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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al., United States Patent Publication 2024/0153441 (hereinafter “Kim”).
Claim 1:
Kim discloses:
An analysis method for an image data under pressure, comprising:
inputting an image (see paragraph [0053]). Kim teaches inputting an image;
transforming the image into a grayscale image (see paragraphs [0055]-[0058], [0063]). Kim teaches transforming the image into grayscale;
clustering each pixel of the grayscale image to obtain a plurality of image data groups (see paragraphs [0007], [0063] and [0086]). Kim teaches clustering the pixels into groups;
determining a pressure state of the image according to the plurality of image data groups (see paragraph [0007] and [0086]). Kim teaches determining the pressure of the image groups; and
determining an area under pressure of the image according to the pressure state of the image (see paragraph [0007] and [0090]-[0091]). Kim teaches determining the pressure values for each group to determine value represents under stress.
Claim 4:
Kim discloses:
wherein each pixel of the grayscale image respectively belongs to an image data group of the plurality of image data groups (see paragraph [0007). Kim teaches each pixel belongs to a pixel group.
Claims 6, 9:
Although Claim 6 and 9 are system claims, they are interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as the method of Claims 1 and 4, respectively.
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.
Claims 2, 3, 5, 7, 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, in view of Doppler et al., United States Patent Publication 2015/0262367 (hereinafter “Doppler”).
Claim 2:
Kim fails to expressly determining centerpoints of image groups and adjusting.
Doppler discloses:
wherein the step of clustering each pixel of the grayscale image to obtain a plurality of image data groups comprises:
randomly determining a first center point of the plurality of image data groups (see paragraph [0027]). Doppler teaches determining the pixel as the center and later correcting;
determining center points of other image data groups of the plurality of image data groups according to a plurality of distances between the first center point and other pixels of the image (see paragraph [0028]). Doppler teaches determining center points in the image groups based on the distances;
updating the center point of each group of the plurality of image data groups (see paragraph [0028]). Doppler teaches updating the center points based on the calculated centers;
determining whether the center point of each group converges or not (see paragraph [0028]). Doppler teaches determining whether the center point converges; and
determining the plurality of image data groups when the center point of each group conforms to a convergence condition (see paragraph [0028]). Doppler teaches updates repeatedly until the error converges between the center and the adjusted center.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing dated of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Kim to include determining and adjusting a center pixel of a pixel group for the purpose of efficiently processing images and pixels, as taught by Doppler.
Claim 3:
Kim fails to expressly determining centerpoints of image groups and adjusting.
Doppler discloses:
wherein the center point of each group of the plurality of image data groups is updated according to an iteration method (see paragraph [0028]). Doppler teaches updates repeatedly until the error converges between the center and the adjusted center.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing dated of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Kim to include determining and adjusting a center pixel of a pixel group for the purpose of efficiently processing images and pixels, as taught by Doppler.
Claim 5:
Kim fails to expressly determining centerpoints of image groups and adjusting.
Doppler discloses:
wherein the convergence condition is when the center point of each cluster stays unchanged or when a maximal iteration amount is satisfied, wherein the maximal iteration amount relates to a sum of squared distances between each pixel of the grayscale image and corresponding center point (see paragraph [0028]). Doppler teaches updates repeatedly until the error converges between the center and the adjusted center. When the error converges equates to the center of the cluster being unchanged.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing dated of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Kim to include determining and adjusting a center pixel of a pixel group for the purpose of efficiently processing images and pixels, as taught by Doppler.
Claims 7, 8, 10:
Although Claims 7, 8 and 10 are system claims, they are interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as the method of Claims 2, 3, 5, respectively.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIONNA M BURKE whose telephone number is (571)270-7259. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8a-4p.
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, Stephen Hong can be reached at (571)272-4124. 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.
/TIONNA M BURKE/Examiner, Art Unit 2178 5/30/26
Prosecution Insights