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 .
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 12 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 claim 12 recites “A program”. A program as recited is not patent eligible subject matter because it is “software/data per se”. Furthermore, it is not a remedy when such “software/data” is claimed as a product without any structural recitations. “Thus, a product claim to a software program that does not also contain at least one structural limitation (such as a ‘means plus function’ limitation) has no physical or tangible form, and thus does not fall within any statutory category.” MPEP 2106.03(I). A recommended remedy for claiming a computer program is to have it embodied within a “non-transitory” computer readable medium. See also USPTO Published 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance, and MPEP 2106 and 2106.03 for additional guidance.
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: “unit” in claim group 1-12.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3-4 and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katti (US Patent Pub. No.: US 2011/0299784 A1) hereinafter Katti, in view of Zhang (Automated measurements of fiber diameters in melt-blown nonwovens, Journal of Industrial Textiles 43.4 (2014): 593-605), hereinafter Zhang.
Regarding claim 1, Katti teaches a tissue image analysis apparatus comprising: an edge processing unit that detects an edge (At block 130, edges of each of the plurality of fibers are detected. [0021]) in a tissue image including a fiber (At block 110, an image of the fibrous material is accessed. The fibrous material includes a plurality of fibers. [0020]) and performs line segment approximation on the detected edge (FIG. 5 illustrates an example image 500 with scan vectors 510 and 520 for identifying edges of identified fibers using the system of FIG. 2. As illustrated, the image 500 of a fibrous material having fibers such as represented by reference numerals 530 and 540 may be scanned in vertical and horizontal directions. [0045]. It is noted that the edges of the fibers 530 and 540 are represented as straight line segments.
PNG
media_image1.png
824
664
media_image1.png
Greyscale
); a line segment pair specifying unit that draws a plurality of auxiliary lines (In certain embodiments, a number of the vertical, horizontal, diagonal and directional scans may be configurable by a user. At block 150, the individual fibers are identified based upon the intensity gradient and the horizontal/vector scan vector corresponding to the respective fiber. [0024]) in a line segment image representing an approximated line segment (FIG. 5 illustrates an example image 500 with scan vectors 510 and 520 for identifying edges of identified fibers using the system of FIG. 2. As illustrated, the image 500 of a fibrous material having fibers such as represented by reference numerals 530 and 540 may be scanned in vertical and horizontal directions. [0045].
PNG
media_image2.png
824
664
media_image2.png
Greyscale
) and specifies a pair of line segments to be analyzed on a basis of a change in luminance of the line segment (In the illustrated embodiment, an entry point 550 and an exit point 560 for the fiber 530 are determined based upon the magnitude and direction of the image intensity gradient. As illustrated, the exit point 560 is the point identified on the opposite boundary of the fiber 530. [0045]) intersecting the auxiliary line (In the illustrated embodiment, scanning is performed from bottom to top of the image 500 using the scan vector 510. [0046]); and a feature amount calculation unit that calculates a feature amount regarding the fiber (At block 170, a plurality of structural parameters for each of the tracked fibers are estimated. Examples of the structural parameters include, but are not limited to, a diameter of the fiber, a length of the fiber, a gradient of the fiber, surface area of the fiber, an angle of the fiber relative to coordinate axes, coordinates information of edge points of the fiber and coordinate information of a midpoint of the fiber. [0027]) on a basis of geometric information (As used herein, the term "vector orientation angle" refers to angle between a vector joining two adjacent tracking points of the fiber and a horizontal axis. Further, the term "fiber alignment angle" refers to a fiber's angle with a horizontal coordinate axis. [0026]. In the illustrated embodiment, an entry point 550 and an exit point 560 for the fiber 530 are determined based upon the magnitude and direction of the image intensity gradient. As illustrated, the exit point 560 is the point identified on the opposite boundary of the fiber 530. [0045]) of the specified pair of line segments (At block 640, it is determined if a matching pair of edge points is identified. If the matching pair of edge points is identified, then diameter and fiber alignment angle for the second tracking point is calculated (block 641). [0055]).
Katti does not expressly teach the following limitations as further recited, but Zhang further teaches performs line segment approximation on the detected edge (In the current study, potential fiber profiles are constructed by pairing line segments (LS). Page 595 2nd paragraph. After all the boundaries are amended, they are replaced by the straight lines (LS) that connect the endpoints of each boundary (see Figure 6). Page 597 last paragraph.
PNG
media_image3.png
386
856
media_image3.png
Greyscale
); specifies a pair of line segments (
PNG
media_image4.png
220
902
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.
PNG
media_image5.png
846
852
media_image5.png
Greyscale
) intersecting the auxiliary line in a direction orthogonal to the line segment (Figure 8 shows rectangle ‘‘ABCD’’ that is a potential fiber profile. In the rectangle, lines AB and CD (which reads on “a pair of line segments”) are the fiber boundaries and lines AD and BC (which reads on “the auxiliary line”) are edges perpendicular to the fiber boundaries. Page 599 2nd paragraph).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Katti to incorporate the teachings of Zhang to perform line segment approximation on the detected edge and specify a pair of line segments intersecting the auxiliary line in a direction orthogonal to the line segment in order to improve the efficiency of measuring fiber diameter.
Regarding claim 3, Katti in the combination teaches the tissue image analysis apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the feature amount calculation unit obtains an angle of each of two line segments as an angle (As used herein, the term "vector orientation angle" refers to angle between a vector joining two adjacent tracking points of the fiber and a horizontal axis. Further, the term "fiber alignment angle" refers to a fiber's angle with a horizontal coordinate axis. [0026]) with respect to a pair detection line that is a line (In the illustrated embodiment, scanning is performed from bottom to top of the image 500 using the scan vector 510. [0046]) connecting the two line segments constituting the specified pair (In the illustrated embodiment, an entry point 550 and an exit point 560 for the fiber 530 are determined based upon the magnitude and direction of the image intensity gradient. As illustrated, the exit point 560 is the point identified on the opposite boundary of the fiber 530. [0045]).
Zhang in the combination further teaches converts the pair detection line into a diameter-corresponding line segment corresponding to a diameter of the fiber on a basis of the obtained angle (Figure 8 shows rectangle ‘‘ABCD’’ that is a potential fiber profile. In the rectangle, lines AB and CD (which reads on “a diameter-corresponding line segment”) are the fiber boundaries and lines AD and BC (which reads on “the pair detection line”) are edges perpendicular to the fiber boundaries. Page 599 2nd paragraph.
PNG
media_image6.png
376
690
media_image6.png
Greyscale
), calculates a diameter of the fiber as the feature amount on a basis of a length of the diameter-corresponding line segment (The fiber diameter of a detected fiber profile is equal to the width of the rectangle. After all the detected fibers in the image are counted, the diameter distribution curve can be drawn from the frequency counts. The main diameter is obtained through the ridge position of the curve. Page 602 3rd paragraph).
Regarding claim 4, Katti in the combination teaches the tissue image analysis apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the feature amount calculation unit calculates an angle of the fiber as the feature amount (At block 170, a plurality of structural parameters for each of the tracked fibers are estimated. Examples of the structural parameters include, but are not limited to, a diameter of the fiber, a length of the fiber, a gradient of the fiber, surface area of the fiber, an angle of the fiber relative to coordinate axes, coordinates information of edge points of the fiber and coordinate information of a midpoint of the fiber. [0027]) on a basis of an angle in a longitudinal direction of the line segment constituting the pair (Further, the term "fiber alignment angle" refers to a fiber's angle with a horizontal coordinate axis. [0026]. At block 640, it is determined if a matching pair of edge points is identified. If the matching pair of edge points is identified, then diameter and fiber alignment angle for the second tracking point is calculated (block 641). [0055]).
Regarding claim 8, Zhang in the combination teaches the tissue image analysis apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the feature amount calculation unit outputs information representing a histogram of the feature amount (In the SEM image, the fiber structure demonstrate a trend that its grayscale moves from light to dark and then back to light across the fiber width. This feature can be revealed by a grayscale histogram, and used to separate fiber profiles from incorrect rectangles. Page 598 last paragraph).
Regarding claim 9, Katti in the combination teaches the tissue image analysis apparatus according to claim 3, wherein in a case where a calculated diameter of the fiber is out of a set allowable range (Examples of the input parameters include, but are not limited to, pre-determined range for diameter of the fibers to be tracked, thresholds for diameter of fibers and fiber alignment angles for identifying the fibers and a number of scans for tracking the fibers. [0031]), the line segment pair specifying unit excludes the diameter or the pair on which the diameter is calculated from an analysis target (In this example embodiment, point 740 that complies with the diameter and fiber alignment angle conditions described above is validated as the second tracking point while the other two points 750 and 760 are removed from the analysis. [0060]).
Regarding claim 10, Katti in the combination teaches the tissue image analysis apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the tissue image is an image obtained by an electron microscope (In certain embodiments, the image of the fibrous material may be obtained using an image acquisition device such as a scanning electron microscope. [0020]), an optical microscope, or a multispectral camera.
Method claim 11 is drawn to the method of using the corresponding apparatus claimed in claim 1. Therefore method claim 11 corresponds to apparatus claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Claim 12 is drawn to a program causing a computer to function for executing the method of using the corresponding apparatus as claimed in claim 1. Therefore, claim 12 corresponds to apparatus claim 1, and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katti (US Patent Pub. No.: US 2011/0299784 A1) hereinafter Katti, in view of Zhang (Automated measurements of fiber diameters in melt-blown nonwovens, Journal of Industrial Textiles 43.4 (2014): 593-605), hereinafter Zhang, further in view of Pan (Chinese Patent Pub. No.: CN 111830036 A), hereinafter Pan.
Regarding claim 5, Katti and Zhang teach all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated in claim 1 except for the following limitations as further recited. However, Pan teaches wherein the feature amount calculation unit calculates, as the feature amount, a value corresponding to a degree of density of the fibers (the experimental result management module combines the automatic calibration result and the number of the warps and the wefts in the image to convert the number of the fibers in the standard unit length, and the automatic output of the fiber density experimental result is completed. Abstract) on a basis of a ratio of a length of the line segment specified as the pair on the auxiliary line to a length of the auxiliary line (the scale calibration algorithm unit automatically identifies the scale to perform automatic calibration through a clear image obtained by the scale calibration algorithm, and the automatic calibration comprises the following steps; b1, analyzing the obtained clear image, and extracting a scale target; b2, analyzing the pixel ratio calculated by the scale target, and outputting the result to generate a scale, wherein the scale is the actual distance unit corresponding to a single pixel. Page 4 4th paragraph).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Katti and Zhang to incorporate the teachings of Pan to calculate, as the feature amount, a value corresponding to a degree of density of the fibers on a basis of a ratio of a length of the line segment specified as the pair on the auxiliary line to a length of the auxiliary line in order to make the fabric density statistics more intelligent, more efficient and more accurate.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katti (US Patent Pub. No.: US 2011/0299784 A1) hereinafter Katti, in view of Zhang (Automated measurements of fiber diameters in melt-blown nonwovens, Journal of Industrial Textiles 43.4 (2014): 593-605), hereinafter Zhang, further in view of Shen (Chinese Patent Pub. No.: CN 113610852 B), hereinafter Shen.
Regarding claim 6, Katti and Zhang teach all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated in claim 1 except for the following limitations as further recited. However, Shen teaches wherein the feature amount calculation unit calculates, as the feature amount, a value corresponding to a degree of bending of the fiber (calculating the fibre stretching degree of all pixel point position in the texture image image. Page 2 last paragraph) on a basis of an approximated distribution of lengths of the line segments (Specifically, firstly, according to the fibre distribution calculating the texture image. The specific method is as follows: setting a 17 * 17 window, all pixels in each small window form a sub-image, calculating the entropy value of the small window image grey-scale co-occurrence matrix and grey co-occurrence matrix, then assigning the entropy value to the central point of the window, which completes the texture feature calculation of the first small window, then the window is moved by one pixel to form another small window image, and then repeatedly calculating new symbiotic matrix and entropy value. and so on, according to the fibre distribution map gradually generating texture feature image, the texture feature image and the original image size are the same, each pixel of the texture image picture represents the complex or confused degree of the texture, the larger the value represents the texture distribution is more complex, explaining the position of the fibre distribution is not smooth, the degree of straightout is lower. Page 10 5th paragraph).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Katti and Zhang to incorporate the teachings of Shen to calculate, as the feature amount, a value corresponding to a degree of bending of the fiber on a basis of an approximated distribution of lengths of the line segments so that the interwoven folded fibre edge can be clearly distinguished and the result of the yarn drafting quality monitoring is more accurate.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the closest prior arts of record teach the tissue image analysis apparatus according to claim 1. However, none of them alone or in any combination teaches wherein the line segment pair specifying unit draws a plurality of the auxiliary lines by changing at least one of a distance interval and an angular interval in the tissue image, adds information on an existence direction of the fiber to the line segment intersecting the auxiliary line on a basis of a change in luminance in a direction orthogonal to a longitudinal direction of the line segment, and specifies the line segments in which the added existence directions face each other as a pair of the line segments as specified in claim 2.
Claim 7 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the closest prior arts of record teach the tissue image analysis apparatus according to claim 1. However, none of them alone or in any combination teaches wherein the feature amount calculation unit specifies luminance on the tissue image corresponding to a pair detection line which is a line connecting two line segments constituting the specified pair, specifies, as a gap portion, a region different from a region of luminance in which a difference from the specified luminance is within a certain level in the tissue image, and calculates a length of the gap portion on a gap auxiliary line as the feature amount as specified in claim 7.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEI ZHAO whose telephone number is (703)756-1922. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, VU LE can be reached at (571)272-7332. 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.
/LEI ZHAO/Examiner, Art Unit 2668
/VU LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2668
Prosecution Insights