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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements submitted on 5/10/2024, 6/17/2024, and 4/2/2026 were in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
In claim 1, what is meant by “removing” in the step “removing, by the computing device, the at least one pixel that corresponds to the oxide component in the layer from the matrix of pixels to generate a modified matrix of pixels” is not reasonably clear in view of the subsequent step of “converting, by the computing device and based on the luminance values of the oxide-filtered image, the oxide-filtered image into a binary image” and supporting description in Applicant’s specification and drawings such that claim 1 is rendered indefinite. Specifically, it is unclear what pixel removal means in terms of reproducing the image (generating “an oxide-filtered image”) to be converted into “binary” image (e.g., all pixels in the image are either black or white) in which a portion of the pixels have been removed. The combined steps render the overall meaning unclear because it is unclear how or whether binarization occurs at these matrix positions. Applicant’s specification and drawings (e.g., FIG. 5D) appear to convey that all pixel matrix positions falling within the original matrix are binarized thus rendering it unclear whether the pixels are absolutely removed (no binarization occurs at matrix locations corresponding to identified oxide) or whether “removing” such pixels actually means replacing/converting such pixels to pixel values corresponding to other luminance values (e.g., corresponding to non-voids) prior to binarization.
For the purpose of examination, the term “removing” in “removing … the at least one pixel that corresponds to the oxide component” is interpreted as encompassing a removal or replacement. Clarification of the intended scope of the claim is necessary. In particular, the examiner respectfully asks the applicant to confirm the claim interpretation given above.
Claim Analysis Under 35 USC § 101
Regarding whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more, Examiner makes the following findings.
Claim 1, substantially representative also of independent claims 17 and 20, recites a method including a sequence of steps including “receiving … a raw image indicative of a cross-section of a thermally-sprayed layer, wherein the raw image comprises a matrix of pixels … defining a respective luminescence value” and further including a sequence of steps that at least individually fall within a judicial exception. For example, “determining” “based on the plurality of luminance values, at least one pixel of the matrix of pixels that corresponds to an oxide component in the layer,” “removing” “the at least one pixel that corresponds to the oxide component in the layer from the matrix of pixels to generate a modified matrix of pixels,” “generating” “based on the modified matrix of pixels, an oxide-filtered image,” and “determining” “based at least partially on the binary image, a porosity of the thermally-sprayed layer” fall within the mental processes judicial exception because these steps may be performed via mental processes (e.g., evaluation and judgment). The step “converting” “based on the luminance values of the oxide-filtered image, the oxide-filtered image into a binary image” falls within the mathematical relations subcategory of the mathematical concepts exception because binarizing a pixel-based image is fundamentally characterized by mathematical relations/calculations. The use of a “computing device” for implementing these steps constitutes insignificant extra solution activity that does not integrate these steps into a practical application or result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Examiner finds that the particular sequence of steps that include imaging processing for determining a porosity of a thermally-sprayed layer is an established technical pursuit as evidenced by the prior art. Furthermore, the sequentially significant combination of steps in which a pixel matrix type image of a cross-section of a thermally-sprayed layer is processed to specifically identify oxide components, the image is processed to remove pixels corresponding to oxides and is then provided to the binarization step in such modified form that prevents or reduces oxide interference with porosity determinations based on the binarization appears to, in combination, constitute a sufficient application of the judicial exception in a technically meaningful way as to constitute an integration of the abstract idea (individual steps falling within either the mental processes or mathematical concepts exception) into a practical application and to result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, and with claims 17 and 20 including substantially the same combination of elements, claims 1-20 are not rejected under 101 as being directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Subject Matter Patentably Distinct from Prior Art
Claims 1-20 appear to be patentably distinct from the prior arts for the following reasons. The closest prior arts are represented by Dropmann (US 2018/0335301 A1) and Deshpande et al. "Application of image analysis for characterization of porosity in thermal spray coatings and correlation with small angle neutron scattering." Surface and coatings technology 187.1 (2004): 6-16, as provided by Applicant IDS.
As to claim 1, Dropmann teaches “[a] method (Abstract; FIG. 7) comprising:
receiving, by a computing device (FIG. 4 data processing unit 32), a raw image ([0039] image data transmitted to data processing unit 32 from image capture device 28 (raw image)) indicative of a cross-section ([0036] test specimen cut out and position for obtaining cross-section image data) of a thermally-sprayed layer ([0009] surface coating may be thermally-applied), wherein the raw image comprises a matrix of pixels ([0020], [0045]-[0046] images are pixel based images (inherently entail a pixel matrix)), each pixel in the matrix of pixels defining a respective luminance value of a plurality of luminance values ([0045]-[0046] pixels have respective brightness/luminance values);
determining, by the computing device and based on the plurality of luminance values, at least one pixel of the matrix of pixels that corresponds to an oxide component in the layer ([0044]-[0046] oxide regions identified based on gray value/brightness);”
“and determining, by the computing device, based at least partially on the” “image, a porosity of the thermally-sprayed layer (FIG. 6 depicting quantification of pores (porosity), [0061]-[0062] describing cross-sectional image analysis results in quantification of pores).”
Deshpande discloses a method for determining porosity of thermally sprayed layer(s) (Abstract) that includes determining pores via pixel luminance (pages 8-9, 3.2 Measurements employed, paragraph beginning with “For IA, the as-sprayed coatings …” describing SEM, pixel-based imaging using pixel ) and further includes “converting” “based on the luminance values of the” “image, the” “image into a binary image (page 9, 3.2 Measurements employed, paragraph beginning with “These SEM images were used for …” describing thresholding of pixel brightness values to yield binary image; FIG. 1 depicting binary images derived from gray scale image “Coating microstructure”),” and “determining” “based at least partially on the binary image, a porosity FIG. 1 depicting binary images derived from gray scale image “Coating microstructure” of total porosity, globular porosity, and interlamellar porosity).”
The prior arts, individually and in combination, do not teach or fairly suggest “removing … the at least one pixel that corresponds to the oxide component in the layer from the matrix of pixels to generate a modified matrix of pixels,” “generating … based on the modified matrix of pixels, an oxide-filtered image,” and converting based on the luminance values of the “oxide-filtered” image, the “oxide-filtered” image into a binary image in combination with the other elements of claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW W BACA whose telephone number is (571)272-2507. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:30 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, Andrew Schechter can be reached at (571) 272-2302. 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.
/MATTHEW W. BACA/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/ANDREW SCHECHTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights