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 .
Claims 1-5 are pending regarding this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/15/2024 is considered and attached.
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.
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:
In claim 1: “preprocessing submodule is configured to…”, “detection model is configured to…”, “host computer detection module is configured to…”
After a careful analysis, as disclosed above, and a careful review of the specification, the “preprocessing submodule”, “detection model”, and “host computer detection module” in claim 1 lack the required structure as outlined in MPEP 2181 II(B) in order to determine whether to interpret a 112(f) limitation as a computer-implemented means-plus-function limitation, and, therefore, it is not clear if “preprocessing submodule”, “detection model”, and “host computer detection module” in claim 1 are structures or computer implemented 112(f) limitations, which require a structure (usually a storage medium) and a specific algorithm. See the 112(a)/112(b) rejections regarding this matter. However, solely for prior art purposes, it is assumed that applicant intended for the “preprocessing submodule”, “detection model”, and “host computer detection module” in claim 1 to be carried out by a processor (or equivalent structure). Below is the corresponding structure and algorithm which are being read into the above limitations:
“preprocessing submodule” (Regarding the preprocessing submodule, the specification does not include enough information to determine the structure for the preprocessing submodule. More specifically, the specification does not clarify what the structure of the preprocessing submodule is (i.e. processor, CPU, camera) in enough detail to determine whether or not to interpret the preprocessing submodule and its corresponding functional language as a computer-implemented 112(f) limitation. See the 112(a)/112(b) rejections below regarding this matter. However, for the purposes of prior art, it is assumed that applicant intends for the corresponding structure of the preprocessing submodule to be a processor. As such, solely for the purposes of prior art searching, the “preprocessing submodule” is being interpreted as computer-implemented 112(f), wherein the structure for the preprocessing submodule is a processor (or equivalent structure) and the corresponding algorithm. However, regarding the preprocessing submodule, along with the lack of structure, applicant fails to include any corresponding algorithm regarding the steps required to carry out the function of the preprocessing submodule. This is further explained in the 112(a)/112(b) rejections below.).
“detection model” (Regarding the detection model, the specification does not include enough information to determine the structure for the detection model. More specifically, the specification does not clarify what the structure of the detection model is (i.e. processor, CPU, camera) in enough detail to determine whether or not to interpret the detection model and its corresponding functional language as a computer-implemented 112(f) limitation. See the 112(a)/112(b) rejections below regarding this matter. However, for the purposes of prior art, since the detection model is based on a Transformer model (see para. [0013] of applicant’s specification), it is assumed that applicant intends for the corresponding structure of the detection model to be a processor. As such, solely for the purposes of prior art searching, the “detection model” is being interpreted as computer-implemented 112(f), wherein the structure for the detection model is a processor and the corresponding algorithm which can be found in para. [0047]-[0055] and [0065]-[0081] of applicant’s specification.).
“host computer detection module” (Regarding the host computer detection module, while the specification recites that “the host computer detection module includes a shutdown control-data interaction submodule of a warp knitting machine, a sensor control board and a system operation interface” as shown in para. [0047], this section does not provide enough information to ascertain the structure of each specific sub-element of the host computer detection module, nor does it provide a specific structure for the entirety of the host computer detection module. Since the specification fails to include sufficient structure (i.e. processor) for at least the shutdown control-data interaction submodule of a warp knitting machine and a system operation interface, there is not enough information to determine the structure for the host computer detection module. As such, it is unclear whether or not to interpret the host computer detection module and its corresponding functional language as a computer-implemented 112(f) limitation. See the 112(a)/112(b) rejections below regarding this matter. However, for the purposes of prior art, it is assumed that applicant intends for the corresponding structure of the host computer detection module, and its corresponding sub-elements, to be a processor. As such, solely for the purposes of prior art searching, the “host computer detection module” is being interpreted as computer-implemented 112(f), wherein the structure for the host computer detection module is a processor and the corresponding algorithm which can be found in para. [0046]-[0048] and [0059]-[0060] of applicant’s specification).
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 § 112(b)
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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (preAIA ), 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.
Regarding claim 1, claim limitations “preprocessing submodule”, “detection model”, and “host computer detection module” in claim 1 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
Regarding the “preprocessing submodule”, applicant appears to describe the preprocessing submodule in paragraphs 0047-0048. However, none of these paragraphs describe a structure for the preprocessing submodule. It is not even clear if the preprocessing submodule is a structure or computer implemented 112(f) limitation, which requires a structure (usually a storage medium) and a specific algorithm. The preprocessing submodule is merely shown as a box within the image processing module in the Figure and there is nothing in the specification that would imply a structure for the preprocessing submodule, or that the preprocessing submodule is a computer-implement 112(f) limitation. Therefore, in this instance “preprocessing submodule” is interpreted as a 112(f) limitation and the specification fails to disclose a specific structure for the preprocessing submodule. However, as noted above in the 112(f) section, solely for the purposes of prior art searching and claim interpretation, the “preprocessing submodule” is being interpreted as computer-implemented 112(f), wherein the structure for the preprocessing submodule is a processor (or equivalent structure) and the corresponding algorithm. Since the applicant fails to include a corresponding algorithm or structure for the preprocessing submodule, the applicant further fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the preprocessing submodule.
As for the “detection model”, applicant appears to describe the claimed detection model in para. [0047]-[0055] and [0065]-[0081]. However, nowhere in these sections does the applicant define any specific structure for the detection model. As such, the specification fails to describe a specific structure for the detection model in order to determine whether the detection model should be interpreted as a computer-implemented 112(f) limitation. However, as noted above in the 112(f) section, solely for the purposes of prior art searching and claim interpretation, since the detection model is based on a Transformer model (see para. [0013] of applicant’s specification), it is assumed that applicant intends for the corresponding structure of the detection model to be a processor. As such, while no structure is provided in the specification, the corresponding algorithm of the detection model (para. [0047]-[0055] and [0065]-[0081]) is being read into the recited “detection model” in claim 1 for the purposes of prior art searching.
With regard to the “host computer detection module”, the claimed “host computer detection module” appears to be discussed in para. [0046]-[0048] and [0059]-[0060]. While the specification recites that “the host computer detection module includes a shutdown control-data interaction submodule of a warp knitting machine, a sensor control board and a system operation interface” as shown in para. [0047], neither this section, nor any other section which discusses the “host computer detection model”, provides enough information to ascertain the structure of each specific sub-element of the host computer detection module, or a specific structure for the entirety of the host computer detection module. Applicant appears to be using the word “computer” in a manner such that a computer may be used to carry out some of the processes of the host computer detection module, but it is never explicitly utilized in a way that defines a specific structure for the host computer detection module (and each of the sub-elements of the module as described in para. [0047]). As such, since it is unclear whether a computer as recited in the host computer detection module actually carries out all of the recited functions of the module, it is unclear whether the host computer detection model should be interpreted as a computer-implemented 112(f) limitation. However, as noted above in the 112(f) section, solely for the purposes of prior art searching and claim interpretation, since the host computer detection module at least in part utilizes a computer, it is assumed that applicant intends for the corresponding structure of the host computer detection module to be a processor. As such, while no explicit structure is provided in the specification, the corresponding algorithm of the detection model (para. [0046]-[0048] and [0059]-[0060]) is being read into the recited “host computer detection module” in claim 1 for the purposes of prior art searching.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure,
material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without
introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already
implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links
them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure,
material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 2-5 are rejected as being dependent upon claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a) (written description)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the
invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise,
and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it
is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode
contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the
manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to
enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly
connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the
inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (preAIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Background
35 U.S.C. § 112(a) requires that the “specification shall contain a written description of the invention”. To satisfy the written description requirement, a patent specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. See, e.g., Moba, B.V. v. Diamond Automation, Inc., 325 F.3d 1306, 1319, 66 USPQ2d 1429, 1438 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d at 1563, 19 USPQ2d at 1116. An applicant shows possession of the claimed invention by describing the claimed invention with all of its limitations using such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, and formulas that fully set forth the claimed invention. Lockwood v. Amer. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572, 41 USPQ2d 1961, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Possession may be shown in a variety of ways including description of an actual reduction to practice, or by showing that the invention was “ready for patenting” such as by the disclosure of drawings or structural chemical formulas that show that the invention was complete, or by describing distinguishing identifying characteristics sufficient to show that the applicant was in possession of the claimed invention. See, e.g., Pfaff v. Wells Elecs., Inc., 525 U.S. 55, 68, 119 S.Ct. 304, 312, 48 USPQ2d 1641, 1647 (1998); Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406; Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharm., 927 F.2d 1200, 1206, 18 USPQ2d 1016, 1021 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
There is a presumption that an adequate written description of the claimed invention is present when the application is filed. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 263, 191 USPQ 90, 97 (CCPA 1976) (“we are of the opinion that the PTO has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasons why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims”). However, as discussed in subsection I., supra, the issue of a lack of adequate written description may arise even for an original claim when an aspect of the claimed invention has not been described with sufficient particularity such that one skilled in the art would recognize that the applicant had possession of the claimed invention. The claimed invention as a whole may not be adequately described if the claims require an essential or critical feature which is not adequately described in the specification and which is not conventional in the art or known to one of ordinary skill in the art. While it is not necessary for the examiner to present factual evidence, to make a prima facie case it is necessary to point out the claim limitations that are not adequately supported and explain any other reasons that the claim is not fully supported by the disclosure to show that the inventor had possession of the invention. See for example, Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365, 1371, 83 USPQ2d 1373, 1376-1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
The courts have described the essential question to be addressed in a description requirement issue in a variety of ways. An objective standard for determining compliance with the written description requirement is, “does the description clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that he or she invented what is claimed.” In re Gosteli, 872 F.2d 1008, 1012, 10 USPQ2d 1614, 1618 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Under Vas-Cath, Inc.v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563-64, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1117 (Fed. Cir. 1991), to satisfy the written description requirement, an applicant must convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, he or she was in possession of the invention, and that the invention, in that context, is whatever is now claimed. The test for sufficiency of support in a parent application is whether the disclosure of the application relied upon “reasonably conveys to the artisan that the inventor had possession at that time of the later claimed subject matter.” Ralston Purina Co.v.Far-Mar-Co., Inc., 772 F.2d 1570, 1575, 227 USPQ 177, 179 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (quoting In reKaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 1375, 217 USPQ 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). See MPEP§ 2163 - https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2163.html
Regarding claim 1, applicant claims “the preprocessing submodule is configured to pre-process the blanket knitting image”. However, the disclosed preprocessing submodule is never disclosed as performing these claimed functions. As noted above in the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection, there is some ambiguity as to what structure applicant is referring to. Applicant describes the claimed functions of the preprocessing submodule in para. [0047]-[0048]. However, none of these sections describe how the preprocessing submodule is capable of pre-processing the blanket knitting images, or what said “pre-processing” entails. The term pre-processing in the context of image analysis is extremely broad, and the only context in which applicant’s specification references the preprocessing submodule is identical to the subject matter recited in claim 1, which broadly recites that “the preprocessing submodule is configured to pre-process the blanket knitting image” without clarifying any further steps of the preprocessing submodule. Applicant’s specification does recite pre-processing steps in para. [0071]. However, these steps (S2-3) are explicitly stated to be carried out by the detection model, not the pre-processing module. As such, the intended purpose of the preprocessing submodule remains unclear. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have recognized that the inventor was in possession of the invention as claimed in view of the disclosure of the application as filed.
Additionally regarding claim 1, as per MPEP § 2181(IV), “A means- (or step-) plus-function
limitation that is found to be indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) based on failure of the specification to disclose corresponding structure, material or act that performs the entire claimed function also lacks adequate written description” (emphasis added). Furthermore, as per MPEP 2163.03(VI), “(s)uch a limitation also lacks an adequate written description as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because an indefinite, unbounded functional limitation would cover all ways of performing a function and indicate that the inventor has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention.” Therefore, since applicant has not defined any particular structure for the
“preprocessing submodule”, “detection model”, and “host computer detection module” in claim 1, the
inventor has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention. Applicant has not provided any specific definition for the structure that carry out the functions disclosed in claim 1. Additionally, the claimed invention as a whole may not be adequately described if the claims require an essential or critical feature which is not adequately described in the specification and which is not conventional in the art or known to one of ordinary skill in the art. It appears that these components and/or features are essential and critical features of the applicants invention because without them applicant’s invention wouldn’t work. In particular, the structure of the pre-processing submodule or detection model are not described in any detail. Therefore, since applicant has not adequately described a particularly structure for performing each of the functions, a person skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed would not have recognized that the inventor was in possession of the invention as claimed.
Claims 2-5 are rejected based on their dependency to claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a), enablement
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Regarding claim 1, applicant claims “the preprocessing submodule is configured to pre-process the blanket knitting image”. It is the Examiner’s position that the subject matter described above is not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, to make and use the invention, without undue experimentation.
In accordance with MPEP § 2164, the examiner has the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of lack of enablement. The question posed when making a lack of enablement rejection is: Is the experimentation needed to practice the invention undue or unreasonable? See Mineral Separation v. Hyde, 242 U.S. 261, 270 (1916). The test for lack of enablement was established in In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and set forth several factors which must be considered by the examiner when making a determination of lack of enablement. These factors can be found in MPEP § 2164.01(a). Furthermore, the examiner need not discuss every factor. The examiner need only to focus on those factors, reasons, and evidence that lead the examiner to conclude that the specification fails to teach how to make and use the claimed invention without undue experimentation.
In Re Wands Factors
B) The nature of the invention
The invention of the aforementioned claim is directed towards a method of “detecting filament breakage and needle breakage” by using a blanket knitting image at a knitting mechanism of a warp knitting machine. The limitation in question is drawn towards “pre-process[ing] the blanket knitting image”. Applicant’s disclosure generally recites the aforementioned claim language.
C) The state of the prior art
After a thorough prior art search, regarding the claims, a determination has been made that it is known in the art to pre-process images. However, no prior art has been found that is capable of “pre-process[ing] a blanket knitting image” when there is no corresponding information that describes what type of pre-processing is necessary in the context of the claimed invention.
D) The level of one of ordinary skill in the art
The examiner is of the opinion that it is well known in the art to pre-process images. However, the Examiner's position on the claims is that it is not well known in the art to pre-process blanket knitting images, when there is no further context to explain what type of pre-processing the applicant is referencing. Furthermore, while pre-processing is a commonly used term in the art, it is extremely broad, such that it would be impossible for one of ordinary skill in the art to ascertain the steps needed to carry out “pre-processing” within knitting images without further context or information. Applicant has not described the invention is sufficient detail for one of ordinary skill in the art to ascertain how applicant’s invention is carried out; and one of ordinary skill in the art would have trouble understanding applicant’s invention based on their disclosure.
F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor
As discussed above applicant has not provided any details on the aforementioned claim limitations. Regarding the claims, applicant has not described how the “the preprocessing submodule is configured to pre-process the blanket knitting image”. Applicant appears to only mention the preprocessing submodule using identical language to the claim. See para. [0047] and [0048] of the specification. These paragraphs merely recite language similar to the claim language. Applicant’s specification does not describe any tangible steps for pre-processing the blanket knitting image that explain what type of pre-processing should be utilized by the preprocessing submodule. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that much more information would be needed in order to use the device to “pre-process the blanket knitting image”.
G) The existence of working examples
There is neither mention of a working example, nor any example in any of the prior art.
H) The quantity of experimentation needed based on the disclosure
Since the invention as claimed is not described in detail in the specification, the amount of experimentation would be great in order to make/use the invention. As mentioned previously, applicant has not provided any direction on the above-mentioned claim limitation. Applicant merely discloses these limitations in passing in para. [0047]-[0048] of the specification and has not provided any disclosure on these limitations. In particular, applicant has not described anything capable of pre-process the blanket knitting image. Neither does applicant describe what the pre-processing entails. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have to engage in undue experimentation in order to figure out how to create the claimed invention. Therefore, since the specification provides no detail on how these claim limitations are made and used, the disclosure is non-enabling. See MPEP § 2164.06.
When considering all of the pertinent In re Wands factors, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988), the Examiner has reached the conclusion that one of ordinary skill in the art would not be enabled to make and/or use the claimed invention without undue experimentation, particularly since the amount of direction provided by the applicant is minimal.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph and U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 1st paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
The best prior art of record is Zhang et al. (CN 109632817 A, see attached English translation), hereinafter Zhang, Ru et al. (CN 114820464 A, see attached English translation), hereinafter Ru, Chen et al. (CN107144570B, see attached English translation), hereinafter Chen ‘570, and Chen et al. (CN-212611220-U), hereinafter Chen ‘220 . Prior art applied alone or in combination with fails to anticipate or render obvious claims 1-5
Claim 1
Regarding claim 1, Zhang teaches a system for detecting filament breakage and needle breakage, comprising:
an image acquisition module;
an image processing module; and
a host computer detection module;
wherein the image acquisition module comprises a light source, a camera and a lens; the image processing module comprises a preprocessing submodule and a detection model; and the host computer detection module comprises a shutdown control-data interaction submodule of a warp knitting machine,
the image acquisition module is configured to capture a
the preprocessing submodule is configured to pre-process the
the host computer detection module is configured to control a textile device and generate an alarming information according to results of the filament breakage and needle
Ru further teaches a sensor control board and a system operation interface determining needle breakage and control a textile device and generate an alarming information according to results of the needle breakage detection.
Chen ‘570 further teaches capturing a blanket knitting image at a knitting mechanism of the warp knitting machine.
Chen ‘220 further teaches a warp knitting warper broken yarn stop motion.
However, neither Zhang, nor Ru, nor Chen ‘570, nor Chen ‘220, nor the combination, teaches the corresponding algorithm of the detection model as outlined in para. [0047]-[0055] and [0065]-[0081], in combination with the other elements of the claim.
***Please note that the detection model is being interpreted under 112(f) as a computer-implemented means-plus-function limitation, wherein the corresponding algorithm of the detection model is being read into the limitation: “the detection model is configured to perform filament breakage and needle breakage detection on the blanket knitting image”. While the specification does not include enough information to determine the structure for the detection model to determine whether or not to interpret the detection model and its corresponding functional language as a computer-implemented 112(f) limitation, for the purposes of prior art, since the detection model is based on a Transformer model (see para. [0013] of applicant’s specification), it is assumed that applicant intends for the corresponding structure of the detection model to be a processor. See also the 112(a)/112(b) rejections of claim 1. As such, solely for the purposes of prior art searching, the “detection model” is being interpreted as computer-implemented 112(f), wherein the structure for the detection model is a processor and the corresponding algorithm which can be found in para. [0047]-[0055] and [0065]-[0081] of applicant’s specification. In this instance, the structure corresponding to a 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation for a computer-implemented function must include the algorithm needed to transform the structure disclosed in the specification (see reasoning above regarding computer-implemented 112(f) interpretation despite lack of structure for the detection model in the specification). See MPEP 2181(II)(B). The specific information in the specification regarding the algorithm associated with the detection model that makes this limitation allowable when analyzed in conjunction with the rest of the claim elements includes, but is not limited to, para. [0047]-[0055] and [0065]-[0081].
Claims 2-5 include allowable subject matter by virtue of being dependent upon claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
should be directed to KYLA G ALLEN whose telephone number is (703)756-5315. The examiner can
normally be reached M-F 7:30am - 4:30pm EST.
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,
John Villecco can be reached on (571) 272-7319. 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.
/Kyla Guan-Ping Tiao Allen/
Examiner, Art Unit 2661
/JOHN VILLECCO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2661
Prosecution Insights