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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 9-11 recite “automatically analyze the one or more digital images…to one or both of detect one or more defects of the part, or determine a porosity of the part”, which Examiner suggests amending to “automatically analyze the one or more digital images…to perform one or both of detecting one or more defects of the part or determining a porosity of the part” (deleting “,”). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 9-11 recite “automatically analyze the one or more digital images…to one or both of detect one or more defects of the part, or determine a porosity of the part”, which Examiner suggests amending to “automatically analyze the one or more digital images…to perform one or both of detecting one or more defects of the part or determining a porosity of the part” (deleting “,”). Appropriate correction is required.
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) are: “light emitter”, “detector”, and “control unit” in claim 1-3, 6-9, 11, 15, 20, and 21.
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they 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 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 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 them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, claim limitation “control unit” in claims 1 (which claim 10 is dependent on) and 11 (which claim 19 is dependent on) invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, where Paragraph [0058] of Applicant’s specification discloses the corresponding structure of the control unit to be “any processor-based or microprocessor-based system including systems using microcontrollers…”. However, the written description fails to disclose how the control unit is an artificial intelligence or machine learning system (claims 10 and 19) as Paragraph [0064] of Applicant’s specification only discloses the artificial intelligence or machine learning system to be software.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "wherein the control unit is an artificial intelligence or machine learning system" in Lines 1-2. It is unclear as to the scope of this claim since the limitation “the control unit” in claim 1 invokes 112(f) (see corresponding structure disclosed in Paragraph [0058] of Applicant’s specification), but the limitations “artificial intelligence or machine learning system” recite only software (see Paragraph [0064] of Applicant’s specification). Thus, it is unclear how the control unit (which based on the 112(f) invocation in claim 1 denotes structure) is software. For purposes of examination, Examiner has interpreted the limitation to be where the control unit comprises an artificial intelligence or machine learning system.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "wherein the control unit is an artificial intelligence or machine learning system" in Lines 1-2. It is unclear as to the scope of this claim since the limitation “the control unit” in claim 11 invokes 112(f) (see corresponding structure disclosed in Paragraph [0058] of Applicant’s specification), but the limitations “artificial intelligence or machine learning system” recite only software (see Paragraph [0064] of Applicant’s specification). Thus, it is unclear how the control unit (which based on the 112(f) invocation in claim 11 denotes structure) is software. For purposes of examination, Examiner has interpreted the limitation to be where the control unit comprises an artificial intelligence or machine learning system.
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.
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) steps of analyzing the one or more digital images to perform one or both of detect one or more defects of the part or determine a porosity of the part, which may be performed practically in the human mind as a mental process by mentally observing the one or more digital images and mentally making a determination or evaluation of defects of the part in the one or more digital images or a porosity of the part in the one or more digital images. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of emitting light onto or into a part, acquiring one or more digital images of the part, and receiving the one or more digital images of the part amounts to mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality and thus is insignificant extra-solution activity. The additional elements of a light emitter, a detector, and a control unit are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic light source, image sensor, and computer.
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the judicial exception into a practical application, the additional element of the light emitter, the detector, and the control unit is at best mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, light source, and camera. The additional elements of emitting light onto or into a part, acquiring one or more digital images of the part, and receiving the one or more digital images of the part are recited at a high level of generality that amount to obtaining and receiving data over a network and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. Thus, claims 1 and 11 are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19 also do not include elements that amount to significantly more than just the abstract idea or integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, claims 2-10 and 12-19 are also not patent eligible.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) steps of analyzing the one or more digital images to perform one or both of detect one or more defects of the part and determine a porosity of the part, which may be performed practically in the human mind as a mental process by mentally observing the one or more digital images and mentally making a determination or evaluation of defects of the part in the one or more digital images and a porosity of the part in the one or more digital images. The steps of determining a mean and a standard deviation of the one or more portions of the one or more digital images and determining a signal-to noise ratio (SNR) of one or more portions of the one or more digital images are mathematical calculations and therefore encompasses mathematical concepts. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of emitting light onto or into a part, acquiring one or more digital images of the part, receiving the one or more digital images of the part, and showing information regarding the part amounts to mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality and thus is insignificant extra-solution activity. The additional elements of a light emitter, a detector, a control unit, and a display are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic light source, image sensor, computer, and display.
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the judicial exception into a practical application, the additional element of the light emitter, the detector, and control unit, and display is at best mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, light source, camera, and display. The additional elements of emitting light onto or into a part, acquiring one or more digital images of the part, receiving the one or more digital images of the part, and showing information regarding the part are recited at a high level of generality that amount to obtaining, receiving, and outputting data over a network and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. Thus, claim 20 is not patent eligible.
The dependent claim 21 also does not include elements that amount to significantly more than just the abstract idea or integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, claim 21 is also not patent eligible.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 10-15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Taira et al. (US 2024/0362888).
With regards to claim 1, Taira et al. discloses a system comprising:
a light emitter (Para. 0096 lines 8-9, "radiation sources") configured to emit light onto or into a part to illuminate the part (Para. 0101 lines 1-4, "irradiate");
a detector (Para. 0096 lines 1-9, "imaging system" "camera") configured to acquire one or more digital images of the part as illuminated by the light (Para. 0102 lines 1-8, 0108 lines 1-4, "images"); and
a control unit in communication with the detector (Para. 0058 lines 1-11, 0097 lines 1-8, "processor"), wherein the control unit is configured to:
receive the one or more digital images of the part as illuminated by the light from the detector (Para. 0062 lines 1-6, 0099 lines 1-3, "receive"), and
automatically analyze the one or more digital images of the part as illuminated by the light to one or both of detect one or more defects of the part, or determine a porosity of the part (Para. 0068 lines 1-14, 0070 lines 1-8, 0106 lines 1-7, 0109 lines 1-6, 0116 lines 1-8, 0118 lines 1-9, 0134 lines 1-11, 0137 lines 1-8, Fig. 9, Fig. 15, "defect" "porosities").
With regards to claim 3, Taira et al. discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the control unit is configured to detect one or more defects of the part and determine the porosity of the part (Para. 0068 lines 1-14, 0070 lines 1-8, 0118 lines 1-9, 0134 lines 1-11, Fig. 9, Fig. 15, "defect" "porosities").
With regards to claim 4, Taira et al. discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the detector comprises a digital camera (Para. 0096 lines 1-9, "imaging system" "camera").
With regards to claim 5, Taira et al. discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the light emitter is separated from the part (Para. 0096 lines 1-9, Fig. 7 elements 110, and 112, "radiation sources" "inspection target object").
With regards to claim 6, Taira et al. discloses the system of claim 1, further comprising a user interface in communication with the control unit (Para. 0058 lines 8-11, 0132 lines 1-10, "display"), wherein the user interface comprises a display, and wherein the control unit is configured to show information regarding the part on the display (Para. 0065 lines 1-8, Fig. 13, Fig. 15, Fig. 16, "display" "discontinuity information").
With regards to claim 10, Taira et al. discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the control unit is an artificial intelligence or machine learning system (Para. 0141 lines 1-10, "machine learning algorithm").
With regards to claim 11, Taira et al. discloses a method for a system comprising:
a light emitter (Para. 0096 lines 8-9, "radiation sources") configured to emit light onto or into a part to illuminate the part (Para. 0101 lines 1-4, "irradiate");
a detector (Para. 0096 lines 1-9, "imaging system" "camera") configured to acquire one or more digital images of the part as illuminated by the light (Para. 0102 lines 1-8, 0108 lines 1-4, "images"); and
a control unit in communication with the detector (Para. 0058 lines 1-11, 0097 lines 1-8, "processor"), wherein the control unit is configured to:
receive the one or more digital images of the part as illuminated by the light from the detector (Para. 0062 lines 1-6, 0099 lines 1-3, "receive"), and
automatically analyze the one or more digital images of the part as illuminated by the light to one or both of detect one or more defects of the part, or determine a porosity of the part (Para. 0068 lines 1-14, 0070 lines 1-8, 0106 lines 1-7, 0109 lines 1-6, 0116 lines 1-8, 0118 lines 1-9, 0134 lines 1-11, 0137 lines 1-8, Fig. 9, Fig. 15, "defect" "porosities"),
the method comprising:
emitting, by the light emitter, the light onto or into the part to illuminate the part (Para. 0101 lines 1-4, "irradiate");
acquiring, by the detector, the one or more digital images of the part as illuminated by the light (Para. 0102 lines 1-8, 0108 lines 1-4, "images");
receiving, by the control unit, the one or more digital images of the part as illuminated by the light from the detector (Para. 0062 lines 1-6, 0099 lines 1-3, "receive"); and
automatically analyzing, by the control unit, the one or more digital images of the part as illuminated by the light, wherein said automatically analyzing comprises one or both of detecting the one or more defects of the part, or determining the porosity of the part (Para. 0068 lines 1-14, 0070 lines 1-8, 0106 lines 1-7, 0109 lines 1-6, 0116 lines 1-8, 0118 lines 1-9, 0134 lines 1-11, 0137 lines 1-8, Fig. 9, Fig. 15, "defect" "porosities").
With regards to claim 12, Taira et al. discloses the method of claim 11, wherein said automatically analyzing comprises the detecting and the determining (Para. 0068 lines 1-14, 0070 lines 1-8, 0106 lines 1-7, 0109 lines 1-6, 0116 lines 1-8, 0118 lines 1-9, 0134 lines 1-11, 0137 lines 1-8, Fig. 9, Fig. 15, "defect" "porosities").
With regards to claim 13, Taira et al. discloses the method of claim 11, wherein the detector comprises a digital camera (Para. 0096 lines 1-9, "imaging system" "camera").
With regards to claim 14, Taira et al. discloses the method of claim 11, wherein the light emitter is separated from the part (Para. 0096 lines 1-9, Fig. 7 elements 110, and 112, "radiation sources" "inspection target object").
With regards to claim 15, Taira et al. discloses the method of claim 11, further comprising showing, by the control unit, information regarding the part on a display of a user interface in communication with the control unit (Para. 0058 lines 8-11, 0065 lines 1-8, 0132 lines 1-10, Fig. 13, Fig. 15, Fig. 16, "display" "discontinuity information").
With regards to claim 19, Taira et al. discloses the method of claim 11, wherein the control unit is an artificial intelligence or machine learning system (Para. 0141 lines 1-10, "machine learning algorithm").
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) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taira et al. (US 2024/0362888) in view of Gan et al. (Applications of Image Processing Technique in Porous Material Characterization).
With regards to claim 2, Taira et al. discloses the system of claim 1.
Taira et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the control unit is further configured to subtract the one or more digital images from a baseline image to remove known geometry effects to light transmission and enhance defect detection.
However, Gan et al. discloses the concept of subtracting the one or more digital images from a reference image to remove known geometry effects to light transmission and thus enhance defect detection in order to eliminate the influence of noise in the images (2.5 Subtraction: Para. 1 lines 1-5 and 7-9, 3.2 Surface porosity and pore diameter: Para. 2 lines 12-13, "reference/background image" "subtracted" "eliminated").
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the concept of subtracting the one or more digital images from a reference image to remove known geometry effects to light transmission and enhance defect detection as taught by Gan et al. into the system of Taira et al. The motivation for this would be to eliminate the influence of noise in the images.
Claim(s) 7, 9, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taira et al. (US 2024/0362888) in view of Rychagov et al. (US 2007/0041657).
With regards to claim 7, Taira et al. discloses the system of claim 1.
Taira et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the control unit is configured to automatically analyze the one or more digital images by determining a mean and a standard deviation of one or more portions of the one or more digital images.
However, Rychagov et al. discloses the concept of automatically analyzing a digital image by determining a mean and a standard deviation of the digital image (Para. 0089 lines 1-5, 0097 lines 1-6, "average" "standard deviation") in order to improve the image quality of the image (Para. 0090 lines 7-10, "improved").
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the concept of automatically analyzing a digital image by determining a mean and a standard deviation of the digital image as taught by Rychagov et al. into the system of Taira et al. The motivation for this would be to improve the image quality of the one or more digital images before further processing is performed.
With regards to claim 9, Taira et al. discloses the system of claim 1.
Taira et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the control unit is configured to analyze the one or more digital images to generate a histogram in relation to one or more portions of the one or more digital images, and determine a mean and a standard deviation from the histogram.
However, Rychagov et al. discloses the concept of analyzing a digital image by generating a histogram in relation to the digital image and determining a mean and a standard deviation of the digital image from the histogram (Para. 0089 lines 1-5, 0097 lines 1-6, "histogram" "average" "standard deviation") in order to improve the image quality of the image (Para. 0090 lines 7-10, "improved").
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the concept of analyzing a digital image by generating a histogram in relation to the digital image and determining a mean and a standard deviation of the digital image from the histogram as taught by Rychagov et al. into the system of Taira et al. The motivation for this would be to improve the image quality of the one or more digital images before further processing is performed.
With regards to claim 16, Taira et al. discloses the method of claim 11.
Taira et al. does not explicitly teach wherein said automatically analyzing comprises determining a mean and a standard deviation of one or more portions of the one or more digital images.
However, Rychagov et al. discloses the concept of automatically analyzing a digital image by determining a mean and a standard deviation of the digital image (Para. 0089 lines 1-5, 0097 lines 1-6, "average" "standard deviation") in order to improve the image quality of the image (Para. 0090 lines 7-10, "improved").
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the concept of automatically analyzing a digital image by determining a mean and a standard deviation of the digital image as taught by Rychagov et al. into the method of Taira et al. The motivation for this would be to improve the image quality of the one or more digital images before further processing is performed.
With regards to claim 18, Taira et al. discloses the method of claim 11.
Taira et al. does not explicitly teach wherein said automatically analyzing comprises: generating a histogram in relation to one or more portions of the one or more digital images; and determining a mean and a standard deviation from the histogram.
However, Rychagov et al. discloses the concept of automatically analyzing a digital image by generating a histogram in relation to the digital image and determining a mean and a standard deviation of the digital image from the histogram (Para. 0089 lines 1-5, 0097 lines 1-6, "histogram" "average" "standard deviation") in order to improve the image quality of the image (Para. 0090 lines 7-10, "improved").
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the concept of automatically analyzing a digital image by generating a histogram in relation to the digital image and determining a mean and a standard deviation of the digital image from the histogram as taught by Rychagov et al. into the method of Taira et al. The motivation for this would be to improve the image quality of the one or more digital images before further processing is performed.
Claim(s) 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taira et al. (US 2024/0362888) in view of Kashanipour et al. (US 2022/0415020).
With regards to claim 8, Taira et al. discloses the system of claim 1.
Taira et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the control unit is configured to automatically analyze the one or more digital images by determining a signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of one or more portions of the one of more digital images.
However, Kashanipour et al. discloses the concept of automatically analyzing a digital image by determining a signal-to noise ratio of the digital image in order to improve the image quality of the image before performing further processing (Para. 0059 lines 9-14, 0060 lines 1-7 and 10-11, "signal to noise ratio" "improve").
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the concept of automatically analyzing a digital image by determining a signal-to noise ratio of the digital image as taught by Kashanipour et al. into the system of Taira et al. The motivation for this would be to improve the image quality of the one or more digital images before performing further processing on the one or more digital images.
With regards to claim 17, Taira et al. discloses the method of claim 11.
Taira et al. does not explicitly teach wherein said automatically analyzing comprises determining a signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of one or more portions of the one of more digital images.
However, Kashanipour et al. discloses the concept of automatically analyzing a digital image by determining a signal-to noise ratio of the digital image in order to improve the image quality of the image before performing further processing (Para. 0059 lines 9-14, 0060 lines 1-7 and 10-11, "signal to noise ratio" "improve").
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the concept of automatically analyzing a digital image by determining a signal-to noise ratio of the digital image as taught by Kashanipour et al. into the method of Taira et al. The motivation for this would be to improve the image quality of the image before performing further processing on the image.
Claim(s) 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taira et al. (US 2024/0362888) in view of Rychagov et al. (US 2007/0041657) and Kashanipour et al. (US 2022/0415020).
With regards to claim 20, Taira et al. discloses a system comprising:
a light emitter (Para. 0096 lines 8-9, "radiation sources") configured to emit light onto or into a part to illuminate the part, wherein the light emitter is separated from the part (Para. 0101 lines 1-4, Fig. 7 elements 110 and 112, "radiation sources" "inspection target object" "irradiate");
a detector (Para. 0096 lines 1-9, "imaging system" "camera") configured to acquire one or more digital images of the part as illuminated by the light, wherein the detector comprises a digital camera (Para. 0102 lines 1-8, 0108 lines 1-4, "images" "camera");
a control unit in communication with the detector (Para. 0058 lines 1-11, 0097 lines 1-8, "processor"), wherein the control unit is configured to:
receive the one or more digital images of the part as illuminated by the light from the detector (Para. 0062 lines 1-6, 0099 lines 1-3, "receive"), and
automatically analyze the one or more digital images of the part as illuminated by the light to detect one or more defects of the part, and determine a porosity of the part (Para. 0068 lines 1-14, 0070 lines 1-8, 0106 lines 1-7, 0109 lines 1-6, 0116 lines 1-8, 0118 lines 1-9, 0134 lines 1-11, 0137 lines 1-8, Fig. 9, Fig. 15, "defect" "porosities"); and
a user interface in communication with the control unit (Para. 0058 lines 8-11, 0132 lines 1-10, "display"), wherein the user interface comprises a display, and wherein the control unit is configured to show information regarding the part on the display (Para. 0065 lines 1-8, Fig. 13, Fig. 15, Fig. 16, "display" "discontinuity information").
Taira et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the control unit is configured to automatically analyze the one or more digital images by determining a mean and a standard deviation of one or more portions of the one or more digital images.
However, Rychagov et al. discloses the concept of automatically analyzing a digital image by determining a mean and a standard deviation of the digital image (Para. 0089 lines 1-5, 0097 lines 1-6, "average" "standard deviation") in order to improve the image quality of the image (Para. 0090 lines 7-10, "improved").
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the concept of automatically analyzing a digital image by determining a mean and a standard deviation of the digital image as taught by Rychagov et al. into the system of Taira et al. The motivation for this would be to improve the image quality of the one or more digital images before further processing is performed.
The combination of Taira et al. and Rychagov et al. does not explicitly teach determining a signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of one or more portions of the one of more digital images.
However, Kashanipour et al. discloses the concept of automatically analyzing a digital image by determining a signal-to noise ratio of the digital image in order to improve the image quality of the image before performing further processing (Para. 0059 lines 9-14, 0060 lines 1-7 and 10-11, "signal to noise ratio" "improve").
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the concept of automatically analyzing a digital image by determining a signal-to noise ratio of the digital image as taught by Kashanipour et al. into the system of the combination of Taira et al. and Rychagov et al. The motivation for this would be to improve the image quality of the one or more digital images before performing further processing on the one or more digital images.
With regards to claim 21, the combination of Taira et al., Rychagov et al., and Kashanipour et al. discloses the system of claim 20, wherein the control unit is configured to analyze the one or more digital images to generate a histogram in relation to one or more portions of the one or more digital images, and determine the mean and the standard deviation from the histogram (Rychagov et al.: Para. 0089 lines 1-5, 0097 lines 1-6, "histogram" "average" "standard deviation").
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Reference Liao et al. (Defect Detection and Classification of Machined Surfaces under Multiple Illuminant Directions) discloses a light emitter to emit light onto a part, a detector to acquire a digital image, and analyzing the digital image of the part to detect a defect of the part and determine a porosity of the part.
Reference Morard et al. (US 10,0402,678) discloses the concept of generating a histogram in relation to one or more portions of the one or more digital images, determining the mean and the standard deviation from the histogram, and determining a SNR of the digital images.
Reference Craeghs et al. (WO 2017/087451) discloses the concept of generating a histogram in relation to one or more portions of the one or more digital images and determining a mean and a standard deviation from the histogram.
Applicants are also directed to consider additional pertinent prior art included on the Notice of References Cited (PTOL 892) attached herewith.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAROL W CHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5766. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-3:30 M-F.
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, Sumati Lefkowitz can be reached at (571) 272-3638. 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.
/CAROL W CHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2672