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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species I, claims 2, 7-9, 15-16, and 18 in the reply filed on 2/23/2026 is acknowledged. The requirement is traversed because there would be no undue burden on the Examiner to examine all Species I to III. This is not found persuasive because there is no specific or detailed reason for the argument.
The three species are not dependent on each other and one of the limitations does not require the other limitation to operate. Therefore, the species are mutually exclusive. Different species are considered as different inventions. Due to the time given to the examiner for examining the application, there is a search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply: the species or groupings of patentably indistinct species require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 13-14, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 16 and 18 refer back to two different claims. The statute requires reference back to a single claim (“a reference to a claim previously set forth”). See MPEP 608/01(n).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-2, 10, 13-14, and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by FUKUCHI (JP 2021136024 A).
Regarding claims 1, 10, 13-14, 17, and 19. FUKUCHI teaches an analysis method for a rubber composition, the analysis method comprising:
acquiring input data generated from a microscopic image obtained by image- capturing a rubber composition with a microscope (see page 5, lines 24-25, the microscope image is an image obtained by imaging the rubber composition as a sample with a microscope), the microscopic image showing a formulation contained in the rubber composition (see page 3, lines 18-27, the structural features of the rubber composition can be extracted from the microscopic image of the rubber composition taken with a microscope. FIG. 1 is an image of a scanning electron microscope in which the inside of a rubber composition is imaged at a magnification of 20,000 times. In the image of FIG. 1, a specific formulation can be identified by the light and shade represented by the gray scale; see page, lines , The learning device 1 competitively trains these machine learning models to generate a simulated microscope image which is a new image similar to the microscope image of the rubber composition, and the trained model 200A and the rubber from the input image. A trained model 300A that estimates the formulation data of the composition is generated);
inputting the input data to a trained machine learning model; and deriving output data from the trained machine learning model (see page 3, lines , train a machine learning model, generate an image simulating a microscopic image of the rubber composition from the compounding data of the rubber composition, and generate a rubber image from the microscopic image of the rubber composition),
wherein the output data is data defining a region that appears in the microscopic image corresponding to the formulation (see page , lines 31-34, the structural features of the rubber composition can be extracted from the microscopic image of the rubber composition taken with a microscope. FIG. 1 is an image of a scanning electron microscope in which the inside of a rubber composition is imaged at a magnification of 20,000 times. In the image of FIG. 1, a specific formulation can be identified by the light and shade represented by the gray scale . For example, carbon aggregates appear in the image as relatively dark areas, while silica aggregates appear as relatively bright areas. That is, the microscopic image of the rubber composition contains information expressing the structure of the rubber composition, such as the size of the filler aggregates, the distance between the filler aggregates, and the distribution (distribution) of the filler with respect to the polymer phase).
Regarding claims 2 and18. The analysis method according to claim 1, further comprising deriving a feature amount related to at least one of a structure and a physical property of the rubber composition based on the output data (see page 3, lines 29-31, estimating the correlation between the structure of the rubber composition represented in the image and the blending data representing the blending of the materials constituting the rubber composition).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 7 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FUKUCHI (JP 2021136024 A) in view of NAKANE (JP 2021148491 A).
Regarding claims 7 and 16. FUKUCHI does not expressly teach the analysis method according to claim 1, wherein the microscope is a backscattered electron microscope.
In the observation step according to the present invention, the polished surface of the observation sample obtained in the sample preparation step is irradiated with an electron beam under reduced pressure using a scanning electron microscope and detected by a reflected electron detector of the scanning electron microscope. This is a step of acquiring a backscattered electron image of an observation sample by backscattered electrons
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify FUKUCHI by NAKANE to obtain the polished surface of the observation sample obtained in the sample preparation step is irradiated with an electron beam under reduced pressure using a scanning electron microscope and detected by a reflected electron detector of the scanning electron microscope, in order to provide wherein the microscope is a backscattered electron microscope. Therefore, combining the elements from prior arts according to known methods and technique would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 15. FUKUCHI does not expressly teach the analysis method according to claim 2, wherein the trained machine learning model is configured as a segmentation model.
The examiner is taking "Official Notice" that the limitation about segmentation model is well known in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified FUKUCHI so that segmentation model would be available.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIN JIA whose telephone number is (571)270-5536. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am-7:30pm.
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.
/XIN JIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2663
Prosecution Insights