CTNF 18/806,168 CTNF 90214 DETAILED ACTION This Office action is in response to the Application filed on August 15, 2024, which is a continuation of International Application No. PCT/JP2022/006652, filed on Feb. 18, 2022. An action on the merits follows. Claims 1-17 are pending on the application. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 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. Specification 06-11 AIA 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. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA 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. 07-30-05 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) are: “ device determining”, “device performing… processing… setting… determining… relaxing… repeating… extracting… estimating… selecting… suspending… determination” in claims 1, 3-6, 8-15. Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Figs.1 and 9, and Par. [0012, 75-78, 81] describe a programmed computing device or computer, including for example software, hardware, or a combination of hardware and software, capable of performing the described functionality. If applicant does not intend to have 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 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 sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 07-34-01 Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites the limitation “device determining a goodness of an article in an image… determining a goodness of an article in at least a portion of a plurality of good-part images” in lines 1-9 of the claim. However, it is not clear if the claimed “a goodness of an article in at least a portion of a plurality of good-part images” recited in lines 8-9 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “a goodness of an article in an image” previously recited in lines 1-2 of the claim, or if the claimed “a goodness of an article in at least a portion of a plurality of good-part images” recited in lines 8-9 of the claim encompass embodiments does not corresponding to the claimed “a goodness of an article in an image” previously recited in lines 1-2 of the claim, for example. Additionally, it is not clear if the claimed “plurality of good-part images” recited in line 9 of the claim encompass embodiments including the claimed “image” previously recited in line 2 of the claim, or if the claimed “plurality of good-part images” recited in line 9 of the claim encompass embodiments that do not include the claimed “image” previously recited in line 2 of the claim, for example. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are not clearly set forth and the examiner cannot clearly determine which elements are encompassed by the claim language, which renders the claim indefinite. Claim 1 further recites the limitation “relaxing at least a portion of the plurality of thresholds when the article is determined to be defective… the plurality of thresholds being adjusted by repeating the second processing and the third processing until the article is determined to be good… repeating the second processing and the third processing until the article is determined to be good” in lines 11-17 of the claim. However, it is not clear if the claimed “ the plurality of thresholds being adjusted ” recited in line 15 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “ relaxing at least a portion of the plurality of thresholds ” previously recited in line 11 of the claim, or if the claimed “ the plurality of thresholds being adjusted ” recited in line 15 of the claim encompass embodiments that do not correspond to the claimed “ relaxing at least a portion of the plurality of thresholds ” previously recited in line 11 of the claim, for example. Additionally, it is not clear if the claimed “the article” recited in lines 12-17 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “article” recited in lines 1-2 of the claim, if the claimed “the article” recited in lines 12-17 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “article” recited in line 8 of the claim, for example. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are not clearly set forth and the examiner cannot clearly determine which elements are encompassed by the claim language, which renders the claim indefinite. Claims 2-11 and 15 are rejected by virtue of being dependent upon rejected base claim 1. Claim 12 recites the limitation “determining a goodness of an article in an image by comparing each pixel value with a threshold… setting a plurality of the thresholds so that an article in a good-part image is determined” in lines 1-4 of the claim. However, it is not clear if the claimed “each pixel value” recited in line 2 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to “pixel values of a plurality of pixel units” included in the claimed “image” recited in line 2 of the claim, or if the claimed “each pixel value” recited in line 2 of the claim encompass embodiments that do not correspond to “pixel values of a plurality of pixel units” included in the claimed “image” recited in line 2 of the claim, for example. Also, it is not clear if the claimed “an article” recited in line 4 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “an article” previously recited in lines 1-2 of the claim, or if the claimed “an article” recited in line 4 of the claim encompass embodiments that do not correspond to the claimed “an article” previously recited in lines 1-2 of the claim, for example. Additionally, it is not clear if the claimed “good-part image” recited in line 4 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “image” previously recited in line 2 of the claim, or if the claimed “good-part image” recited in line 4 of the claim encompass embodiments that do not correspond to the claimed “image” previously recited in line 2 of the claim, for example. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are not clearly set forth and the examiner cannot clearly determine which elements are encompassed by the claim language, which renders the claim indefinite. Furthermore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the claimed “ the thresholds” limitation recited in lines 3-4 of the claim. Therefore, the lack of antecedent basis makes the scope of the claim indeterminate. Claim 13 recites the limitation “an article in an image… a good-part image of a first article… a defective-part image of a second article… ” in lines 1-14 of the claim. However, it is not clear if the claimed “good-part image” recited in line 9-10 of the claim, or if the claimed “defective-part image” recited in line 14 of the claim, encompass embodiments including the claimed “image” previously recited in line 2 of the claim, or if the claimed “good-part image” recited in line 9-10 of the claim, or if the claimed “defective-part image” recited in line 14 of the claim, encompass embodiments that do not include the claimed “image” previously recited in line 2 of the claim, for example. Additionally, it is not clear if the claimed “first article” recited in line 10 of the claim, or if the claimed “second article” recited in line 13 of the claim, encompass embodiments that correspond to the claimed “article” previously recited in line 2 of the claim, or if the claimed “first article” recited in line 10 of the claim, or if the claimed “second article” recited in line 13 of the claim, encompass embodiments that do not correspond the claimed “article” previously recited in line 2 of the claim, for example. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are not clearly set forth and the examiner cannot clearly determine which elements are encompassed by the claim language, which renders the claim indefinite. Claim 13 further recites the limitation “relaxation processing of relaxing at least a portion of the plurality of thresholds” in lines 17-18 of the claimed. However, the claimed “processing of relaxing at least a portion of the plurality of thresholds” is not defined by the claim. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are not clearly set forth and the examiner cannot clearly determine which elements are encompassed by the claim language, which renders the claim indefinite. Claim 14 is rejected by virtue of being dependent upon rejected base claim 13. Claim 16 recites the limitation “determine a goodness of an article in an image… determining a goodness of an article in at least a portion of a plurality of good-part images” in lines 1-11 of the claim. However, it is not clear if the claimed “a goodness of an article in at least a portion of a plurality of good-part images” recited in lines 10-11 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “a goodness of an article in an image” previously recited in lines 1-2 of the claim, or if the claimed “a goodness of an article in at least a portion of a plurality of good-part images” recited in lines 10-11 of the claim encompass embodiments does not corresponding to the claimed “a goodness of an article in an image” previously recited in lines 1-2 of the claim, for example. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are not clearly set forth and the examiner cannot clearly determine which elements are encompassed by the claim language, which renders the claim indefinite. Claim 16 further recites the limitation “relaxing at least a portion of the plurality of thresholds when the article is determined to be defective… the plurality of thresholds being adjusted by repeating the second processing and the third processing until the article is determined to be good… repeating the second processing and the third processing until the article is determined to be good” in lines 13-19 of the claim. However, it is not clear if the claimed “ the plurality of thresholds being adjusted ” recited in the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “ relaxing at least a portion of the plurality of thresholds ” previously recited in the claim, or if the claimed “ the plurality of thresholds being adjusted ” recited in the claim encompass embodiments that do not correspond to the claimed “ relaxing at least a portion of the plurality of thresholds ” previously recited in the claim, for example. Additionally, it is not clear if the claimed “the article” recited in the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “article” recited in the claim, if the claimed “the article” recited in the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “article” recited in the claim, for example. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are not clearly set forth and the examiner cannot clearly determine which elements are encompassed by the claim language, which renders the claim indefinite. Claim 17 recites the limitation “determine a goodness of an article in an image… determining a goodness of an article in at least a portion of a plurality of good-part images” in lines 2-11 of the claim. However, it is not clear if the claimed “a goodness of an article in at least a portion of a plurality of good-part images” recited in lines 10-11 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “a goodness of an article in an image” previously recited in line 3 of the claim, or if the claimed “a goodness of an article in at least a portion of a plurality of good-part images” recited in lines 10-11 of the claim encompass embodiments does not corresponding to the claimed “a goodness of an article in an image” previously recited in line 3 of the claim, for example. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are not clearly set forth and the examiner cannot clearly determine which elements are encompassed by the claim language, which renders the claim indefinite. Claim 16 further recites the limitation “relaxing at least a portion of the plurality of thresholds when the article is determined to be defective… the plurality of thresholds being adjusted by repeating the second processing and the third processing until the article is determined to be good… repeating the second processing and the third processing until the article is determined to be good” in lines 11-17 of the claim. However, it is not clear if the claimed “ the plurality of thresholds being adjusted ” recited in the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “ relaxing at least a portion of the plurality of thresholds ” previously recited in the claim, or if the claimed “ the plurality of thresholds being adjusted ” recited in the claim encompass embodiments that do not correspond to the claimed “ relaxing at least a portion of the plurality of thresholds ” previously recited in the claim, for example. Additionally, it is not clear if the claimed “the article” recited in the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “article” recited in the claim, if the claimed “the article” recited in the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “article” recited in the claim, for example. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are not clearly set forth and the examiner cannot clearly determine which elements are encompassed by the claim language, which renders the claim indefinite. Conclusion The prior art made of record cited in PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. In particular, JP 2013224833 A, Applicant cited prior art furnished via IDS, and JP 2019008739 A, Applicant cited prior art furnished via IDS, respectively, appear to teach a similar concept related to applicant’s invention. Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GUILLERMO M RIVERA-MARTINEZ whose telephone number is (571) 272-4979. The examiner can normally be reached on 9 am to 5 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, Andrew Bee can be reached on 571-270-5183. 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. /GUILLERMO M RIVERA-MARTINEZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2677 Application/Control Number: 18/806,168 Page 2 Art Unit: 2677 Application/Control Number: 18/806,168 Page 3 Art Unit: 2677 Application/Control Number: 18/806,168 Page 4 Art Unit: 2677 Application/Control Number: 18/806,168 Page 5 Art Unit: 2677 Application/Control Number: 18/806,168 Page 6 Art Unit: 2677 Application/Control Number: 18/806,168 Page 7 Art Unit: 2677 Application/Control Number: 18/806,168 Page 8 Art Unit: 2677 Application/Control Number: 18/806,168 Page 9 Art Unit: 2677 Application/Control Number: 18/806,168 Page 10 Art Unit: 2677 Application/Control Number: 18/806,168 Page 11 Art Unit: 2677
Prosecution Insights