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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
35 USC § 101 Statutory Analysis
The claims do not recite any of the judicial exceptions enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. Further, the claims do not recite any method of organizing human activity, such as a fundamental economic concept or managing interactions between people. Finally, the claims do not recite a mathematical relationship, formula, or calculation. Thus, the claims are eligible because they do not recite a judicial exception.
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 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), 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):
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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), 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), 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), 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), because the claim limitations use 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: “a control unit” configured to “execute processing for converting a red green blue (RGB) format in which colors of a first reference image not including liquid leakage are expressed into a hue saturation value (HSV) format, and for extracting a second reference image consisting of S components from the first reference image having colors expressed in the HSV format, processing for converting the RGB format in which colors of a first detection target image are expressed into the HSV format, and extracting a second detection target image consisting of S components from the first detection target image having colors expressed in the HSV format, processing for generating a third reference image and a third detection target image by smoothing the second reference image and the second detection target image, respectively, and processing for detecting the liquid leakage on a basis of a comparison result between the third reference image and the third detection target image” in claim 1; “the control unit” is configured to “execute processing for detecting a specific area in which the liquid leakage occurs on a basis of a first background subtraction image which is a result of processing using a background subtraction method on the third reference image and the third detection target image” in claim 2; “the control unit” is configured to “execute processing for generating a second background subtraction image by removing noise from the first background subtraction image on a basis of a predetermined noise removal method for removing noise from an image, and for detecting the specific area in which the liquid leakage occurs on a basis of the second background subtraction image” in claim 3; “the control unit” is configured to “execute processing for determining a liquid type of the liquid leakage on a basis of the specific area and of a learned model obtained by machine- learning an oil color representing a color of oil in the RGB format and a non-oil color representing a color of liquid excluding the oil in the RGB format” in claim 4; and “the control unit” is configured to “execute processing for acquiring the first reference image and the first detection target image in which colors are expressed in the RGB format from an imaging device that captures an imaging target through which a liquid circulates, and for displaying a determination result of the liquid type on a display device” in claim 5.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), 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), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (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 it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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 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.
Claims 1, 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang Yuan-yuan et al. (CN 113743454 A) (hereafter referred to as “Zhang (‘454)”).
The examiner would like to point out that the various “units” identified in section 6 hereinabove are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as described in FIG. 2. FIG. 2 is a schematic diagram showing the hardware configuration of the image processing apparatus 100. The above-mentioned configuration of the image processing apparatus 100 is a functional configuration achieved by cooperation of the hardware configuration shown in FIG. 2 and a program. As shown in FIG. 2, the image processing apparatus 100 includes a CPU 100A, a memory 100C, a storage 100B, and an input/output IF 100G as a hardware configuration. These are connected to each other by a bus. The CPU (Central Processing Unit) 100A controls another configuration in accordance with a program stored in the memory 100C, performs data processing in accordance with the program, and stores the processing result in the memory 100B. The CPU 100A can be a microprocessor. The memory 100C stores a program executed by the CPU 100A and data. The memory 100C can be a ROM (Read Only Memory).
With regard to claim 1, Zhang (‘454) describes a control unit (see Figure 1, element 110 and refer for example to page 11, line 13 through page 12, line 9) configured to execute processing for converting a red green blue (RGB) format in which colors of a first reference image not including liquid leakage are expressed into a hue saturation value (HSV) format (see Figure 1, element 120 and refer for example to page 11, lines 13-14, and to page 12, lines 1-7, which discuss a camera obtaining a current image which is labelled “normal sleeve image”, i.e. prior to the oil leak, to page 17, lines 23-26, which discuss discusses that the image is an RGB image and to page 18, lines 11-14, which discuss that the RGB image is converted to HSV), and for extracting a second reference image consisting of S components from the first reference image having colors expressed in the HSV format (refer for example to page 18, lines 17-21); processing for converting the RGB format in which colors of a first detection target image are expressed into the HSV format (see Figure 1, element 120 and refer for example to page 11, lines 13-14, and to page 12, lines 1-7, which discuss a camera obtaining an image of oil leakage which is labelled “oil leakage sleeve image” [refer top page 5, lines 1-11 and to page 15, lines 15-16], to page 17, lines 23-26, which discuss discusses that the image is an RGB image and to page 18, lines 11-14, which discuss that the RGB image is converted to HSV), and for extracting a second reference image consisting of S components from the first reference image having colors expressed in the HSV format (refer for example to page 18, lines 17-21), and extracting a second detection target image consisting of S components from the first detection target image having colors expressed in the HSV format (refer for example to page 22, lines 20-23 and to page 23, lines 4-12); processing for generating a third reference image and a third detection target image by smoothing the second reference image and the second detection target image, respectively (refer for example to page 20, lines 12-21); and processing for detecting the liquid leakage on a basis of a comparison result between the third reference image and the third detection target image (refer for example to page 17, lines 12-19 and to page 22, lines 6-14).
As to claim 2, Zhang (‘454) describes wherein the control unit is configured to execute processing for detecting a specific area in which the liquid leakage occurs on a basis of a first background subtraction image which is a result of processing using a background subtraction method on the third reference image and the third detection target image (refer for example to page 18, lines 15-23, to page 22, lines 22-29, and to page 23, lines 4-12).
In regard to claim 4, Zhang (‘454) describes wherein the control unit is configured to execute processing for determining a liquid type of the liquid leakage on a basis of the specific area and of a learned model obtained by machine- learning an oil color representing a color of oil in the RGB format and a non-oil color representing a color of liquid excluding the oil in the RGB format (refer for example to page 13, lines 14-16, to page 18, lines 4-10, and to page 19, line 17 through page 20, line 11).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 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.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Badawy, Lu, Alalouni, Duke, Govrin, Wang, Wu, Ruan, Zhang Y., Li and Geng all disclose systems similar to applicant’s claimed invention.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jose L. Couso whose telephone number is (571) 272-7388. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 5:30am to 1:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Bella, can be reached on 571-272-7778. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Center information webpage on the USPTO website. For more information about the Patent Center, see https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center. Should you have questions about access to the Patent Center, contact the Patent Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 571-272-4100 or via email at: ebc@uspto.gov .
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.
/JOSE L COUSO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2667
December 16, 2025