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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Hirota (JP2012002547, utilizing a machine translation) and Jiang et al. (“Three-dimensional fabric orientation visualisation technique for distributed fractures using X-ray computed tomography”).
Hirota discloses a method for analyzing an orientation state of a filler in a resin molded product, the method comprising:
a slice image acquisition step of acquiring a slice image in a predetermined direction regarding at least a part of a resin molded product obtained by molding a resin composition containing a filler in a predetermined proportion (“acquisition step of acquiring slice images in a predetermined direction for at least a portion of a resin molded product made by molding a resin composition containing a filler in a predetermined proportion” at paragraph 0011, line 2);
a power spectrum image acquisition step of selecting, from the slice image, one or more slice images and performing Fourier transform on the selected slice images, thereby acquiring a power spectrum image (“an image conversion step of selecting one or more slice images from the slice images and converting the selected slice images into binarized images; a power spectrum image acquisition step of acquiring power spectrum images by applying a Fourier transform to the binarized images” at paragraph 0011, line 4); and
an orientation state analysis step of analyzing an orientation state of the filler in the power spectrum image based on the power spectrum image (“an orientation state analysis step of analyzing and quantifying the orientation state of the filler in each power spectrum image based on the power spectrum images” at paragraph 0011, line 7).
Hirota does not explicitly disclose digitalizing an orientation state.
Jiang et al. teaches a method in the same field of endeavor of fiber orientation determination comprising an orientation state analysis step of analyzing an orientation state of the filler in the power spectrum image based on the power spectrum image (“The power spectrum components of a given wavevector k is associated with a single second order structure tensor Q(k), characterising its orientation” at section 2.1, paragraph 4, line 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize a tensor as taught by Jiang et al. to express the fiber orientation of Hirota as it “provides not only a preferred direction of the fabric which is described in terms of three-dimensional space, but also a valid description of the geometric information” (Jiang et al. at section 3.1, line 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5 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: the prior art does not explicitly teach or disclose in the orientation state analysis step, a two-dimensional tensor T indicated by the following mathematical formula 4 is obtained from brightness of a pixel at any position in the power spectrum image using the following mathematical formula 1, the following mathematical formula 2, and the following mathematical formula 3:
PNG
media_image1.png
372
482
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein, in the mathematical formulae 1 to 4, F (x, y) indicates a density of a pixel at an X position and a Y position in the image, and x and y indicate positions of the pixel in a horizontal direction and a vertical direction, respectively as required by claim 2.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Omoto et al. (US 20210389259) is relevant as disclosing analyzing an orientation state of a filler in a resin molded product utilizing power spectrum analysis. Hishida et al. (US 20160247271) is relevant as disclosing analyzing an orientation state of a filler in a resin molded product by utilizing Fourier transform analysis. Hishida et al. (US 10,068,349) is relevant as disclosing systems for analyzing an orientation state of a filler in a resin molded product utilizing a tensor analysis. Marks et al. (NPL reference) is relevant as disclosing a system for analyzing fiber orientation by utilizing x-ray radiography.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATRINA R FUJITA whose telephone number is (571)270-1574. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30-5:30 pm ET.
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, Sumati Lefkowitz can be reached at 5712723638. 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.
/KATRINA R FUJITA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2672
Prosecution Insights