sheath layer (See paragraphs [0001]-[0009] of Aihara), which could be readily applied to the wire rope of Fujiwara with a reasonable expectation of success, and represents a specific embodiment for moving the imaging/measuring unit for such a terahertz wave measuring device, which could be reasonably applied as a specific embodiment for Fujiwara’s disclosed generally disclosed, but not particularly limited, movement unit.
Aihara does not teach a mechanism unit configured to move the measurement device in a longitudinal direction of the metal structure and a rotational direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction (Emphasis added by Examiner).
Maruki teaches a mechanism unit configured to move the measurement device in a longitudinal direction of the metal structure and a rotational direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction (See Figs. 1-2; [0011]-[0025]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fujiyama in view of Aihara to include a mechanism unit configured to move the measurement device in a longitudinal direction of the metal structure and a rotational direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction (Emphasis added by Examiner), as taught by Maruki.
Doing so represents combining known prior art elements/techniques according to known methods in order to achieve predictable result, and would allow one to more comprehensively image the metal structure (i.e., the metal wire ropes) by providing for additional degrees of freedom for the imaging elements.
See also the prior art Oyama cited in NFOA0225.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujiwara (JPO Doc. No. JP 2011107056 A) in view of Aihara (JPO Doc. No. JP 2021028622 A).
Regarding claim 8, Fujiwara teaches a deterioration determination method of determining deterioration of a metal structure having an uneven structure ([0001]-[0003]; [0012]-[0016]; [0022]), the method comprising:
receiving measurement data comprising a reflection intensity ([0012]-[0016]; Examiner notes that the disclosed camera does not explicitly disclose ‘reflected intensity’, however, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the basic function of cameras to include measuring the reflected light from the surface of an object; Furthermore, the claim does not require administering any form of light to actively cause the reflected intensity, and thus, measuring the reflected intensity of ambient light, for example, would read on the limitation; See also: [0021]-[0034], [0036]-[0042]);
generating an image based on the measurement data ([0012]-[0016]; [0021]-[0034]; [0036]-[0042]);
detecting a plurality of straight lines from the ([0012]-[0016]; [0029]-[0034]; [0037]-[0044]);
determining a degree of deterioration of the metal structure by evaluating the plurality of straight lines ([0012]-[0016]; [0021]-[0034]; [0036]-[0042]; Examiner interprets determining ‘breakages’ by evaluating the plurality of straight lines as reading on determining ‘a degree of deterioration’); and
providing a notification of the degree of deterioration to a display ([0012]-[0016]; [0021]-[0034]; [0036]-[0042]; Examiner interprets the disclosed displaying of the inspection results (i.e., a notification) and associated graphs determined therefrom as reading on the limitation, as it would necessarily include ‘providing’ to the display).
Fujiwara does not explicitly teach receiving measurement data comprising a reflection intensity of a terahertz wave indicating unevenness of a surface of the metal structure from a measurement device and normalizing the generated image using a maximum value of the reflection intensity and binarizing the normalized image and detecting a plurality of straight lines from the binarized image (Emphases added by Examiner).
Aihara teaches receiving measurement data comprising a reflection intensity of a terahertz wave indicating unevenness of a surface of the metal structure from a measurement device ([0002]; [0016]-[0019]) and normalizing the generated image using a maximum value of the reflection intensity and binarizing the normalized image ([0019]; Examiner notes that Aihara does not explicitly disclose ‘normalizing the generated image using a maximum value of the reflection intensity’, however, ‘binarizing’, as understood by an ordinarily skilled artisan, would be understand as assigning data values to relative values within the range of [0, 1], in the context of image data, and certainly in the context disclosed by Aihara; Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that, in order to convert such image data to the range of [0, 1], the data must be normalized to that range in order to assign the values accordingly. An ordinarily skilled artisan would further understand (see above discussion regarding Bondada) that normalizing a data set to the range [0, 1] requires normalizing the data set according to its largest value, which naturally ensures all values of the set remain in the range [0, 1]. Accordingly, Aihara’s disclosure of converting the image of the irradiated portion into the binarized image data is interpreted as inherently disclosing normalizing the image data (in this case, explicitly disclosed as reflection intensity of a terahertz wave) according to its largest value in order to perform the disclosed binarization).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fujiwara to include receiving measurement data comprising a reflection intensity of a terahertz wave indicating unevenness of a surface of the metal structure from a measurement device (Emphasis added by Examiner) and normalizing the generated image using a maximum value of the reflection intensity and binarizing the normalized image, as taught by Aihara.
Doing so represents combining known prior art techniques and elements according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results, and would allow one, as taught by Aihara, to utilize the benefits of terahertz waves to allow one to safely image the target, even if covered by a protective sheath layer (See paragraphs [0001]-[0009] of Aihara), which could be readily applied to the wire rope of Fujiwara with a reasonable expectation of success, and to use standard data processing techniques in their typical fashion in a way that would have predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success.
Accordingly, because Fujiwara discloses detecting a plurality of straight lines from the and Aihara teaches binarizing the image data, the combination accordingly achieves detecting a plurality of straight lines from the binarized image (Emphasis added by Examiner) by the combination.
For completeness: Examiner notes that the previously cited prior art Bondada discloses the use of normalizing image data to the range of [0, 1] as discussed above and could be reasonably combined with Fujiwara and Aihara as a teaching reference for such a technique.
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 CHRISTOPHER J GASSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4363. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, ROBERT H KIM can be reached at (571)272-2293. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER J GASSEN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2881 /MICHAEL J LOGIE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights