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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/30/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-11, and 13-20 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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 (US20200211169) in view of Carter et al (US20190222776).
Regarding claim 1, Tsutsumi teaches a fault image generation method performed by a computing device (fig. 1), comprising:
obtaining a non-fault image (P2 in fig. 3; para. [0021]) and a first fault image (fig. 2; para. [0020]), the non-fault image recording a first object that is not faulty (para. [0021], the second image P2 not depicting a defect), the first fault image recording a second object that is faulty (C2 in fig. 2; para. [0020], In addition, the first defect is a defect such as a crack, a chip, a hole, a dent, or adhesion of foreign matter), and a type of the first object is different from a type of the second object (para. [0021], 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 (R21 in fig. 3; para. [0023]-[0024]) to which the fault pattern of the second object is migrated (para. [0028]-[0030]); and
migrating a fault pattern of the second object in the first fault image to the first object in the non-fault image to obtain a second fault image (C1 in figs. 4-6), the second fault image presenting the first object in a faulty state (para. [0028]-[0030]).
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 Carter teaches inputting an non-fault image into a region generation model (para. [0043], identifying one or more target augmentation areas of a video frame or image. The method 230 begins at block 232, where the computing system may use a convolutional neural network (CNN) or other machine learning model to identify one or more candidate regions, areas or objects within the image or the current frame; para. [0071]), the region generation model comprising an AI model obtained through training (para. [0046]).
Therefore taking the combined teachings of Tsutsumi and Carter 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 Carter into the method of Tsutsumi. The motivation to combine Carter and Tsutsumi would be to enable augmentation without reliance on any particular in-venue setup or any non-traditional camera equipment (para. [0027] of Carter).
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 (para. [0004] of Tsutsumi; para. [0046] of Carter);
obtaining region indication information indicating a region in which a fault may be generated in the training image (R21 in figs. 4-6 and claim 2 of Tsutsumi); and
training the region generation model based on the plurality of training images and the region indication information (para. [0046] of Carter).
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 target region of 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. 4-6 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. [0030] 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. [0030] of Tsutsumi, 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
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
Prosecution Insights