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 .
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant's arguments received 12/30/2024 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. Detailed response is given in sections 4-8 as set forth below in this Office Action.
Claim Objection
3. Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the second noise removal unit”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
4. 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.
5. 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 measuring unit in claims 1 and 6; a signal processing unit in claims 1 and 6; and the second noise removal unit in claim 4.
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 § 101
6. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
7. Claims 1-2 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the claims are directed to a process (claim 6), machine (claim 1), or manufacture, which are statutory categories.
However, evaluating representative claim 1, under at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to the judicial exception of an Abstract idea using the grouping of a mathematical relationship. The limitations include:
a measuring unit including a light source configured to irradiate a measurement target and a reference surface with electromagnetic beams, and a detector configured to detect an interference signal between a reflected wave from a reflecting surface of the measurement target and a reflected wave from the reference surface, and configured to acquire an interferogram of an interference wave based on the interference signal; and
a signal processing unit including an electrical circuit configured to:
configure an intensity profile in a depth direction by performing a Fourier transform of the interferogram, wherein the electrical circuit is configured to perform filtering by deleting data in regions other than a pass region which is a region set with reference to a measurement target installation position by an optical distance in the depth direction of the measurement target from the intensity profile, and
reconfigure an interferogram by performing an inverse Fourier transform of an intensity profile after the filtering.
(The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above, the remaining limitations are “additional elements”)
Specifically, under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the limitations highlighted in bold in claim 1 encompasses mathematical concepts (and also mental processes, i.e. data manipulation/evaluation that can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper), namely a series of calculations leading to one or more numerical results or answers. The claim does not spell out any particular equation or formula being used. The lack of specific equations for individual steps merely points out that the claim would monopolize all possible calculations in performing the steps. That is, other than reciting “a signal processing unit including an electrical circuit (e.g., a microprocessor, see Applicant’s Spec. para. [0027]) configured”, nothing in the claim precludes the highlighted limitations from practically being performed in the mind and/or using a pen and paper. According to the MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes except for the mention of generic computer components performing computing activities via basic function of the computer, then the claim is likely considered to be directed to an ineligible abstract idea, as it essentially describes a mental process that could be performed by a human without the computer components adding any significant practical application beyond the abstract concept itself.
Step 2A, Prong Two evaluates whether additional elements of the claim “integrate the abstract idea into a practical application” in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
In the instant case, the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim recites: “a measuring unit including a light source configured to irradiate a measurement target and a reference surface with electromagnetic beams, and a detector configured to detect an interference signal between a reflected wave from a reflecting surface of the measurement target and a reflected wave from the reference surface, and configured to acquire an interferogram of an interference wave based on the interference signal”. None of these elements is considered to be qualified for a significant or meaningful limitation because, at most, they only generally link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Furthermore, acquiring data based on existing known technologies (see the prior art teaching of a measuring unit including a light source configured to irradiate a measurement target and a reference surface with electromagnetic beams, and a detector configured to detect an interference signal between a reflected wave from a reflecting surface of the measurement target and a reflected wave from the reference surface, and configured to acquire an interferogram of an interference wave based on the interference signal, as set forth in section 9 below in this Office Action) reads on merely a step of gathering the data/information necessary for performing the abstract idea. According to MPEP 2106.05(g)(3): … that were described as mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea. See also Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 13863, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering). As such, it represents an extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
At Step 2B, consideration is given to additional elements that may make the abstract idea significantly more.
In the instant case, as discussed above in Step 2A, there are no additional elements that make the claim significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional element of “irradiating a measurement target and a reference surface with electromagnetic waves and causing a reflected wave from a reflecting surface of the measurement target to interfere with a reflected wave from the reference surface” describes a conventional interferometer, see discussion of the Seelamantula reference in section 9 below and other prior art references cited in the previous Office Action. Therefore, claim is found to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent claims 2 and 4-5 when analyzed individually and as a whole are held to be patent ineligible because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These claims inherit attributes of the independent claim 1, but do not add anything which would render the claimed invention a patent eligible application of the abstract idea. They merely extend (or narrow) the abstract idea which do not amount for "significant more" because they merely add details to the algorithm which forms the abstract idea as discussed above.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same reason as for claim 1 discussed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
8. 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; or
(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.
9. Claims 1 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chandra Sekhar Seelamantula ("Super-resolution reconstruction in frequency-domain optical-coherence tomography using the finite-rate-of-innovation principle", IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing 62.19 (2014): 5020-5029, hereinafter Seelamantula).
Regarding claims 1 and 6, Seelamantula discloses an optical interference measuring apparatus, and a method for practicing the apparatus, comprising: a measuring unit (Fig. 1, FDOCT System) including a light source (broadband light source) configured to irradiate a measurement target and a reference surface (reference mirror) with electromagnetic beams, and a detector (inherent in the spectrometer) configured to detect an interference signal between a reflected wave from a reflecting surface of the measurement target and a reflected wave from the reference surface (“the reference-arm and object-arm wavefronts interfere with each other”), and configured to acquire an interferogram of an interference wave based on the interference signal (Section II, pages 5021-5022), and a signal processing unit (“The interference signal is recorded by a spectrometer, which performs spectral decomposition as a function of the wavelength”) including an electrical circuit (with the BRI to the term “electrical circuit”, the spectrometer or its part (e.g., a microprocessor) reads on “an electrical circuit”, see Applicant’s Spec. para. [0027]) configured to configure an intensity profile in a depth direction (Section II, paragraph 1: “axial profile of the object is encoded in the spectral fringe measurement, which is the intensity of the interference between the reference and object wavefronts”) by performing a Fourier transform of the interferogram (Section I: “The underlying principle is the inverse scattering theorem, which essentially establishes a Fourier transform relation between the axial backscattering function and the measured intensity. Thanks to this relation, the axial profile of the specimen can be directly reconstructed from the measured interference pattern”; see also Figs. 8-10 and the related discussion in Section VII), wherein the electrical circuit is configured to perform filtering by deleting data in regions other than a pass region (Section VII.B: “The region of interest (ROI) from the conventional reconstruction is in the depth range of 50 to 220 for all the scanlines (highlighted by dashed box in Fig. 8(a)). We use this information and filter out the ROI of each scanline by applying a finite impulse response (FIR) bandpass filter with Hamming window and length 270”; note, “Hamming window” is well known as a type of window function used in digital signal processing to minimize spectral leakage when performing Fourier transforms) which is a region set with reference to a measurement target installation position by an optical distance in the depth direction of the measurement target from the intensity profile (see discussion of “ROI” and/or “Hamming window” in Section VII.B and Section VII.D), and reconfigure an interferogram by performing an inverse Fourier transform of an intensity profile after the filtering (Abstract: “The standard approach to signal reconstruction in frequency-domain optical-coherence tomography (FDOCT) is to apply the inverse Fourier transform to the measurements”; Section I: “the measured data is first mapped on to the wavenumber domain and then the inverse Fourier transform is applied to it”; Section VII.B: “The tomogram of the glass specimen using direct Fourier inverse method is shown in Fig. 8(a)”; Section VII.D: “ … whereas the standard Fourier inverse method used all the available measurements.”).
Regarding claim 5, Seelamantula discloses: wherein the electrical circuit is configured to estimate, based on a model formula of an interferogram for a layered structure having at least one reflecting surface, a parameter for the model formula for each surface count (Abstract: “We consider multilayer specimens, wherein each layer has a constant refractive index”; Section II.A, page 5022: “A piecewise-constant refractive index model is valid for laminar specimens such as thin films”; “With such a model, at each interface, a fraction of the incident light gets reflected and a fraction of it gets transmitted”; “where … is the reflection coefficient and … accounts for the contributions from all the layers and is proportional to the optical path length of …”) in a predetermined assumed surface count range (Section II.A, page 5022: “specimen with L layers”), select an optimal model formula by a statistical technique from the model formula to which a parameter estimated for each of the surface count is applied (Section V.A, page 5024: “To characterize the performance of the technique in a statistical framework, spectral data is generated according to ( 6), with parameters …”; “In the preceding analysis, we assumed a priori knowledge of the order L, which may not always be available in practice and hence it has to be estimated. Efficient solutions for this problem have been proposed … ”), and reconfigure an intensity profile in the depth direction based on the optimal model formula (page 5024, Fig. 3 and related text).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. 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.
11. Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seelamantula in view of Iwata (JP 3541083 B2, machine translation).
Regarding claim 2, Seelamantula does not mention explicitly: wherein the electrical circuit is configured to: generate a diagonal constant matrix from an interferogram, calculate a singular value diagonal matrix by performing singular value decomposition of the diagonal constant matrix, delete a noise component from the singular value diagonal matrix, and reconfigure an interferogram by using a singular value diagonal matrix from which the noise component is deleted.
Iwata discloses a noise removal unit configured to: generate a diagonal constant matrix from an interferogram (claim 1: “a circulant matrix creation step of creating a circulant matrix X of size n×p (p<n) from an n-point interferogram based on the difference spectrum data”), calculate a singular value diagonal matrix by performing singular value decomposition of the diagonal constant matrix (claim 1: “performing singular value decomposition on the circulant matrix X to extract matrix elements S corresponding to the first meaningful L (<p) singular values …”), delete a noise component from the singular value diagonal matrix, and reconfigure an interferogram by using a singular value diagonal matrix from which the noise component is deleted (claim 1: “performing the inverse operations of the above steps on matrix S to obtain a calculated difference spectrum from which noise has been removed; and … performing sum synthesis of the smoothed spectrum and the calculated difference spectrum”; see also para. 0016, 0022, 0024-0026).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the optical interference apparatus of Seelamantula to remove noise by generating and decomposing a diagonal matrix as taught by Iwata to accurately remove noise from the signal without degrading a signal waveform (Iwata, Abstract).
Regarding claim 4, Seelamantula does not mention explicitly: wherein the electrical circuit sets an evaluation value based on a component of a singular value diagonal matrix, determines whether the evaluation value is smaller than a predetermined threshold, and repeatedly deletes a noise component from the singular value diagonal matrix until the evaluation value becomes smaller than the predetermined threshold.
Iwata teaches: wherein the noise removal unit sets an evaluation value based on a component of a singular value diagonal matrix, determines whether the evaluation value (para. 0016: “the value of L is determined by setting an appropriate threshold level and performing singular value analysis”) is smaller than a predetermined threshold, and repeatedly deletes a noise component from the singular value diagonal matrix until the evaluation value becomes smaller than the predetermined threshold (para. 0016: “… Therefore, if the matrix S is used for subsequent calculations instead of the original matrix X, the noise components can be efficiently removed”; see also para. 0021). As such, the combination of Seelamantula and Iwata renders the claimed invention obvious.
Conclusion
12. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Contact Information
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIUQIN SUN whose telephone number is (571)272-2280. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am-6:00pm.
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, Shelby A. Turner can be reached on (571) 272-6334. 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.
/X.S/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/SHELBY A TURNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857