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 .
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: “data measurement module”, “data measurement and calculation module”, and “data statistical analysis module” in claim 14.
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.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 16 is directed to a “computer readable storage medium”. However, the claim is not limited to nontransitory embodiments, and the specification does not provide a definition limiting the meaning of this term to only nontransitory embodiments (see [0025] in the specification: “In addition, the present invention further discloses a computer readable storage medium, characterized in that the readable storage medium has stored therein at least one instruction, at least one segment of program, a code set, or a set of instructions, the at least one instruction, the at least one segment of program, the code set, or the set of instructions being loaded and executed by said processor to implement said method.”). The claim therefore can be reasonably interpreted as encompassing transitory signal embodiments, which are nonstatutory (In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 84 USPQ2d 1495 (Fed. Cir. 2007)). If the specification includes written description support, this rejection can be overcome by including the term “nontransitory” in the claim (see USPTO Official Gazette notice 1351 OG 212.).
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 (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 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, 4, 5, 7-10, and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu et al. (Development of a Visual Measuring Instrument for the Height Parameter of Fire-Resisting Plate, 2020, China Jiliang University, Master Dissertation, English translation of the Abstract), hereinafter “Liu”, as cited in the IDS filed 29 December 2023.
Regarding claim 1, Liu teaches:
A method for detecting structural performance of fire retardant disc, comprising steps of (See the Abstract.):
obtaining passage structural information characterizing a structural feature of each passage in a fire retardant disc to be detected (See page iv: “Obtain the complete contour of the corrugated triangle, straighten the corrugated triangle image and use the sub-pixel edge detection method to accurately obtain the location of the corrugated triangle edge, and calculate the wave height parameter pixel size and actual size of each corrugated triangle”.);
analyzing said passage structural information and measuring a key feature size of each passage (See page iv: “calculate the wave height parameter pixel size and actual size of each corrugated triangle”.); and
statistically analyzing feature size distribution of each passage according to said key feature size, and determining a structural uniformity state of said fire retardant disc to be detected based on statistical result (See page iv: “At the same time, the second-degree block is also used to analyze the measurement uncertainty of the flame arrester wave height parameter visual measuring instrument. The second-degree block is corresponding to the standard measurement uncertainty value by polynomial fitting to Standard measurement uncertainty and extended uncertainty for predicting actual wave height parameters.”).
Regarding claim 2, Liu teaches:
The method according to claim 1, characterized in that the passage structural information is obtained through one of: multi-point random sampling technology; overall linear scanning technology (See page iii: “Firstly, by analyzing the morphological characteristics of the surface of the flame arresting disk, a scheme for measuring wave height parameters using a linear array industrial camera”.); overall image shooting technology; and partial image shooting and stitching technology.
Regarding claim 4, Liu teaches:
The method according to claim 1, characterized in that the step of analyzing said passage structural information and measuring a key feature size of each passage comprises: constructing a passage structure model for reproducing a passage structure based on pixel pitch in the passage structure information in combination with a geometric feature of the passage structure; and identifying the key feature size of each passage in said passage structure model (See page iv: “Obtain the complete contour of the corrugated triangle, straighten the corrugated triangle image and use the sub-pixel edge detection method to accurately obtain the location of the corrugated triangle edge”.).
Regarding claim 5, Liu teaches:
The method according to claim 4, characterized in that when the passage structure of the fire retardant disc to be detected is triangular, a triangular passage structure model is constructed, and a height of a triangular passage is determined as the key feature size of each passage (See obtaining of corrugated triangle edges on page iv.); when the passage structure of the fire retardant disc to be detected is trapezoidal, a trapezoidal passage structure model is constructed, and a height of a trapezoidal passage is determined as the key feature size of each passage; and when the passage structure of the fire retardant disc to be detected is rhombic, a rhombic passage structure model is constructed, and a short diagonal line of a rhombic passage is determined as the key feature size of each passage.
Regarding claim 7, Liu teaches:
The method according to claim 1, characterized in that the method further comprises: calculating an upper limit value or a design threshold of a feature size corresponding to the passage structure based on a fire retardant grade corresponding to the fire retardant disc to be detected, and based on which, determining a plurality of intervals of a threshold range for classifying and counting the key feature size data of each passage (See page iv: “At the same time, the second-degree block is also used to analyze the measurement uncertainty of the flame arrester wave height parameter visual measuring instrument. The second-degree block is corresponding to the standard measurement uncertainty value by polynomial fitting to Standard measurement uncertainty and extended uncertainty for predicting actual wave height parameters.” The examiner asserts that the described “measurement uncertainty” refers to a range of values which meets the claimed “upper limit value” and also a “plurality of intervals”.).
Regarding claim 8, Liu teaches:
The method according to claim 7, characterized in that the step of determining a structural uniformity state of said fire retardant disc to be detected comprises: determining effectiveness of fire retardant performance of the fire retardant disc to be detected based on the key feature size data for each passage of the fire retardant disc to be detected and the upper limit value or the design threshold of the feature size corresponding to the passage structure; and statistically analyzing distribution of the key feature size of the fire retardant disc according to the key feature size data of each passage and the plurality of intervals of the threshold range, and then analyzing the structural performance of the fire retardant disc according to statistical result, when the fire retardant performance of the fire retardant disc to be detected is effective (See page iv: “At the same time, the second-degree block is also used to analyze the measurement uncertainty of the flame arrester wave height parameter visual measuring instrument. The second-degree block is corresponding to the standard measurement uncertainty value by polynomial fitting to Standard measurement uncertainty and extended uncertainty for predicting actual wave height parameters.”).
Regarding claim 9, Liu teaches:
The method according to claim 8, characterized in that the key feature size data of each passage in the fire retardant disc to be detected is compared with said upper limit value or the design threshold of the feature size, respectively, and if the key feature size data of each passage is smaller than said upper limit value or the design threshold of the feature size, it is determined that a structural state of the fire retardant disc reaches an effective fire retardant level; otherwise, the structural state of the fire retardant disc is in an ineffective fire retardant level (See page iv: “The experimental results show that the measurement error of the height of each flame arrester is less than 0.02mm, and the measurement efficiency is higher.”).
Regarding claim 10, Liu teaches:
The method according to claim 8, characterized in that an interval of the threshold range belonging to a first type of structural error range is determined, and a structural error of the fire retardant disc to be detected is calculated according to the statistical result of the feature size distribution of each passage; and the structural uniformity state of the fire retardant disc to be detected is determined based on the structural error through a predetermined acceptable error threshold (See page iv: “The experimental results show that the measurement error of the height of each flame arrester is less than 0.02mm, and the measurement efficiency is higher. At the same time, the second-degree block is also used to analyze the measurement uncertainty of the flame arrester wave height parameter visual measuring instrument. The second-degree block is corresponding to the standard measurement uncertainty value by polynomial fitting to Standard measurement uncertainty and extended uncertainty for predicting actual wave height parameters.” The examiner asserts that the described “measurement uncertainty” refers to a range of values which meets the claimed “structural error range”.).
Regarding claim 14, Liu teaches:
A system for detecting structural performance of fire retardant disc (See the Abstract.), comprising:
a data measurement module, configured to obtain passage structural information characterizing a structural feature of each passage in the fire retardant disc to be detected (See page iv: “Obtain the complete contour of the corrugated triangle, straighten the corrugated triangle image and use the sub-pixel edge detection method to accurately obtain the location of the corrugated triangle edge, and calculate the wave height parameter pixel size and actual size of each corrugated triangle”.);
a data measurement and calculation module, configured to analyze the passage structural information, and measure a key feature size data of each passage (See page iv: “calculate the wave height parameter pixel size and actual size of each corrugated triangle”.); and
a data statistical analysis module, configured to statistically analyze feature size distribution of each passage based on the key feature size data, and determine a structural uniformity state of the fire retardant disc to be detected based on statistical results (See page iv: “At the same time, the second-degree block is also used to analyze the measurement uncertainty of the flame arrester wave height parameter visual measuring instrument. The second-degree block is corresponding to the standard measurement uncertainty value by polynomial fitting to Standard measurement uncertainty and extended uncertainty for predicting actual wave height parameters.”).
Regarding claim 15, Liu teaches:
A computer device, comprising a processor and a memory, said memory having stored therein at least one instruction, at least one segment of program, a code set, or a set of instructions, the at least one instruction, the at least one segment of program, the code set, or the set of instructions being loaded and executed by said processor to implement the method according to claim 1 (See the Abstract.).
Regarding claim 16, Liu teaches:
A computer readable storage medium, characterized in that the readable storage medium has stored therein at least one instruction, at least one segment of program, a code set, or a set of instructions, the at least one instruction, the at least one segment of program, the code set, or the set of instructions being loaded and executed by said processor to implement the method according to claim 1 (See the Abstract.).
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 3, 6, 12, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (Development of a Visual Measuring Instrument for the Height Parameter of Fire-Resisting Plate, 2020, China Jiliang University, Master Dissertation, English translation of the Abstract) in view of Chen et al. (CN110470230A, Google machine translation copy provided by the examiner).
Claim 3 is met by the combination of Liu and Chen, wherein
Liu discloses:
The method according to claim 2, characterized in that the step of obtaining passage structural information characterizing a structural feature of each passage in a fire retardant disc to be detected comprises:
Liu does not explicitly disclose the following; however, Chen discloses:
estimating a total number of passages in the fire retardant disc to be detected, and determining a number of detecting points to be selected; dividing the fire retardant disc into a plurality of portions based on the number of detecting points and distribution of each passage, and randomly selecting a detecting point in each portion to obtain a first set of passage samples comprising each detecting point; and obtaining the passage structural information according to a structural feature of each detecting point in the first set of passage samples (See page 2: “Further, in the image acquisition module, the two-dimensional motion platform drives the fire arresting plate to move, and at the same time, the line array camera collects and saves the surface image of the fire arresting plate entering the field of view of the lens, and ensures that each line array image is contains some overlapping regions. Furthermore, the image mosaic module mainly implements the function of mosaicing two linear array images on the surface of the fire retardant plate with overlapping areas. Taking the linear array images I 1 and I 2 as examples, the specific steps are: first, adopt the accelerated robust feature The extraction algorithm and the FLANN algorithm obtain the Euclidean distance of all feature points, and then perform a preliminary screening of each group of feature matching points according to the optimal entropy automatic threshold method, and then combine the Freeman chain code to perform a preliminary screening of each group of feature matching points after the preliminary screening. Further screening is carried out, and finally the image stitching is realized according to the selected groups of feature matching points, and the stitching result obtained is I 12 .”).
Liu and Chen together teach the limitations of claim 3. Chen is directed to a similar field of art (fire relief panel surface wave inspection). Therefore, Liu and Chen are combinable. Modifying the system and method of Liu by adding the capability of “estimating a total number of passages in the fire retardant disc to be detected, and determining a number of detecting points to be selected; dividing the fire retardant disc into a plurality of portions based on the number of detecting points and distribution of each passage, and randomly selecting a detecting point in each portion to obtain a first set of passage samples comprising each detecting point; and obtaining the passage structural information according to a structural feature of each detecting point in the first set of passage samples”, as disclosed by Chen, would yield the expected and predictable result of improved extraction of corrugated triangles in the images. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Liu and Chen in this way.
Claim 6 is met by the combination of Liu and Chen, wherein
Liu discloses:
The method according to claim 1, characterized in that the method further comprises:
Liu does not explicitly disclose the following; however, Chen discloses:
correcting actually-measured size data of each passage in the passage structure information through standard size information, in order to obtain a correction result characterizing a correspondence between the actually-measured size data and a measured value, thereby correcting the measured value in the passage structure model through the correction result (See page 3: “The present invention combines the principle of cross-ratio invariance and the distortion correction model to realize the calibration of the line array camera, effectively solves the problem of camera distortion, and obtains the precise relationship between the pixel distance and the actual physical distance.”).
See the motivation to combine in the treatment of claim 3.
Claim 12 is met by the combination of Liu and Chen, wherein
Liu discloses:
The method according to claim 1, characterized in that
Liu does not explicitly disclose the following; however, Chen discloses:
the fire retardant disc to be detected is an in-service fire retardant disc or a new fire retardant disc, wherein when the fire retardant disc is the in-service fire retardant disc, said method further comprises cleaning the fire retardant disc so as to remove impurities on a surface thereof that may affect measurement (See page 3: “The present invention combines the principle of cross-ratio invariance and the distortion correction model to realize the calibration of the line array camera, effectively solves the problem of camera distortion, and obtains the precise relationship between the pixel distance and the actual physical distance.” The examiner asserts that distortion meets the claimed “impurities on a surface” and the correction model meets the claimed “cleaning”.).
See the motivation to combine in the treatment of claim 3.
Claim 13 is met by the combination of Liu and Chen, wherein
Liu discloses:
The method according to claim 1, characterized in that the method further comprises:
Liu does not disclose the following; however, Chen suggests:
determining fire retardant quality of the fire retardant disc according to the structural uniformity state thereof (See page 2: “The flame arrester is a safety device, its main function is to prevent the flame spread of flammable gas or liquid to cause an explosion, and prevent backfire from causing fire and other accidents…These channels or pores are required to be as small as possible, so that when the flame passes through the flame arrester, it can be separated into many small flame streams and then extinguished.” The examiner asserts that the described safety meets the claimed “fire retardant quality” and the determination of triangle height uniformity meets “determining fire retardant quality”.).
See the motivation to combine in the treatment of claim 3.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is 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. The prior art of record, individually or in combination, does not disclose or suggest in claim 11: “an objective correlation function is constructed, with the effectiveness of fire retardant performance of the fire retardant disc to be detected as an objective, and a cumulative use time of the fire retardant disc and the structural error corresponding to the statistical result of the feature size distribution of the fire retardant disc as influencing factors; and a remaining life span of the fire retardant disc is predicted based on an acceptable error threshold of effectiveness reaching limit fire retardant performance through said objective correlation function.”
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN S LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-1981. The examiner can normally be reached 11:30 AM - 7:30 PM.
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, Andrew Bee can be reached at (571)270-5183. 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.
/Jonathan S Lee/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2677