DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
2. Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 07/08/2026 is acknowledged.
3. Group II-VIII are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/08/2026.
Claim Objections
4. Claims 42-43 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 42, line 1, change “A computer program product” to --A non-transitory computer program product-- and line 2, change “one or more computer readable storage mediums” to --one or more non-transitory computer readable storage mediums--. Otherwise, the limitations will invoke 35 USC §101 (non-statutory, non-eligible subject matter).
Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding Claim 43, line 1, change “claim 43” to --claim 42--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. Claims 1, 3 11, 13, 15, 19-20, and 42-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2014/029038A1 by Kirstein et al. (hereinafter Kirstein) in view of US Patent Pub. No. 2008/0018966 A1 by Dubois et al. (hereinafter Dubois).
Regarding Claim 1, Kirstein teaches a computer-implemented (Page 15: computer generated, Page 16: digital image processing) method of evaluating fiber quality (Abstract, Page 3: textile fiber, Page 6: at least one quality value is generated from the measurement), said method comprising:
receiving at least one in-line hologram image of the fiber (Abstract, Page 6, 13-15);
wherein the at least one image of the fiber comprises fiber-related data (Page 16: It is advantageous to generate at least one test pattern measured value from the measurement and to compare the test pattern measured value with a corresponding preset measured setpoint value. The image sensor 16 takes the corresponding image and sends it in digital form to a (not shown) evaluation unit); and
correlating the fiber-related data to fiber quality (Page 6: The inventive method is used to characterize an optoelectronic measuring unit for a textile test material. at least one quality value is generated from the measurement, the quality value is compared with a corresponding predetermined target value in terms of quality) but does not explicitly teach reconstructing the at least one in-line hologram image of the fiber into at least one three-dimensional image of the fiber.
However, Dubois teaches reconstructing the at least one in-line hologram image of the fiber into at least one three-dimensional image of the fiber, wherein the at least one three-dimensional image of the fiber comprises fiber-related data (Abstract, Par. [0146]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kirstein by Dubois as taught above such that reconstructing the at least one in-line hologram image of the fiber into at least one three-dimensional image of the fiber, wherein the at least one three-dimensional image of the fiber comprises fiber-related data is accomplished in order to improve reliability of reconstruction and image quality (Dubois, Par. [0025]).
Regarding Claim 3, Kirstein teaches the receiving comprises receiving a plurality of in-line hologram images of the fiber (Page 15: it requires reflection holograms thus teaches the limitation).
Regarding Claim 11, Kirstein as modified by Dubois teaches the fiber-related data is selected from the group consisting of amplitude data, phase data, combined amplitude data and phase data, and combinations thereof (Dubois, Par. [0068]).
Regarding Claim 13, Kirstein teaches the fiber is selected from the group consisting of textile fibers, cotton fibers, hemp fibers, natural bast fibers, flax fibers, jute fibers, kenaf fibers, milkweed fibers, ramie fibers, artificial fibers, fiber bundles, fiber beards, and combinations thereof (Page 3: textile fibers).
Regarding Claim 15, Kirstein teaches the fiber quality is selected from the group consisting of fiber maturity, fiber fineness, fiber convolutions, fiber length, amount of fiber lignin, amount of fiber cellulose, fiber roughness, fiber texture, fiber cell wall structure, fiber spiral structures, fiber contamination, fiber lumen area, internal structures of a fiber, and combinations thereof (Page 3: Foreign substance contamination of the textile test material can be determined).
Regarding Claim 19, Kirstein teaches the correlating (See Claim 1 rejection above) but does not explicitly teach occurs manually.
However, it is considered obvious to try all known solutions when there is a recognized need in the art (manually), there had been a finite number of identified, predictable solutions to the recognized need (manually, automatically), and when one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP § 2143, E. Furthermore, such an arrangement would imply to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to do correlation manually, primarily as a foundational learning tool to deeply understand how data variables relate to one another.
Regarding Claim 20, Kirstein teaches the correlating occurs automatically through the utilization of an algorithm, wherein the method further comprises feeding the fiber-related data into the algorithm, and wherein the algorithm evaluates the fiber quality (Page 16: It is advantageous to generate at least one test pattern measured value from the measurement and to compare the test pattern measured value with a corresponding preset measured setpoint value. The evaluation unit evaluates the image by means of digital image processing. Inherently teaches algorithm. Also see Claim 1 rejection above).
Regarding Claim 42, Kirstein as modified by Dubois teaches a computer program product for evaluating fiber quality, wherein the computer program product comprises one or more computer readable storage mediums having a program code embodied therewith, wherein the program code comprises programming instructions (Page 15: computer generated, Page 16: digital image processing. Inherently teaches readable storage mediums having a program code embodied therewith, wherein the program code comprises programming instructions. Also see Claim 1 rejection above. Note: a method claim can be used to implement an apparatus claim) for:
receiving at least one in-line hologram image of the fiber (See Claim 1 rejection above);
reconstructing the at least one in-line hologram image of the fiber into at least one three-dimensional image of the fiber, wherein the at least one three-dimensional image of the fiber comprises fiber-related data (See Claim 1 rejection above); and
correlating the fiber-related data to fiber quality (See Claim 1 rejection above).
Regarding Claim 43, Kirstein as modified by Dubois teaches the program code further comprises the programming instructions for generating the at least one in-line hologram mage of the fiber (See Claim 1 rejection above).
Regarding Claim 44, Kirstein as modified by Dubois teaches the fiber-related data is selected from the group consisting of amplitude data, phase data, combined amplitude data and phase data, and combinations thereof (See Claim 11 rejection above).
7. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirstein in view of Dubois as applied to Claim 1 above and further in view of US Patent Pub. No. 2016/0348306 A1 by Chakraborti et al. (hereinafter Chakraborti).
Regarding Claim 17, Kirstein as modified by Dubois teaches the fiber quality (See Claim 1 rejection above) but does not explicitly teach comprises fiber maturity, wherein the fiber maturity is evaluated by measuring relative thickening of the fiber's secondary cell wall.
However, Chakraborti teaches fiber maturity, wherein the fiber maturity is evaluated by measuring relative thickening of the fiber's secondary cell wall (Par. [0037, 0052-0053]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kirstein as modified by Dubois by Chakraborti as taught above such that fiber maturity, wherein the fiber maturity is evaluated by measuring relative thickening of the fiber's secondary cell wall is accomplished in order to reduce production cost and waste (Chakraborti, Par. [0001]).
8. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirstein in view of Dubois as applied to Claim 1 above and further in view of US Patent Pub. No. 6052182 by Irick, Sr. et al. (hereinafter Irick).
Regarding Claim 18, Kirstein as modified by Dubois teaches the fiber quality (See Claim 1 rejection above) but does not explicitly teach the fiber quality comprises fiber contamination, wherein the fiber contamination is evaluated by identifying particulates associated with the fiber.
However, Irick teaches the fiber quality comprises fiber contamination (Col 9., line 20 -21: the processing means 30 preferably determines the types of impurity or defects in the fiber sample 12), wherein the fiber contamination is evaluated by identifying particulates associated with the fiber (Col 9., line 21-25: For example, a nep may appear white, or in other words, have a stronger reflectance in certain wavelengths, while a piece of bark will appear darker or brown, and have a reduced reflectance in certain wavelengths).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kirstein as modified by Dubois by Irick as taught above such that the fiber quality comprises fiber contamination, wherein the fiber contamination is evaluated by identifying particulates associated with the fiber is accomplished in order to improve reliability and consistency (Irick, Col., line 32-67).
Additional Prior Art
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. The reference listed teaches of other prior art method/system of optical fiber quality detection device.
CN113916498A by Yu et al (Fig.1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMIL AHMED whose telephone number is (571)272-1950. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 AM - 5:00 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, Kara Geisel can be reached on 571-272-2416. 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.
/JAMIL AHMED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights