DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-9, and 12 are still pending in this Application.
Response to Amendments/Remarks
Applicant’s argument/remarks, on page 8, with respect objections to the claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. The amendments to the claims overcome the objections to the claims.
Applicant’s argument/remarks, on page 9, with respect to rejections to claim 2 under 35 USC § 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, rejections to the claims under 35 USC § 112(b) have been withdrawn. However, see the claim objections below caused by the amendments.
Applicant’s argument/remarks, on pages 9-11, with respect to rejections to claims 1-13 under 35 USC § 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, rejections to the claims under 35 USC § 101 have been maintained.
On pages 9-11 the Applicant argues that:
“states that "[a] claim reciting a judicial exception is not directed to the judicial exception if it also recites additional elements demonstrating that the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application," that "[o]ne way to demonstrate such integration is when the claimed invention ... improves another technology or technical field," and that "the claimed invention may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by demonstrating that it improves the relevant existing technology.
Paragraphs [0029]-[003 l] of US 2023/0070635, which is the pre-grant publication of the
instant application, discusses a deficiency in the technical field of the instant application, and in
particular, paragraphs [0029]-[003 l] discloses the following:
"[0029] In any conventional method, it is assumed that measurement data of a
parameter of an explanatory variable is collected in-line during device machining.
[0030] Conversely, in order to obtain a model capable of estimating an objective
variable with high accuracy, it is also assumed that the explanatory variable
includes a parameter for which measurement data is not collected in-line. In this
case, in order to enable utilization of the model in-line, it is necessary to take
measures such as combining another experimental design having a parameter for which measurement data is not collected in-line as an output variable. [0031] However, even if such measures are taken, it is assumed that the input variable of another experimental design cannot generate the experimental point as designed due to the nature of the variable. In addition, even if the experimental point can be generated as designed, there is a problem that the number of experiments required for generating the model is doubled because it is necessary to implement two experimental designs." …By requiring the above-noted features of claim 1, a model for appropriately estimating information indicating machining results can be more easily generated, and when estimating information using the generated model, it is unnecessary to perform additional experiments, thereby reducing the number of experiments for acquiring information during machining that cannot be obtained in advance, as described at paragraphs [0034] and [0051]-[0054] of US 2023/0070635”. These arguments are respectfully unpersuasive.
The objectives described in paragraphs 0029-0031 are not reflected/recited in the claims such as “estimating an objective variable with high accuracy”. For instance, the disclosure and the claims does not teach or suggest the method, algorithm or structure of the functions used to calculate the variables/parameters, and the accuracy or degree level of accuracy of the statistical models 111, 112, and 113. The disclosure and the drawings teach in an abstract manner that the variables are correlated or a function dependent on the other variables (see PGPUB 0115-0116). As stated by the Applicant the invention is about generating a model that is used to easily estimate values which it is not necessary to measure, and which can be applied to any machine or process. The invention as recited collects data, generates models, uses the models for estimation of values, uses the results for monitoring a value and outputs a decision. These steps do not improve the technology of the laser welding process or machine because it does not prevent, improve or change the method of process of welding, which would be considered an integration into a practical application. Therefore, the rejections are maintained.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 12, respectively, recites “…generating a model for estimating the fourth type information indicating the fourth type result of actual device machining by receiving the second type information measured during the actual device machining and the third type information measured during the actual device machining and using the extended first relationship and the extended second relationship;
performing the actual device machining using a machining to device to perform the laser welding to obtain the second type information measured during the actual device machining and the third type information measured during the actual device machining, the second type information and the third type information being measured during the actual device machining by a sensor connected to the machining device…”.
For the highlighted terms recited “second type information measured during the actual device and the third type information measured during the actual device”, there is lack of antecedent basis for these term/limitations in the claim. It seems that the terms “the second type information measured during the actual device machining and the third type information measured during the actual device”, refer to terms that were not previously introduced in the claims and instead refer to terms that were introduced after.
For purposes of Examination, the limitations above will be interpreted as:
“…generating a model for estimating the fourth type information indicating the fourth type result of actual device machining by receiving a second type information measured during the actual device machining and a third type information measured during the actual device machining and using the extended first relationship and the extended second relationship;
performing the actual device machining using a machining to device to perform the laser welding to obtain the second type information measured during the actual device machining and the third type information measured during the actual device machining, the second type information and the third type information being measured during the actual device machining by a sensor connected to the machining device…”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract without significantly more.
As per claim 1 and 12, recite in part:
“A) …deriving an extended first relationship that is a relationship between the extended first type information, the extended second type information, and the extended third type information;
B) deriving an extended second relationship that is a relationship between the extended first type information, the extended second type information, and the extended fourth type information;
C) generating a model for estimating the fourth type information indicating the fourth type result of actual device machining by receiving the second type information measured during the actual device machining and the third type information measured during the actual device machining and using the extended first relationship and the extended second relationship…”;
D) “…inputting, to the generated model for estimating the fourth type information, the obtained second type information measured during the actual device machining and the obtained third type information measured during the actual device machining, and obtaining, from the generated model, the estimated fourth type information…;
E) determining whether or not the estimated fourth type information conforms to a predetermined determination condition; and
F) when the estimated fourth type information conforms to the predetermined determination condition, outputting first quality information indicating lack of a defect, and when the estimated fourth type information does not conform to the predetermined determination condition, outputting second quality information indicating a defect.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the terms of the claim are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2111.
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), covers mathematical relationships which is identified as an example of mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas and/or covers observation/collection, evaluation/comparing and judgment/fault occurred which are steps that can be easily performed mentally and belong to the group of mental processes abstract idea. For instance, limitations of deriving the first and second relationship between data refers to the derivation of formulas or functions or as admitted in the application as statistical model expressions (see [0090] and [0091]; and see [0115-0116], [0129-0131], [0133] functions). The generation of a model for estimating a fourth value in step C) and generated by using the extended first relationship and the extended second relationship, and the usage of the model instep D) which is a mathematical model that is build and generated based on the two mathematical relationships previously derived, covers mathematical concepts. Also, since the relationship derivation simply and very abstractly states that the factors are correlated one with another, a person can easily generate these relationships and also the model mentally without any effort. Therefore, these steps involve or suggest mathematical concepts and, thus, the claims recite an abstract idea/judicial exception and/or mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. Steps A)-D) fall within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas. That is other, than reciting a processor and memory in claims 1 and 12, nothing in the claim precludes these steps from practically being performed in the human mind or using a generic computer to perform the mathematical operations. For example, but for the “processor and memory” language, the claim encompasses a user visually or manually reading factors and generating the relationships and models. Additionally, the mere nominal recitation of processor and computer components such as memory does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. The limitations E) and F) are simply limitations wherein an estimated value is compared against a target value of range (as suggested in [0078]). These steps are covers a mathematical step of comparing two values witch can be performed mathematically or can be performed mentally by simply looking at an estimated value and acquired target value.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements such as processor and memory to perform the method steps are recited in higher level of generality, and represents no more than instructions “to apply” with the judicial exception/the abstract idea on a computer or to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer cannot provide an inventive concept as stated by the courts (see MPEP 2106.05(f) and MPEP 2106.05(h)). Furthermore, the additional elements such as “acquiring, by performing experimental device machining according to plan information including first type information indicating a first type condition of the experimental device machining and second type information indicating a second type condition of the experimental device machining, third type information indicating a third type result of the experimental device machining according to the plan information, and fourth type information indicating a fourth type result of the experimental device machining according to the plan information”, are considered mere data gathering steps that have been considered insignificant extra solution that does not amount to significantly more as indicated by the courts since they insignificant extra solution activities (see MPEP 2105.05 (g) See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). Also, acquiring extended plan information including extended first type information including new first type information added to the first type information and extended second type information including new second type information added to the second type information, wherein a uniformity between (i) the extended second type information and (ii) extended third type information obtained as the third type result of the experimental device machining performed according to the extended plan information is equal to or greater than a threshold value, and acquiring, by performing the experimental device machining according to the extended plan information, the extended third type information indicating the third type result of the experimental device machining according to the extended plan information and extended fourth type information indicating the fourth type result of the experimental device machining according to the extended plan information” recited at a high level of generality are considered mere data gathering steps that have been considered insignificant extra solution that does not amount to significantly more as indicated by the courts since they insignificant extra solution activities (see MPEP 2105.05 (g) See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). The additional limitation “wherein a uniformity between the extended second type information and an extended third type information obtained as the third type result of the experimental device machining performed according to the extended plan information is equal to or greater than a threshold value”, recited at high level of generality is a tangential limitation that does not provide boundaries to the judicial exception. The disclosure exemplifies this uniformity as an inherent characteristic in the experimental data, that is this limitation as recited seems to requires the data to be with a uniformity of equal or above value of a threshold value. ,
However, this limitation does not provide any boundary to the judicial exceptions above (e.g. the derivation of the relationship and the model generation do not dependent on the uniformity or provide any boundary to judicial exceptions). Furthermore, the additional limitations of “when the estimated fourth type information conforms to the predetermined determination condition, outputting first quality information indicating lack of a defect, and when the estimated fourth type information does not conform to the predetermined determination condition, outputting second quality information indicating a defect”, e.g. outputting data, which is recited at high level of generality has been considered an insignificant extra solution activity of output of data (see MPEP 2106.05(g) and 2106.05(d)(II)). Furthermore, the additional elements,
“…wherein the machining is laser welding, the first type information includes a gap width between plates to be welded in the laser welding, the second type information includes a laser scanning speed in the laser welding, the third type information includes a surface welding width of a laser welded portion in the laser welding, and the fourth type information includes an interface welding width of the laser welded portion in the laser welding”, and “performing the actual device machining using a machining to device to perform the laser welding to obtain the second type information measured during the actual device machining and the third type information measured during the actual device machining, the second type information and the third type information being measured during the actual device machining by a sensor connected to the machining device”, recited at high level of generality and represents and considered insignificant extra-solution activities of simply linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use such as a laser welding machine (see MPEP 2106.05(f) and MPEP 2106.05(h)) and are considered mere data gathering steps for using in the abstract idea above and which have been considered insignificant extra solution that does not amount to significantly more as indicated by the courts since they insignificant extra solution activities (see MPEP 2105.05 (g) See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a processor and memory to perform the steps of the method, represents no more than instructions “to apply” with the judicial exception/the abstract idea on a computer or to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer cannot provide an inventive concept as stated by the courts (see MPEP 2106.05(f) and MPEP 2106.05(h)). As stated above, the additional elements such as “acquiring, by performing experimental device machining according to plan information including first type information indicating a first type condition of the experimental device machining and second type information indicating a second type condition of the experimental device machining, third type information indicating a third type result of the experimental device machining according to the plan information, and fourth type information indicating a fourth type result of the experimental device machining according to the plan information”, are considered mere data gathering steps that have been considered insignificant extra solution that does not amount to significantly more as indicated by the courts since they insignificant extra solution activities (see MPEP 2105.05 (g) See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). Also, acquiring extended plan information including extended first type information including new first type information added to the first type information and extended second type information including new second type information added to the second type information, wherein a uniformity between (i) the extended second type information and (ii) extended third type information obtained as the third type result of the experimental device machining performed according to the extended plan information is equal to or greater than a threshold value, and acquiring, by performing the experimental device machining according to the extended plan information, the extended third type information indicating the third type result of the experimental device machining according to the extended plan information and extended fourth type information indicating the fourth type result of the experimental device machining according to the extended plan information” recited at a high level of generality are considered mere data gathering steps that have been considered insignificant extra solution that does not amount to significantly more as indicated by the courts since they insignificant extra solution activities (see MPEP 2105.05 (g) See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). Thus, the acquiring/collection of data to be used in the derivation of the relationship and the generation/building of the model for estimating values, recited in a high level of generality which are recited in high level of generality and are considered insignificant extra solution activities of mere data gathering and amounts to necessary data gathering as an input to an equation or mathematical concepts of the abstract ideas above and does not amount to significantly more as indicated by the courts since they are well-understood, routine, conventional activities recited at a high level of generality (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). i. Receiving/downloading data or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); iv. Storing/maintaining and retrieving/downloading information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93”). The additional limitation “wherein a uniformity between the extended second type information and an extended third type information obtained as the third type result of the experimental device machining performed according to the extended plan information is equal to or greater than a threshold value”, recited at high level of generality is a tangential limitation that does not provide boundaries to the judicial exception. The disclosure exemplifies this uniformity as an inherent characteristic in the experimental data, that is this limitation as recited seems to requires the data to be with a uniformity of equal or above value of a threshold value. ,
However, this limitation does not provide any boundary to the judicial exceptions above (e.g. the derivation of the relationship and the model generation do not dependent on the uniformity or provide any boundary to judicial exceptions). Moreover, the additional limitations of “when the estimated fourth type information conforms to the predetermined determination condition, outputting first quality information indicating lack of a defect, and when the estimated fourth type information does not conform to the predetermined determination condition, outputting second quality information indicating a defect”, e.g. outputting data, which is recited at high level of generality has been considered an insignificant extra solution activity of output of data (see MPEP 2106.05(g) and 2106.05(d)(II)), the courts have further found that outputting data is well understood, routine and conventional and which have indicated (2106.05(d)(ii) “v. Presenting offers/data/estimated savings and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-9”3). Furthermore, the additional elements,
“…wherein the machining is laser welding, the first type information includes a gap width between plates to be welded in the laser welding, the second type information includes a laser scanning speed in the laser welding, the third type information includes a surface welding width of a laser welded portion in the laser welding, and the fourth type information includes an interface welding width of the laser welded portion in the laser welding”, and “performing the actual device machining using a machining to device to perform the laser welding to obtain the second type information measured during the actual device machining and the third type information measured during the actual device machining, the second type information and the third type information being measured during the actual device machining by a sensor connected to the machining device”, recited at high level of generality and represents and considered insignificant extra-solution activities of simply linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use such as a laser welding machine (see MPEP 2106.05(f) and MPEP 2106.05(h)) and are considered mere data gathering steps for using in the abstract idea above and which have been considered insignificant extra solution that does not amount to significantly more as indicated by the courts since they insignificant extra solution activities (see MPEP 2105.05 (g) See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, and do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 2-9 depend from claims, thus recite the limitations and the abstract ideas of their parent claims.
Claim 2, further recite additional limitations such as “…further comprising deriving a first relationship that is a relationship between the first type information, the second type information, and the third type information”. These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), covers mathematical relationships which is identified as an example of mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas and/or mental process. For instance, limitations of deriving a relationship between data refers to the derivation of formulas or functions or as admitted in the application as statistical model expressions (see [0090] and [0091]; and see [0115-0116], [0129-0131], [0133 functions). Claim 2 further recites “ acquiring the extended third type information by adding new third type information to the third type information; acquiring, by receiving the extended second type information and the extended third type information, the extended first type information using the first relationship”. The acquiring/collection of data to be used in the derivation of the relationship and the generation/building of the model for estimating values, recited in a high level of generality which are recited in high level of generality and are considered insignificant extra solution activities of mere data gathering and amounts to necessary data gathering as an input to an equation or mathematical concepts of the abstract ideas above and does not amount to significantly more as indicated by the courts since they are well-understood, routine, conventional activities recited at a high level of generality (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). i. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, and do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 3, further recite additional limitations such as “wherein the acquiring the extended plan information further includes: determining whether or not the uniformity between the extended second type information and the extended third type information is equal to or greater than the threshold value; and acquiring the extended plan information when determining that the uniformity between the extended second type information and the extended third type information is equal to or greater than the threshold value”, These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), covers mathematical relationships which is identified as an example of mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas and/or mental process. For instance, this step involves the step of first determining an uniformity between factors/results determined. According to the disclosure, this determination of uniformity first perform an average predicted variance, for example. In this case, when a value obtained by dividing the average predicted variance of the factors of the second experimental design model by the average predicted variance of the factors of the first experimental design model falls below a threshold value (also referred to as a
second threshold value), the uniformity of the factors of the second experimental design model is less than the first threshold value (see [0147]). Then, a comparison step is performed to determine if a value determined is greater than a threshold, in order to perform the collection of data. Thus, these limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), covers mathematical relationships which is identified as an example of mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas and/or mental process. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea of claim 1 into a practical application, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, and do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
As per claim 4, “wherein the acquiring the extended plan information further includes acquiring the extended plan information by adding new third type information to the third type information to add the new first type information belonging to a range from a minimum value to a maximum value in the first type information”, recited at high level of generality and are considered mere data gathering steps that have been considered insignificant extra solution that does not amount to significantly more as indicated by the courts since they insignificant extra solution activities (see MPEP 2105.05 (g) See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
Claim 5, recites the additional limitations “wherein the acquiring the extended plan information further includes: calculating the uniformity between the extended second type information and the extended third type information using an average predicted variance of evaluation plan information including the second type information and the third type information as factors; and acquiring the extended plan information using the uniformity calculated”, These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), covers mathematical relationships which is identified as an example of mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas and/or mental process. For instance, this step involves the step of first calculating the uniformity between factors/results determined. According to the disclosure, this calculation of uniformity first perform an average predicted variance, for example. In this case, when a value obtained by dividing the average predicted variance of the factors of the second experimental design model by the average predicted variance of the factors of the first experimental design model falls below a threshold value (also referred to as a second threshold value), the uniformity of the factors of the second experimental design model is less than the first threshold value (see [0147]). Then, a comparison step is performed to determine if a value determined is greater than a threshold, in order to perform the collection of data. Thus, these limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), covers mathematical relationships which is identified as an example of mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas and/or mental process. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea of claim 1 into a practical application, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, and do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 6, further recites the additional limitation of “wherein the acquiring the extended second type information and the acquiring the extended third type information further include acquiring the extended second type information and acquiring the extended third type information by D-optimal design for evaluation plan information including the second type information and the third type information as factors”, These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), covers mathematical relationships which is identified as an example of mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas and/or mental process. For instance, this step involves the step of first determining and optimizing the collection and calculation of further data by using the D-optimal design algorithm. The D-optimal design A D-optimal design is an experimental design that selects a subset of runs from a larger set of candidate points to maximize the determinant of the information matrix (or minimize the covariance of parameter estimates) for a given model. According to the disclosure, the D-optimal design is a determination method focusing on reducing the prediction variance at each design point. Thus, this method is mathematical optimization methods. Thus, these limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), covers mathematical relationships which is identified as an example of mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas and/or mental process. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea of claim 1 into a practical application, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, and do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 7-8, further recites “wherein the extended first relationship is expressed by an extended first expression that receives the extended first type information and the extended second type information and outputs the extended third type information, and the model includes an extended third expression derived from the extended first expression, the extended third expression receiving the second type information measured during the actual device machining and the third type information measured during the actual device machining and outputting the first type information, wherein the extended second relationship is expressed by an extended second expression that receives the extended first type information and the extended second type information and outputs the extended fourth type information, and the model further includes a model including the extended second expression and acquiring the first type information output by the extended third expression and the fourth type information output by the extended second expression receiving the second type information measured during the actual device machining”, These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), covers mathematical relationships which is identified as an example of mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas and/or mental process. For instance, limitations of deriving a relationship between data refers to the derivation of formulas or functions or as admitted in the application as statistical model expressions (see [0090] and [0091]; and see [0115-0116], [0129-0131], [0133] functions). The model generation for estimating a fourth value and generated by using the extended first relationship and the extended second relationship, is a mathematical model that is build and generated based on the two mathematical relationships. Also, since the relationship derivation simply and very abstractly states that the factors are correlated one with another, a person can easily generate this relationships and also the model mentally without any effort. Therefore, these steps involve or suggest mathematical concepts and, thus, the claims recite an abstract idea/judicial exception and/or mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. Steps b), c), and d) fall within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea of claim 1 into a practical application, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, and do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 9, further recites “wherein each of the first type information and the fourth type information is information determined in advance as information that is not measured during the actual device machining, and each of the second type information and the third type information is information determined in advance as information that is measured during the actual device machining”, recited at high level of generality and are considered mere data gathering steps that have been considered insignificant extra solution that does not amount to significantly more as indicated by the courts since they insignificant extra solution activities (see MPEP 2105.05 (g) See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea of claim 1 into a practical application, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, and do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Indication of Allowable Subject Matter
As stated in the previous office action “Provided that the rejection of claims 1-9, and 12 under 35 USC 101 are overcome, claims 1-9, and 12 could/would be allowable since not prior art has been found that teaches or suggest the combination of limitations recited in claims 1-9 and 12. The following is an examiner’s statement of indication of allowable subject matter: None of the references cited in the IDS or previously cited, alone or in combination, explicitly teach the combination of limitations when combined with the other claimed limitations of claims 1 and 12 including:
Claim 1 and 12:
“ ... acquiring extended plan information including extended first type information including new first type information added to the first type information and extended second type information including new second type information added to the second type information, wherein a uniformity between the extended second type information and an extended third type information obtained as the third type result of the experimental device machining performed according to the extended plan information is equal to or greater than a threshold value;
acquiring, by performing the experimental device machining according to the extended plan information, the extended third type information indicating the third type result of the experimental device machining according to the extended plan information and extended fourth type information indicating the fourth type result of the experimental device machining according to the extended plan information;
deriving an extended first relationship that is a relationship between the extended first type information, the extended second type information, and the extended third type information;
deriving an extended second relationship that is a relationship between the extended first type information, the extended second type information, and the extended fourth type information;
generating a model for estimating the fourth type information indicating the fourth type result of actual device machining by receiving the second type information measured during the actual device machining and the third type information measured during the actual device machining and using the extended first relationship and the extended second relationship…”.
Dependent claims 2-9 could/would be allowable at least based on its dependency of the allowable claim 1 above.
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Examiner respectfully requests, in response to this Office action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line number(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist Examiner in prosecuting the application.
When responding to this Office Action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Applicant must also show how the amendments avoid or differentiate from such references or objections. See 37 CFR 1.111 (c).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLVIN LOPEZ ALVAREZ whose telephone number is (571) 270-7686 and fax (571) 270-8686 and email (olvin.lopez@uspto.gov). The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday from 9:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Robert Fennema, can be reached at (571) 272-2748. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/O. L./
Examiner, Art Unit 2117
/ROBERT E FENNEMA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117