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 .
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1-15 are provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1-15 of copending Application No. 18/657,707 (reference application). This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented. The claims appear to be identical.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-15 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.
The term “tightly integrated” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “tightly integrated” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
With respect to claims 1-3, there is no antecedent basis for “the artificial intelligence models”. Claim 1 sets forth “a plurality of artificial intelligence classification models”.
With further respect to claim 1, there is also no antecedent basis for “the artificial intelligence system”. The claim recites “An AI-driven system”.
Claims 2-15 are rejected for reasons of dependency upon claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-15 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the Double Patenting rejection(s) and or rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Ajina et al. (“Revolutionizing Quality Control: A Machine Learning Approach for Precise Surface Defect Detection and Localization in Industrial Components”) discloses a defect detection system (abstract) comprising the use of a sensing device (Fig. 3) and employing a classification system using a machine learning model (sections B.-E.).
With respect to claim 1, the prior art does not appear to disclose or reasonably suggest: a sub-portion segmentation module seamlessly integrated with the X-ray imaging equipment segmenting the one or more x-ray images into one or more distinct parts; a plurality of artificial intelligence classification models trained to classify and categorize one or more defects present in each of the one or more distinct parts, wherein the plurality of models assign one or more confidence scores, the confidence scores ranging between 0 and 1, to each classification; a dynamic learning module configured to continuously refine defect classification through iterative improvement of the artificial intelligence models; a co-pilot interface tightly integrated with the dynamic learning module, enabling real-time collaboration between one or more human experts and the artificial intelligence system, wherein the co-pilot interface allows the one or more human experts to validate the one or more confidence scores of each distinct part based on a category of identified defect; and a feedback loop integrated into the x-ray imaging equipment, facilitating real-time feedback from the one or more human experts.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK R GAWORECKI whose telephone number is (571)272-8540. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 AM-6 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, DAVID 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.
/MARK R GAWORECKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884 23 February 2025