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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the detection unit of claim 4 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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:
An X-ray irradiation unit in claim 1, because it uses “unit” (MPEP 2181.I.A) coupled with functional language “that irradiates an article with X-rays” without citing sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore the “unit” is not preceded by a structural modifier.
An X-ray detection unit in claim 1, because it uses “unit” (MPEP 2181.I.A) coupled with functional language “that detects the X-rays” without citing sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore the “unit” is not preceded by a structural modifier.
An inspection unit in claim 1, because it uses “unit” (MPEP 2181.I.A) coupled with functional language “that inspects the article based on an image created from a detection result of the X-rays detected by the X-ray detection unit, wherein the inspection unit determines that a quality of the article is low in a case where a quality index value is greater than a threshold value, the quality index value being calculated based on an area of a region, in which the article is present, in the image and on a shade of the image or a weight of the article” without citing sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore the “unit” is not preceded by a structural modifier.
A detection unit in claim 1, because it uses “unit” (MPEP 2181.I.A) coupled with functional language “that detects a height of the article” without citing sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore the “unit” is not preceded by a structural modifier.
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.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
Regarding the X-ray irradiation unit, paragraphs 0020 discloses "the X-ray irradiation unit 6 is an X-ray source that irradiates the article G”. Thus, for the purpose of examination, the X-ray irradiation unit is interpreted to be an X-ray source.
Regarding the X-ray detection unit, paragraphs 0021 discloses " The X-ray detection unit 7 is a sensor member that detects the X-rays transmitted through the article G irradiated with the X-rays by the X-ray irradiation unit 6. The X-ray detection unit 7 may be a line sensor or a two-dimensionally disposed sensor group. The display operation unit 8 is provided in the device body 2”. Thus, for the purpose of examination, the X-ray detection unit is interpreted to be a line sensor or a two-dimensional sensor.
Regarding the inspection unit, paragraphs 0022 discloses " The controller 10 controls the operation of each unit of the X- ray inspection device 1. The controller 10 includes a processor such as a central processing unit (CPU), a memory such as a read-only memory (ROM) and a random-access memory (RAM), and a storage such as a solid-state drive (SSD). A program for controlling the X-ray inspection device 1 is recorded in the ROM. The controller 10 constitutes an inspection unit that inspects the article based on the X-ray transmission image (image) created from a detection result of the X-rays detected by the X-ray detection unit 7”. Thus, for the purpose of examination, the inspection unit is interpreted to be a controller.
Regarding the detection unit, paragraphs 0035 discloses “In the above-described embodiment, the detection unit that detects a height of the article G conveyed by the conveyance unit 5 may be further provided. In this case, the quality index value calculation unit 12 of the controller 10 may calculate a volume of the article G based on the height of the article G detected by the detection unit and on the area of the article region, and calculate the quality index value based on the volume of the article G and on the shade of the X-ray transmission image or the weight of the article G. In this case, the quality index value corresponds to, for example, a weight per unit volume of the article G”. Additionally, the figures fail to show the detection unit. Thus, the specification merely recites the function of the detection unit and fails to disclose sufficient structure.
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
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.
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 (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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim limitation “the quality index value being calculated based on an area of a region, in which the article is present, in the image and on a shade of the image or a weight of the article” is indefinite insofar as the examiner is unclear about the structure of “the quality index value being calculated based on an area of a region, in which the article is present, in the image and on a shade of the image or a weight of the article” and it is impossible to determine the intending scope of the structure of “the quality index value being calculated based on an area of a region, in which the article is present, in the image and on a shade of the image or a weight of the article” in claim 1. The limitation appears to be a list which may be used to calculate the quality index, the list comprising (1) “an area of a region, in which the article is present, in the image”, (2) “and on a shade of the image”, and (3) “or a weight of the article”. Due to a lack of punctuation, it is impossible to determine the grouping of the various elements of the list and due to the inclusion of the article ‘or’ which elements are optional. For instance, the limitation could mean that the calculation is based on any of (1), (2), or (3); or it could mean it is based on (1) and (2) or optionally 3; or it could mean that actually (1) and (2) are a single step and optionally (3).Therefore, it is indefinite.
Also, dependent Claims 2-5 are rejected by virtue of its dependency.
For the purpose of examination, it will be interpreted as (1) and (2) and optionally (3).
Regarding claim 4, the claim limitation “wherein the inspection unit… calculates the quality index value based on the volume of the article and on the shade of the image or the weight of the article” is indefinite insofar as the examiner is unclear about the structure of “wherein the inspection unit… calculates the quality index value based on the volume of the article and on the shade of the image or the weight of the article” and it is impossible to determine the intending scope of the structure of “wherein the inspection unit… calculates the quality index value based on the volume of the article and on the shade of the image or the weight of the article” in claim 1. The limitation appears to be a list which may be used to calculate the quality index, the list comprising (1) “on the volume of the article”, (2) “and on the shade of the image”, and (3) “or the weight of the article”. Due to a lack of punctuation, it is impossible to determine the grouping of the various elements of the list and due to the inclusion of the article ‘or’ which elements are optional. For instance, the limitation could mean that the calculation is based on any of (1), (2), or (3); or it could mean it is based on (1) and (2) or optionally 3; or it could mean that actually (1) and (2) are a single step and optionally (3).Therefore, it is indefinite.
Regarding claim 4, the claim limitation “a detection unit that detects a height of the article” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (see Claim Interpretation). 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. The specification merely discloses the function of the detection unit and not the structure. 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.
Claim 4 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 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.
Regarding claim 4, the claim limitation “a detection unit that detects a height of the article” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (see Claim Interpretation). The specification merely discloses the function of the detection unit and not the structure. Merely restating a function associated with a means-plus-function limitation is insufficient to provide the corresponding structure for definiteness (see Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)). It follows therefore that such a mere restatement of function in the specification without more description of the means that accomplish the function would also fail to provide adequate written description under section 112(a) or pre-AIA section 112, first paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hocker et al. US 2026/0162247.
Regarding claim 1, Hocker discloses an X-ray inspection device (figs. 1, 2) comprising: an X-ray irradiation unit (120, 119, x-ray source) that irradiates an article with X-rays (WP); an X-ray detection unit (fig. 2 not labeled) that detects the X-rays (para. 0057); and an inspection unit (106, 111, 112; para. 0082) that inspects the article based on an image created from a detection result of the X-rays detected by the X-ray detection unit (para. 0057, 0063-0064, 0082-0084; scanning station 120 comprises the x-ray system which sends the results to processor 130 which may be used as ‘QA data’. Additionally, image sensor assembly 132 may comprise x-ray imaging), wherein the inspection unit determines that a quality of the article is low in a case where a quality index value is greater than a threshold value (para. 0182), the quality index value being calculated based on an area of a region, in which the article is present, in the image and on a shade of the image (para. 0190; the broadest reasonable interpretation of ‘shade’ includes both the degree of darkness and also the shade of color) or a weight of the article (para. 0188, 0192).
Regarding claim 2, Hocker discloses wherein the inspection unit calculates the quality index value by dividing a weight estimated from the shade of the region by the area of the region (para. 0192; density).
Regarding claim 4, Hocker discloses a detection unit that detects a height of the article (para. 0221), wherein the inspection unit calculates a volume of the article based on the height of the article detected by the detection unit and on the area of the region (para. 0215, 0221), and calculates the quality index value based on the volume (para. 0223) of the article and on the shade (para. 0190) of the image or the weight of the article (para. 0188, 0192).
Regarding claim 5, Hocker discloses wherein the article includes chicken breast, and the inspection unit determines that the quality of the article is low and that the article includes woody breast (para. 0086).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hocker et al. US 2026/0162247.
Regarding claim 3, Hocker teaches wherein the quality of the article is determined based on the weight (para. 0188, 0192), which is estimated from the x-ray image (para. 0057), and the density of a region (para. 0190-0192; density being the weight divided by volume, the 3-d area, of the region).
Hocker does not explitely teach a weight estimated from a shade of a dark portion in which a density in the region is greater than a certain value because Hocker estimates the weight based on the image of the whole article not just a region.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 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:
Regarding claim 3, Hocker teaches wherein the quality of the article is determined based on the weight (para. 0188, 0192), which is estimated from the x-ray image (para. 0057), and the density of a region (para. 0190-0192; density being the weight divided by volume, the 3-d area, of the region).
Hocker does not explitely teach a weight estimated from a shade of a dark portion in which a density in the region is greater than a certain value because Hocker estimates the weight based on the image of the whole article not just a region. Further estimating the weight of an article based on only the darker, denser region would lead to an increased error for measuring the whole article. Therefore there would be no motivation to combine any reference which taught such a method, as it would increase the error in weight estimation.
Hence the prior art of record fails to teach the invention as set forth in claim 3 and the examiner can find no teachings for “a weight estimated from a shade of a dark portion in which a density in the region is greater than a certain value”as specifically claimed.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Richard Toohey whose telephone number is (703)756-5818. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 7:30am – 5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, the 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, Uzma Alam can be reached on (571)272-2995. The fax number for the organization where this application or processing 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.
/RICHARD O TOOHEY/Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights