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 statement (IDS) was submitted on 7/30/24. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-5, 7, and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, lines 2-3, “the dimensions” and “the measurement point” lack antecedent basis.
Claim 1, lines 8-9, “the trajectory” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 2, lines 3-4, “the centerline” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 3, line 3, “the area” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 4, line 3, “the shape” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 5, lines 3-4, “the point cloud data” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 5, line 22, “the optimal circle” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 7, line 4, “the straight lines” lacks antecedent basis, only a single straight line is introduced in prior claims.
Claim 9, lines 22-23, “the radius” lacks antecedent basis in both instances.
Appropriate correction is required.
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: “display unit”, “input unit”, “edge detection unit”, and “measurement performing unit” in claims 1-13.
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.
Regarding claim 1, the “display unit” will be interpreted as an electronic display monitor, as described at ¶0027, “The display unit 6 is an arbitrary display means” and Fig. 1 #6. The “input unit” will be interpreted as a mouse or touch screen, as described at ¶0030, “if a touch panel display… If a mouse is applied”. The “edge detection unit” and “measurement performing unit” will be interpreted as processor(s), as described at ¶0035 “the control processing unit 4 includes an edge detection unit 41 and a measurement performing unit 42”.
Claims 2-13 are interpreted similarly due to their dependencies.
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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites:
“An image measuring apparatus that captures an image of a measurement object and measures the dimensions of the measurement point of the measurement object by analyzing the image, comprising: (a) a display unit that displays the image of the measurement object; (b) an input unit that accepts input of the trajectory traced by an operator on the image displayed on the display unit; (c) an edge detection unit that detects an edge based on the traced trajectory on the image; and (d) a measurement performing unit that performs measurement based on one or more detected edges” [Emphasis added]
According to the USPTO guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that the independent claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea as shown below:
STEP 1: Do the claims fall within one of the statutory categories? YES. Independent claim 1 is directed to an apparatus.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea? YES. Independent claim 1 is directed towards a mental process (i.e. an abstract idea)
Regarding claim 1, limitations (c) and (d), in emphasized claim 1 above, are mental processes. Limitation (c) is a mental process as the human mind is capable of detecting edges within an image, for example by identifying the border/outlines of objects in the image. Limitation (d) is a mental process, as under broadest reasonable interpretation, performing a measurement may mean estimating a size of an object which the human mind can do, for example by tracing the image onto graphing paper and determining a size of the object of interest using the grid marks.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? NO. Independent claim 1 does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Regarding claim 1, limitations (a) and (b), in emphasized claim 1 above, are additional elements that fall under insignificant extra-solution activity since they are merely data gathering and output (see MPEP §2106.05(g)). Furthermore, “display unit”, “input unit”, “edge detection unit”, and “measurement performing unit” are mere generic computer elements, such a display panel, mouse, and processor, and thus amount to no more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP §2106.05(f)).
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? NO. Independent claim 1 does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 1, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because when considered separately and in combination, the above recited additional elements from claim 1 do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. Rather, the additional elements disclosed above perform well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP §2106.05(d).
Therefore, independent claim 1 is directed towards an abstract idea without a practical application or significantly more.
Regarding claim 2, the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more to the abstract idea. The limitation: wherein the edge detection unit detects the edge that exists in the area along the centerline of the trajectory falls under a mental process as the human mind is capable of selectively focusing on the area of the image along the centerline and determining if any object boundaries lie along the centerline.
Regarding claim 3, the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more to the abstract idea. The limitation: wherein the edge detection unit detects the edge that exists within the area surrounded by the trajectory falls under a mental process as the human mind is capable of selectively focusing on the area of the image surrounded by the trajectory and determining if any object boundaries lie within the area.
Regarding claim 4, the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more to the abstract idea. The limitation: wherein the edge detection unit detects the edge that is similar in shape to the shape of the trajectory falls under a mental process as the human mind can compare two shapes, for example 2 triangles, and determine if they are similar.
Regarding claim 5, the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more to the abstract idea. The limitations: wherein the edge detection unit determines whether or not the shape similar to the point cloud data of the trajectory is a straight line by least-squares fitting the straight line to the point cloud data of the trajectory and calculating RMSE (Root Mean Squared Error), if it is determined that the shape similar to the point cloud data of the trajectory is not a straight line, determines whether the shape similar to the point cloud data of the trajectory is a circle or a circular arc by a least-squares fitting of a circle to the point cloud data of the trajectory and calculation of RMSE, and if it is determined that the shape similar to the point cloud data of the trajectory is a circle or a circular arc, determines whether the shape similar to the point cloud data of the trajectory is a circle or a circular arc by calculating the distance between the center of gravity of the point cloud data of the trajectory and the center of the optimal circle, which is a circle that is least-squares fitted to the point cloud data of the trajectory, fall under mental processes as with the aid of pen and paper, a human could draw a line or circle through the point cloud and calculate the RMSE. Further, based on the calculation, a human could just the type of shape (line or circle) by comparing the RMSE to a threshold. The calculation of the distances between circle centers is also capable of being performed by the human mind, for example by tracing points onto graph paper and using the grid marks to calculate positions of the relevant points.
Regarding claim 6, the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more to the abstract idea. The limitation: wherein the point cloud data of the trajectory is the point cloud data of a thin line obtained by thinning the image of the trajectory using a thinning algorithm falls under a mental process as human could observe the trajectory and remove parts of it by a criterion, for example, if points are located beyond a threshold from the centerline.
Regarding claim 7, the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more to the abstract idea. The limitations recited are: wherein if a shape similar to the point cloud data of the trajectory is identified as a straight line, then among the straight lines in a predefined detection area based on the trajectory in the image, straight lines whose angle with the optimal straight line, which is a least-squares fitted line to the point cloud data of the trajectory, is less than or equal to a predetermined threshold value are extracted, among the extracted straight lines, a base straight line is determined based on a predefined rule, and among the extracted straight lines other than the base straight line, those whose length of the perpendicular line descending from the midpoint to the extension of the base straight line is less than or equal to a predetermined threshold value are connected to the base straight line and the resulting straight line is detected as the element for edge detection. These fall under a mental process as a human could just whether the straight lines are, for example, less than 90 degrees from the optimal line and then pick the shortest line as the base line. Further, the human mind could estimate the distance between the lines and connect lines that satisfy a threshold with the aid of a pen.
Regarding claim 8, the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more to the abstract idea. The limitations recited are: wherein if a shape similar to the point cloud data of the trajectory is identified as a circle, then among circles in a predefined detection area based on the trajectory in the image of the measurement object, circles where the distance between the center of the circle and the center of the optimal circle is less than or equal to a predetermined threshold are extracted, and a circle to be an element for edge detection is determined among the extracted circles based on a predefined rule. These limitations fall under a mental process as the human mind could, with aid of pen and paper, calculate the distance between circle centers and select, for example, the circle with the lowest distance, to be the element for edge detection.
Regarding claim 9, the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more to the abstract idea. The limitation recited: wherein if a shape similar to the point cloud data of the trajectory is identified as a circular arc, or if a shape similar to the point cloud data of the trajectory is identified as a circle and there is no circle in the predefined detection area based on the trajectory for which the distance between the center of the circle and the center of the optimal circle is less than or equal to a predetermined threshold value, then among circular arcs in a predefined detection area based on the trajectory in the image of the measurement object, circular arcs where the distance between the center of the circle including the circular arc and the center of the optimal circle is less than or equal to a predetermined threshold value are extracted, then, among the extracted circular arcs, a base circular arc is determined based on a predefined rule, and among the extracted circular arcs other than the base circular arc, those whose difference between the radius of the circle including the circular arc and the radius of the circle including the base circular arc is less than or equal to a predetermined threshold value are connected to the base circular arc and the resulting circular arc or circle is detected as the element for edge detection. These limitations fall under mental processes as the human man can perform the calculations such the distance between circles and the radii by use of graph paper and pen. Further, comparing the distances and radii to a threshold value can also be performed by the human mind as they a simple numerical comparisons.
Regarding claim 10, the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more to the abstract idea. The limitation: wherein the edge detection unit performs edge detection when the input of the trajectory to the input unit is terminated falls under data type/source as it is stating to use data that is with terminated input.
Regarding claim 11, the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more to the abstract idea. The limitation: wherein the edge detection unit performs detection of undetected edges at each certain stretch of the trajectory during the ongoing input of the trajectory to the input unit falls under data type/source as it is stating to use live data as the user inputs the trajectory.
Regarding claim 12, the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more to the abstract idea. The limitation: wherein the display unit is a touch panel display integrated with the input unit falls under a generic computer component.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the limitation: the program that causes a computer to function as the image measuring apparatus as claimed in claim 1 falls under software per se.
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, 3, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakatsukasa (US 2010/0189308) (IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Nakatsukasa discloses an image measuring apparatus that captures an image of a measurement object and measures the dimensions of the measurement point of the measurement object by analyzing the image (¶0064, measurement object 20 to the high-magnification-side image formation lens part; ¶0065, image data; ¶0096, measures predetermined physical quantities), comprising: a display unit that displays the image of the measurement object (¶0065, image data can be electronically switched and displayed on one screen); an input unit that accepts input of the trajectory traced by an operator on the image displayed on the display unit (¶0084, received by a drag operation and the like of the mouse 32 and the like. This enables a user to specify the measurement area; ¶0102, a user may explicitly move the display position by a drag operation and the like of the mouse 32. Examiner considers a mouse drag input to comprise a “trajectory”); an edge detection unit that detects an edge based on the traced trajectory on the image (¶0086, area specification of the vicinity of the edge portion is received by a drag operation; ¶0095, a desired edge portion can thus be detected); and a measurement performing unit that performs measurement based on one or more detected edges (¶0096, measures predetermined physical quantities based on the detected edge portion).
Regarding claim 3, in which claim 1 is incorporated, Nakatsukasa discloses wherein the edge detection unit detects the edge that exists within the area surrounded by the trajectory (¶0085, specification of a display position of a measurement result may be received by a drag operation and the like of the mouse 32 and the like, and a partial image included in the rectangular area, the specification of which has been received).
Regarding claim 13, in which claim 1 is incorporated, Nakatsukasa discloses the program that causes a computer to function (¶0067, controls the operation of the components of hardware and executes various software functions in accordance with computer programs).
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.
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakatsukasa (US 2010/0189308) (IDS) in view of Xu et al. (US 2025/0036120) (hereafter, “Xu”).
Regarding claim 2, in which claim 1 is incorporated, Nakatsukasa discloses wherein the edge detection unit detects the edge that exists in the area (¶0096, measures predetermined physical quantities based on the detected edge portion) [along the centerline] of the trajectory (¶0084, received by a drag operation and the like of the mouse 32 and the like. This enables a user to specify the measurement area; ¶0102, a user may explicitly move the display position by a drag operation and the like of the mouse 32. Examiner considers a mouse drag input to comprise a “trajectory”).
However, Nakatsukasa fails to explicitly disclose along the centerline.
Xu teaches along the centerline (¶0091, search along the at least one user-defined search line. When the user input trajectory is a line, Examiner considers the “centerline” to be the same as the search line).
Both Nakatsukasa and Xu are analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of edge detection in images. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate searching along the centerline of Xu into edge detection apparatus of Nakatsukasa. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to respond to anomalies, as suggested by Xu at ¶0067, improve the glass manufacturing process by reacting more quickly to anomalies.
This method of improving Nakatsukasa was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Xu.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Nakatsukasa with the teachings of Xu to obtain the invention as specified in claim 2.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakatsukasa (US 2010/0189308) (IDS) in view of Mittal et al. (US 2017/0061701) (hereafter, “Mittal”).
Regarding claim 4, in which claim 1 is incorporated, Nakatsukasa discloses wherein the edge detection unit detects the edge (¶0096, measures predetermined physical quantities based on the detected edge portion) that is [similar in shape] to the shape of the trajectory (¶0084, received by a drag operation and the like of the mouse 32 and the like. This enables a user to specify the measurement area; ¶0102, a user may explicitly move the display position by a drag operation and the like of the mouse 32. Examiner considers a mouse drag input to comprise a “trajectory”).
However, Nakatsukasa fails to explicitly disclose similar in shape.
Mittal teaches similar in shape (¶0054, detecting whether a detected edge is similar in shape to the identified region).
Both Nakatsukasa and Mittal are analogous to the claimed invention because Nakatsukasa is in the field of edge detection apparatuses and Mittal includes a method for edge detection. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the shape similarity comparison of Mittal into the edge detection apparatus of Nakatsukasa. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to correct missing or irregular data, as suggested by Mittal at ¶0007, The systems and methods then correct the one or more regions by assigning depth to, or correcting depth data of, the one or more regions.
This method of improving Nakatsukasa was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Mittal.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Nakatsukasa with the teachings of Mittal to obtain the invention as specified in claim 4.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakatsukasa (US 2010/0189308) (IDS).
Regarding claim 10, in which claim 1 is incorporated, Nakatsukasa discloses wherein the edge detection unit performs edge detection (¶0096, measures predetermined physical quantities based on the detected edge portion) when the input of the trajectory to the input unit is ‘terminated’ [emphasis added] (¶0085 and 0093, Fig. 5). Nakatsukasa does not explicitly teach that the input unit is “terminated”.
Nakatsukasa teaches wherein the edge detection unit performs edge detection when the input of the trajectory to the input unit is “terminated” (Fig. 5; ¶0085, specification of a display position of a measurement result may be received by a drag operation and the like of the mouse 32 and the like, and a partial image included in the rectangular area, the specification of which has been received, may be stored as a feature image of the measurement object 20; ¶0087, stores information on relative positions for the feature image, which represents the measurement position the specification; ¶0093, The CPU 33 sets a measurement position for the image of the measurement object 20, for which the attitude and the position have been identified, … and detects an edge portion of the set measurement position. Examiner considers retrieving the stored specification to indicate that the input has been terminated; as seen in Fig. 5 step S507 the process ends and therefore “terminated”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nakatsukasa’s reference to have explicit recitation of the input of the trajectory to the input unit being terminated. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to simply state the process ending, as see in Fig. 5, as the input being terminated.
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to obtain the invention as specified in claim 10.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakatsukasa (US 2010/0189308) (IDS) in view of Peterson (US 10,930,033).
Regarding claim 11, in which claim 1 is incorporated, Nakatsukasa discloses wherein the edge detection unit performs detection of undetected edges at each certain stretch of the trajectory (¶0086, area specification of the vicinity of the edge portion is received by a drag operation; ¶0093, The CPU 33 sets a measurement position for the image of the measurement object 20, for which the attitude and the position have been identified, … and detects an edge portion of the set measurement position) [during the ongoing input of the trajectory to the input unit].
However, Nakatsukasa fails to explicitly disclose during the ongoing input of the trajectory to the input unit.
Peterson teaches during the ongoing input of the trajectory to the input unit (Col 14. Lines 11-13, The current user input can be received in response to a user's interaction with a graphical user interface; Col. 16, lines 53-55, once an edge point (e.g., the edge point 530) is determined during the search process for the current input position).
Both Nakatsukasa and Peterson are analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of edge detection methods. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the real-time edge detection of Peterson into edge detection apparatus of Nakatsukasa. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to reduce the number of user interactions, as suggested by Peterson at Col. 5, lines 65-67, the image conversion system advantageously reduces the overall number of user interactions required.
This method of improving Nakatsukasa was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Peterson.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Nakatsukasa with the teachings of Peterson to obtain the invention as specified in claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, Nakatsukasa discloses the image measuring apparatus according to claim 1.
However, Nakatsukasa fails to explicitly disclose wherein the display unit is a touch panel display integrated with the input unit
Peterson teaches wherein the display unit is a touch panel display integrated with the input unit (Col. 10, lines 29-30, The input device can include … a touch interface such as touchscreen).
Both Nakatsukasa and Peterson are analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of edge detection methods. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the touchscreen of Peterson into edge detection apparatus of Nakatsukasa. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to reduce the number of user interactions, as suggested by Peterson at Col. 5, lines 65-67, the image conversion system advantageously reduces the overall number of user interactions required.
This method of improving Nakatsukasa was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Peterson.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Nakatsukasa with the teachings of Peterson to obtain the invention as specified in claim 12.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-9 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 and to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 5, Suzuki et al. (US 2014/0333585) discloses determining whether a shape is a straight line or a circle with RMSE (¶0144, This locus may be shaped and displayed if the shaping is set in advance or if it is determined that the figure drawing is complicated because a least square error of the straight line or the circle of the locus is large), Hirai et al. (US 2023/0254392) discloses point cloud data of a user input (¶0038, point cloud constituting the line input by the user's operation), and Xu et al. (US 2010/0027846) discloses determining a circular shape with RMSE (¶0148, The mean-squared error, which corresponds to the average distance between the points of the subset and the proposed circle, may be used in determining whether the subset defines a circular shape). However, none the cited references, whether considered individually or in combination, disclose “determines whether the shape similar to the point cloud data of the trajectory is a circle or a circular arc by calculating the distance between the center of gravity of the point cloud data of the trajectory and the center of the optimal circle”.
Regarding claims 6-9, claims 6-9 dependent on claim 5. Therefore, by virtue of their dependencies, claims 6-9 are also indicated as objected subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tsuji et al. (US 2023/0136554) discloses detecting edges in a user specified area (¶0063, the area containing the set of points detected as the edge indicated by the dotted line in FIG. 8 may be input by a user).
Xu et al. (US 2022/0215557) discloses merging similar lines in an edge detection process (¶0048, in the edge detection device of the object in the image, the first merge module merging the plurality of similar lines).
Wang et al. (US 2014/0169683) discloses determining edges similar in shape to a user specified input (¶0074, determine whether the index list contains a long edge similar to the outline of the sketch).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIAOMAO DING whose telephone number is (571)272-7237. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:00.
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, Henok Shiferaw can be reached at (571) 272-4637. 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.
/XIAOMAO DING/Examiner, Art Unit 2676
/CHINEYERE WILLS-BURNS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2673
Prosecution Insights