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 .
Applicant’s response to the last Office Action dated 03/27/2026, as well as arguments made, filed 06/29/2026 have been entered and made of record.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-15 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered. Applicant argues that the combination of Kaneko and Ozeki does not disclose how Ozeki’s “predetermined priority” is determined. Applicant also argues that Ozeki does not disclose that the priority is determined based on a feature value of a detection target region. Examiner respectfully disagrees. To further clarify Examiner’s position, paragraph [0023] of Kaneko discloses; “A defect display device according to a ninth aspect of the present invention is the defect display device according to any one of the first to eighth aspects, in which the input unit causes the display unit to display information indicating a frequency of detection of the defects for each feature value, and accepts, as the generation condition of the contour, a designation of the feature value, and the display control unit selects defects corresponding to the designated feature value among the plurality of defects, and generates the contour for the selected defects.” This disclosure of Kaneko teaches selecting which defect to display corresponding to the designated feature value. Therefore, Examiner interprets this disclosure to teach selecting defects based on their feature values. Ozeki adds, “When the X-ray image analysis module 233 determines in Step S305 that a plurality of alert target articles are present in the X-ray image, the alert output module 234 may output, for example, alert that involves display of a frame, an arrow, or the like for every one of the plurality of alert target articles in the X-ray image, or may output alert that involves display of a frame, an arrow, or the like for each of a given number of alert target articles picked out in descending order of predetermined priority in the X-ray image”(emphasis added). Examiner interprets this disclosure of Ozeki to disclose selecting defects based on a predetermined priority. Kaneko teaches selecting a priority of defects based on feature values, and Ozeki teaches selecting defects based on a priority and displaying the information. Kaneko essentially does the “predetermining” of the priority of Ozeki. Thus, it would be obvious to combine Kaneko and Ozeki to obtain “determines a priority of the detection target region based on the feature value”. Therefore, Examiner does not find Applicant’s argument persuasive and maintains the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 103. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL.
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.
Claims 1, 4-5, 9-12, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneko (WO 2020003917 A1, with pub. date of 01/02/2020; its continuation application US 2021/0072165 A1 is being used for English translation and mapping purposes) in view of Ozeki et al. (US 2021/0239875 A1 with EFD of 06/30/2020).
Regarding claim 1, Kaneko teaches, “An information processing apparatus comprising: a processor” (Kaneko, Para. [0112] discloses; “In each embodiment, for example, the hardware structure of a processing unit that performs various processes can be implemented as various processors described below”) “wherein the processor acquires a transmission image of an examination object obtained with radiation” (Kaneko, Abstract discloses; “The defect display device includes an image acquisition unit that acquires a radiographic image captured with radiation transmitted through an object”) “extracts a detection target region from the transmission image” (Kaneko, Para. [0020] discloses; “According to the seventh aspect, for example, it is possible to display a contour in a region where defects having a large size are concentrated” Examiner interprets the “in a region where defects having a large size are concentrated” to be a target region) “acquires a feature value for the extracted detection target region” (Kaneko, Para. [0023] discloses; “A defect display device according to a ninth aspect of the present invention is the defect display device according to any one of the first to eighth aspects, in which the input unit causes the display unit to display information indicating a frequency of detection of the defects for each feature value) “(Ozeki, Para. [0049] discloses; “When the X-ray image analysis module 233 determines in Step S305 that a plurality of alert target articles are present in the X-ray image, the alert output module 234 may output, for example, alert that involves display of a frame, an arrow, or the like for every one of the plurality of alert target articles in the X-ray image, or may output alert that involves display of a frame, an arrow, or the like for each of a given number of alert target articles picked out in descending order of predetermined priority in the X-ray image”. For clarification of Examiner’s position, Kaneko teaches selecting a priority of defects based on feature values in Para. [0023], and Ozeki teaches selecting defects based on a priority and displaying the information. Kaneko essentially does the “predetermining” of the priority of Ozeki. Thus, it would be obvious to combine Kaneko and Ozeki to obtain claim 1.).
Kaneko and Ozeki are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of using radiation imaging to identify defects or objects. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kaneko to incorporate the teachings of Ozeki in order to include a feature that ranks the severity of the defects in the object. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the previously described apparatus of Kaneko with the teachings of Ozeki to provide the user with a calculated priority list of the defects so the user can further evaluate the object based on the priority. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to combine Kaneko and Ozeki to obtain the above specified limitations.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Kaneko and Ozeki teaches, “The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the examination object is a metal” (Kaneko, Para. [0049] discloses; “Defects occurring in industrial products such as castings can be classified according to the shape and cause. Examples of the type of defect occurring in industrial products such as castings include stains, cracks, chipping, defects caused by contamination with foreign substances and dissimilar kinds of metals, and bubble-like defects caused by contamination of a mold with air during casting”).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Kaneko and Ozeki teaches, “The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the feature value includes a depth on the transmission image in the extracted detection target region or a thickness of the examination object” (Kaneko, Para. [0052] discloses; “As illustrated in FIG. 2, the defect information DAT1 includes information on the defect identifier, the defect type and size, and the thickness of the object OBJ at the position of defects”)
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Kaneko Ozeki teaches, “The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the feature value includes any of a major axis, an area, or a shape of the detection target region” (Kaneko, Para. [0100] discloses; “Other feature values for the defects D1, such as the number of defects, the density of defects (for example, the number of defects per unit area or the area occupied by defects per unit area), and the defect shape (for example, circular, elliptic, or rod shape), may be designated”).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Kaneko and Ozeki teaches, “The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the feature value is a numerical value calculated by combining any of a major axis of the detection target region, an area of the detection target region, a shape of the detection target region” (Kaneko, Para. [0100] discloses; “Other feature values for the defects D1, such as the number of defects, the density of defects (for example, the number of defects per unit area or the area occupied by defects per unit area), and the defect shape (for example, circular, elliptic, or rod shape), may be designated”) “a pixel value of the detection target region, or a pixel value of a peripheral region of the detection target region” (Kaneko, Para. [0050] discloses; “The defect detection unit 12C identifies the type of defect on the basis of the size and shape of defects detected by image analysis, and the luminance differences between the defect and neighboring pixels, which are caused by the transmittance and scattering of radiation through the object OBJ.” It would have been obvious to combine the shape value and pixel differences taught by Kaneko into 1 value.)
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Kaneko and Ozeki teaches, “The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the feature value is a numerical value calculated from distribution information on two or more detection target regions” (Kaneko, Para. [0099] discloses; “In the examples illustrated in FIG. 4 and FIG. 5, a GUI is provided for individually designating the feature values for the defects D1 (the interval between the defects D1, the size of the defects D1, and the thickness of a portion where the defects D1 are present)” The “interval between defects” is interpreted by the Examiner to be distribution information of target regions.)
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Kaneko and Ozeki teaches, “The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor controls a display content of the detection target region displayed on a display screen based on the determined priority” (Ozeki, Para. [0065] discloses; “FIG. 5 is an example of an X-ray image display screen to be displayed on the display apparatus of the client 104” and Pg. 4, Para. 49 discloses; “When the X-ray image analysis module 233 determines in Step S305 that a plurality of alert target articles are present in the X-ray image, the alert output module 234 may output, for example, alert that involves display of a frame, an arrow, or the like for every one of the plurality of alert target articles in the X-ray image, or may output alert that involves display of a frame, an arrow, or the like for each of a given number of alert target articles picked out in descending order of predetermined priority in the X-ray image”). The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Kaneko and Ozeki references in the rejection of claim 1, apply to claim 12 and are incorporated herein by reference. Thus, the apparatus recited in claim 12 is met by Kaneko and Ozeki.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 recites a method with steps corresponding to the elements of the apparatus recited in claim 1. Therefore, the recited steps of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding elements in its corresponding apparatus claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Kaneko and Ozeki references, presented in rejection of claim 1, apply to this claim.
Regarding claim 15, Claim 15 recites a computer-readable tangible recording medium storing a program with instructions corresponding to the elements recited in Claim 1. Therefore, the recited programming instructions of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding elements in its corresponding apparatus claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Kaneko and Ozeki references, presented in rejection of Claim 1, apply to this claim. Finally, the combination of Kaneko and Ozeki references discloses a computer readable storage medium (for example, see Ozeki, Para. [0032] discloses; “The program to be executed by the CPU 201 is provided to the computer through intermediation of a removable medium (for example, CD-ROM or flash memory) or through the network, and is stored in the nonvolatile auxiliary storage apparatus 210 being a non-transitory storage medium”).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneko in view of Ozeki, in further view of Pang et al. (US 2018/0158215).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Kaneko and Ozeki does not explicitly teach, “The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein an amount of the radiation applied to the examination object corresponds to an amount of radiation in a case in which radiation in a wavelength range of X-rays is applied for 1 second or longer and 5 minutes or shorter in a range of a tube voltage of 60 kV or more and 450 kV or less and in a range of a tube current of 1 mA or more and 10 mA or less”. Since the combination of Kaneko and Ozeki does not explicitly disclose these limitations, Examiner relies on the teachings of Pang in an analogous field of endeavor. Specifically, Pang discloses, “The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein an amount of the radiation applied to the examination object corresponds to an amount of radiation in a case in which radiation in a wavelength range of X-rays is applied for 1 second or longer and 5 minutes or shorter in a range of a tube voltage of 60 kV or more and 450 kV or less and in a range of a tube current of 1 mA or more and 10 mA or less” (Pang, Para. [0026] discloses; “Further, a minimum scanning parameters include a tube voltage of 60 kv, a tube current of 10 mA, and exposure time of 1 s”).
The combination of the Kaneko and Ozeki references and Pang are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of using radiation imaging to identify defects or objects. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Kaneko and Ozeki to incorporate the teachings of Pang in order to specify the correct radiation imaging parameters for the metals. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the previously described apparatus of Kaneko and Ozeki with the teachings of Pang to ensure the imaging parameters are correct, allowing all of the defects to be established correctly. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to combine the Kaneko and Ozeki references with Pang to obtain the above specified limitations.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneko in view of Ozeki, in further view of Redko et al. (US 2009/0207244 A1).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Kaneko and Ozeki does not explicitly teach, “The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the transmission image satisfies a required image quality level”. Since the combination of Kaneko and Ozeki does not explicitly disclose these limitations, Examiner relies on the teachings of Redko in an analogous field of endeavor. Specifically, Redko discloses, “The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the transmission image satisfies a required image quality level” (Redko, Para. [0028] discloses; “The number of cameras or image capture devices set up at the first given distance from the moving foil surface depends on the value of the foil area for which the image is recorded by the camera, taking into account the given optical conditions for the required image quality”).
The combination of the Kaneko and Ozeki references and Redko are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of using radiation imaging to identify defects or objects using calculations. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Kaneko and Ozeki to incorporate the teachings of Redko in order to ensure all examined images meet a specific quality threshold. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the previously described apparatus of Kaneko and Ozeki with the teachings of Redko to allow the apparatus to accurately detect defects by having an image of good quality. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to combine the Kaneko and Ozeki references with Redko to obtain the above specified limitations.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneko in view of Ozeki, in further view of Oda et al. (US 2016/0196464).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Kaneko and Ozeki teaches, “The information processing apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the depth is acquired” (Kaneko, Para. [0052] discloses; “As illustrated in FIG. 2, the defect information DAT1 includes information on the defect identifier, the defect type and size, and the thickness of the object OBJ at the position of defects”) “(Kaneko, Para. [0066] discloses; “The user is able to input information on the object OBJ, input an instruction for instructing the camera 118 to perform imaging (including the setting of, for example, imaging conditions such as the exposure time, the focal length, and the aperture, the imaging angle, the imaging location, and so on)”) “and three-dimensional model data of the examination object” (Kaneko, Para. [0101] discloses; “According to this embodiment, furthermore, the distribution of defects D1 can be interpreted in a plurality of radiographic images obtained by transmitting radiation through the object OBJ from a plurality of directions. This enables the inspection of defects based on three-dimensional distribution of defects D1”). The combination of Kaneko and Ozeki does not explicitly teach, “from a pixel value of the transmission image”. Since the combination of Kaneko and Ozeki does not explicitly disclose these limitations, Examiner relies on the teachings of Oda in an analogous field of endeavor. Specifically, Oda discloses, “from a pixel value of the transmission image” (Oda, Para. [0028] discloses; “For example, one or more of the RGB value, the SIFT feature, the HOG feature, and the Gabor feature of the pixels may be used as the image feature amount” It would be obvious to combine all the different measurements to acquire the depth data).
The combination of the Kaneko and Ozeki references and Oda are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of using imaging to identify defects or objects using calculations. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Kaneko and Ozeki to incorporate the teachings of Oda in order to obtain the depth data from pixel values, imaging conditions, and three-dimensional model data. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the previously described apparatus of Kaneko and Ozeki with the teachings of Oda to have another value of the imaged object to contribute to the depth measurement data. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to combine the Kaneko and Ozeki references with Oda to obtain the above specified limitations.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Kaneko, Ozeki, and Oda teaches “The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the feature value is a pixel value” (Oda, Para. [0028] discloses; “For example, one or more of the RGB value, the SIFT feature, the HOG feature, and the Gabor feature of the pixels may be used as the image feature amount”). The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Kaneko, Ozeki, and Oda references in the rejection of claim 6, apply to claim 7 and are incorporated herein by reference. Thus, the apparatus recited in claim 7 is met by Kaneko, Ozeki, and Oda.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Kaneko, Ozeki, and Oda teaches, “The information processing apparatus according to claim 7, wherein the feature value includes a pixel value of a peripheral region of the extracted detection target region” (Kaneko, Para. [0050] discloses; “The defect detection unit 12C identifies the type of defect on the basis of the size and shape of defects detected by image analysis, and the luminance differences between the defect and neighboring pixels, which are caused by the transmittance and scattering of radiation through the object OBJ.”)
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneko in view of Ozeki, in further view of Takeshi et al. (JP 2018173374 A).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Kaneko and Ozeki teaches, “and determines the priority of the detection target region based on the feature value in a case in which the examination object satisfies the quality standard” (Ozeki, Pg. 4, Para. 49 discloses; “When the X-ray image analysis module 233 determines in Step S305 that a plurality of alert target articles are present in the X-ray image, the alert output module 234 may output, for example, alert that involves display of a frame, an arrow, or the like for every one of the plurality of alert target articles in the X-ray image, or may output alert that involves display of a frame, an arrow, or the like for each of a given number of alert target articles picked out in descending order of predetermined priority in the X-ray image”). The combination of Kaneko and Ozeki does not explicitly teach, “wherein the processor acquires a quality standard required for the examination object to determine whether or not the examination object satisfies the quality standard”. Since the combination of Kaneko and Ozeki does not explicitly disclose these limitations, Examiner relies on the teachings of Takeshi in an analogous field of endeavor. Specifically, Takeshi discloses, “wherein the processor acquires a quality standard required for the examination object to determine whether or not the examination object satisfies the quality standard” (Takeshi, [Embodiment 3], 10th page, first paragraph discloses: “Determine whether the inspection criteria are met. If the determination unit 510 determines that the inspection object A1 satisfies the inspection standard in the inspection, the determination unit 510 instructs the inspection execution unit 430 to execute the next inspection”).
The combination of the Kaneko and Ozeki references and Takeshi are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of using imaging to identify defects or objects using calculations. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Kaneko and Ozeki to incorporate the teachings of Takeshi in order to add an object inspection standard to the apparatus. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the previously described apparatus of Kaneko and Ozeki with the teachings of Takeshi to provide the user with a decision on whether the object can be used in a real-life application based on whether the object satisfies the standard or not. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to combine the Kaneko and Ozeki references with Takeshi to obtain the above specified limitations.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN M. OAKES whose telephone number is (571)272-9379. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am-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, Amandeep Saini can be reached at (571) 272-3382. 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.
/JUSTIN M OAKES/Examiner, Art Unit 2662
/Siamak Harandi/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2662
Prosecution Insights