DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the claims filed on 06/28/2022.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP 2021-111023, filed on 02 Jul 2021.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the
references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although
the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to
the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply
as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully
consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed
invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed
by the examiner. The entire reference is considered to provide disclosure relating to the
claimed invention. The claims & only the claims form the metes & bounds of the
invention. Office personnel are to give the claims their broadest reasonable
interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. Unclaimed limitations appearing in the
specification are not read into the claim. Prior art was referenced using terminology
familiar to one of ordinary skill in the art. Such an approach is broad in concept and can
be either explicit or implicit in meaning. Examiner's Notes are provided with the cited
references to assist the applicant to better understand how the examiner interprets the
applied prior art. Such comments are entirely consistent with the intent & spirit of
compact prosecution.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 06/28/2022 and 04/29/2025 were filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception, is directed to that judicial exception (an abstract idea), as it has not been integrated into a practical application and the claim(s) further do/does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claim(s) under the framework provided in MPEP 2106 and has provided such analysis below.
To determine if a claim is directed to patent ineligible subject matter, the Court
has guided the Office to apply the Alice/Mayo test, which requires:
Step 1. Determining if the claim falls within a statutory category of a Process, Machine, Manufacture, or a Composition of Matter (see MPEP 2106.03);
Step 2A. Determining if the claim is directed to a patent ineligible judicial exception consisting of a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or abstract idea (MPEP 2106.04);
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A).
Under the first prong, examiners evaluate whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. Abstract ideas include mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
The second prong is an inquiry into whether the claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application. MPEP 2106.04(d).
Step 2B. If the claim is directed to a judicial exception, determining if the claim recites limitations or elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106).
Step 1:
Claims 1-18 are directed to a device, as such these claims fall within the statutory category of a machine.
Claim 19 is directed to a method, as such these claims fall within the statutory category of a process.
Claim 20 is directed to a computer readable medium, as such these claims fall within the statutory category of manufacture.
Step 2A, Prong 1 (claim 1):
The examiner submits that the foregoing claim limitations constitute abstract ideas, as the claims cover mental processes performed on a generic computer, given the broadest reasonable interpretation.
In order to apply Step 2A, a recitation of claims is copied below. The limitations of those claims which describe an abstract idea are bolded.
As per claim 1, the claim recites the limitations of:
a processor, wherein the processor is configured to perform acquiring a plurality
of pieces of component information each indicating a technical specification of a corresponding microscope component,
simulating an assembly of a microscope system based on the acquired plurality of pieces of component information, (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) which are defined as concepts that can practically be performed in the human mind (e.g. observations, evaluations, judgments, opinions), or by a human using pen and paper as a physical aid. This limitation is directed towards performing a mental process on a generic computer since the conceptual steps of simulating a microscope can reasonably be performed in the human mind. For example, a person can reasonably evaluate (i.e. simulate) different component information and determine whether or not they are compatible with each other).
and outputting a generated simulation result to a display device.
Step 2A, Prong 2 (claim 1):
As per claim 1, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea only present insignificant extra-solution activity (pre/post solution activity). In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations:
a processor, wherein the processor is configured to perform acquiring a
plurality of pieces of component information each indicating a technical specification of a corresponding microscope component, (The additional element amounts to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data gathering, pre-solution activity) per MPEP 2106.05(g). The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process. The act of acquiring a plurality of pieces of component information is interpreted as pre-solution activity (mere data gathering).)
and outputting a generated simulation result to a display device. (The additional element amounts to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (post-solution activity, data outputting) per MPEP 2106.05(g). The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. The act of outputting a generated simulation result is interpreted as post-solution activity (mere data outputting).)
Accordingly, 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 when considered as an ordered combination and as a whole.
Step 2B (claim 1):
For step 2B of the analysis, the Examiner must consider whether each claim limitation individually or as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. This analysis includes determining whether an inventive concept is furnished by an element or a combination of elements that are beyond the judicial exception. For limitations that were categorized as “apply it” or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, the analysis is the same.
The additional elements as described in Step 2A Prong 2 are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations are considered directed towards insignificant extra-solution activity (pre/post solution activity), per MPEP 2106.05(g).
Per MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).”
Per MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
i. Receiving 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); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added));
ii. Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp' s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.");
iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log);
iv. Storing and retrieving 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;
For the foregoing reasons, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Independent claims 19 and 20 recite substantially the same subject matter as independent claim 1 and are rejected under similar rationale and further failure to add significantly more.
Claim 2, the microscope simulation device according to claim 1, recites, wherein the processor is further configured to perform detecting a user's operation of assigning a microscope component to a category that classifies the microscope component, (The additional element further recites Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) performed on a generic computer. For instance, “detecting a user’s operation of” implies a mental process since if requires observation, evaluation, and judgement.)
and the acquiring of the plurality of pieces of component information includes acquiring component information of a user component that is a microscope component assigned to the category by a detected operation. (The additional element elaborates on claim 1’s limitation interpreted to recite pre-solution activity, therefore further amounts to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data gathering, pre-solution activity) per MPEP 2106.05(g).)
For the foregoing reasons, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 3, the microscope simulation device according to claim 2, recites wherein the simulating the assembly of the microscope system includes determining success or failure of a connection of a combination of a plurality of microscope components corresponding to the plurality of pieces of component information, (The additional element elaborates on claim 1’s limitation (i.e. simulating an assembly) interpreted to recite Mental Processes performed on a generic computer, therefore the additional element further amounts to Mental Processes per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
and the outputting the simulation result to the display device includes outputting connectivity information that is generated by determining success or failure of the connection and indicates success or failure of the connection of the combination of the plurality of microscope components as at least a part of the simulation result. (The additional element elaborates on claim 1’s limitation interpreted to recite post-solution activity (i.e. outputting), therefore further amounts to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (post-solution activity) per MPEP 2106.05(g).)
For the foregoing reasons, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 4, the microscope simulation device according to claim 3, recites, wherein the connectivity information includes at least one of: first connectivity information indicating success or failure of a combination of all of the plurality of microscope components; and second connectivity information indicating success or failure of each combination of the plurality of microscope components. The additional elements elaborate on claim 1’s limitation (i.e. simulating an assembly) interpreted to recite Mental Processes performed on a generic computer, therefore the additional element further amounts to Mental Processes per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 5, the microscope simulation device according to claim 4, recites wherein the simulating the assembly of the microscope system further includes, in a case where the connectivity information indicates a failure in connecting the combination of the plurality of microscope components, determining a connection candidate component that is a microscope component that replaces a microscope component that causes the failure, (The additional element elaborates on claim 1’s limitation (i.e. simulating an assembly) interpreted to recite Mental Processes performed on a generic computer, therefore the additional element further amounts to Mental Processes per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
and the outputting the simulation result to the display device includes outputting alternative candidate information indicating the connection candidate component generated by determining the connection candidate component. (The additional element elaborates on claim 1’s limitation interpreted to recite post-solution activity (i.e. outputting), therefore further amounts to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (post-solution activity) per MPEP 2106.05(g).)
For the foregoing reasons, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 6, the microscope simulation device according to claim 2, recites wherein the processor is further configured to perform detecting a user's operation specifying a requirement to be satisfied by the microscope system, (The additional element is directed towards Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f). Specifically, mere instructions to implement an abstract idea (i.e. mental process) or other exception on a computer.)
the acquiring the plurality of pieces of component information includes acquiring a user-specified requirement that is a requirement specified by the operation specifying a requirement to be satisfied by the microscope system, (The additional element elaborates on claim 1’s limitation interpreted to recite pre-solution activity, therefore further amounts to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data gathering, pre-solution activity) per MPEP 2106.05(g).)
the simulating the assembly of the microscope system further includes determining compatibility of a combination of the plurality of microscope components with the user-specified requirements, (The additional element elaborates on claim 1’s limitation (i.e. simulating an assembly) interpreted to recite Mental Processes performed on a generic computer, therefore the additional element further amounts to Mental Processes per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).)
and the outputting the simulation result to the display device includes outputting compatibility information indicating the compatibility of the combination of the plurality of microscope components with the user-specified requirement as at least a part of the simulation result, the compatibility information being generated by the determining compatibility with the user-specified requirement. (The additional elements elaborate on claim 1’s limitation interpreted to recite post-solution activity (i.e. outputting), therefore further amounts to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (post-solution activity) per MPEP 2106.05(g).)
For the foregoing reasons, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 7, the microscope simulation device according to claim 6, recites wherein the compatibility information includes at least one of: first compatibility information indicating compatibility of the combination of all of the plurality of microscope components with the user-specified requirement; and second compatibility information indicating compatibility with the user-specified requirement of each of the plurality of microscope components. The additional elements elaborate on the outputted compatibility information which is directed towards post-solution activity (i.e. outputting), therefore further amounts to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (post-solution activity) per MPEP 2106.05(g). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 8, the microscope simulation device according to claim 7, recites wherein the simulating the assembly of the microscope system further includes, in a case where the compatibility information indicates non-compatibility with the user-specified requirement, determining a compatibility candidate component, which is a microscope component that replaces the microscope component that causes the non-compatibility, (The additional element elaborates on claim 1’s limitation (i.e. simulating an assembly) interpreted to recite Mental Processes performed on a generic computer, therefore the additional element further amounts to Mental Processes per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Furthermore, determining a compatibility candidate component is directed towards mental processes as it requires evaluation, judgement, and opinion.)
and outputting the simulation result to the display device includes outputting alternative candidate information indicating the compatibility candidate component generated by determining the compatibility candidate component. (The additional element elaborates on claim 1’s limitation interpreted to recite post-solution activity (i.e. outputting), therefore further amounts to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (post-solution activity) per MPEP 2106.05(g).)
For the foregoing reasons, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 9, the microscope simulation device according to claim 8, recites wherein the determining the compatibility candidate component includes acquiring, from template information associating a requirement to be satisfied by the microscope system and a combination of microscope components meeting the requirement, a recommended combination that is a combination of microscope components meeting the user-specified requirement, and specifying the compatibility candidate component based on the recommended combination. The additional element elaborates on claim 8’s limitation (i.e. determining a compatibility candidate) interpreted to recite Mental Processes performed on a generic computer, therefore the additional element further amounts to Mental Processes per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The additional elements are also directed towards Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f). Specifically, mere instructions to implement an abstract idea (i.e. mental process) or other exception on a computer. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 10, the microscope simulation device according to claim 1, recites wherein the processor is further configured to perform detecting a user's operation of specifying a requirement to be satisfied by the microscope system, (The additional element is directed towards Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f). Specifically, mere instructions to implement an abstract idea (i.e. mental process) or other exception on a computer.)
the acquiring the plurality of pieces of component information includes acquiring a user-specified requirement that is a requirement specified by the operation specifying a requirement to be satisfied by the microscope system, (The additional element elaborates on claim 1’s limitation interpreted to recite pre-solution activity, therefore further amounts to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data gathering, pre-solution activity) per MPEP 2106.05(g).)
the simulating the assembly of the microscope system includes acquiring, from template information associating a requirement to be satisfied by the microscope system and a combination of microscope components meeting the requirement, a recommended combination that is a combination of microscope components meeting the user-specified requirement, (The additional element elaborates on claim 1’s limitation (i.e. simulating an assembly) interpreted to recite Mental Processes performed on a generic computer, therefore the additional element further amounts to Mental Processes per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The additional elements are also directed towards Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f). Specifically, mere instructions to implement an abstract idea (i.e. mental process) or other exception on a computer.)
and the outputting the simulation result to the display device includes outputting information indicating the recommended combination as at least a part of the simulation result. (The additional element elaborates on claim 1’s limitation interpreted to recite post-solution activity (i.e. outputting), therefore further amounts to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (post-solution activity) per MPEP 2106.05(g).)
For the foregoing reasons, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 11, the microscope simulation device according to claim 6, recites wherein the requirement to be satisfied by the microscope system includes at least one of: an observation method to be supported by the microscope system; an allowable dimension of the microscope system; and an allowable weight of the microscope system. The additional elements elaborate on claim 6’s limitation (i.e. user's operation specifying a requirement) interpreted to recite mere instructions to implement an abstract idea (i.e. mental process) or other exception on a computer, therefore further amounts to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 12, the microscope simulation device according to claim 7, recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 11 and is rejected under similar rationale and further failure to add significantly more.
Claim 13, the microscope simulation device according to claim 8, recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 11 and is rejected under similar rationale and further failure to add significantly more.
Claim 14, the microscope simulation device according to claim 9, recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 11 and is rejected under similar rationale and further failure to add significantly more.
Claim 15, the microscope simulation device according to claim 10, recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 11 and is rejected under similar rationale and further failure to add significantly more.
Claim 16, the microscope simulation device according to claim 2, recites wherein the outputting the simulation result to the display device includes outputting category information prompting assignment of a microscope component to a specific category according to an order of a predetermined category, (The additional element elaborates on claim 1’s limitation interpreted to recite post-solution activity (i.e. outputting), therefore further amounts to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (post-solution activity) per MPEP 2106.05(g).)
and the simulating the assembly of the microscope system includes simulating the assembly of the microscope system each time the operation of assigning microscope components to a category for classifying the microscope components is detected. (The additional element elaborates on claim 1’s limitation (i.e. simulating an assembly) interpreted to recite Mental Processes performed on a generic computer, therefore the additional element further amounts to Mental Processes per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The additional elements are also directed towards Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f). Specifically, mere instructions to implement an abstract idea (i.e. mental process) or other exception on a computer.)
For the foregoing reasons, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 17, the microscope simulation device according to claim 1, recites wherein the simulating the assembly of the microscope system further includes determining limitations in use in a combination of a plurality of microscope components corresponding to the plurality of pieces of component information, (The additional element elaborates on claim 1’s limitation (i.e. simulating an assembly) interpreted to recite Mental Processes performed on a generic computer, therefore the additional element further amounts to Mental Processes per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Furthermore, determining limitations is directed towards mental processes as it requires evaluation, judgement, and opinion.)
and the outputting the simulation result to the display device includes outputting limitation information indicating limitations in use in a combination of the plurality of microscope components. (The additional element elaborates on claim 1’s limitation interpreted to recite post-solution activity (i.e. outputting), therefore further amounts to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (post-solution activity) per MPEP 2106.05(g).)
For the foregoing reasons, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 18, the microscope simulation device according to claim 1, recites wherein the component information of the microscope component includes at least one of: information on an observation method which the microscope component supports, information on a dimension of the microscope component, and information on a weight of the microscope component. The additional elements elaborate on claim 1’s limitation (i.e. acquiring a plurality of pieces of component information) interpreted to recite pre-solution activity (mere data gathering), thus further amounts to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data gathering, pre-solution activity) per MPEP 2106.05(g). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 10, 11, 15, 16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fiedler et al. US Patent No. 7577484B4 (hereinafter referred to as “Fiedler”) in view of Machau et al. US Pub. No. 2002/0156698 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Machau”).
Regarding claim 1, Fiedler discloses, A microscope simulation device comprising: a processor, (“the microscope comprises at least one configurable subassembly having several positions for different elements. and whereby a computer (i.e. includes a processor) with a display and at least one input means is associated with the microscope.” Fiedler [Col.1 Ln.19-22]
wherein the processor is configured to perform acquiring a plurality of pieces of component information each indicating a technical specification of a corresponding microscope component, (“The submodules serve to configure the individual components of the microscope...This is where the various optical elements and components that the user would like to use in the microscopes can be entered. A third submodule is labeled "NOSEPIECE (7-POS)" and serves to configure the objective nosepiece 36” Fiedler [Col.8 Ln.50-58]. The submodules are interpreted to include technical specification because “The first area 111 comprises a table in which the individual objectives are listed, for example, with their position in the nosepiece, their article numbers and their magnification.” Fiedler [Col.9 Ln.26-29], and Applicant’s disclosure “The technical specifications may include physical specifications, optical specifications, chemical specifications, and the like.” Spec. [P.0063])
simulating an assembly of a microscope system based on the acquired plurality of pieces of component information, and outputting a generated simulation result to a display device.
Fiedler fails to specifically disclose simulating an assembly of a microscope system based on the acquired plurality of pieces of component information, and outputting a generated simulation result to a display device.
However, Machau discloses simulating an assembly of a microscope system based on the acquired plurality of pieces of component information, and outputting a generated simulation result to a display device (“The configuration results and the individual components required, including their technical specifications, are depicted (i.e. displayed) and simulated.” Machau [P.0005])
Fiedler and Machau are analogous art as they relate to device assemblies. Fiedler discloses “the invention relates to a device for configuring an at least partially automated or motorized microscope, whereby the microscope comprises at least one configurable subassembly having several positions for different elements. and whereby a computer with a display and at least one input means is associated with the microscope” Fiedler [Col.1 Ln.17-22], and Machau discloses a process “for configuring a product or a product combination on a PC” Machau [P.0001].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the microscope component assembly, as taught by Fiedler, to include simulation, as disclosed by Machau, for the benefit of “a client or other interested person can configure a product desired by him or a product combination of a specific manufacturer desired by him on his PC” Machau [P.0003].
Regarding claim 2, Fiedler and Machau disclose the microscope simulation device according to claim 1, Fiedler further discloses wherein the processor is further configured to perform detecting a user's operation of assigning a microscope component to a category that classifies the microscope component, (“FIG. 11 describes a user interface 100 for the configuration of the microscope 1...The submodules serve to configure the individual components of the microscope. A first submodule is labeled "MOTORIZED TUBE" and serves to configure the motorized tube 50. A second module is labeled "IL AXIS" and serves to configure the illumination axis in the microscope 1. This is where the various optical elements and components that the user would like to use in the microscopes can be entered.” Fiedler [Col.8 Ln.27-57]. The submodules are interpreted to be categories.]
and the acquiring of the plurality of pieces of component information includes acquiring component information of a user component that is a microscope component assigned to the category by a detected operation. (“t In the third area 63, the user is shown the selected submodule for the configuration of the microscope 1. In the embodiment shown here, the selected submodule has the designation "DM6000B". This submodule serves to show the user the current configuration of the microscope.” Fiedler [Col.8 Ln.39-44])
Fiedler teaches the additional limitations of claim 2 and maintains the same rationale for combination with Machau as claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, Fiedler and Machau disclose the microscope simulation device according to claim 2, Machau further discloses wherein the processor is further configured to perform detecting a user's operation specifying a requirement to be satisfied by the microscope system, (“the client or other user can... configure a product that he desires or a product configuration that he desires on the basis of the desired technical specifications.” Machau [P.0005])
the acquiring the plurality of pieces of component information includes acquiring a user-specified requirement that is a requirement specified by the operation specifying a requirement to be satisfied by the microscope system, (“The individual components required are then selected automatically or on the basis of a menu so that a functional product or a functional product combination is produced according to these specifications” Machau [P.0005])
the simulating the assembly of the microscope system further includes determining compatibility of a combination of the plurality of microscope components with the user-specified requirements, (The configuration results and the individual components required, including their technical specifications, are depicted and simulated.” Machau [P.0005])
and the outputting the simulation result to the display device includes outputting compatibility information indicating the compatibility of the combination of the plurality of microscope components with the user-specified requirement as at least a part of the simulation result, the compatibility information being generated by the determining compatibility with the user-specified requirement. (“The configuration results and the individual components required, including their technical specifications, are depicted (i.e. output) and simulated. This opens up the possibility for the consumer to vary the dimensioning and working parameters that he wants, in which case an adaptation of the individual components or the product or the product combination then automatically occurs.” Machau [P.0005])
Machau teaches the additional limitations of claim 6 and maintains the same rationale for combination with Fiedler as claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, Fiedler and Machau disclose the microscope simulation device according to claim 1, Machau further discloses wherein the processor is further configured to perform detecting a user's operation of specifying a requirement to be satisfied by the microscope system, (“the client or other user can... configure a product that he desires or a product configuration that he desires on the basis of the desired technical specifications.” Machau [P.0005])
the acquiring the plurality of pieces of component information includes acquiring a user-specified requirement that is a requirement specified by the operation specifying a requirement to be satisfied by the microscope system, (“The individual components required are then selected automatically or on the basis of a menu so that a functional product or a functional product combination is produced according to these specifications” Machau [P.0005])
the simulating the assembly of the microscope system includes acquiring, from template information associating a requirement to be satisfied by the microscope system and a combination of microscope components meeting the requirement, a recommended combination that is a combination of microscope components meeting the user-specified requirement, (“The individual components required are then selected automatically (i.e. recommended) or on the basis of a menu (i.e. template) so that a functional product or a functional product combination is produced according to these specifications. The configuration results and the individual components required, including their technical specifications, are depicted and simulated.” Machau [P.0005])
and the outputting the simulation result to the display device includes outputting information indicating the recommended combination as at least a part of the simulation result. (“The configuration results and the individual components required, including their technical specifications, are depicted (i.e. output) and simulated. This opens up the possibility for the consumer to vary the dimensioning and working parameters that he wants, in which case an adaptation of the individual components or the product or the product combination then automatically occurs.” Machau [P.0005])
Machau discloses the limitations of claim 10 and maintains the same rationale for combination with Fiedler as claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, Fiedler and Machau disclose the microscope simulation device according to claim 6, Machau further discloses wherein the requirement to be satisfied by the microscope system includes at least one of: an observation method to be supported by the microscope system; an allowable dimension of the microscope system; and an allowable weight of the microscope system. (“The configuration, adaptation and preferably also the simulation are program-controlled and automatic according to the parameter specifications so that with a change in a dimensioning and working parameter the client immediately discerns the consequences resulting for the configured product and can also determine whether such a parameter combination is technically feasible at all.” Machau [P.0008])
Machau discloses the limitations of claim 11 and maintains the same rationale for combination with Fiedler as claim 1.
Regarding claim 15, Fiedler and Machau disclose the microscope simulation device according to claim 10, Machau further discloses wherein the requirement to be satisfied by the microscope system includes at least one of: an observation method to be supported by the microscope system; an allowable dimension of the microscope system; and an allowable weight of the microscope system. (“The configuration, adaptation and preferably also the simulation are program-controlled and automatic according to the parameter specifications so that with a change in a dimensioning and working parameter the client immediately discerns the consequences resulting for the configured product and can also determine whether such a parameter combination is technically feasible at all.” Machau [P.0008])
Machau discloses the limitations of claim 15 and maintains the same rationale for combination with Fiedler as claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, Fiedler and Machau disclose the microscope simulation device according to claim 2, Fiedler further discloses, wherein the outputting the simulation result to the display device includes outputting category information prompting assignment of a microscope component to a specific category according to an order of a predetermined category, (“FIG. 11 describes a user interface 100 for the configuration of the microscope... In the third area 63, the user is shown the selected submodule for the configuration of the microscope... A first submodule is labeled "MOTORIZED TUBE" and serves to configure the motorized tube 50. A second module is labeled "IL AXIS" and serves to configure the illumination axis in the microscope 1” Fiedler [Col.8 Ln.27-54]. The modules/submodules are interpreted to mean categories.) and Machau discloses and the simulating the assembly of the microscope system includes simulating the assembly of the microscope system each time the operation of assigning microscope components to a category for classifying the microscope components is detected. (“The individual components required are then selected automatically or on the basis of a menu so that a functional product or a functional product combination is produced according to these specifications in a simple manner. The configuration results and the individual components required, including their technical specifications, are depicted and simulated. This opens up the possibility for the consumer to vary the dimensioning and working parameters that he wants, in which case an adaptation of the individual components or the product or the product combination then automatically occurs.” Machau [P.0005])
Fiedler and Machau disclose the limitations of claim 16 and maintain the same rationale for combination as claim 1.
Regarding claim 18, Fiedler and Machau disclose the microscope simulation device according to claim 1, Machau further discloses wherein the component information of the microscope component includes at least one of: information on an observation method which the microscope component supports, information on a dimension of the microscope component, and information on a weight of the microscope component. (“For parameterization, a display mask according to FIG. 1 is called in... Input windows 12 are given for the parameters P1 to P7... parameters P1-P7 involve... geometric dimensioning and the like.” Machau [P.0020])
Machau discloses the limitations of claim 18 and maintains the same rationale for combination with Fiedler as claim 1.
Claim 19, recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 20, recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 3-5, 7-9, 12-14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fiedler et al. US Patent No. 7577484B4 (hereinafter referred to as “Fiedler”) in view of Machau et al. US Pub. No. 2002/0156698 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Machau”), in further view of Kita JP Pub. No. JP2002222215A (hereinafter referred to as “Kita”).
Regarding claim 3, Fiedler and Machau disclose the microscope simulation device according to claim 2, but fail to specifically disclose the limitations of claim 3.
However, analogous art of Kita discloses, wherein the simulating the assembly of the microscope system includes determining success or failure of a connection of a combination of a plurality of microscope components corresponding to the plurality of pieces of component information, (“a determination unit for determining whether or not a plurality of selected parts selected by the selection unit are compatible with each other based on the compatible part information;” Kita [Claim 1])
and the outputting the simulation result to the display device includes outputting connectivity information that is generated by determining success or failure of the connection and indicates success or failure of the connection of the combination of the plurality of microscope components as at least a part of the simulation result. (“when the part selected by the user is not suitable according to "0" of the part non-suitability information (step S72 - 2: No), the CPU32a transmits to the user terminal 2 via the WWW server 31 a priority-order selection screen prompting the user to select which of the non-suitable parts is a preferential part” Kita [P.0101])
Kita is analogous art as it relates to device customization. Kita teaches “a commodity design system in which a user designs a commodity by combining parts provided” Kita [P.0001].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Fiedler-Manau combination to include component connectivity information, as Kita teaches, in order to “provide a commodity design planning device and a commodity design planning system allowing an ordinary user to customize each part of a product freely” Kita [Abstract].
Regarding claim 4, Fiedler in view of Machau in view of Kita disclose the microscope simulation device according to claim 3, Kita further discloses wherein the connectivity information includes at least one of: first connectivity information indicating success or failure of a combination of all of the plurality of microscope components; and second connectivity information indicating success or failure of each combination of the plurality of microscope components. (“The determination unit determines whether or not the plurality of selected components are compatible with each other based on a determination result of whether or not the selected components are compatible with each other by the determination unit.” Kita [Claim 5])
Kita discloses the limitations of claim 4 and maintains the same rationale for combination with Fiedler and Machau as claim 3.
Regarding claim 5, Fiedler in view of Machau in view of Kita disclose the microscope simulation device according to claim 4, Kita further discloses, wherein the simulating the assembly of the microscope system further includes, in a case where the connectivity information indicates a failure in connecting the combination of the plurality of microscope components, determining a connection candidate component that is a microscope component that replaces a microscope component that causes the failure, and the outputting the simulation result to the display device includes outputting alternative candidate information indicating the connection candidate component generated by determining the connection candidate component. (“When a plurality of components selected by the user are not compatible, all combination candidates using the components and non-selected components compatible with the components are listed using, for example, a designing information DB322. Then, the user may narrow down the candidates by setting conditions such as essential parts, prices, and the like, and find a product desired by the user.” Kita [P.0168])
Kita discloses the limitations of claim 5 and maintains the same rationale for combination with Fiedler and Machau as claim 3.
Regarding claim 7, Fiedler in view of Machau disclose the microscope simulation device according to claim 6, but fail to specifically disclose the limitations of claim 7.
However, analogous art of Kita discloses wherein the compatibility information includes at least one of: first compatibility information indicating compatibility of the combination of all of the plurality of microscope components with the user-specified requirement; and second compatibility information indicating compatibility with the user-specified requirement of each of the plurality of microscope components. (“all combination candidates using the components and non-selected components compatible with the components are listed using, for example, a designing information DB322. Then, the user may narrow down the candidates by setting conditions” Kita [P.0168])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Fiedler-Manau combination to include component compatibility/connectivity information, as Kita teaches, in order to “provide a commodity design planning device and a commodity design planning system allowing an ordinary user to customize each part of a product freely” Kita [Abstract].
Regarding claim 8, Fiedler in view of Machau in view of Kita disclose the microscope simulation device according to claim 7, Kita further discloses wherein the simulating the assembly of the microscope system further includes, in a case where the compatibility information indicates non-compatibility with the user-specified requirement, determining a compatibility candidate component, which is a microscope component that replaces the microscope component that causes the non-compatibility, and outputting the simulation result to the display device includes outputting alternative candidate informa