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 .
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.
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: “a generation unit” in combination of “generate” recited in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The Specification discloses “CPU” for this “generation unit”.
“irradiation unit” recited in claim 1 is determined to be a device itself because of “X-rays” followed by “irradiate”
“a detection unit” recited in claim 1 is determined to be a device itself.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1 – 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakatani (WO 2019/149440 A1, cited in the IDS filed on 10/14/2025), and further in view of Sugimoto (US 2016/0223705 A1).
With respect to independent claim 1, Nakatani teaches An X-ray inspection apparatus in Fig. 1 comprising:
an irradiation unit 20 in Fig. 5 configured to irradiate a plurality of objects with X-rays;
a detection unit 30 in Fig. 5configured to detect X-rays transmitted through the objects or X-rays reflected by the objects;
a generation unit 52a in paragraph [0043] configured to generate an image for inspecting the number of objects based on the X-rays detected by the detection unit; and
an inspection unit in paragraphs [0011 and 0047] configured to inspect the number of objects based on the image,
wherein the generation unit generates area output information obtained using a learning model with the image as an input to identify areas of the objects in the image in paragraph [0064] “overlapping area “RO” and processed in paragraph [0076] information obtained by performing image processing on the image, but is silent with
wherein the inspection unit calculates the number of objects based on the area output information and the processed information.
Sugimoto, a pertinent art, teaches the region specifier 11a to specify as object regions and total number calculator 11b the number of objects based on the area output information and the processed information. In view of this, it would be obvious at the time of the claimed invention was filed to modify the teaching of Nakatani in order to determine number of objects in the areas in processed images. This is in consistency with the Supreme Court Decision of the KSR. V. International Co.: applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
With respect to dependent claim 2, Nakatani silent with wherein the generation unit generates a luminance-processed image based on luminance of the X-rays detected by the detection unit and a predetermined luminance threshold, and wherein the inspection unit calculates the number of objects based on a difference between the area output information and the luminance-processed image.
In paragraphs [0040 – 0041] Sugimoto teaches the region specifier 11a separates one object region from two object regions and 11a specifies area with a predetermined threshold (see paragraphs [0039, 0041 and 0059]. And as discussed above Sugimoto teaches in paragraph [0043] the total number calculator 11b estimating the total mass of a plurality of objects exist in the region R1 based on the grayscale information on the X-ray image. In view of this, it would be obvious at the time of the claimed invention was filed to modify the teaching of Nakatani so as to have the limitation of claim 2 in order to determine the number of objects in desired areas of X-ray images.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 – 6 are 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:
With respect to dependent claim 3, Nakatani teaches in Fig. 4 wherein the detection unit detects the X-rays transmitted through the objects, and wherein, when the inspection unit recognizes an overlapping area RO; see paragraph [0031] in which a plurality of objects belong to the same pixel in the image, but the prior art of record fails to teach or reasonably suggest:
the inspection unit corrects the number of objects based on the number of objects belonging to the overlapping area in the area output information and the number of objects belonging to the overlapping area in the luminance-processed image.
With respect to dependent claim 4, the prior art of record fails to teach or reasonably suggest:
wherein the generation unit generates a first missing image including a first missing area where it is inferred that the object is absent from the area output information and the object is present in the luminance-processed image based on the difference between the area output information and the luminance-processed image and generates a first complementary image obtained by performing image processing including a process of expanding, reducing, or filtering the first missing area of the first missing image and the difference between the area output information and the luminance-processed image, and wherein the inspection unit corrects the number of objects based on the first complementary image.
With respect to dependent claim 5, the prior art of record fails to teach or reasonably suggest:
wherein the generation unit generates overlap output information obtained using a learning model with an image indicating luminance of the X-rays detected by the detection unit as an input to identify the number of overlapping objects in an overlapping area to which a plurality of objects belong in the same pixel in the image, generates a second missing image including a second missing area where it is inferred that the object is present in the overlap output information and it is inferred that the object is absent from the area output information based on a difference between the overlap output information and the area output information, generates a second complementary image obtained by performing image processing including a process of expanding, reducing, or filtering the second missing area of the second missing image, and generates complementary output image obtained using the learning model with the second complementary image as an input to identify an area of the object in the second complementary image, and wherein the inspection unit corrects the number of objects based on the complementary output image.
With respect to dependent claim 6, the prior art of record fails to teach or reasonably suggest:
wherein the generation unit generates a first missing image including a first missing area where it is inferred that the object is absent from the area output information and the object is present in the luminance-processed image based on the difference between the area output information and the luminance-processed image and generates a first complementary image obtained by performing image processing including a process of expanding, reducing, or filtering the first missing area of the first missing image and the difference between the area output information and the luminance-processed image, and wherein the inspection unit corrects the number of objects based on the first complementary image.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIHO KIM, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)270-1628. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8-5 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, David Makiya can be reached at (571)272-2273. 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.
KIHO KIM, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2884
/Kiho Kim/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
