CTNF 18/984,260 CTNF 74791 DETAILED ACTION 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. 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 1-20 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. As to claims 1, 19 and 20, the limitation of “determining is made with a priority of a damage type in case where determination is made by the damage detection processing that two or more types of damage are detected from the same position or adjacent positions” is indefinite since the claims fail to provide objective boundaries regarding the meaning of “priority of a damage type”. The claims do not specify who the priority if determined, what criteria are used to establish the priority, or whether the priority is based on severity, repair urgency, user preference or another parameter. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would no be reasonable apprised of the scope of the claimed “priority”. Notwithstanding the indefiniteness issues discussed above, the prior art rejections set forth below are made based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed language presently of record. In particular, for purposes of examination, the Examiner interprets, the cited “priority of a damage type” broadly as encompassing any ranking, ordering, weighting, preference, severity relationship, or display precedence associated with one damage type relative to another damage type. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being over Honda et al (U.S.Pat. 9,778,206) in view of Chu et al (U.S.Pat. 9,311,698B2). With respect to claims 1-2, 19-20, Honda discloses an inspection support device, a corresponding method and a non-transitory computer recording medium storing an inspection support program and comprising substantially all of the limitations of the instant claim such as: a processor (150-170) wherein the processor performs: image acquisition processing (110) of acquiring image obtained by imaging a structure (210) to be inspected; damage detection processing (130) of detecting damage to the structure on the basis of the acquired image; determining processing (140) of determining in a case where types of damages to the structure are detected by the damage detection processing among the type of damages, the type of damages are detected from the location of the damages and output processing (190) of outputting a damage detection result detected by the damage detection processing, the output processing being processing of outputting the damage detection result in accordance with a priority of a damage type in a case where determination is made by the determination processing that the types of damage are detected from the location of the damages. As to claims 5-7, Honda discloses wherein the damage detection processing is executed by a trained model (see formula 1, 2 or 3) that outputs a damage region and a damage type for each damage region as a recognition result in response to an input of the image. As to claim 12, wherein the output processing, a damage detection result is output and displayed on a display (190). Honda further discloses associating nearby defect candidates and processing multiple defect candidates detected in neighboring positions or corresponding coordinate regions (see Figure 7C; figure 15). However, Honda does not expressly disclose determining a damage detected result according to a priority of damage type in a case where two or more types are detected from the same or adjacent positions, as recited in the instant claims. Chu discloses applying different defect detection parameters and evaluation processing based on different regions and different defect characteristics/types (see abstract and claim 1). Chu further discloses threshold-based evaluation and differentiated defect processing according to defect context and region characteristics (see col.7, lines 15 thru col.8 line 20). In view of such teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Honda and Chu to come up with the claimed invention as recited in the mentioned claims. It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Honda’s defect determination and classification processing to include the differentiated evaluation and threshold-based defect handling of Chu in order to improve handling, interpretation, and prioritization of multiple detected defects occurring in corresponding or neighboring regions, thereby improving inspection reliability and defect analysis accuracy. As to claims 3-4, Honda does not specifically disclose that the adjacent positions where a distance between the two or more types of damage is a threshold value or less, as recited in the instant claims. It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to determine the distance between the two or more types of damage being the threshold value or less since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 671 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). As to claims 9-18, Honda discloses determining apparent defects of the structure such as nuisance, scratch defect (see col.10, lines 64-66) but does not expressly disclose the damage of structure being linear damage or planar damage or priority of the damage types, as recited in the instant claims. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to determine damage type being linear damage or planar damage or the severity of damage since a selecting in shape or size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Double Patenting 08-33 AIA The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,209,972. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all of the features/limitations collectively recited in claims 1-20 of the instant application are also included, inter alia, in the collective recitation of claims 1-20 of the ‘972 patent. With respect to claim 1 (for example) of the present application, claim 1 of the ‘972 patent discloses: PNG media_image1.png 42 230 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 249 288 media_image2.png Greyscale With respect to claims 2-20, the limitations of these claims are all disclosed in claims 2-29 of the ‘972 patent. In fact, claims 1-20 of the present application are merely re-written versions/or broader versions of claims 1-20 of the '972 patent. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNG HENRY NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2124. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00AM-4:30PM. 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, Toan Minh Ton can be reached at 571-272-2303. 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. HUNG HENRY NGUYEN Primary Examiner Art Unit 2882 Hvn 5/16/26 /HUNG V NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882 Application/Control Number: 18/984,260 Page 2 Art Unit: 2882 Application/Control Number: 18/984,260 Page 3 Art Unit: 2882 Application/Control Number: 18/984,260 Page 4 Art Unit: 2882 Application/Control Number: 18/984,260 Page 5 Art Unit: 2882 Application/Control Number: 18/984,260 Page 6 Art Unit: 2882 Application/Control Number: 18/984,260 Page 7 Art Unit: 2882 Application/Control Number: 18/984,260 Page 8 Art Unit: 2882
Prosecution Insights