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 Status
Claims 1 – 13 are pending.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because reference character “05” is shown in two different locations in Fig 1. This appears to be marking what could be called the X and Y axes of the coordinate system represented by ti. In comparison, reference character “06” clearly refers to the two axes of vi. 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.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: the specification is silent with respect to how the elements of claim 1, including the Jacobian matrix, the set of compensators, the input error vector, the unperturbed system, and the input vector space are “obtained”.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification uses the term “Jacobean” on pages 12, 18, and 19, which appears to be a misspelling of “Jacobian”.
The specification uses the term omega (ω) squared throughout the detailed description, but is silent with respect to a definition of this term. The closest definition seems to be on page 5, in terms of the product of the matrix z and the transpose of z. However, the term “omega (ω) squared” is not explained anywhere else in the detailed description.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 – 5 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims should begin “The method of claim 1, further comprising: …”. Claims 4, 5, and 7 – 13 are also missing a comma after the parent claim number. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim includes multiple elements that are introduced with “the”. When first used in a claim, and element should be preceded by “a” or “an”, not by “the” or “said”, in order to establish antecedent basis. Examples include “the system Jacobian matrix J”, “the set of compensators”, “the input error vector v” and “the unperturbed system output vector”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the specification is silent with respect to the term “the unperturbed system output vector”. As best understood by the Examiner, this should be the “designed nominal output vector” as used on page 5. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 – 4 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. Claim 1 includes the element/step “utilize equation (10) to evaluate the performance of the perturbed system.”. It is unclear how evaluating the system of equations (10) can be used to evaluate the performance of the system. The specification only discusses system performance in association with the system of equations (19) on page 12 of specification. For the purpose of the instant examination, the Examiner interprets this as “determine omega squared using equation (10)”, but even that is unclear as the specification does not describe the meaning of the variable omega squared.
Claims 2 – 4 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. Claim 2 includes the element/step “the input vector space”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 6 – 13 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. MPEP 2173.05(q) discusses “use” claims, and states “Attempts to claim a process without setting forth any steps involved in the process generally raises an issue of indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph”. Claim 6 is a method claim that does not include any steps, which makes the scope of the claim unclear.
Claims 7 – 9 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. Claim 7 includes the step “the enforcing of a subset of corners of the Orthotope to satisfy equation (19)”. It is unclear how to interpret “enforcing”, and how “enforcing” is performed. The Detailed Description does not use the word “enforcing”.
Note: All art rejections applied are as best understood by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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.
Claims 1 – 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite:
A computerized method for evaluating the performance of a perturbed system comprising of the following steps:
obtaining the system Jacobian matrix J;
obtaining the set of compensators;
obtaining the input error vector v describing the state of perturbation of the system;
obtaining the unperturbed system output vector z0;
utilize equation (10) to evaluate the performance of the perturbed system.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
Under Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. § 101: a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (process).
Under Step 2A, Prong One of the eligibility analysis, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, it falls into the grouping of subject matter that covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations).
The limitation of “obtaining the system Jacobian matrix J”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical concepts. For example, the step of “obtaining” encompasses a mathematical procedure of partial differentiation, shown as Jij =
∂
zi /
∂
rj on page 4 of the specification.
The limitation of “obtaining the set of compensators”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical concepts. For example, the step of “obtaining” encompasses a mathematical procedure of calculating the summation shown in equation 3, on page 5 of the specification.
The limitation of “obtaining the input error vector”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical concepts. For example, the step of “obtaining” encompasses a mathematical procedure of defining a vector of variables, described as the vector “v” on page 4 of the specification.
The limitation of “obtaining the unperturbed system output vector”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical concepts. For example, the step of “obtaining” encompasses calculating a multiplication of two vectors, either z’ and z, or z0’ and z, as shown on page 5 of the specification. Note that the Examiner interprets “the unperturbed system output vector” as the “designed nominal output vector”, as discussed above.
The limitation of “utilize equation (10)”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical concepts. For example, the step encompasses solving the system of equations shown on page 8 of the specification.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim includes “computerized” in the preamble. If this is interpreted as encompassing a computer with a processor performing the steps of the method, the processor is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of ranking information) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Finally, under Step 2B, we consider whether the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, result in the claim, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the identified judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the various calculation steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. When considered individually and as an ordered combination, this element does not amount to “significantly more” than the identified abstract idea.
The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2 – 5 add further details to the identified abstract idea, such as adding additional limitations to the identified abstract idea including using equations 13, 19, or 7. The dependent claims do not add additional elements that, when considered individually and in combination, result in each claim, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the identified judicial exception.
The claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 6 – 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite:
A computerized method for allocating tolerances by utilizing the size and shape of the largest possible axis aligned Orthotope whose entirety satisfies equation (19).
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
Under Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. § 101: a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (process).
Under Step 2A, Prong One of the eligibility analysis, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, it falls into the grouping of subject matter that covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations).
Assuming that claim 6 was rewritten as a method claim comprising a step, the limitation of “allocating tolerances ... [that] satisfies equation (19)”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical concepts. For example, the step encompasses solving the system of equations shown on page 12, which appears to be based on the equations shown pages 10 and 11 of the specification, as the matrix R is based on the system of equations that defines the matrix Q.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim includes “computerized” in the preamble. If this is interpreted as encompassing a computer with a processor performing the steps of the method, the processor is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of ranking information) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Finally, under Step 2B, we consider whether the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, result in the claim, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the identified judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the various calculation steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. When considered individually and as an ordered combination, this element does not amount to “significantly more” than the identified abstract idea.
The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 7 – 13 add further details to the identified abstract idea. Claims 7 – 10 add additional elements covering mathematical techniques for selecting particular coordinates within a coordinate system. Claims 11 – 13 add additional elements covering how to arrange a set of values, using mathematical equations shown on page 18 of the specification. The dependent claims do not add additional elements that, when considered individually and in combination, result in each claim, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the identified judicial exception.
The claims are not patent eligible.
Notes with regard to Prior Art
Lee et al. “An Analytic Approach to Assemblability Analysis” discloses:
an analysis of device assembly costs that uses the tolerances of clearances between parts (Abstract);
a tolerance ellipsoid based on the system Jacobian (section 2.1.1);
adding more ellipsoids into the system (section 2.1.2); and
analysis of the combined system using statistical sampling and computing the tolerance of the overall system (section 3).
Lee is silent with respect to obtaining a set of compensators, perturbing the system, and the details of the system of equations on page 8 of the specification.
Morton, US 2011/0035196 (also US 2011/0035194) discloses determining if shapes satisfy boundary distance constrains ([Abstract, 0046]) that includes
calculating tangents to a boundary ([0088])
coordinate transformations ([0110])
the use of a distance spectrum to define the spacing between multiple objects ([0181 – 0194])
axis-aligned orthotopes ([0010, 0201 – 0207])
Morton is silent with respect to using a Jacobian matrix of a system, obtaining a set of compensators, perturbing the system, and the details of the system of equations on page 8 of the specification.
Regarding claim 1, the closest prior art of record, Lee and Morton, either singularly or in combination, fail to anticipate or render obvious
obtaining the set of compensators;
obtaining the input error vector v describing the state of perturbation of the system; and
utilize equation (10) to evaluate the performance of the perturbed system.
Regarding claims 2 – 5: the closest prior art of record, Lee and Norton, either singularly or in combination, fail to anticipate or render obvious the method of claim 1, as discussed above.
Regarding claim 6, the closest prior art of record, Lee and Morton, either singularly or in combination, fail to anticipate or render obvious
allocating tolerances by utilizing the size and shape of the largest possible axis aligned Orthotope.
Regarding claims 7 – 13: the closest prior art of record, Lee and Norton, either singularly or in combination, fail to anticipate or render obvious the method of claim 6, as discussed above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brent A Fairbanks whose telephone number is (408)918-7532. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00AM - 5:30PM PDT.
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, Andrew Schechter can be reached on (571) 272-2302. 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.
/Brent A. Fairbanks/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857