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 .
Continuation
The present application is a continuation of application 16/260,227, now abandoned.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of claims 55-64 in the reply filed on 24 June 2026 is acknowledged. Because Applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
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 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. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), it/they is/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 this/these limitation(s) 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 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).
Claims 55 and 63
Claims 55 and 63 are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).
Claim 55
Regarding claim 55, the limitations “evaluation region setting unit”, “evaluation region inspection unit”, and “risk degree determination unit” each use the generic placeholder “unit” coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structures to perform the recited functions, and the generic placeholders are not preceded by structural modifiers. Accordingly, these limitations are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) as corresponding to any means capable of performing the claimed functions because no corresponding structures are described in Applicant’s specification.
Claim 63
Regarding claim 63, the limitation “x-ray inspection apparatus” uses the generic placeholder “unit” coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function, and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Accordingly, this limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) as corresponding to an x-ray source and an x-ray detector (Applicant’s specification, ¶ 218) and equivalents thereof.
Claim Rejections — 35 U.S.C. § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 55-63
Claims 55-63 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 55
Regarding claim 55, one or more claim limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function, as described above. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f);
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. § 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. § 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. § 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR § 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 56-63
Regarding claims 56-63, the claims are rejected due to their dependence.
Claim 61
Regarding claim 61, the recitation “the specimen is determined whether it is a conforming product or a defective product” is non-idiomatic and is unclear as to what is performing said determining.
Claim 63
Regarding claim 63, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the defect inside of the specimen” in the claim. See MPEP § 2173.05(e).
Claim Rejections — 35 U.S.C. § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102–103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102–103) 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 C.F.R. § 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 (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 55-56 and 63-64
Claims 55-56 and 63-64 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Numata (US 2006/0093082) in view of Park (US 2012/0216169).
Claim 55
Regarding claim 55, as best understood, Numata discloses a defect evaluation device comprising: an evaluation region setting unit (computer) that sets an evaluation region in a region of a part of a specimen (casting part), an evaluation region inspection unit that calculates a positional relationship (position) of a defect (inner defect 15), which is obtained through measuring the evaluation region of the specimen, within the specimen (¶¶ 1, 30-41; Figs. 1-4).
Numata does not expressly disclose a risk degree determination unit that determines a risk degree of the defect based on the positional relationship calculated by the evaluation region inspection unit, wherein the specimen is evaluated based on a result of the risk degree determination unit.
Park discloses determining a risk degree of a defect location (¶¶ 8, 27, 51-54).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the invention of Numata, in view of the teachings of Park, to include a risk degree determination unit (computer) that determines a risk degree of the defect based on the positional relationship calculated by the evaluation region inspection unit, wherein the specimen is evaluated based on a result of the risk degree determination unit.
One would have been motivated to do so to gain an advantage recited in Park of performing statistical process control (Park, ¶ 51).
Claim 56
Regarding claim 56, as best understood, Numata modified teaches the defect evaluation device according to claim 55, wherein the positional relationship includes a distance to a surface (contour) of the specimen (calculating 3D position and using the external shape contour; Numata, ¶¶ 40-41).
Claim 63
Regarding claim 63, as best understood, Numata modified teaches the defect evaluation device according to claim 55, wherein the defect inside of the specimen is obtained through measuring using an x-ray inspection apparatus comprising an x-ray source and an x-ray detector (to generate X-ray CT data; source and detector inherently required; Numata, ¶ [0041], fig. 1).
Claim 64
Regarding claim 64, see the rejection of claim 63 above, mutatis mutandis.
Claims 57-62
Claims 57-62 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Numata in view of Park as applied to claim 55 above, and further in view of Moermond (US 2004/0240607 A1).
Claim 57
Regarding claim 57, as best understood, Numata modified teaches the defect evaluation device according to claim 55, but does not expressly disclose the evaluation region setting unit sets the evaluation region using design information regarding a site of the specimen.
Moermond discloses setting an evaluation region (inspected portion) based on design information regarding a site (portion of specimen 102 being examined) of the specimen information (whether or not specimen 102 would fit within an x-ray beam 106), the evaluation region (inspected portion) representing only a portion of a specimen (102; ¶ 15, Fig. 1),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have further modified the invention of Numata in view of the teachings of Moermond so that the evaluation region setting unit sets the evaluation region using design information regarding a site of the specimen.
One would have been motivated to do so for the reason recited in Moermond to take appropriate action in case the specimen (component 102) is too large to fit completely within the inspection beam (106; Moermond, ¶ [0015]).
Claim 58
Regarding claim 58, as best understood, Numata modified teaches the defect evaluation device according to claim 57, wherein the risk degree determination unit determines the risk degree of the defect based on the positional relationship and the design information (Park, ¶¶ 27, 51-54).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the invention of Numata in view of the further teachings of Park.
One would have been motivated to do so to gain an advantage recited in Park of performing statistical process control (Park, ¶ 51).
Claim 59
Regarding claim 59, as best understood, Numata modified teaches the defect evaluation device according to claim 58, wherein the design information includes attribute information (Moermond: whether or not specimen 102 would fit within an x-ray beam 106; see rejection of claim 57 above) regarding function of the site (i.e., whether the site functionally fits within the x-ray beam), and the risk degree of the defect is determined based on the attribute information (whether the specimen fits within the x-ray beam) and a degree of the defect (degree of defect as described above regarding claims 57-58 above).
Claim 60
Regarding claim 60, as best understood, Numata modified teaches the defect evaluation device according to claim 59, wherein the risk degree of the defect is decided based on a size of the defect (Park, ¶ [0027], [0051]-[0054]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the invention of Numata in view of the further teachings of Park.
One would have been motivated to do so to gain an advantage recited in Park of performing statistical process control (Park, ¶ [0051]).
Claim 61
Regarding claim 61, as best understood, Numata modified teaches the defect evaluation device according to claim 58, wherein the specimen is determined whether it is a conforming product or a defective product based on a determination result of a risk degree of a defect location (Park, ¶ [0027], [0051]-[0054]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the invention of Numata in view of the further teachings of Park.
One would have been motivated to do so to gain an advantage recited in Park of performing statistical process control (Park, ¶ [0051]).
Claim 62
Regarding claim 63, Numata modified teaches the defect evaluation device according to claim 59, wherein attribute information is information regarding a surface of the site of the specimen (i.e., whether the specimen, necessarily including the surface, fits within the x-ray beam; see the rejection of claim 59 above; see also the rejection of claim 56 above regarding the surface).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sugita (US 2011/0222647 A1) discloses an x-ray inspection apparatus for inspecting an object to determine whether the object is a good product or a poor product (¶ 11).
D'Ambrosio (US 6,459,760 B1) discloses an automated real-time, non-destructive, x-ray inspection system usable to inspect a selected structure for a defect and visually identify a defect's location (Abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BLAKE RIDDICK whose telephone number is (571)270-1865. The examiner can normally be reached on M - Th 6:30 am - 5:00 pm ET, with flexible scheduling.
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, Uzma Alam can be reached on 571-272-2995. 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 Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Blake C. Riddick, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2884
/BLAKE C RIDDICK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights