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
Claims 21-28 are objected to because of the following informalities:
21. (Proposed Amendments) A system for an X-ray inspection image display comprising:
one or more processors;
one or more non-transitory computer readable storage media: and
program instructions stored on the one or more non-transitory computer readable storage media for an execution by at least one of the one or more processors, the program instructions including instructions to:
receive an X-ray inspection image that is colorized in accordance with an original false colorization scheme [[for]] of an X-ray inspection system;
receive a custom filter to be applied to the X-ray inspection image, wherein the custom filter is at least one of a pre-defined custom filter or a filter selected by a user from a user interface;
retrieve one or more filter definitions for the custom filter;
apply the one or more filter definitions for the custom filter to each pixel of a plurality of pixels of the X-ray inspection image; and
generate a custom colorized X-ray inspection image based on the received custom filter having a custom false colorization scheme that is different from the original false colorization scheme of the X-ray inspection system.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 23-27 are objected to because of the following informalities:
23. (Proposed Amendments) The system of claim 22, wherein filter the X-ray inspection image by performing pixel shading on the X-ray inspection image to generate the custom colorized X- ray inspection image further comprises one or more of the following program instructions, stored on the one or more non-transitory computer readable storage media, to:
for each pixel of the plurality of pixels of the X-ray inspection image to be filtered:
determine a pixel color vector;
calculate an angle between the pixel color vector and a basis vector for each material of a set of materials in a color space of the original false colorization scheme of the X-ray inspection system;
determine a specific material of the set of materials in the color space of the original false colorization scheme of the X-ray inspection system having a smallest angle between the pixel color vector and the basis vector for each material of the set of materials in the color space of the original false colorization scheme of the X-ray inspection system; and
assign each pixel of the plurality of pixels of the X-ray inspection image to be filtered to the specific material.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 24 and 25 are objected to because of the following informalities:
24. (Proposed Amendments) The system of claim 23, wherein filter the X-ray inspection image by performing pixel shading on the X-ray inspection image to generate the custom colorized X- ray inspection image further comprises one or more of the following program instructions, stored on the one or more non-transitory computer readable storage media, to:
for each pixel of the plurality of pixels of the X-ray inspection image to be filtered:
compute a cosine of the angle between the pixel color vector and the basis vector for each material of the set of materials in the color space of the original false colorization scheme of the X-ray inspection system; and
assign each pixel of the plurality of pixels of the X-ray inspection image to be filtered to [[the]] a material (a lack of an antecedent basis, or “the specific material”) for which the cosine of the angle between the pixel color vector and the basis vector for each material of the set of materials in the color space of the original false colorization scheme of the X-ray inspection system is largest.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 26 is objected to because of the following informalities:
26. (Proposed Amendments) The system of claim 23, wherein filter the X-ray inspection image by performing pixel shading on the X-ray inspection image to generate the custom colorized X- ray inspection image further comprises one or more of the following program instructions, stored on the one or more non-transitory computer readable storage media, to:
multiply the pixel color vector of each pixel of the plurality of pixels of the X-ray inspection image to be filtered by a material-specific transformation matrix corresponding to [[the]] a material (a lack of an antecedent basis, or “the specific material”) to which each pixel of the plurality of pixels of the X-ray inspection image to be filtered is assigned, wherein the material-specific transformation matrix corresponding to each material is stored on the one or more non-transitory computer readable storage media.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 29-33 are objected to because of the following informalities:
29. (Proposed Amendments) A system for [[X-ray]] an X-ray inspection image display, the system comprising:
an X-ray inspection system configured to generate an X-ray inspection image that is colorized in accordance with an original false colorization scheme of an X-ray inspection system; and
an X-ray inspection image display system operatively coupled to the X-ray inspection system, the X-ray inspection image display system comprising:
one or more processors;
one or more non-transitory computer readable storage media; and
program instructions stored on the one or more non-transitory computer readable storage media for an execution by at least one of the one or more processors, the program instructions including instructions to:
receive an X-ray inspection image that is colorized in accordance with an original false colorization scheme [[for]] of an X-ray inspection system;
receive a custom filter to be applied to the X-ray inspection image, wherein the custom filter is at least one of a pre-defined custom filter or a filter selected by a user from a user interface;
retrieve one or more filter definitions for the custom filter;
apply the one or more filter definitions for the custom filter to each pixel of a plurality of pixels of the X-ray inspection image; and
generate a custom colorized X-ray inspection image having a custom false colorization scheme based on the received custom filter that is different from the original false colorization scheme of the X-ray inspection system.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 32 and 33 are objected to because of the following informalities:
32. (Proposed Amendments) The system of claim 30, further comprising one or more of the following program instructions, stored on the one or more non-transitory computer readable storage media, to:
for each pixel of [[a]] the plurality of pixels of the X-ray inspection image to be filtered:
determine a pixel color vector
calculate an angle between the pixel color vector and a basis vector for each material of a set of materials in a color space of the original false colorization scheme of the X-ray inspection system;
determine a specific material of the set of materials in the color space of the original false colorization scheme of the X-ray inspection system having a smallest angle between the pixel color vector and the basis vector for each material of the set of materials in the color space of the original false colorization scheme of the X-ray inspection system; and
assign each pixel of the plurality of pixels of the X-ray inspection image to be filtered to the specific material.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 33 is objected to because of the following informalities:
33. (Proposed Amendments) The system of claim 32,
wherein filter the X-ray inspection image by performing pixel shading on the X-ray inspection image to generate the custom colorized X-ray inspection image having the custom false colorization scheme, further comprising one or more of the following program instructions, stored on the one or more non-transitory computer readable storage media, to:
for each pixel of the plurality of pixels of the X-ray inspection image to be filtered:
for each basis vector, compute a cosine of the angle [[θ]] between a basis vector Vbasis having a first length
V
b
a
s
i
s
and a pixel color vector Vpixel representing a color of each pixel of the plurality of pixels of the X-ray inspection image to be filtered and having a second length
V
p
i
x
e
l
according to:
cos
=
V
b
a
s
i
s
.
V
p
i
x
e
l
V
b
a
s
i
s
x
V
p
i
x
e
l
wherein Vbasis ˖ Vpixel is a dot product between the basis vector and the pixel color vector, and
wherein assign each pixel of the plurality of pixels of the X-ray inspection image to be filtered to the material of the set of materials for which cos [Symbol font/0x71] is largest.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 36-38 are objected to because of the following informalities:
36. (Proposed Amendments) The computer-implemented method of claim 35, wherein filtering, by the one or more processors, the X-ray inspection image by performing pixel shading on the X-ray inspection image to generate the custom colorized X-ray inspection image further comprises:
for each pixel of [[a]] the plurality of pixels of the X-ray inspection image to be filtered:
determining a pixel color vector;
calculating, by the one or more processors, an angle between the pixel color vector and a basis vector for each material of a set of materials in a color space of the original false colorization scheme of the X-ray inspection system;
determining, by the one or more processors, a specific material of the set of materials in the color space of the original false colorization scheme of the X-ray inspection system having a smallest angle between the pixel color vector and the basis vector for each material of the set of materials in the color space of the original false colorization scheme of the X-ray inspection system; and
assigning, by the one or more processors, each pixel of the plurality of pixels of the X-ray inspection image to be filtered to the specific material.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 37 and 38 are objected to because of the following informalities:
37. (Proposed Amendments) The computer-implemented method of claim 36, wherein filtering, by the one or more processors, the X-ray inspection image by performing pixel shading on the X-ray inspection image to generate the custom colorized X-ray inspection image further comprises:
for each pixel of the plurality of pixels of the X-ray inspection image to be filtered:
computing, by the one or more processors, a cosine of the angle between the pixel color vector and the basis vector for each material of the set of materials in the color space of the original false colorization scheme of the X-ray inspection system; and
assigning, by the one or more processors, [[the]] each pixel of the plurality of pixels of the X-ray inspection image to be filtered to [[the]] a material (a lack of an antecedent basis) for which the cosine of the angle between the pixel color vector and the basis vector for each material of the set of materials in the color space of the original false colorization scheme of the X-ray inspection system is largest.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 26, 27, and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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.
Claim 26 recites a limitation “a material-specific transformation matrix” in line 6. However, the specification does not provide a material-specific transformation matrix, or an algorithm, a computer program, or steps/procedure to calculate a material-specific transformation matrix. Therefore, the claim 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.
Claim 27 recites limitations “an organic material basis vector,” “an inorganic material basis vector,” “a metal basis vector,” and “a background basis vector” in lines 5-12. However, the specification does not provide an organic material basis vector, an inorganic material basis vector, a metal basis vector, and a background basis vector. Therefore, the claim 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.
Claim 39 recites a limitation “a material-specific transformation matrix” in lines 6-7. However, the specification does not provide a material-specific transformation matrix, or an algorithm, a computer program, or steps/procedure to calculate a material-specific transformation matrix. Therefore, the claim 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.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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 37 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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 37 recites a limitation “the pixel” in line 11, which renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 34, 35, 39, and 40 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With respect to claims 21-25 and 28, Basu (U. S. Patent No. 8,180,139 B2) disclosed a system for an X-ray inspection image display comprising:
one or more processors (46);
one or more non-transitory computer readable storage media (48); and
program instructions stored on the one or more non-transitory computer readable storage media for an execution by at least one of the one or more processors, the program instructions including instructions to:
receive an X-ray inspection image that is colorized in accordance with an original false colorization scheme of an X-ray inspection system (column 6, lines 8-35; column 6, line 52 - column 7, line 3).
However, the prior art failed to disclose or fairly suggested that the system further comprising:
program instructions stored on the one or more non-transitory computer readable storage media for an execution by at least one of the one or more processors, the program instructions further including instructions to:
receive a custom filter to be applied to the X-ray inspection image, wherein the custom filter is at least one of a pre-defined custom filter or a filter selected by a user from a user interface;
retrieve one or more filter definitions for the custom filter;
apply the one or more filter definitions for the custom filter to each pixel of a plurality of pixels of the X-ray inspection image; and
generate a custom colorized X-ray inspection image based on the received custom filter having a custom false colorization scheme that is different from the original false colorization scheme of the X-ray inspection system.
With respect to claims 29-33, Basu (U. S. Patent No. 8,180,139 B2) disclosed a system for an X-ray inspection image display, the system comprising:
an X-ray inspection system (12) configured to generate an X-ray inspection image that is colorized in accordance with an original false colorization scheme of an X-ray inspection system (column 6, lines 8-35; column 6, line 52 - column 7, line 3); and
an X-ray inspection image display system operatively coupled to the X-ray inspection system, the X-ray inspection image display system comprising:
one or more processors (46);
one or more non-transitory computer readable storage media (48); and
program instructions stored on the one or more non-transitory computer readable storage media for an execution by at least one of the one or more processors, the program instructions including instructions to:
receive an X-ray inspection image that is colorized in accordance with an original false colorization scheme of an X-ray inspection system (column 6, lines 8-35; column 6, line 52 - column 7, line 3).
However, the prior art failed to disclose or fairly suggested that the system further comprising:
program instructions stored on the one or more non-transitory computer readable storage media for an execution by at least one of the one or more processors, the program instructions further including instructions to:
receive a custom filter to be applied to the X-ray inspection image, wherein the custom filter is at least one of a pre-defined custom filter or a filter selected by a user from a user interface;
retrieve one or more filter definitions for the custom filter;
apply the one or more filter definitions for the custom filter to each pixel of a plurality of pixels of the X-ray inspection image; and
generate a custom colorized X-ray inspection image having a custom false colorization scheme based on the received custom filter that is different from the original false colorization scheme of the X-ray inspection system.
With respect to claims 34-36 and 40, Basu (U. S. Patent No. 8,180,139 B2) disclosed a computer-implemented method for an X-ray inspection, the computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving, by one or more processors (46), an X-ray inspection image that is colorized in accordance with an original false colorization scheme of an X-ray inspection system (column 6, lines 8-35; column 6, line 52 - column 7, line 3).
However, the prior art failed to disclose or fairly suggested that the computer-implemented method further comprising:
receiving, by the one or more processors, a custom filter to be applied to the X-ray inspection image, wherein the custom filter is at least one of a pre-defined custom filter or a filter selected by a user from a user interface;
retrieving, by the one or more processors, one or more filter definitions for the custom filter;
applying, by the one or more processors, the one or more filter definitions for the custom filter to each pixel of a plurality of pixels of the X-ray inspection image; and
generating, by the one or more processors, a custom colorized X-ray inspection image having a custom false colorization scheme based on the received custom filter that is different from the original false colorization scheme of the X-ray inspection system.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments filed 20 April 2026 with respect to the specification have been fully considered. The objection of the specification has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments filed 20 April 2026 with respect to claims 21-28 have been fully considered. The objections of claims 21-28 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments filed 20 April 2026 with respect to claim 25 have been fully considered. The objections of claim 25 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments filed 20 April 2026 with respect to claims 29-33 have been fully considered. The objection of claims 29-33 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments filed 20 April 2026 with respect to claim 33 have been fully considered. The objections of claim 33 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments filed 20 April 2026 with respect to claims 35-39 have been fully considered. The objection of claims 35-39 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments filed 20 April 2026 with respect to claim 38 have been fully considered. The objections of claim 38 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments filed 20 April 2026 with respect to claims 23-27, 32, 33, 36, and 39 have been fully considered. The rejection of claims 23-27, 32, 33, 36, and 39 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments filed 20 April 2026 with respect to claims 21, 29, and 34 have been fully considered. The rejection of claims 21, 29, and 34 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Basu (U. S. Patent No. 8,180,139 B2) has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 20 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the rejection of claim 26 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, applicant argued that a material-specific transformation matrix is “a term of art in the field of material science, typically defined as a matrix that mathematically describes how vectors, directions, planes, or tensor quantities (like stress or strain) change when moving between different coordinate systems, crystal orientations, or phases.” This argument is not persuasive because besides stating a material-specific transformation matrix corresponding to the material to which the pixel to be filtered is assigned (paragraph [0031]), the specification does not provide a material-specific transformation matrix and any explanation as how to obtain a material-specific transformation matrix by algorithm or steps/procedure. Therefore, the rejection of claim 26 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, is maintained.
With respect to the rejection of claim 27 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, applicant argued that a basis vector “is a term of art in the field of material science.” Additionally, as described in paragraph [0030], the basis vectors Vbasis “for the materials of the set of materials are suitably obtained from calibration image acquired by the X-ray inspection system 10 (or by another instance of an X-ray inspection system of the same make and model) of items consisting of pure examples of the specific material, e.g., a calibration image of a metal object, a calibration image of a typical organic object, and so forth. The basis vector for background can be derived from background pixels of any of these calibration images.” This argument is not persuasive because the specification does not explain how to obtain an organic material basis vector, an inorganic material basis vector, a metal basis vector, and a background basis vector by algorithm or steps/procedure from calibration images acquired by an X-ray inspection system. Therefore, the rejection of claim 27 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, is maintained.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 20 April 2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of U. S. Patent No. 12,007,341 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Brennan et al. (U. S. Patent No. 10,782,441 B2) disclosed multiple three-dimensional (3-D) inspection renderings.
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 Allen C. Ho, whose telephone number is (571) 272-2491. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10AM - 6PM.
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, David J. Makiya, can be reached at (571) 272-2273. 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.
Allen C. Ho, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2884
/Allen C. Ho/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884 Allen.Ho@uspto.gov
Prosecution Insights