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 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: Information Processing Device For Auto Setting Determination Area in Image.
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.
Claims 1 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ricoh Co LTD JP201790346 (hereinafter “Ricoh”).
Regarding claim 1, Ricoh discloses an information processing device (Appearance inspection device-10 includes control device-5 and arithmetic device-6, See Figs 2-3) comprising: a detecting section (Computing means-209 includes determination unit-201) that detects, in an image of an inspection target (inspection object/cast part-1 and 11, Fig 1), a feature (reference image of unique shape feature) whose positional relation with a determination area (examination area/point) to be inspected is known; and a setting section (extraction unit-202) that sets the determination area with reference to the feature detected by the detecting section. (See Paragraphs 0010, 0020-0030, Figs 3-6)
Regarding claim 7, Ricoh discloses a method (appearance inspection device-10 implements the method, See Fig 4) for setting a determination area (computing means-209 includes determination unit-201) , the method being executed by one or more information processing devices, the method comprising the steps of: (a) detecting, in an image of an inspection target (inspection object/ cast part-1 and 11, Fig 1), a feature whose positional relation with a determination area to be inspected is known (examination area/point); and (b) setting (extraction unit-202) the determination area with reference to the feature detected in the step (a). (See Paragraphs 0010, 0020-0030, Figs 3-6)
Regarding claim 8, Ricoh discloses a computer-readable non-transitory storage medium (Computing device-6 includes multiple memory options, 0015-0016, Fig 2-3) storing a determination area setting program (Paragraphs 0037-0039) causing a computer to function as an information processing device (appearance inspection device-10) recited in claim 1, the determination area setting program causing the computer to function as the detecting section and the setting section (Computing means-209 includes both a detecting section and setting section). (See Paragraphs 0010, 0020-0030, Figs 3-6)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ricoh Co LTD JP201790346 (hereinafter “Ricoh”) in view of Itsuji et al US20200296265 (hereinafter “Itsuji”)
Regarding claim 2, Ricoh discloses the device according to claim 1.
However, Ricoh fails to disclose the detecting section detects the feature in the image with use of a detection model constructed by machine learning of an appearance of the feature. Itsuji discloses the detecting section (processing system-401 includes pre-processing unit-406 and post processing unit 407) detects the feature in the image with use of a detection model constructed by machine learning of an appearance of the feature. (Paragraphs 0023-0031, 0034 Fig 2 and 11)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Itsuji into Ricoh for the purpose of increasing detection accuracy. The modification would allow for an increase in accuracy by comparing previous detection results and reference data with new detection results.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ricoh Co LTD JP201790346 (hereinafter “Ricoh”) in view of Hitachi LTD JP201521937 (hereinafter “Hitachi”)
Regarding claim 3, Ricoh discloses the device according to claim 1.
However, Ricoh fails to disclose the image is a flaw detection image which is an image of echoes of ultrasonic waves caused to propagate in a weld part and an area surrounding the weld part in the inspection target; the detecting section detects, as the feature, the first reflected echo among echoes of ultrasonic waves reflected in the area surrounding the weld part in the inspection target; and the setting section sets, with reference to the first reflected echo detected by the detecting section, the determination area for use in determination of whether the weld part is good or defective. Hitachi discloses the image (inspection image-S1) is a flaw detection image (flaw detection surface) which is an image of echoes of ultrasonic waves (ultrasonic array sensor-30 detects reflection echos-E1) caused to propagate in a weld part (welding portion-7) and an area surrounding the weld part in the inspection target; the detecting section detects, as the feature, the first reflected echo (Reflection echos-E1 )among echoes of ultrasonic waves reflected in the area surrounding the weld part in the inspection target; and the setting section sets (Information processing unit-22/41 includes flaw detection controller-25), with reference to the first reflected echo detected by the detecting section, the determination area for use in determination of whether the weld part is good or defective. (See Fig 4,6A-B and 7, Paragraphs 0030-0044 and 0050-0055)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Hitachi into Ricoh for the purpose of increasing detection accuracy. The modification would allow for an increase in accuracy in detecting, locating and accurately sizing a defect.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Prior arts made available do not teach, or fairly suggest, the second reflected echo among echoes of ultrasonic waves reflected in a surface of the area surrounding the weld part in the inspection target; in a case where the determining section determines that a thickness of the inspection target is equal to or more than a thickness of the weld part, the setting section sets, as the determination area, an area sandwiched between the first reflected echo and the second reflected echo; and in a case where the determining section determines that the thickness of the inspection target is less than the thickness of the weld part, the setting section sets, with reference to the first reflected echo, the determination area having a width which is equal to or more than the thickness of the weld part as disclosed in claim 4 or the flaw detection image is an image of the echoes measured in a state where a propagation inhibitor is disposed at a location adjacent to the weld part, the propagation inhibitor being configured to make at least one of transmission waves of the ultrasonic waves and reflected waves of the ultrasonic waves disappear or to delay propagation of at least one of the transmission waves of the ultrasonic waves and the reflected waves of the ultrasonic waves; the detecting section detects, as the feature, an interrupted portion which is in the flaw detection image and in which propagation of the ultrasonic waves is interrupted; and the setting section sets the determination area with reference to the first reflected echo and the interrupted portion each of which has been detected by the detecting section as disclosed in claim 5.
Conclusion
The prior art as cited on the PTO-892 is made of record and not relied upon but considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIGEL H PLUMB whose telephone number is (571)272-8886. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-5pm.
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, John Breene can be reached at 571-272-4107. 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 (USA or CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NIGEL H PLUMB/ /Eric S. McCall/Examiner, Art Unit 2855 Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights