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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph [0001] should include U. S. Patent No. 12,007,341 B2 issued on 11 June 2024.
Appropriate correction is required.
Please note that paragraph numbers in a U. S. Patent Application Publication do not correspond to paragraph numbers in the originally-filed specification. The paragraph numbers mentioned above refer to the originally-filed specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 21-28 are objected to because of the following informalities:
21. (Proposed Amendments) A system for [[X-ray]] 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 X-ray inspection system false colorization scheme; and
generate a custom colorized X-ray inspection image having a custom false colorization scheme that is different from the X-ray inspection system false colorization scheme.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 25 is objected to because of the following informalities:
25. (Proposed Amendments) The system of claim 24, wherein 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 X-ray inspection system false colorization scheme (a previously recited limitation in claim 23)
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 is the basis vector, Vpixel is the pixel color vector, Vbasis ˖ Vpixel is a dot product between the basis vector and the pixel color vector,
V
b
a
s
i
s
is a first length of the basis vector, and
V
p
i
x
e
l
is a second length of the pixel color vector.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 29-33 are objected to because of the following informalities:
29. (Proposed Amendments) A system for 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 X-ray inspection system false colorization scheme; 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:
generate a custom colorized X-ray inspection image having a custom false colorization scheme that is different from the X-ray inspection system false colorization scheme.
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 [[(cos θ)]] 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 the pixel 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 pixel of the X-ray inspection image (a previously recited limitation in claim 32) to be filtered to the material of the set of materials for which cos [Symbol font/0x71] is largest.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 35-39 are objected to because of the following informalities:
35. (Proposed Amendments) The computer-implemented method of claim 34, wherein generating, by the one or more processors, the custom colorized X-ray inspection image having the custom false colorization scheme that is different from the X-ray inspection system false colorization scheme further comprises:
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.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 38 is objected to because of the following informalities:
38. (Proposed Amendments) The computer-implemented method of claim 37, wherein the cosine of the angle between the pixel color vector and the basis vector for each material of the set of materials in a color space of the X-ray inspection system false colorization scheme (a previous recited limitation in claim 36) computed, by the one or more processors, 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 is the basis vector, Vpixel is the pixel color vector, Vbasis ∙ Vpixel is a dot product between the basis vector and the pixel color vector,
V
b
a
s
i
s
is a first length of the basis vector, and
V
p
i
x
e
l
is a second length of the pixel color vector.
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 lines 5-6. 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 4-11. 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 line 5. 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 23-27, 32, 33, and 36-39 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 23 recites a limitation “the basis vector for the material” in line 11, which renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. Claim 23 previously recites a limitation “a basis vector for each material of a set of materials in a color space of the X-ray inspection system false colorization scheme” in lines 7-9.
Claim 23 recites a limitation “the basis vector for the material” in lines 13-14, which renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. Claim 23 previously recites a limitation “a basis vector for each material of a set of materials in a color space of the X-ray inspection system false colorization scheme” in lines 7-9.
Claim 24 recites a limitation “the basis vector representing a color of each pixel of the plurality of pixels of the X-ray inspection image to be filtered” in lines 6-8, which renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. Claim 23 previously recites a limitation “a basis vector for each material of a set of materials in a color space of the X-ray inspection system false colorization scheme” in lines 7-9.
Claim 24 recites a limitation “the pixel” in line 9, which renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 24 recites a limitation “the angle between a corresponding basis vector and the pixel color vector” in lines 9-10, which renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation. Claim 23 recites a limitation “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 X-ray inspection system false colorization scheme” in lines 7-9.
Claim 26 recites a limitation “the pixel to be filtered” in line 5, which renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. Claim 22 previously recites “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” in lines 4-5.
Claim 26 recites a limitation “the pixel to be filtered” in line 6, which renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. Claim 22 previously recites “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” in lines 4-5.
Claim 32 recites a limitation “the basis vector for the material” in line 9, which renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. Claim 32 previously recites a limitation “a basis vector for each material of a set of materials in a color space of the X-ray inspection system false colorization scheme” in lines 5-7.
Claim 32 recites a limitation “the basis vector for the material” in lines 11-12, which renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. Claim 32 previously recites a limitation “a basis vector for each material of a set of materials in a color space of the X-ray inspection system false colorization scheme” in lines 5-7.
Claim 33 recites a limitation “the pixel” in line 9, which renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 33 recites a limitation “the pixel” in line 13, which renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 36 recites a limitation “the basis vector for the material” in line 10, which renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. Claim 36 previously recites a limitation “a basis vector for each material of a set of materials in a color space of the X-ray inspection system false colorization scheme” in lines 6-8.
Claim 36 recites a limitation “the basis vector for the material” in line 13, which renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. Claim 36 previously recites a limitation “a basis vector for each material of a set of materials in a color space of the X-ray inspection system false colorization scheme” in lines 6-8.
Claim 37 recites a limitation “the basis vector representing a color of each pixel of the plurality of pixels of the X-ray inspection image to be filtered” in lines 6-7, which renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. Claim 36 previously recites a limitation “a basis vector for each material of a set of materials in a color space of the X-ray inspection system false colorization scheme” in lines 6-8.
Claim 37 recites a limitation “the pixel” in line 8, which renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 37 recites a limitation “the angle between a corresponding basis vector and the pixel color vector” in lines 9-10, which renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation. Claim 36 recites a limitation “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 X-ray inspection system false colorization scheme” in lines 6-8.
Claim 39 recites a limitation “the pixel to be filtered” in lines 4-5, which renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. Claim 35 previously recites “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” in lines 4-5.
Claim 39 recites a limitation “the pixel to be filtered” in lines 5-6, which renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. Claim 35 previously recites “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” in lines 4-5.
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.
(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.
Claims 21, 29, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Basu (U. S. Patent No. 8,180,139 B2).
With respect to claims, 21, Basu 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 X-ray inspection system false colorization scheme (column 6, lines 8-24; column 6, line 52 - column 7, line 3); and
generate a custom colorized X-ray inspection image having a custom false colorization scheme that is different from the X-ray inspection system false colorization scheme (column 7, lines 4-19).
With respect to claim 29, Basu disclosed a system for 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 X-ray inspection system false colorization scheme (column 6, lines 8-24; 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:
generate a custom colorized X-ray inspection image having a custom false colorization scheme that is different from the X-ray inspection system false colorization scheme (column 7, lines 4-19).
With respect to claim 34, Basu 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 X-ray inspection system false colorization scheme (column 6, lines 8-24; column 6, line 52 - column 7, line 3); and
generating, by the one or more processors, a custom colorized X-ray inspection image having a custom false colorization scheme that is different from the X-ray inspection system false colorization scheme (column 7, lines 4-19).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,007,341 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 21-40 are anticipated by claims 1-20 of U. S. Patent No. 12,007,341 B2.
With respect to claim 21, claim 1 of U. S. Patent No. 12,007,341 B2 claims 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 (a monochrome X-ray inspection image) that is colorized in accordance with an X-ray inspection system false colorization scheme; and
generate a custom colorized X-ray inspection image having a custom false colorization scheme that is different from the X-ray inspection system false colorization scheme.
With respect to claim 22, claim 1 of U. S. Patent No. 12,007,341 B2 claims the system of claim 21, wherein generate the custom colorized X-ray inspection image having the custom false colorization scheme that is different from the X-ray inspection system false colorization scheme further comprises:
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.
With respect to claim 29, claim 12 of U. S. Patent No. 12,007,341 B2 claims a system for X-ray inspection image display, the system comprising:
an X-ray inspection system configured to generate an X-ray inspection image (a monochrome X-ray inspection image) that is colorized in accordance with an X-ray inspection system false colorization scheme; 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:
generate a custom colorized X-ray inspection image having a custom false colorization scheme that is different from the X-ray inspection system false colorization scheme.
With respect to claim 30, claim 11 of U. S. Patent No. 12,007,341 B2 claims The system of claim 29, further comprising one or more of the following program instructions, stored on the one or more non-transitory computer readable storage media, to:
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.
With respect to claim 34, claim 15 of U. S. Patent No. 12,007,341 B2 claims a computer-implemented method for an X-ray inspection, the computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving, by one or more processors, an X-ray inspection image (a monochrome X-ray inspection image) that is colorized in accordance with an X-ray inspection system false colorization scheme; and
generating, by the one or more processors, a custom colorized X-ray inspection image having a custom false colorization scheme that is different from the X-ray inspection system false colorization scheme.
With respect to claim 35, claim 15 of U. S. Patent No. 12,007,341 B2 claims the computer-implemented method of claim 34, wherein generating, by the one or more processors, the custom colorized X-ray inspection image having the custom false colorization scheme that is different from the X-ray inspection system false colorization scheme further comprises:
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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hallgren et al. (U. S. Patent No. 12,007,341 B2) disclosed an X-ray baggage and parcel inspection system with efficient third-party image-processing.
Paglieroni et al. (U. S. Patent No. 11,670,036 B2) disclosed a system and a method for identifying objects of interest in images based on decluttering a likelihood map.
Chen et al. (U. S. Patent No. 9,786,070 B2) disclosed a CT system for a security check and a method thereof.
Litvin et al. (U. S. Patent No. 9,355,502 B2) disclosed a generation of a synthetic image by combining an image of an object under an examination with an image of a target.
Siedenburg (U. S. Patent No. 8,311,309 B2) disclosed an X-ray inspection system and a method for improving an ability to recognize materials in an X-ray inspection system.
Hu et al. (U. S. Patent No. 8,249,316 B2) disclosed labeling a component.
Basu (U. S. Patent No. 8,180,139 B2) disclosed a method and a system for an inspection of containers.
Lee et al. (U. S. Patent No. 5,699,400 A) disclosed an article inspection system comprising an operator console.
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