DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is responsive to the application filed 11/23/2022.
Claims 1-8 are presenting for examination. Claim 1 is an independent Claim.
Priority
2. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), and based on application # 202210523696.0 filed in CHINA on 05/13/2022, which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Specification
3. The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Drawings
4. The drawings filed 11/23/2022 are accepted for examination purposes.
Claim Objections
5. Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: The abbreviation “XRF and XRF-EGAN” used in the claim should be defined; and
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step1: determine whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If YES, proceed to Step 2A, broken into two prongs.
Step 2A, Prong 1: determine whether or not the claims recite a judicial exception (e.g., mathematical concepts, mental processes, certain methods of organizing human activity). If YES, the analysis proceeds to the second prong.
Step 2A, Prong 2: determine whether or not the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. If NOT, the analysis proceeds to determining whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception (Step 2B).
Step 2B: If any element or combination of elements in the claim is sufficient to ensure that the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application, or else amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Regarding Claims 1-3:
Step 1 Analysis
Claims 1-3 are directed to a method and therefore fall into one of the statutory categories.
Step 2 Analysis
Independent Claim 1 includes the following recitation of an abstract idea:
“constructing a generator of a model by using a one-dimensional fully convolutional network layer and a residual connection, based on a design mode of a GAN model” and “constructing a discriminator of the model by using one-dimensional convolution and a fully connected layer” (the limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas);
Independent Claim 1 recites the following additional elements, which, considered individually and as an ordered combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
“obtaining a trained generator and a trained discriminator by training the XRF-EGAN model using an adversarial training mode, wherein, the generator is a soil XRF background reduction model, which in turn improves a correlation between a net peak area and content of element of soil XRF” (this is insignificant extra-solution activity, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The courts have identified mere data gathering is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d))
The claimed limitations therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 2, the limitations “a trained optimized generator is obtained by adversarial training of the XRF-EGAN model, and the trained optimized generator is used in a soil XRF spectra background reduction task, wherein, the XRF-EGAN model is applied to soil XRF spectra, and is further applied to XRF spectra data of alloy XRF spectra, spectrum alloy XRF spectra obtained by using an XRF analyzer” are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f). After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 3, the limitations “collecting XRF spectra data of a soil sample by using an XRF analyzer, and manually subtracting the background of the XRF spectra data of the soil sample to finally obtain the soil XRF spectra data Data.sub.noisy before background reduction and the soil XRF spectra data Data.sub.clean without the background” and “training the XRF-EGAN neural network model via the collected Data.sub.noisy data and Data.sub.clean data, and saving network model parameters of the generator of an optimal XRF-EGAN model after completing the training” encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, the claim recites further mental process. The additional element “loading the network model of the generator of the XRF-EGAN model, performing XRF spectra background reduction by using the network of the generator of the XRF-EGAN model for new soil XRF spectra data measured by the XRF analyzer, and obtaining an output after the background reduction” is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f). After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (US 20100040281 A1).
It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, paragraphs, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
As to Claim 1:
Chen teaches a background reduction method for soil XRF based on a XRF-EGAN model (Abstract, [0037-0038], and [0088]), the background reduction method for soil XRF comprises:
constructing a generator of a model by using a one-dimensional fully convolutional network layer and a residual connection, based on a design mode of a GAN model ([0068-0069]),
constructing a discriminator of the model by using one-dimensional convolution and a fully connected layer ([0089-0091]), and
obtaining a trained generator and a trained discriminator by training the XRF-EGAN model using an adversarial training mode ([0068], [0087-0088], and [0092]),
wherein, the generator is a soil XRF background reduction model which in turn improves a correlation between a net peak area and content of element of soil XRF ([0090] and [0103]).
As to Claim 2:
Chen teaches a trained optimized generator is obtained by adversarial training of the XRF-EGAN model, and the trained optimized generator is used in a soil XRF spectra background reduction task, wherein, the XRF-EGAN model is applied to soil XRF spectra, and is further applied to XRF spectra data of alloy XRF spectra, spectrum alloy XRF spectra obtained by using an XRF analyzer ([0088] and [0098-0100]).
As to Claim 3:
Chen teaches step 1: collecting XRF spectra data of a soil sample by using an XRF analyzer, and manually subtracting the background of the XRF spectra data of the soil sample to finally obtain the soil XRF spectra data Data.sub.noisy before background reduction and the soil XRF spectra data Data.sub.clean without the background; step 2: training the XRF-EGAN neural network model via the collected Data.sub.noisy data and Data.sub.clean data, and saving network model parameters of the generator of an optimal XRF-EGAN model after completing the training; step 3: loading the network model of the generator of the XRF-EGAN model, performing XRF spectra background reduction by using the network of the generator of the XRF-EGAN model for new soil XRF spectra data measured by the XRF analyzer, and obtaining an output after the background reduction ([0068], [0073-0074], [0088], and [0092-0093]).
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claims 4-8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, subject to the objection and the 101 rejection detailed above, subject to the results of a final search by the Examiner.
Conclusion
9. The prior art made of record, listed on PTO 892 provided to Applicant is considered to have relevancy to the claimed invention. Applicant should review each identified reference carefully before responding to this office action to properly advance the case in light of the prior art.
Contact information
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to MAIKHANH NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-4093. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (8:00 am – 5:30 pm). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, TAMARA KYLE can be reached at (571)272-4241.
The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center or Private PAIR to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center or the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/MAIKHANH NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2144
Prosecution Insights