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 .
This office action is in response to communication filed on 3/17/2026. Claims 2 and 12 have been canceled. Claims 1, 3-11, and 13-20 are pending on this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Response to Remarks
Regarding claim 1, applicant asserts that Tsutsumi fails to teach inputting the non-fault image into a region generation model (Remarks page 8).
Examiner agrees. However, the limitation was addressed with respect to claim 2 and rejected over Kim.
Regarding claim 2, applicant asserts that Kim does not teach inputting the non-fault image into a region generation model to determine a target region in the non-fault image to which the fault pattern is migrated (Remarks page 10).
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Tsutsumi was relied upon to teach determine a target region in the non-fault image to which the fault pattern is migrated (see page 4 of the previous OA). Tsutsumi teaches translating a position of a crack to a non-fault image (para. [0023], causing the position of the crack C1 to be translated using image processing to the first image P1 as should in fig. 2). A target region R21 in fig. 3 is shown with the crack C1 in fig. 4. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the target region R21 prior to the translating step.
Kim was relied upon to teach inputting the non-fault image into a region generation model (see page 4 of the previous OA). Kim teaches a virtual defect image generation model (E2 in fig. 2) which is trained (S1 in fig. 2, para. [0071]) and is interpreted to be the claimed region generation model. The a normal image, interpreted to be a non-fault image, is input to the virtual defect image generation model to generate a virtual defect image (para. [0068]). The virtual defect image generation model is an artificial intelligence model (para. [0068]). Therefore the combination of Tsutsumi and Kim teaches the limitations as claimed.
In response to applicant's argument, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 depends on canceled claim 2. For the purposes of this examination, claim 3 will depend on claim 1.
Claim 13 depends on canceled claim 12. For the purposes of this examination, claim 3 will depend on claim 11.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-11, and 13-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsutsumi (EP3675033A1) in view of Kim et al (US20230143738).
Regarding claim 1, Tsutsumi teaches a fault image generation method performed by a computing device, comprising:
obtaining a non-fault image (fig. 3; para. [0015]) and a first fault image (fig. 2; para. [0014]), the non-fault image recording a first object that is not faulty (para. [0015], second product), the first fault image recording a second object that is faulty (para. [0014], first product), and a type of the first object is different from a type of the second object (para. [0015], In addition, the first product and the second product are different types of product. For example, the first product is a resin product and the second product is a ceramic product);
determining a target region in the non-fault image to which the fault pattern is migrated (para. [0022]-[0023], [0031], R21); and
migrating a fault pattern of the second object in the first fault image to the first object in the non-fault image (para. [0021]) to obtain a second fault image (figs. 4-6), the second fault image presenting the first object in a faulty state (para. [0023], causing the position of the crack C1 to be translated using image processing).
Tsutsumi fails to teach inputting the non-fault image into a region generation model, the region generation model comprising an AI model obtained through training. However Kim teaches inputting the non-fault image into a region generation model (para. [0068], [0209]), the region generation model comprising an AI model obtained through training (para. [0068]).
Therefore taking the combined teachings of Tsutsumi and Kim as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the steps of Kim into the method of Tsutsumi. The motivation to combine Kim and Tsutsumi would be to generate a virtual defect image of a product according to the user's needs (para. [0019] of Kim).
Regarding claim 3, modified Tsutsumi teaches a method wherein before the step of inputting the non-fault image into the region generation model, the method comprises:
obtaining a plurality of training images, wherein the training image records an object that is not faulty and is of a same type as the first object (S21 in fig. 5 of Kim);
obtaining region indication information indicating a region in which a fault may be generated in the training image (para. [0010] of Kim, region information); and
training the region generation model based on the plurality of training images and the region indication information (S1 in fig. 2 of Kim).
Regarding claim 4, modified Tsutsumi teaches a method wherein the step of migrating the fault pattern of the second object in the first fault image to the first object in the non-fault image comprises:
migrating a transformed fault pattern to the target region in the non-fault image to obtain the second fault image (figs. 5 and 6 of Tsutsumi).
Modified Tsutsumi fails to teach wherein the transformed fault pattern is a shape transformation on the fault pattern. However one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to transform the size of the fault pattern (i.e. changing the length of the fault by rotation as described in para. [0023] of Tsutsumi). The motivation to do so would be to increase the types of training images and contribute to improving the accuracy in identification by the identifier (para. [0044] of Tsutsumi).
Regarding claim 5, modified Tsutsumi teaches a method wherein the shape transformation comprises size stretching, compression, or brightness change (para. [0023], rotating of the crack would change the length and therefore stretch or compress the size).
Regarding claim 6, the claim recites similar subject matter as claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons as stated above.
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites similar subject matter as claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons as stated above.
Regarding claim 8, the claim recites similar subject matter as claim 3 and is rejected for the same reasons as stated above.
Regarding claim 9, the claim recites similar subject matter as claim 4 and is rejected for the same reasons as stated above.
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites similar subject matter as claim 5 and is rejected for the same reasons as stated above.
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites similar subject matter as claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons as stated above.
Regarding claim 13, the claim recites similar subject matter as claim 3 and is rejected for the same reasons as stated above.
Regarding claim 14, the claim recites similar subject matter as claim 4 and is rejected for the same reasons as stated above.
Regarding claim 15, the claim recites similar subject matter as claim 5 and is rejected for the same reasons as stated above.
Regarding claim 16, the claim recites similar subject matter as claim 6 and is rejected for the same reasons as stated above.
Regarding claim 17, the claim recites similar subject matter as claim 7 and is rejected for the same reasons as stated above.
Regarding claim 18, the claim recites similar subject matter as claim 8 and is rejected for the same reasons as stated above.
Regarding claim 19, the claim recites similar subject matter as claim 9 and is rejected for the same reasons as stated above.
Regarding claim 20, the claim recites similar subject matter as claim 10 and is rejected for the same reasons as stated above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 LEON VIET Q NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1185. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 11AM-7PM.
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, Gregory Morse can be reached at 571-272-3838. 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.
/LEON VIET Q NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2663