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
Acknowledgment is made of Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) form PTO 1449.These IDS has been considered.
Examiner’s Note
The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages, paragraph and figures may apply. Applicant, in preparing the response, should consider fully the entire reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
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: “data acquirer, bonded state predictor ” in claim 1.
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.
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.
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgment is made of Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) form PTO 1449.These IDS has been considered.
Examiner’s Note
The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages, paragraph and figures may apply. Applicant, in preparing the response, should consider fully the entire reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
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 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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-12, 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over UTSUGI et al. (JP 2022-37646 A) (herein after UTSUGI) in view of Kaniak et al. (US 20240192125 A1) (herein after Kaniak).
As to claim(s) 1-2,5-10, 18 and 20, UTSUGI discloses a bonded state prediction system that predicts/method of predicting a bonded state when an object having adhesiveness is bonded to an adherend, the bonded state prediction system comprising:
a data acquirer [control program 26 causes the CPU 21 to acquire] that acquires two or more pieces of data including physical property value information of the object [tree] [a plurality of adhesion parameters (S11), inputs the acquired adhesion condition…page 3] [@fig.6A; see page 3]; and
a bonded state predictor [prediction model 27] that predicts a bonded state between the object and the adherend using the acquired two or more pieces of data [S21, S22] [The prediction model 27 is generated by machine learning using each of the plurality of bonding conditions and the failure mode determined by peeling off the adhesive and the adherend bonded under each bonding condition as teacher data (S21 to S24) …page 3].
[Note: while each unit configured to perform as claimed may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function, because apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does].
The bonded state prediction system according to claim 1, wherein the data acquirer acquires data information of the object [The control program 26 causes the CPU 21 to acquire an adhesion condition including a plurality of adhesion parameters (S11), inputs the acquired adhesion condition to the prediction model 27 (S31)…page 3], and acquires data including the two or more pieces of data [parameters] including physical property value information in association with the acquired data information [the prediction model 27 inputs an adhesion condition including a plurality of adhesion parameters…page 3].
The bonded state prediction system according to claim 1, wherein the bonded state predictor predicts the bonded state based on a prediction model of machine learning [The prediction model 27 is generated by machine learning using each of the plurality of bonding conditions and the failure mode determined by peeling off the adhesive and the adherend bonded under each bonding condition as teacher data…page 3].
The bonded state prediction system according to claim 1 further comprising a display [15] that displays a result predicted by the bonded state predictor [a display 15 that displays information such as an adhesion condition setting screen and a destruction mode prediction result…page 7].
The bonded state prediction system according to claim 1, wherein the two or more pieces of data are data including predetermined physical property value information acquired over time [the prediction model uses each of the plurality of bonding conditions and the destruction mode determined by peeling off the adhesive and the adherend bonded under each bonding condition as teacher data…page 5].
The bonded state prediction system according to claim 1, wherein the two or more pieces of data include different types of physical property value information [a plurality of bonding conditions having different test parameters are input according to the elapsed time from bonding and the elapsed time…page 15] [the prediction model uses each of the plurality of bonding conditions and the destruction mode determined by peeling off the adhesive and the adherend bonded under each bonding condition as teacher data…page 5].
The bonded state prediction system according to claim 8, wherein the two or more pieces of data are acquired simultaneously [a plurality of bonding conditions having different test parameters are input according to the elapsed time from bonding and the elapsed time…page 15] [the prediction model uses each of the plurality of bonding conditions and the destruction mode determined by peeling off the adhesive and the adherend bonded under each bonding condition as teacher data…page 5].
The bonded state prediction system according to claim 8, herein at least one of the two or more pieces of data is spectral characteristic information of the object [a plurality of bonding conditions having different test parameters are input according to the elapsed time from bonding and the elapsed time…page 15] [the prediction model uses each of the plurality of bonding conditions and the destruction mode determined by peeling off the adhesive and the adherend bonded under each bonding condition as teacher data…page 5].
A method for producing a bonded article, comprising: predicting a bonded state between the object having adhesiveness and the adherend by performing the prediction method according to claim 18 on the object; and adjusting a processing condition for the object based on the predicted result [a plurality of bonding conditions having different test parameters are input according to the elapsed time from bonding and the elapsed time…page 15] [the prediction model uses each of the plurality of bonding conditions and the destruction mode determined by peeling off the adhesive and the adherend bonded under each bonding condition as teacher data…page 5.
UTSUGI discloses all the features of the claimed invention except the limitation such as: “two dimensional coordinates of the object”.
However, Kaniak from the same field of endeavor discloses a data acquire [evaluation device 25…¶0095] that acquires two dimensional coordinates of an object [@figs.1-2: two-dimensional, corresponding to image data…¶0094].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify the device/method/system of UTSUGI such that the two-dimensional coordinates of the object, as taught by Kaniak, for the advantages such as: to detect and distinguish material defects.
As of claims 3-4 and 11-12, UTSUGI discloses all the features of the claimed invention except the limitation such as: “The bonded state prediction system according to claim 2, wherein the data acquirer includes: an image acquirer that acquires an image indicating a state of light reflected or emitted by the object when irradiated with light; and a processor that acquires the two or more pieces of data from the acquired image.
The bonded state prediction system according to claim 3, further comprising:
a light source that irradiates the object with light; and an imager that captures an image of a light emission state of the object that emits light by receiving the light from the light source, wherein the image acquirer acquires the image captured by the imager.
The bonded state prediction system according to claim 10, wherein the spectral characteristic information is acquired from an image indicating a state of light reflected or emitted by the object when the object is irradiated with light having a predetermined wavelength.
The bonded state prediction system according to claim 11, wherein the image is acquired by a hyperspectral camera”.
However, Kaniak from the same field of endeavor discloses an image acquirer [optical camera 50 @fig.6] that acquires an image indicating a state of light reflected or emitted by the object when irradiated with light [¶0109]; and a processor [evaluation device 25] that acquires the two or more pieces of data from the acquired image [¶0109];
a light source [21] that irradiates the object with light [¶0089]; and an imager [50] that captures an image of a light emission state of the object that emits light by receiving the light from the light source, wherein the image acquirer acquires the image captured by the imager [¶0109];
wherein the spectral characteristic information is acquired from an image indicating a state of light reflected or emitted by the object when the object is irradiated with light having a predetermined wavelength [¶0045 ,0097];
wherein the image is acquired by a hyperspectral camera [50] [¶0109].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify the device/method/system of UTSUGI such that the image acquirer that acquires the image indicating the state of light reflected or emitted by the object when irradiated with light; and the processor that acquires the two or more pieces of data from the acquired image; the light source that irradiates the object with light; and the imager that captures the image of the light emission state of the object that emits light by receiving the light from the light source, wherein the image acquirer acquires the image captured by the imager; the spectral characteristic information is acquired from the image indicating the state of light reflected or emitted by the object when the object is irradiated with light having the predetermined wavelength; wherein the image is acquired by the hyperspectral camera; as taught by Kaniak, for the advantages such as: high signal to noise ratio (SNR) to increase imaging contrast and penetration depth [¶0007].
As to claim(s) 19, UTSUGI discloses a non-transitory computer readable recording medium having a bonded state prediction program stored thereon for predicting a bonded state when an object having adhesiveness is bonded to an adherend, wherein the program causes is executable to cause the computer to execute operations comprising:
acquiring two or more pieces of data [S21 to S24] including physical property value information of the object [control program 26 causes the CPU 21 to acquire] [tree] [a plurality of adhesion parameters (S11), inputs the acquired adhesion condition…page 3] [@fig.6A; see page 3]; and
predicting [prediction model 27] a bonded state between the object and the adherend using the acquired two or more pieces of data [S21, S22] [The prediction model 27 is generated by machine learning using each of the plurality of bonding conditions and the failure mode determined by peeling off the adhesive and the adherend bonded under each bonding condition as teacher data (S21 to S24) …page 3].
[Note: while each unit configured to perform as claimed may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function, because apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does].
UTSUGI discloses all the features of the claimed invention except the limitation such as: “two dimensional coordinates of the object”.
However, Kaniak from the same field of endeavor discloses a data acquire [evaluation device 25…¶0095] that acquires two dimensional coordinates of an object [@figs.1-2: two-dimensional, corresponding to image data…¶0094].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify the device/method/system of UTSUGI such that the two-dimensional coordinates of the object, as taught by Kaniak, for the advantages such as: to detect and distinguish material defects.
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over UTSUGI et al. in view of Kaniak et al. and further view of Takahashi et al. (US 20180055370 A1) (herein after Takahashi).
As of claims 13-14, UTSUGI when modified by Kaniak discloses all the features of the claimed invention except the limitation such as: “The bonded state prediction system wherein the object includes a contrast agent whose light emission behavior changes in accordance with a physical property of the object.
The bonded state prediction system according to claim 13, wherein the contrast agent emits fluorescence when irradiated with predetermined light”.
However, Takahashi from the same field of endeavor discloses a system wherein an object includes a contrast agent [14] whose light emission behavior changes in accordance with a physical property of the object [a contrast agent administering unit 14, an acoustic wave detecting unit 17, a signal collecting unit 18, a signal processing unit 19 and a display device 20…¶0045] [photoacoustic signals measured at a plurality of wavelengths is stored in the storage device in the form of one data set having a same time point allocated thereto…¶0055]; wherein the contrast agent emits fluorescence when irradiated with predetermined light [¶0045].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify the device/method/system of UTSUGI when modified by Kaniak such that the object includes the contrast agent whose light emission behavior changes in accordance with the physical property of the object; the contrast agent emits fluorescence when irradiated with predetermined light; as taught by Takahashi, for the advantages such as: in order to achieve different imaging modes and to optimize the measuring results depending on the properties of the sample.
Claim(s) 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over UTSUGI et al. in view of Kaniak et al. and further view of MATSUDO (JP 2005-289038 A) (herein after MATSUDO).
As of claims 15-17, UTSUGI when modified by Kaniak discloses all the features of the claimed invention except the limitation such as: “The bonded state prediction system according to claim 10, wherein the spectral characteristic information is associated with a physical property value selected from the group consisting of elastic modulus, degree of cure, hardness, polarity, and moisture content.
The bonded state prediction system according to claim 15, wherein another one of the two or more pieces of data includes film thickness information.
The bonded state prediction system according to claim 1, wherein the object is a thermocompression bonding material, a curable material, or an adhesive material.”.
However, MATSUDO from the same field of endeavor discloses a spectral characteristic information is associated with a physical property value selected from the group consisting of elastic modulus [the elastic modulus is calculated from the initial gradient of the obtained stress-strain curve…page 7], degree of cure, hardness [after bonding with a laminated glass, the hardness of a layer (A) and a layer (B) reaches desired hardness. Therefore, the thermoplastic resin sheet of the present invention can be easily handled as a multilayer resin film…page 3];
wherein another one of the two or more pieces of data includes film thickness information [The thickness of the entire interlayer film is preferably 0.3 to 1.6 mm, which is the thickness of a normal laminated glass interlayer film. The thicker the thickness…page 9];
wherein the object is a thermocompression bonding material, a curable material, or an adhesive material [thermocompression treatment was performed in an autoclave at a pressure of 1.3 MPa and a temperature of 140 ° C., and the intermediate film was layer (A) / layer (B) / layer (A)…page 11].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify the device/method/system of UTSUGI when modified by Kaniak such that the spectral characteristic information is associated with a physical property value selected from the group consisting of elastic modulus, degree of cure, hardness, polarity, and moisture content; wherein another one of the two or more pieces of data includes film thickness information; wherein the object is the thermocompression bonding material, the curable material, or the adhesive material; as taught by MATSUDO, for the advantages such as: wavelength resolution, wavelength accuracy, signal accuracy, and signal-to-noise ratio.
Other Prior Art
Another prior art, Jung et al. (US 20030011768 A1) discloses: control of microprocessor 10, which may be in response to operator activation (through, for example, key pad switches 12 or switch 17 ), light is directed from light source 11, and reflected from cold mirror 6 through source fiber optic 5 (and through fiber optic cable 3, probe body 2 and probe tip 1) or through some other suitable light source element and is directed onto object 20…¶0082; a plurality of perimeter light receiver fiber optics, denoted as light receivers R1, R2 and R3. As is illustrated, this embodiment utilizes three perimeter fiber optics, although in other embodiments two, four or some other number of receiver fiber optics are utilized…¶0083.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MD M RAHMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9175. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur.
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, TARIFUR CHOWDHURY can be reached at 571-272-2287. 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.
MD M. RAHMAN
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2886
/MD M RAHMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights