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 .
Typographic Conventions
Throughout this office action, shorthand notation for referencing locations of elements in documents are utilized. The following is a brief summary of the shorthand utilized:
Sec. – is used to denote an associated section with a header in non-patent literature
¶ – is used to denote the number and location of a paragraph
col. – is used to denote a column number
ln. – is used to denote a line; if a line number is not demarcated in a document, the line number will be assumed to start at 1 for each paragraph.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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) use(s) 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.
Claims 1,2 & 4-9 recite limitations that use words like “means” (or “step”) or similar terms with functional language and do invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
Claim 1 – first recites the limitation, “an image-data acquisition step of acquiring…” [ln. 3], which is later recited in claims 5 [ln. 27], 6 [ln. 36], 7 [ln. 6], & 9 [ln. 29]
Claim 1 – first recites the limitation, “a polar-coordinate transformation step of transforming…” [ln. 6], which is later recited in claims 2 [ln. 15] & 9 [ln. 1]
Claim 1 – first recites the limitation, “a defect detection step of detecting…” [ln. 10], which is later recited in claims 2 [ln. 18] & 9 [ln. 5]
Claim 2 – recites the limitation, “a processing-region setting step of setting…” [ln. 19]
Claim 2 – first recites the limitation, “a center-of-gravity calculation step of calculating…” [ln. 25], which is later recited in claim 4 [ln. 7-8]
Claim 2 – recites the limitation, “a center-of-gravity pitch calculation step of calculating…” [ln. 27]
Claim 4 – first recites the limitation, “an edge determination step of determining…” [ln. 9, 16-17]
Claim 4 – recites the limitation, “a processing-region adjustment step of shifting…” [ln. 12]
Claim 8 – recites the limitation, “an image-data acquiring unit configured to acquire…” [ln. 15]
Claim 8 – recites the limitation, “a polar-coordinate transforming unit configured to transform…” [ln. 18]
Claim 8 – recites the limitation, “a defect detecting unit configured to detect…” [ln. 22]
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:
“an image-data acquisition step” (Fig. 3; ST110 [¶0027; 0052]) – the image-data acquisition step is described as the process for which, after capturing an image of a graduation plate 20 excluding pointer 30, data (disk-shaped graduation-plate image data 211) about the images the graduation plate is acquired.
“a polar-coordinate transformation step” (Fig. 3; ST120 [¶0013]) – the polar-coordinate transformation step is described as transforming the disk-shaped graduation-plate image data into polar coordinates using a center of the disk-shaped graduation plate as a reference, which includes expressing an angle parameter as a straight angle linear display axis to align graduations in parallel.
“a defect detection step” (Figs. 3 & 4; ST200 [¶0031-41]) – the defect detection step is described as a series of steps to detect a defect in a graduation plate, namely the processing-region setting step ST210, the edge determination step ST220, the processing-region adjustment step ST240, the center-of-gravity calculation step ST250, the center-of-gravity pitch calculation step ST260, and final pass/fail determination step ST270 to determine if variation in center-of-gravity pitch is within an allowable range ST280.
“a processing-region setting step” (Fig. 4; ST210 [¶0032-36]) – the processing-region setting step is described as arranging processing region 311 on the polar-coordinate graduate image data 211 whose width is based on the number graduations, N, the total angle range in which graduations are depicted in the graduation plate image, and a number of processing regions k.
“a center-of-gravity calculation step” (Fig. 4; ST250 [¶0039-40]) – the center-of-gravity calculation step is described as calculating the centroid of luminance of the plate, with the provided expression:
∑
[
x
∙
I
x
]
/
∑
I
(
x
)
, with x indicating the pixel position, and I(x) indicating a luminance at a pixel position x.
“a center-of-gravity pitch calculation step” (Fig. 4; ST260 [¶0040]) – the center-of-gravity pitch calculation step is described as calculating the distance between adjacent centers of gravity in the direction parallel to the angle display axis
“an edge determination step” (Fig. 4; ST220 [¶0037]) – the edge determination step is described as determining whether the edges of processing regions 311 and graduations 40 are close to each other within a predetermined threshold.
“a processing-region adjustment step” (Fig. 4; ST240 [¶0038]) – the processing-region adjustment step is described as, in response to the edge determination step determining that processing region 311 and graduation 40 are too close to each other, the arrangement of the processing regions 311 are adjusted along the angle display axis by half the width of two adjacent graduations.
“an image-data acquiring unit” (Fig. 3 & 12; unit 210 [¶0027]) – the image-data acquiring unit is described as a module of arithmetic processing device 200, that acquires data (211) of an image of a graduation plate 20 via a camera 110.
“a polar-coordinate transforming unit” (Fig. 3 &12; unit 220 [¶0028]) – the polar-coordinate transforming unit is referred to as the coordinate transforming unit of arithmetic processing device 200, that transforms the disk-shaped graduation-plate image data 211 into polar coordinates.
“a defect detecting unit” (Fig. 3 & 12; unit 300 [¶0026; 31-41]) – the defect detecting unit is described as a module of arithmetic processing device 200, comprising: processing-region setting unit 310, an edge determining unit 320, a processing-region adjusting unit 330, a center-of-gravity calculating unit 340, a center-of-gravity pitch calculating unit 350, and a pass/fail determining unit 360.
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because signals per se do not fall into one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 9 recites, inter alia, “A computer-readable recording medium storing an inspection program…” After close inspection, the Examiner respectfully notes that the disclosure, as a whole, does not definitively describe what can and cannot be considered the “computer-readable recording medium”. Applicant’s specification discusses the “computer-readable recording medium” in ¶ 0025. Applicant describes the “computer-readable recording medium” as possibly being a non-transitory storage medium. However, applicant uses the word “may” to describe the fact that it might be a non-transitory storage medium. Thus, the “computer-readable recording medium” could be other forms – such as a signal.
An Examiner is obliged to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during examination. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer program product (also called a computer readable medium, machine readable medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent. See MPEP 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal, per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter.
Therefore, given the non-definitive disclosure and the broadest reasonable interpretation, the machine-readable storage medium of the claim may include transitory propagating signals. As a result, the claim pertains to non-statutory subject matter.
However, the Examiner respectfully submits a claim drawn to such a computer program product or computer readable storage medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by adding the limitation “non-transitory” to the claim. Such an amendment would typically not raise the issue of new matter, even when the specification is silent because the broadest reasonable interpretation relies on the ordinary and customary meaning that includes signals per se. For additional information, please see the Patents’ Official Gazette notice published February 23, 2010 (1351 OG 212).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 & 5-9 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 & 5-9 of copending U.S. application 18/394,714, herein after referred to as the ‘714 application. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the present application are, generally, broader in scope than those of the ‘714 application, as indicated below.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 compares to claim 1 of the ‘714 application as indicated below:
Current Application
‘714 Application
Notes
A method of inspecting a disk-shaped graduation plate for defects, the method comprising: an image-data acquisition step of acquiring data about an image of the disk-shaped graduation plate as disk-shaped graduation-plate image data;
A method of inspecting a disk-shaped graduation plate for defects, the method comprising: an image-data acquisition step of acquiring data about an image of the disk-shaped graduation plate as disk-shaped graduation-plate image data;
Verbatim the same
a polar-coordinate transformation step of transforming the disk- shaped graduation-plate image data into polar coordinates using a center of the disk-shaped graduation plate as a reference to generate polar- coordinate graduation image data;
a polar-coordinate transformation step of transforming the disk- shaped graduation-plate image data into polar coordinates using a center of the disk-shaped graduation plate as a reference to generate polar- coordinate graduation image data;
Verbatim the same
and a defect detection step of detecting a defect in the disk-shaped graduation plate based on the polar-coordinate graduation image data.
and a defect detection step for detecting a defect in the disk-shaped graduation plate by comparing a pitch of graduations in the polar- coordinate graduation image data with a predetermined reference value.
Current application is broader
Thus, as can be seen above, claim 1 of the current application is broader in scope and is anticipated by each of the limitations of claim 1 of the ‘714 patent application.
As for claim 5, claim 5 is verbatim the same as claim 5 of the ‘714 application.
Regarding claim 6, claim 6 is verbatim the same as claim 6 of the ‘714 application.
As for claim 7, claim 7 is verbatim the same as claim 7 of the ‘714 application.
With regard to claim 8, claim 8 compares to claim 8 of the ‘714 application as indicated below:
Current Application
‘714 Application
Notes
An inspection apparatus for a disk-shaped graduation plate, the inspection apparatus comprising: an image-data acquiring unit configured to acquire data about an image of the disk-shaped graduation plate as disk-shaped graduation- plate image data;
A defect inspection apparatus for a disk-shaped graduation plate, the defect inspection apparatus comprising: an image-data acquiring unit configured to acquire data about an image of the disk-shaped graduation plate as disk-shaped graduation- plate image data;
Current application is broader
a polar-coordinate transforming unit configured to transform the disk-shaped graduation-plate image data into polar coordinates using a center of the disk-shaped graduation plate as a reference to generate polar-coordinate graduation image data;
a polar-coordinate transforming unit configured to transform the disk-shaped graduation-plate image data into polar coordinates using a center of the disk-shaped graduation plate as a reference to generate polar-coordinate graduation image data;
Verbatim the same
and a defect detecting unit configured to detect a defect in the disk- shaped graduation plate based on a pitch of graduations in the polar- coordinate graduation image data.
and a defect detecting unit configured to detect a defect in the disk- shaped graduation plate by comparing a pitch of graduations in the polar-coordinate graduation image data with a predetermined reference value.
Current application is broader
Thus, as can be seen above, claim 8 of the current application is broader in scope than claim 8 of the ‘714 patent application.
As for claim 9, claim 9 compares to claim 9 of the ‘714 application as indicated below:
Current Application
‘714 Application
Notes
A computer-readable recording medium storing an inspection program for a disk-shaped graduation plate, the program causing a computer to execute: an image-data acquisition step of acquiring data about an image of the disk-shaped graduation plate as disk-shaped graduation-plate image data;
A computer-readable recording medium storing an inspection program for a disk-shaped graduation plate, the program causing a computer to execute:an image-data acquisition step of acquiring data about an image of the disk-shaped graduation plate as disk-shaped graduation-plate image data;
Verbatim the same
a polar-coordinate transformation step of transforming the disk- shaped graduation-plate image data into polar coordinates using a center of the disk-shaped graduation plate as a reference to generate polar- coordinate graduation image data;
a polar-coordinate transformation step of transforming the disk- shaped graduation-plate image data into polar coordinates using a center of the disk-shaped graduation plate as a reference to generate polar- coordinate graduation image data;
Verbatim the same
and a defect detection step of detecting a defect in the disk-shaped graduation plate based on a pitch of graduations in the polar-coordinate graduation image data.
and a defect detection step of detecting a defect in the disk-shaped graduation plate by comparing a pitch of graduations in the polar- coordinate graduation image data with a predetermined reference value.
Current application is broader
Thus, as can be seen above, claim 9 of the current application is broader in scope than claim 9 of the ‘714 patent application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the double patenting rejections, set forth in this Office action. Claim 9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the double patent rejection and the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101.
The following is a statement of reason for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 1-7 & 9, the primary reason for indication of allowable subject matter is that the prior art fails to teach or reasonably suggest a defect detection step to detect defects in the disk-shaped graduation plate based on the polar-coordinate graduation image data. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim that invokes 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) is the structure, material or act described in the specification as performing the entire claimed function and equivalents thereof, which afford a more narrow interpretation than a limitation that is not crafted in “means plus function” format (see MPEP § 2181). Of particular note is the “defect detection step”, whose corresponding steps and associated structure is outlined in ¶0031-41 of the specification. Therefore, prior art must disclose all of the limitations disclosed under the interpretation of a claim under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) for a claim to be rejected.
The closest prior art analogous to the field of endeavor of the present application, Zhao et al (CN 113899748 A), disclose a method and device for detecting defects of a strain gauge, which teach acquiring images of a strain gauge via a camera-mounted bracket (image-data acquisition step), but does not disclose the polar-coordinate transformation step or detection step. Ito; Norihiko (JP 2004/133650 A) is analogous art that discloses a method and apparatus for automatically reading analog meters, which teaches acquiring images of an analog meter (image-data acquisition step) and transforming the images into a polar coordinate space with the rotation center as a reference (polar-coordinate transformation step), but does not disclose a defect detection step. Zhang et al (CN 109558871 A) is analogous art that disclose a method and device for reading a pointer type meter, which teach a method for detecting the edge of a processing region, but does not disclose that this method depends the number of graduations (processing-region setting step), nor any of the subsequent steps that comprise the defect detection step. The subject matter disclosed as part of the defect detection step, as a whole, is neither anticipated by nor made obvious by the prior art of record.
Therefore, claim 1, and its associated dependent claims 2-7 are considered allowable subject matter. Claim 9 would be considered allowable subject matter if amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments by adding the limitation “non-transitory” to the claim.
Regarding claim 8, a similar analysis to the methods of claim 1 was conducted for the corresponding apparatus of claim 8. Of particular note is the “defect detecting unit”, whose corresponding units and associated structure provided by the arithmetic processing device 200 is outlined in ¶0026 & 31-41 of the specification. Therefore, prior art must disclose all of the limitations disclosed under the interpretation of a claim under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) for a claim to be rejected.
The closest prior art analogous to the field of endeavor of the present application, Zhao et al (CN 113899748 A), disclose a method and device for detecting defects of a strain gauge, which teach a system for acquiring images of a strain gauge via a camera-mounted bracket (image-data acquisition unit), but does not disclose the polar-coordinate transformation unit or defect detecting unit. Ito; Norihiko (JP 2004/133650 A) is analogous art that discloses a method and apparatus for automatically reading analog meters, which teaches an apparatus for acquiring images of an analog meter (image-data acquisition unit) and transforming the images into a polar coordinate space with the rotation center as a reference (polar-coordinate transformation unit), but does not disclose a defect detecting unit. Zhang et al (CN 109558871 A) is analogous art that disclose a method and device for reading a pointer type meter, which teach a device for detecting the edge of a processing region, but does not disclose that this device utilizes the number of graduations to set the region (processing-region setting unit), nor any of the subsequent units that comprise the defect detecting unit. The subject matter disclosed as part of the defect detecting unit, as a whole, is neither anticipated by nor made obvious by the prior art of record.
Therefore, claim 8 is considered allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Nie et al (CN 112967258 A) disclose a method and device for detecting defects in the display of a wristwatch.
Lin et al (US 2021/0012140 A1) disclose a system and method for reading a circular meter, even in the case that defects or distortions are present.
Zhang; Lei (CN 105741307 A) disclose an automatic method for interpreting the readings of a pointer-type pressure gauge.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael M. Sofroniou whose telephone number is (571)272-0287. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, John M. Villecco can be reached at (571) 272-7319. 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.
/MICHAEL M SOFRONIOU/Examiner, Art Unit 2661
/JOHN VILLECCO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2661