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 IDS(s) has/have been considered and placed in the application file.
Title Objection
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The following title is suggested: “IMAGE ANALYZER FOR MATERIAL STRUCTURE USING FOURIER TRANSFORM AND PRINCIPAL COMPONENET ANALYSIS.” See 37 C.F.R. § 1.72(a) and MPEP § 606.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “transformer/analyzer/reconstructor comprising/configured to” in claim(s) 1-6.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bharati (Image texture analysis: methods and comparisons – hereinafter “Bharati”) in view of Nishi et al. (US 2024/0273701 A1 – hereinafter “Nishi”) in view of Wang (Detection of surface cutting defect on magnet using Fourier image reconstruction – hereinafter “Wang”).
Claim 1.
An image analyzer (Bharati teaches an image analysis system. "Image texture analysis:
methods and comparisons.”), comprising:
a transformer configured to perform a Fourier transform on each of a plurality of original images representing a structure of a material and acquire a plurality of power spectra (Bharati teaches performing Fourier transforms on material structure images (steel). "Surface texture is an important quality characteristic of many products. This paper provides an overview of several different approaches to image texture analysis and demonstrates their use on the problem of classifying a set of rolled steel sheets" (Abstract). It further teaches "performing two-dimensional FFT on the images prior to applying multivariate methods" (Abstract). “The two-dimensional Fast Fourier Transform (2-D FFT) of an image can be thought of as a two-dimensional representation of the spatial power spectrum of the image” (page 5, § 5.1).);
an analyzer configured to perform principal component analysis on the plurality of power spectra and acquire principal components and principal component scores (Bharati teaches applying PCA to the frequency data. "Methods covered include traditional statistical approaches ... multivariate statistical approaches based on PCA" (Abstract; p. 7, § 4.2.1).); and
Bharati discloses all of the subject matter as described above except for specifically teaching “a reconstructor configured to reconstruct an image based on the principal components and principal component scores and output a feature image representing features of the original image, wherein the reconstructor generates a difference image based on a reconstructed changed image obtained by changing one or more of the principal component scores and a reference image, and outputs the generated difference image as the feature image.” However, Nishi in the same field of endeavor teaches a reconstructor configured to reconstruct an image based on the principal components and principal component scores and output a feature image representing features of the original image, wherein the reconstructor generates a difference image based on a reconstructed changed image obtained by changing one or more of the principal component scores and a reference image (Nishi ¶120 “the prediction value x'n obtained by reconstructing each sample xn only with the M-th principal component is calculated by using the coupling coefficient w of the M-th principal component, by the M th principal component, by the following formula.
PNG
media_image1.png
32
95
media_image1.png
Greyscale
” When Nishi reconstructs only in the M-th principal component direction, it is mathematically setting all other PC score contributions to zero. Nishi ¶144 “by using the principal component score and the coupling coefficient (eigenvector) obtained by the principal component analysis unit 1073B, the analysis target image data OL (in the embodiment, the analysis target solid portion OS) is reconstructed in the principal component direction selected by the principal component selection unit 1074B, and an image is generated and output to the display unit 111." (p. 1130).), and outputs the generated difference image as the feature image (Nishi ¶¶117-118 selects the PC corresponding to the defect-responsive component and reconstructs separately in that direction versus the non-corresponding direction; generates two distinct reconstructed images (Figs. 12a, 12b) that differ based on which PC direction is used. Nishi ¶194 “).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Bharati and Nishi before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Both reference are in the field of material structure analysis using frequency domain feature extraction. Bharati teaches FFT on material images followed by PCA on the resulting power spectra but stops at classification without reconstructing a spatial output. Nishi addresses this gap, teaching that PC scores and eigenvectors derived from FFT+PCA on material image data can be used to reconstruct a spatial image (¶¶119-120). A PHOSITA would be motivated to incorporate Nishi’s reconstruction step into Bharati’s pipeline in order to visualize which spatial regions of the material image correspond to each extracted feature, enabling a more intuitive analysis of how structural variations in the material manifest in the image.
Claim 2.
The combination Bharati and Wang disclose the image analyzer according to claim 1, wherein the reconstructor generates a reconstructed no-change image obtained without changing the principal component scores as the reference image, and generates and outputs the difference image (Nishi reconstructs the non-corresponding PC direction (Fig. 12b). That image represents a reconstruction using the PCs that do not react to the defect, i.e., a reconstruction from the scores that are not changed (the non-selected PCs carry through at their original values.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record but not relied, yet considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure, is listed on the PTO-892 form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ross Varndell whose telephone number is (571)270-1922. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-5 EST.
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, O’Neal Mistry can be reached at (313)446-4912. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Ross Varndell/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2674