DETAILED ACTION
This Action is in response to Applicant’s response filed on 11/17/2025. Claim 2 has been cancelled. New claims 15-19 have been added. Claims 1 and 3-19 are now pending in the present application. This Action is made FINAL.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the previous 101 rejection, the amendments to claim 14 overcome the previous 101 rejection.
For the rejection of claim 1 and its dependent claims, Applicant's arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection in view of Miginnis (US 2021/0264639 A1).
Independent claim 12 was not amended and arguments were not made to traverse the rejection; therefore, the previous rejection for claim 12 is maintained.
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 limitation(s) is/are: a determining module, obtaining module and detection module in claim 12.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wu (“Pole-piece position distance identification of cylindrical lithium-ion battery through x-ray testing technology”)
Regarding claim 12, Wu discloses a device for detecting imaging consistency of a system, wherein that the device comprises:
a determining module, configured to determine a target region in an image acquired by the system, wherein the target region is a partial region that comprises a target object in the image; (abstract; sections 1, 2.2)
an obtaining module, configured to obtain first image information of the target region; (abstract; sections 1, 2.2)
and a detection module, configured to detect the imaging consistency of the system based on the first image information. (abstract; sections 1, 2.2, 2.4)
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, 3-11 and 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Miginnis (US 2021/0264639 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Wu discloses a method for detecting imaging consistency of a system, characterized in that the method comprises:
determining a target region in an image acquired by the system, wherein the target region is a partial region that comprises a target object in the image; (abstract; sections 1, 2.2)
obtaining first image information of the target region; and (abstract; sections 1, 2.2)
detecting the imaging consistency of the system based on the first image information. (abstract; sections 1, 2.2, 2.4)
Wu fails to specifically disclose determining, if the first image information satisfies a first preset condition, that imaging is consistent in the system; determining, if the first image information fails to satisfy a first preset condition, that imaging is inconsistent in the system; and determining an abnormal status of at least one of a light source, an optical path adjustment device, and an image acquisition device in the system when the first image information fails to satisfy the first preset condition.
In related art, Miginnis discloses determining, if the first image information satisfies a first preset condition, that imaging is consistent in the system; (paragraphs 23 and 37: Miginnis teaches comparing blob characteristics to reference characteristics (preset conditions). If the blob characteristics match, operation is compliant and has no defect.)
determining, if the first image information fails to satisfy a first preset condition, that imaging is inconsistent in the system; and (paragraphs 14, 38 and 45: Miginnis teaches determining a defect when characteristics deviate from reference and outputting an indication.)
determining an abnormal status of at least one of a light source, an optical path adjustment device, and an image acquisition device in the system when the first image information fails to satisfy the first preset condition. (paragraphs 14, 16, 22-26, 38 and 45: Miginnis determines abnormal status of a light source including brightness, color, position and orientation defects.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Miginnis into the teachings of Wu to effectively analyze a captured image for a defect in the light source.
Regarding claim 3, Wu, a modified by Miginnis, discloses the claimed invention wherein in that the target region is a region of interest in the image, the first image information comprises brightness, clarity, and location of the target region, and that the first image information satisfies the first preset condition comprises: the brightness of the target region falls within a first preset brightness range; the clarity of the target region is greater than or equal to a first preset clarity; and the location of the target region falls within a preset location range. (abstract; sections 1, 2.1, 2.4)
Regarding claim 4, Wu, a modified by Miginnis, discloses the claimed invention wherein in that the determining a target region in an image acquired by the system comprises: processing the image based on a segmenting and locating method to obtain the region of interest. (abstract; sections 1, 2.2)
Regarding claim 5, Wu, a modified by Miginnis, discloses the claimed invention wherein in that the target region is a line region in a region of interest in the image, and the line region is formed of lines of the target object; the first image information comprises brightness, clarity, and line angle of the target region; the line angle is an angle of the lines of the target object; and that the first image information satisfies the first preset condition comprises: the brightness of the target region falls within a second preset brightness range; the clarity of the target region is greater than or equal to a second preset clarity; and the line angle of the target region falls within a preset angle range. (sections 1, 2.2)
Regarding claim 6, Wu, a modified by Miginnis, discloses the claimed invention wherein in that the determining a target region in an image acquired by the system comprises: processing the image based on a segmenting and locating method to obtain the region of interest; and segmenting the region of interest semantically to obtain the target region. (abstract; sections 1, 2.2)
Regarding claim 7, Wu, a modified by Miginnis, discloses the claimed invention wherein in that the first image information comprises brightness, clarity, and location of the target region as well as brightness, clarity, and a line angle of a line region in the target region; the line region is a line region formed of lines of the target object in the target region; the line angle is an angle of the lines of the target object; and that the first image information satisfies the first preset condition comprises: the brightness of the target region falls within a first preset brightness range; the clarity of the target region is greater than or equal to a first preset clarity; and the location of the target region falls within a preset location range; the brightness of the line region in the target region falls within a second preset brightness range; the clarity of the line region in the target region is greater than or equal to a second preset clarity; and the line angle of the line region in the target region falls within a preset angle range. (abstract; sections 1, 2.1, 2.4)
Regarding claim 8, Wu, a modified by Miginnis, discloses the claimed invention wherein in that the method further comprises: obtaining second image information of the image; and the detecting the imaging consistency of the system comprises: detecting the imaging consistency of the system based on the second image information and the first image information. (sections 1, 2.1)
Regarding claim 9, Wu, a modified by Miginnis, discloses the claimed invention wherein in that the detecting the imaging consistency of the system based on the second image information and the first image information comprises: determining, if the second image information satisfies a second preset condition and the first image information satisfies a first preset condition, that imaging is consistent in the system; or determining, if the second image information fails to satisfy a second preset condition or the first image information fails to satisfy a first preset condition, that imaging is inconsistent in the system. (abstract; sections 1, 2.2)
Regarding claim 10, Wu, a modified by Miginnis, discloses the claimed invention wherein in that the second image information comprises brightness, clarity, and similarity of the image, and that the second image information satisfies the second preset condition comprises: the brightness of the image falls within a third preset brightness range; the clarity of the image is greater than or equal to a third preset clarity; and the similarity of the image falls within a preset similarity range. (abstract; sections 1, 2.1, 2.4)
Regarding claim 11, Wu, a modified by Miginnis, discloses the claimed invention wherein in that the target object is a tab, the target region is a partial region that comprises the tab in the image, or the target region is a line region formed of tab lines of the tab in the image. (abstract; sections 1, 2.2)
Regarding claim 13, Wu, a modified by Miginnis, discloses the claimed invention wherein a device for detecting imaging consistency of a system, characterized in that the device comprises a processor and a memory, the memory is configured to store a program, and the processor is configured to call the program from the memory and run the program to perform the method for detecting imaging consistency of a system according to claim 1. (figure 11)
Regarding claim 14, Wu, a modified by Miginnis, discloses the claimed invention wherein a computer-readable storage medium, characterized in that the storage medium comprises a computer program, and, when executed on a computer, the computer program causes the computer to perform the method for detecting imaging consistency of a system according to claim 1. (figure 11)
Regarding claim 15, Wu, a modified by Miginnis, discloses the claimed invention wherein, the light source and/or the optical path adjustment device is determined to be abnormal when the brightness of the target region falls outside the first preset brightness range; the optical path adjustment device and/or the image acquisition device is determined to be abnormal when the clarity of the target region is less than the first preset clarity; and the optical path adjustment device and/or the image acquisition device are determined to be abnormal when the location of the target region falls outside the preset location range. (Miginnis: paragraphs 16, 23, 27, 43 and 47)
Regarding claim 16, Wu, a modified by Miginnis, discloses the claimed invention wherein the first preset brightness range, the first preset clarity, and the preset location range are determined based on brightness values, clarity values, and coordinate values of regions of interest in a standard image acquired under a normal status the system. (Miginnis: paragraphs 16, 23, 27, 43 and 47)
Regarding claim 18, Wu, a modified by Miginnis, discloses the claimed invention wherein generating a detection result; and adjusting the system based on the detection result. (Miginnis: paragraph 42)
Claim 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Miginnis and in further view of Asghar (US 2022/0026275 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Wu, as modified by Miginnis, discloses the claimed invention except for wherein calculating the brightness of the target region as an average pixel value of the target region; calculating the clarity of the target region as a variance of a grayscale image gradient obtained by convolving a Laplacian operator with the target region; and obtaining the location of the target region as center coordinates of the target region.
In related art, Asghar discloses calculating the brightness of the target region as an average pixel value of the target region; calculating the clarity of the target region as a variance of a grayscale image gradient obtained by convolving a Laplacian operator with the target region; and obtaining the location of the target region as center coordinates of the target region. (paragraphs 27, 37, 40-43, 46 and 58)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Asghar into the teachings of Wu and Miginnis to effectively improve the characteristics of the image.
Claims 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Miginnis and in further view of Matsumoto (US 2016/0019008 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Wu, as modified by Miginnis, discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the similarity between the image and a standard image is determined by calculating a histogram of the image and a histogram of the standard image, and calculating a similarity between the histogram of the image and the histogram of the standard image based on at least one of correlation, chi-square, intersection, or Bhattacharyya distance.
In related art, Matsumoto discloses the similarity between the image and a standard image is determined by calculating a histogram of the image and a histogram of the standard image, and calculating a similarity between the histogram of the image and the histogram of the standard image based on at least one of correlation, chi-square, intersection, or Bhattacharyya distance. (paragraph 202)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Matsumoto into the teachings of Wu and Miginnis to for effectively improving the work efficiency.
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