DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/19/2022 was considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a signal acquiring unit configured to acquire a light reception signal generated by receiving scattered light from the measurement target” in Claims 1 and 12.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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 12-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 1,
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed toward a measurement system for measuring a degree of motion of a moving target by acquiring a signal of light scattered from a measurement target, then subsequently performing various calculations on the received signal. Therefore, Claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent Claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea. Claim 1 recites
A measurement system for measuring a degree of motion of a moving measurement target, the measurement system comprising:
a signal acquiring unit configured to acquire a light reception signal generated by receiving scattered light from the measurement target;
a calculation unit configured to perform M (M is an integer of 2 or more) types of calculation with respect to the light reception signal, to calculate M calculation values; and
a calculation determination unit configured to determine, based on M x N of the calculation values obtained by performing N (N is an integer of 2 or more) measurements and based on N standard values corresponding to the N measurements, a calculation to be employed.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation 1) constitutes ‘insignificant extra-solution activity’ because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitation covers mere data gathering.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation 2) constitutes a ‘mathematical process’ because under their broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers the performance of mathematical calculations applied to the gathered data.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation 3) constitutes a ‘mental process’ because under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers selecting a calculation to be employed from amongst a small number of calculation values and measurements.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra-solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a ‘practical application.’ In the present case, therefore, since there are no additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea above, there is no integration into a practical application.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, as noted above, representative independent Claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, there are no additional limitations that amount to significantly more.
Dependent claims 2-9 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims are directed towards additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine, and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 2 uses the limitation of “…wherein the M types of calculation comprise sampling at p (p is an integer of 2 or more and M or less) types of sampling rate,” which amounts to a mathematical calculation.
Claim 3 uses the limitation of “wherein the M types of calculation comprise q (q is an integer of 2 or more and M or less) types of integral calculation,” which amounts to a mathematical calculation.
Claim 4 uses the limitation of “wherein the M types of calculation comprise r (r is an integer of 2 or more and M or less types of amplification with respect to a-the light reception signal),” which amounts to a mathematical calculation.
Claim 5 uses the limitation of “wherein the calculation determination unit makes the determination by evaluating the calculation using regression analysis based on the N calculation values calculated by the same type of calculation and the N standard values corresponding to the N calculation values,” which amounts to a mathematical calculation.
Claim 6 uses the limitation of “wherein when N calculation values calculated by the same type of calculation and the N standard values corresponding to the N calculation values do not have a relationship of a monotonic increase or a monotonic decrease, the calculation determination unit excludes the calculation from among candidates for the calculation to be employed,” which amounts to a mathematical calculation and a mental process, respectively. Excluding a type of calculation based on whether or not it has a monotonic relationship can easily be performed by the human mind.
Claim 7 uses the limitation of “wherein when N calculation values calculated by the same type of calculation and the N standard values corresponding to the N calculation values do not have a relationship of a monotonic increase or a monotonic decrease, the calculation determination unit leaves the calculation as a candidate for the calculation to be employed, for just a region in which the relationship of the monotonic increase or the monotonic decrease is secured,” which amounts to a mathematical calculation and a mental process. Leaving a calculation as a candidate based on the monotonicity of a sub-region could easily be performed by the human mind.
Claim 8 uses the limitation “an output adjusting unit configured to adjust an output of a light source for generating the scattered light, wherein the calculation determination unit determines the output to be employed based on sets of the M x N calculation values and the N standard values, the sets being respectively obtained in correspondence to a plurality of the outputs,” which amounts to a mental process. Adjusting an output of a light source based on the results of a calculation could easily be performed by the human mind.
Claim 9 uses the limitation “a circuit adjusting unit configured to adjust a characteristic of a light receiving circuit for generating the light reception signal, wherein the calculation determination unit determines the characteristic to be employed based on the sets of the M x N calculation values and the N standard values, the sets being respectively obtained in correspondence with a plurality of the characteristics,” which amounts to a mental process. Adjusting a characteristic of a light receiving circuit based on the result of a calculation could easily be performed by a human mind.
Claim 15 uses the limitation “wherein the M types of calculation comprise q (q is an integer of 2 or more and M or less) types of integral calculation,” which amounts to a mathematical calculation.
Claim 16 use the limitation “wherein the M types of calculation comprise r (r is an integer of 2 or more and M or less types of amplification with respect to the light reception signal),” which amounts to a mathematical calculation.
Claim 17 uses the limitation “wherein the M types of calculation comprise r (r is an integer of 2 or more and M or less types of amplification with respect to the light reception signal),” which amounts to a mathematical calculation.
Claim 18 uses the limitation “wherein the M types of calculation comprise r (r is an integer of 2 or more and M or less types of amplification with respect to the light reception signal),” which amounts to a mathematical calculation.
Regarding Claim 12,
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 12 is directed toward a measurement module for measuring a degree of motion of a moving target by acquiring a signal of light scattered from a measurement target, then subsequently performing various calculations on the received signal. Therefore, Claim 12 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent Claim 12 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea. Claim 12 recites
A measurement system for measuring a degree of motion of a moving measurement target, the measurement system comprising:
a signal acquiring unit configured to acquire a light reception signal generated by receiving scattered light from the measurement target;
a calculation unit configured to perform M (M is an integer of 2 or more) types of calculation with respect to the light reception signal, to calculate M calculation values; and
and, based on an input from outside, to switch a calculation operation to be performed among the M types of calculation, and perform the calculation.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation 1) constitutes ‘insignificant extra-solution activity’ because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitation covers mere data gathering.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation 2) constitutes a ‘mathematical process’ because under their broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers the performance of mathematical calculations applied to the gathered data.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation 3) constitutes ‘mental process’ because under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers selecting a calculation to be employed.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra-solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a ‘practical application.’ In the present case, therefore, since there are no additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea above, there is no integration into a practical application.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, as noted above, representative independent Claim 12 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, there are no additional limitations that amount to significantly more.
Dependent claim 13 does not recite any further limitations that cause the claim to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims are directed towards additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine, and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 13 uses the limitation “a calculation determination unit configured to determine, based on M x N of the calculation values obtained by performing N (N is an integer of 2 or more) measurements and based on N standard values corresponding to the N measurements, the calculation to be performed,” which amounts to a mathematical calculation.
Regarding Claim 14,
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed toward a measurement system for measuring a degree of motion of a moving target by acquiring a signal of light scattered from a measurement target, then subsequently performing various calculations on the received signal. Therefore, Claim 14 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent Claim 14 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea. Claim 14 recites
A measurement method for measuring a degree of motion of a moving measurement target, the measurement method comprising:
a signal acquiring unit configured to acquire a light reception signal generated by receiving scattered light from the measurement target;
a calculation unit configured to perform M (M is an integer of 2 or more) types of calculation with respect to the light reception signal, to calculate M calculation values; and
a calculation determination unit configured to determine, based on M x N of the calculation values obtained by performing N (N is an integer of 2 or more) measurements and based on N standard values corresponding to the N measurements, a calculation to be employed.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation 1) constitutes ‘insignificant extra-solution activity’ because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitation covers mere data gathering.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation 2) constitutes a ‘mathematical process’ because under their broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers the performance of mathematical calculations applied to the gathered data.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation 3) constitutes a ‘mental process’ because under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers selecting a calculation to be employed from amongst a small number of calculation values and measurements.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra-solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a ‘practical application.’ In the present case, therefore, since there are no additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea above, there is no integration into a practical application.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, as noted above, representative independent Claim 14 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, there are no additional limitations that amount to significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 9-14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tateishi (JP 6039088).
Regarding Claim 1, Tateishi discloses a measurement system for measuring a degree of motion of a moving measurement target ([0001]), the measurement system comprising:
a signal acquiring unit configured to acquire a light reception signal generated by receiving scattered light from the measurement target (Abstract; [0008]: “a light receiving means for receiving interference light between the measurement light scattered by the flow path and the measurement light scattered by the fluid);
a calculation unit configured to perform M (M is an integer of 2 or more) types of calculation with respect to the light reception signal, to calculate M calculation values ([0043]: “For example, when the flow velocity of the fluid is low, the usable frequency range is determined to be relatively narrow, and the frequency of the sampling clock is set low accordingly. Conversely, if the fluid has a high flow rate, the usable frequency range is determined to be relatively wide, and the frequency of the sampling clock is set high accordingly.” Thus the device of Tateishi can sample at multiple rates, which the instant application lists in [0032] as an example of an M type of calculation.); and
a calculation determination unit configured to determine, based on M x N of the calculation values obtained by performing N (N is an integer of 2 or more) measurements and based on N standard values corresponding to the N measurements, a calculation to be employed ([0132]: “More specifically, a conversion factor table with the frequency range nk as a table address is read out, a conversion factor for obtaining the flow velocity from the average frequency fm is obtained, and the flow velocity conversion process is executed. The conversion coefficient table may be calibrated in advance through experiments or the like.” Each frequency range must correspond to at least two measurements.).
Regarding Claim 2, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Tateishi further discloses wherein the M types of calculation comprise sampling at p (p is an integer of 2 or more and M or less) types of sampling rate ([0043]: “For example, when the flow velocity of the fluid is low, the usable frequency range is determined to be relatively narrow, and the frequency of the sampling clock is set low accordingly. Conversely, if the fluid has a high flow rate, the usable frequency range is determined to be relatively wide, and the frequency of the sampling clock is set high accordingly.” Thus the device of Tateishi can sample at multiple rates, which the instant application lists in [0032] as an example of an M type of calculation.).
Regarding Claim 4, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Tateishi further discloses wherein the M types of calculation comprise r (r is an integer of 2 or more and M or less types of amplification with respect to the light reception signal) ([0040]: “The filter means has a variable filter gain depending on the frequency range used. Alternatively, a plurality of filter means with different gains may be prepared, and a filter may be selected from among them according to the frequency range to be used.”).
Regarding Claim 9, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Tateishi further discloses a circuit adjusting unit configured to adjust a characteristic of a light receiving circuit ([0015]: “The light receiving means is configured to include, for example, a photodiode”; The photodiode must be contained within a larger circuit) for generating the light reception signal, wherein the calculation determination unit determines the characteristic to be employed based on the sets of the M x N calculation values and the N standard values, the sets being respectively obtained in correspondence with a plurality of the characteristics ([0078]: “The variable amplifier 310 amplifies the light intensity signal input from the amplifier 140 in accordance with the gain adjustment value instructed by the CPU 160 and outputs the amplified signal.”).
Regarding Claim 10, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Tateishi further discloses a measurement module ([0008]: “A first flow velocity detection device) comprising the signal acquiring unit (Abstract; [0008]: “a light receiving means for receiving interference light between the measurement light scattered by the flow path and the measurement light scattered by the fluid) and the calculation unit;
a measurement processing device comprising the calculation determination unit ([0008]: “and an output means for calculating a signal);
and a first storage provided in the measurement module and configured to store information for identifying a content of each of the M types of calculation ([0016]: “The "specified value" is a value set as a reference for the velocity of the fluid, and is, for example, a value corresponding to a flow velocity command input from the outside.; [0017]: “When the designated value is acquired, the determining means determines the frequency range to be used for the signal indicating the interference light based on the acquired designated value.”; Thus the device must store the specified value in memory in order to calculate which of the frequency ranges should be used.).
Regarding Claim 11, Tateishi further discloses an input unit configured to receive, as an input, information for specifying measurement conditions ([0066]: “In particular, a flow velocity command for specifying the velocity of the fluid 200 is input from outside to the CPU 160 according to this embodiment. That is, the CPU functions as a specific example of an “acquisition means.””);
and a second storage configured to store, for each of the measurement conditions, a plurality of the calculations determined by the calculation determination unit, wherein the calculation unit selects and performs the calculation stored in the second storage, in accordance with the information input to the input unit ([0131]: “Returning to FIG. 10, when the storage of nk is completed, the average frequency fm is calculated (step S207) in the same manner as in the first embodiment (i.e., step S107 in FIG. 5).” Thus the nk values are stored, then used in a calculation.).
Regarding Claim 12, Tateishi discloses a measurement module for measuring a degree of motion of a moving measurement target ([0001]), the measurement module comprising:
a signal acquiring unit configured to acquire a light reception signal generated by receiving scattered light from the measurement target (Abstract; [0008]: “a light receiving means for receiving interference light between the measurement light scattered by the flow path and the measurement light scattered by the fluid); and
a calculation unit configured to perform M (M is an integer of 2 or more) types of calculation with respect to the light reception signal, to calculate M calculation values, and, based on an input from outside ([0066]: “A CPU (Central Processing Unit) 160 is configured as a controller that controls the entire device, and is capable of outputting various commands to each component of the device. In particular, a flow velocity command for specifying the velocity of the fluid 200 is input from outside to the CPU 160 according to this embodiment.), to switch a calculation operation to be performed among the M types of calculation, and perform the calculation ([0043]: “For example, when the flow velocity of the fluid is low, the usable frequency range is determined to be relatively narrow, and the frequency of the sampling clock is set low accordingly. Conversely, if the fluid has a high flow rate, the usable frequency range is determined to be relatively wide, and the frequency of the sampling clock is set high accordingly.” Thus the device of Tateishi can sample at multiple rates, which the instant application lists in [0032] as an example of an M type of calculation.).
Regarding Claim 13, which depends from rejected Claim 12, Tateishi further discloses a measurement processing device for determining the calculation to be performed with respect to the measurement module according to claim 12, the measurement processing device comprising: a calculation determination unit configured to determine, based on M x N of the calculation values obtained by performing N (N is an integer of 2 or more) measurements and based on N standard values corresponding to the N measurements, the calculation to be performed ([0132]: “More specifically, a conversion factor table with the frequency range nk as a table address is read out, a conversion factor for obtaining the flow velocity from the average frequency fm is obtained, and the flow velocity conversion process is executed. The conversion coefficient table may be calibrated in advance through experiments or the like.” Each frequency range must correspond to at least two measurements.).
Regarding Claim 14, Tateishi discloses a measurement method for measuring a degree of motion of a moving measurement target ([0001]), the measurement method comprising:
signal acquiring processing of acquiring a light reception signal generated by receiving scattered light from the measurement target (Abstract; [0008]: “a light receiving means for receiving interference light between the measurement light scattered by the flow path and the measurement light scattered by the fluid);
calculation processing of performing M (M is an integer of 2 or more) types of calculation with respect to the light reception signal, to calculate M calculation values ([0043]: “For example, when the flow velocity of the fluid is low, the usable frequency range is determined to be relatively narrow, and the frequency of the sampling clock is set low accordingly. Conversely, if the fluid has a high flow rate, the usable frequency range is determined to be relatively wide, and the frequency of the sampling clock is set high accordingly.” Thus the device of Tateishi can sample at multiple rates, which the instant application lists in [0032] as an example of an M type of calculation.); and
calculation determination processing of determining, based on M x N of the calculation values obtained by performing N (N is an integer of 2 or more) measurements and based on N standard values corresponding to the N measurements, a calculation to be employed ([0132]: “More specifically, a conversion factor table with the frequency range nk as a table address is read out, a conversion factor for obtaining the flow velocity from the average frequency fm is obtained, and the flow velocity conversion process is executed. The conversion coefficient table may be calibrated in advance through experiments or the like.” Each frequency range must correspond to at least two measurements.).
Regarding Claim 16, which depends from rejected Claim 2, Tateishi further discloses wherein the M types of calculation comprise r (r is an integer of 2 or more and M or less types of amplification with respect to the light reception signal) ([0040]: “The filter means has a variable filter gain depending on the frequency range used. Alternatively, a plurality of filter means with different gains may be prepared, and a filter may be selected from among them according to the frequency range to be used.”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 3, 15, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tateishi in view of Hays (US 2012/0050750 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Tateishi does not teach and Hays does teach wherein the M types of calculation comprise q (q is an integer of 2 or more and M or less) types of integral calculation ([0286]: “Real instruments have defects which influence the behavior thereof and can be accounted for by broadening functions in the models used to characterize the device. … The convolution integral is defined as follows:”; Equation (32); [0528]-[0530]: The modulation form factor is calculated with one integral in the numerator and one in denominator, and represents the represents the magnitude of the desired AC signal relative to the average DC level.) .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Tateishi with the teaching of Hays to use at least two different types of integral calculations. The integral calculations taught in Hays provide compact ways to extract information characterizing the device and its output, thus yielding a better understanding of the information collected by the device and more robust results.
Regarding Claim 15, which depends from rejected Claim 2, Tateishi does not teach and Hays does teach wherein the M types of calculation comprise q (q is an integer of 2 or more and M or less) types of integral calculation ([0286]: “Real instruments have defects which influence the behavior thereof and can be accounted for by broadening functions in the models used to characterize the device. … The convolution integral is defined as follows:”; Equation (32); [0528]-[0530]: The modulation form factor is calculated with one integral in the numerator and one in denominator, and represents the represents the magnitude of the desired AC signal relative to the average DC level.) .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Tateishi with the teaching of Hays to use at least two different types of integral calculations. The integral calculations taught in Hays provide compact ways to extract information characterizing the device and its output, thus yielding a better understanding of the information collected by the device and more robust results.
Regarding Claim 17, which depends from rejected Claim 3, Tateishi further discloses wherein the M types of calculation comprise r (r is an integer of 2 or more and M or less types of amplification with respect to the light reception signal) ([0040]: “The filter means has a variable filter gain depending on the frequency range used. Alternatively, a plurality of filter means with different gains may be prepared, and a filter may be selected from among them according to the frequency range to be used.”).
Regarding Claim 18, which depends from rejected Claim 15, Tateishi further discloses wherein the M types of calculation comprise r (r is an integer of 2 or more and M or less types of amplification with respect to the light reception signal) ([0040]: “The filter means has a variable filter gain depending on the frequency range used. Alternatively, a plurality of filter means with different gains may be prepared, and a filter may be selected from among them according to the frequency range to be used.”).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tateishi in view of Khalil (US 6,615,061 B1).
Regarding Claim 5, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Tateishi does not teach and Khalil does teach wherein the calculation determination unit makes the determination by evaluating the calculation using regression analysis based on the N calculation values calculated by the same type of calculation and the N standard values corresponding to the N calculation values (Column 15, lines 10-15: “one usually needs to test multiple mathematical relationships by means of regression methods such as the classical least squares and the principal component regression with respect to their performances. The performances are often measured by parameters such as the correlation coefficient and standard error of estimation in both the calibration process and the validation process).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the measurement system of Tateishi with the teaching of Khalil to use a regression analysis to assess the relationship between the calculation values and standard values. A skilled worker in the art would be familiar with regression analysis and able to apply it to the system of Tateishi with the predictable result of a quantitative assessment of the quality of the relationship between the calculated and standard values.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tateishi in view of Khalil and further in view of Brown (Brown, P. J. "Multivariate calibration." Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological) 44, no. 3 (1982): 287-308).
Tateishi does not teach and Khalil does wherein teach the calculation determination unit excludes the calculation from among candidates for the calculation to be employed (Column 16, Lines 1-16: “establishing the best achievable correlation relationship … one usually needs to test multiple mathematical relationships by means of regression methods such as the classical least squares and the principal component regression with respect to their performances.” Finding the best relationship achieved amongst a plurality of possible functional relationships necessarily means that some relationships are excluded.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the measurement system of Tateishi with the teaching of Khalil to select from among several functional relationships when selecting the candidate calculation to be employed. Khalil notes that this method is used to find the best achievable correlation relationship for a functional relationship, which we be advantageous for a system selecting between several calibration relationships with which to relate calculated values to standard values.
Tateishi does not teach and Khalil does not teach and Brown does teach wherein when N calculation values calculated by the same type of calculation and the N standard values corresponding to the N calculation values do not have a relationship of a monotonic increase or a monotonic decrease (Page 288, Para 2: “Monotonicity, it should be emphasized, should predicate any effective univariate calibration.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the measurement system of Tateishi in view of Khalil with the teaching of Brown that monotonicity is a necessary component of univariate calibrations. Brown notes in Page 288, Para 1 that “Here monotonicity over a relevant range of X ensures uniqueness of estimated X' for given Y'.” A worker skilled in the art would find the properties of uniqueness and invertibility imparted by a monotonic calibration curve to be advantageous. These properties ease data analysis, and ensure that the calibrations are single-valued, thus avoiding ambiguity in interpretation.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tateishi in view of Khalil and further in view of Nicoli (US 2004/0011975 A1).
Tateishi does not teach and Khalil does wherein teach the calculation determination unit excludes the calculation from among candidates for the calculation to be employed (Column 16, Lines 1-16: “establishing the best achievable correlation relationship … one usually needs to test multiple mathematical relationships by means of regression methods such as the classical least squares and the principal component regression with respect to their performances.” Finding the best relationship achieved amongst a plurality of possible functional relationships necessarily means that some relationships are excluded.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the measurement system of Tateishi with the teaching of Khalil to select from among several functional relationships when selecting the candidate calculation to be employed. Khalil notes that this method is used to find the best achievable correlation relationship for a functional relationship, which we be advantageous for a system selecting between several calibration relationships with which to relate calculated values to standard values.
Tateishi does not teach and Khalil does not teach and Nicoli does teach the calculation determination unit leaves the calculation as a candidate for the calculation to be employed, for just a region in which the relationship of the monotonic increase or the monotonic decrease is secured ([0272]: “Proper selection of the range of angles permits the total intensity signal to be maximized, while avoiding "reversals" (non-monotonic behavior) in the response curve of integrated intensity vs particle diameter.” Thus Nicoli teaches restricting a functional form used to characterize a sample so that only monotonic regions are used.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the measurement system of Tateishi in view of Khalil with the further teaching of Nicoli to restrict functions to only monotonic regions. Brown notes in Page 288, Para 1 that “Here monotonicity over a relevant range of X ensures uniqueness of estimated X' for given Y'.” A worker skilled in the art would find the properties of uniqueness and invertibility imparted by a monotonic calibration curve to be advantageous. These properties ease data analysis, and ensure that the calibrations are single-valued, thus avoiding ambiguity in interpretation.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tateishi in view of Bachalo (US 2008/0049231 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Tateishi teaches that the measurements are based on sets of the M x N calculation values and the N standard values, the sets being respectively obtained in correspondence to a plurality of the outputs (see the rejection of Claim 1 above).
Tateishi does not teach and Bachalo does teach an output adjusting unit configured to adjust an output of a light source for generating the scattered light, wherein the calculation determination unit determines the output to be employed based on the measurements ([0007]: “The signal processing system is set to a first bandwidth. A sampling frequency of the signal processing system is set to a first sampling frequency. First samples of first signals are received at the first bandwidth and the first sampling frequency. First parameters of the first signals based on the first samples are determined. A second sampling frequency is determined based on the first parameters to sample second samples.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Tateishi with the teaching of Bachalo to modify the sampling rate based on a previous set of measurements. Bachalo notes in [0006] that “the measurements of the size and velocity of the spherical objects require frequent attention to the measurement conditions which may be time-consuming and improper setup may leave the instrument prone to errors.” With this teaching, a skilled worker would find automatic setup and refinement of the measurement based on previous measurements to be a time-saving and beneficial development.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN WADE CLOUSER whose telephone number is (571)272-0378. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ISAM ALSOMIRI can be reached at (571) 272-6970. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/B.W.C./ Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ISAM A ALSOMIRI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645