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 .
This action is responsive to communication filed on 12/29/2022. Claims 1-6 are pending. Claims 1 and 3-6 have been amended. Entry of this amendment is made of record.
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.
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: “an inputter that transmits…”, “a transmitter that transmits…” in claim 1; “an evaluator that evaluates… and that sorts….”, in claim 3; “the transmitter is configured to…”, in claim 5, and “the evaluator evaluates…”, in claim 6.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1-6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1, 3, 5 and 6, the limitations “an inputter that transmits data to estimate deterioration; a transmitter that transmits a degree of the deterioration of the product computed by the predictive model based on the data transmitted from the inputter” in claim 1; “an evaluator that evaluates the degree of the deterioration transmitted from the transmitter, and that sorts the degree of the deterioration into a plurality of grades” in claim 3; “the transmitter is configured to transmit data while sorting the degree of deterioration into a plurality of grades and labeling the sorted data”, in claim 5; and “the evaluator evaluates the degree of the deterioration based on the data sorted into the plurality of grades and labeled” in claim 6 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. There is insufficient disclosure of the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function because at least one of the following applies:(i) the disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim, (ii) the structure described in the specification does not perform the entire function in the claim, and/or (iii) no association between the structure and the function can be found in the specification.
Therefore the limitations as discussed above, lacks an adequate written description as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as inadequate support for the claimed limitation in the original disclosure of the invention to perform the claimed functions interpreted under 35 USC 112(f). Furthermore an indefinite, unbounded functional limitation would cover all ways of performing a function and indicate that the inventor has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention. See also MPEP § 2181.
Dependent claims 2-6 are rejected under 35 USC 112(a) for the reasons discussed above with respect to independent claim 1 from which they depend.
Dependent claim 6 is rejected under 35 USC 112(a) for the reasons discussed above with respect to dependent claim 5 from which it depends.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1, 3, 5 and 6, the limitations “an inputter that transmits data to estimate deterioration; a transmitter that transmits a degree of the deterioration of the product computed by the predictive model based on the data transmitted from the inputter” in claim 1; “an evaluator that evaluates the degree of the deterioration transmitted from the transmitter, and that sorts the degree of the deterioration into a plurality of grades” in claim 3; “the transmitter is configured to transmit data while sorting the degree of deterioration into a plurality of grades and labeling the sorted data”, in claim 5; and “the evaluator evaluates the degree of the deterioration based on the data sorted into the plurality of grades and labeled” in claim 6, invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. There is insufficient disclosure of the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function because at least one of the following applies:(i) the disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim, (ii) the structure described in the specification does not perform the entire function in the claim, and/or (iii) no association between the structure and the function can be found in the specification.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Dependent claims 2-6 are rejected under 35 USC 112(b) for the reasons discussed above with respect to independent claim 1 from which they depend.
Dependent claim 6 is rejected under 35 USC 112(b) for the reasons discussed above with respect to dependent claim 5 from which it depends.
For examination on the merits the claims will be interpreted as best understood in light of the 35 USC 112(a) and 35 USC 112(b) rejections above.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. A subject matter eligibility analysis is set forth below. See MPEP 2106.
Under Step 1 of the analysis, claim 1, belongs to a statutory category namely a system.
Under Step 2A, prong 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
The claim(s) 1 recite(s) concepts related to at least one category of abstract idea in which the recited judicial exception falls. Claim 1 recites concepts related to mathematical algorithms/concepts, and mental processes and concepts performed in the human mind e.g. observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion for estimating deterioration for a product in which contents are contained in a metal container, and “a degree of the deterioration of the product computed by the predictive model based on the data transmitted from the inputter”, which are concepts related to mathematical calculations, mental processes that can be performed by pen and paper; and “wherein the training data includes container data relating to the metal container of the actual product, contents data relating to the contents contained in the metal container of the actual product, environmental data relating to an environment where the actual product was stored, and deterioration data relating to the degree of the deterioration of the actual product, and the data transmitted from the inputter includes container data relating to the container of a target product to estimate the degree of the deterioration, contents data relating to the contents of the target product, and environmental data relating to an environment where the target product will be stored”, which is mere characterization of the data acquired and applied to implement the abstract idea.
The concepts discussed above can be considered to describe mental processes, namely concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper, and/or mathematical concepts, namely a series of calculations leading to one or more numerical results or answers. Although, the claim does not spell out any particular equation or formula being used, the lack of specific equations for individual steps merely points out that the claim would monopolize all possible calculations in performing the steps. These steps recited by the claims, therefore amount to a series of mental or mathematical steps, making these limitations amount to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, prong 2 of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception(s) into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the abstract idea is not performed by using any particular device and because the “deterioration estimate system” recited in claim 1, which amounts to the recitation of a general purpose computer used to apply the abstract idea and “machine learning”, recited in claims 1, which amounts to the implementation of the abstract idea on a generic computer and also merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (neural networks) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h); and the “data obtained through storage tests of actual product”, the “inputter that transmits data to estimate deterioration” which is mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality and generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed and the results are not used in any particular matter as to integrate the abstract idea in a practical application and the results of the algorithm are merely output/stored as part of insignificant post-solution activity (i.e. transmitting data), and are not used in any particular matter as to integrate the abstract idea in a practical application.
Under Step 2B, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, merely amount to a general purpose computer “deterioration estimate system” and “machine learning”, used to apply the abstract idea and mere data gathering/output recited at a high level of generality and insignificant extra-solution activity that when further analyzed under Step 2B is found to be well-understood, routine and conventional activities as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); and because the data of performing the algorithm must necessarily be “obtained” and the use of a general purpose computer to implement the abstract idea for performing the algorithm does not amount to significantly more than the recitation of the abstract idea itself.
Therefore, claims 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Dependent claims 2-6 merely expand on the abstract idea by appending additional steps to the mathematical algorithm on their respective independent claim 1.
Dependent claims 2-6 merely expands on the abstract idea by reciting additional steps related to mathematical algorithms/concepts, and mental processes and concepts performed in the human mind e.g. observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion and mere characterization of the data acquired and applied for performing the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-6, do not set forth further additional elements that integrate the rejected abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore these claims are found to be ineligible for the reasons discussed with respect to independent claim 1 from which they depend.
With respect to claim 2, the claim further recites aspects of the abstract idea and further data characterization (i.e. deterioration data relating to the degree of the deterioration…) and introduces the additional element of “the container is made of a metal sheet having inner coating” which is generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use and fails to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
With respect to claim 3, the claim further recites aspects of the abstract idea and further data characterization (i.e. evaluates the degree of deterioration and sorting the degree of deterioration into a plurality of grades) which recites concepts related to mathematical algorithms/concepts, and mental processes and concepts performed in the human mind e.g. observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion for estimating deterioration for a product in which contents are contained in a metal container and introduces the additional element of “an evaluator that evaluates the degree of the deterioration transmitted from the transmitter…”, however this merely amounts to the recitation of a general purpose computer to implement the abstract idea and mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality and generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use and to insignificant extrasolution activity.
With respect to claim 5, the claim further recites aspects of the abstract idea and further data characterization (i.e. sorting the degree of the deterioration into a plurality of grades and labeling the sorted data), which recites concepts related to mathematical algorithms/concepts, and mental processes and concepts performed in the human mind e.g. observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion and human activities for estimating deterioration for a product in which contents are contained in a metal container and introduces the additional element of “…the transmitter is configured to transmit data while sorting the degree of deterioration into a plurality of grades and labeling the sorted data” which is generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use and fails to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
With respect to claim 6, the claim further recites aspects of the abstract idea and further data characterization (i.e. evaluates the degree of the deterioration based on the data sorted into the plurality of grades and labeled), which recites concepts related to mathematical algorithms/concepts, and mental processes and concepts performed in the human mind e.g. observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion and human activities for estimating deterioration for a product in which contents are contained in a metal container and which is generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use and fails to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Therefore for similar reasons as discussed above the additional elements disclosed by dependent claims 2-6 fails to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Therefore claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Reasons for Overcoming the Prior Art
Regarding claims 1-6, currently rejected under 35 USC 101 the closest prior art of made of record either in singularly or in combination fails to teach, disclose or suggest the features set forth by independent claims 1, without the use of impermissible hindsight.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Garcia et al. EP 3933528 A1 disclose a predicting system in additive manufacturing process by machine learning for automatic prediction of porosity appearance. Garcia further disclose the training of the neural network is performed by generating labels of pore in every pixed using a porosity simulator, processing input features and of pore features from porosity simulator, pre-train with data set created from the processing of input stem to generate a pretrained ML model, processing input features and pore features from tomography of manufactured coupons, train using the pre-trained ML model with data set created in the processing of input features and of pore features from tomography of manufacturing coupons step, and fine tune the trained ML model to generate an optimal trained ML model (see abstract; Fig. 3; para. 0006; claim 1).
Balthes US 10308414 B2, disclose method and system for calculating a suitability indicator which corresponds to a suitability of a packaging system for packaging a substance, wherein a stability indicator which corresponds to a stability of the substance or of a component of the substance is determined as a function of at least one ambient condition, preferably the relative humidity and/or temperature indicator is calculated with at least one parameter relating to the ambient condition with the stability indicator of the substance (see abstract). Balthes disclose the stability indicator of the substance and the parameter of the packaging system form input variables for a simulation of this kind, and wherein a simulator may be provided which determines or calculates an environment obtained within the packaging, with corresponding environmental characteristics, using the properties of the packaging system, which may be represented by the parameter of the packaging system. (see col. 6, ll. 48-64) and further disclose an input device for inputting stability indicator of a substance as a function of at last one ambient condition (col. 8, ll. 55-58). Balthes further disclose sending the results in the form of electronic message i.e. “indicated by an indicator or displayed, particularly printed out or sent in the form of an electronic message”, (see col. 8, ll. 39-45), and further disclose a permeation model where a stability indicator is used to calculate the stability of the substance when packaged using the packaging system on ethe basis of the permeation model (col. 19, ll. 27-53).
Noro et al. US20140090987A1 disclose a method for evaluating corrosion resistance of cans to contents, where corrosion resistance of the can to the content based on accumulated amount of electricity generated during a time appropriately selected from 6-48 hours immediately after the application of the constant potential (see abstract; para. 0041-0042). Noro further disclose the metal sheets coated with resin films or coating materials are used in the form of cans for containing items such as foods and beverages, if defects occur in the film inside the cans during storage, the metal sheets are corroded on a macroscopic scale, (see para. 0001, 0041-0042, 0063-0065).
Mineta et al. US20220404264A1 (WO 2021100193 A1) disclose a corrosion speed estimation device for estimating the corrosion speed of metal disposed in a prescribed environment, wherein a corrosion speed estimation is used for receiving water composition information about environmental water composition in order to estimate the corrosion speed of metal disposed in the environment and wherein the estimation model is generated using a machine learning algorithm such as a random forest, neural network, or RNN (LSTM) (see abstract. Mineta disclose a deterioration estimate system for a product in which contents are contained in a metal container (see abstract, “corrosion rate of a metal”), the system comprising: a predictive model (see abstract, “corrosion rate estimation model…generated using, for example, a machine learning algorithm such as a random forest, a neural network, or RNN (LSTM)”) that is trained by machine learning utilizing data obtained through storage tests of actual products as training data (see abstract, wherein the input data is received by the corrosion rate estimation model); an inputter that transmits data to estimate deterioration (see abstract, “input unit that inputs water component information [i.e. water content (time, temperature, conductivity, soil type and the like]); and a transmitter (see abstract, para. 0020“output unit”) that transmits a degree of the deterioration of the product computed by the predictive model based on the data transmitted from the inputter (see abstract, para.0020 , output unit outputs estimated corrosion rate of the metal to the outside), wherein the training data includes, environmental data relating to an environment where the actual product was stored (see abstract, pra. 0022-0027 i.e. water content (time), temperature, conductivity, soil type, and the like).
Zhu et al. CN 106568907 A disclose a crab freshness lossless detecting method comprising sample pre-processing and electronic nose device preheating step. Zhu further disclose a feature map neural network to realize a prediction model of crab freshness level, capable of non-destructive testing (see abstract).
Regarding claim 1, Zhu disclose a deterioration estimate system for a product (see para. 0004-0005, 0008, wherein freshness and quality of hairy crabs is evaluated by a sensory evaluation and physicochemical index determination; 0053) in which contents are contained in a metal container, the system comprising: a predictive model that is trained by machine learning utilizing data obtained through storage tests of actual products as training data (see para. 0005, wherein feature extraction relies on unsupervised learning algorithms; para. 0008, wherein SS-UDP algorithm based on popular learning algorithm Unsupervised Discriminant Projection (UDP) and combines it with semi-supervised machine learning method to further optimize the performance of the popular learning algorithm; 0076, 0098-0100, a self-organizing feature mapping neural network is used to classify and identify the samples to obtain the predicted level of freshness of the hairy crabs); an inputter that transmits data to estimate deterioration (see para. 0101, “sample data of unknown level as the test ser and input it into the trained network for testing to obtain predicted level of freshness of unknown hairy crab samples”).
However the closest prior art of record discussed above either in singularly or in combination do not expressly or explicitly disclose the combination of steps set forth by claim 1 for estimating the deterioration for a product in which contents are contained in a metal container where a degree of the deterioration of the product computed by the predictive model based on the data transmitted from the inputter, wherein the training data includes container data relating to the metal container of the actual product, contents data relating to the contents contained in the metal container of the actual product, environmental data relating to an environment where the actual product was stored, and deterioration data relating to the degree of the deterioration of the actual product, and the data transmitted from the inputter includes container data relating to the container of a target product to estimate the degree of the deterioration, contents data relating to the contents of the target product, and environmental data relating to an environment where the target product will be stored without the use of impermissible hindsight.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YARITZA H PEREZ BERMUDEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1520. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Shelby A Turner can be reached at (571) 272-6334. 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.
/YARITZA H. PEREZ BERMUDEZ/
Examiner
Art Unit 2857
/SHELBY A TURNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights