DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on p. 8 that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea because “measuring the tension values by at least one tension sensor of the crystal ingot cutting machine… cannot be practically performed by a human mind.” This argument is not persuasive. First, the claims do not recite a step of measuring the tension values by at least one tension sensor. Instead, the claims merely recite receiving the data. Receiving data as claimed is a mental process, as it is akin to, for example, receiving a sheet of paper with data written in numerical form. Second, the alleged provenance of the data is not dispositive of the reception of the data being a mental process. That is, the data already exists, and how it was measured does not affect the patentability or eligibility of the receiving step. Finally, the claims recite several abstract ideas, and are directed to those abstract ideas, as set forth below in the rejection of the claims.
Applicant argues on pp. 8-9 that the claims are eligible at Step 2A Prong Two, because the abstract ideas are integrated into a practical application because they are tied to a particular machine. This argument is not persuasive. As set forth below, the particular machine is nothing more than a platform for the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering, necessary to perform the abstract ideas. There is no post-solution activity wherein the result of the abstract calculations is used to alter or improve the recited additional elements in the claims. Instead, the result of the abstract calculations is merely output, without any further involvement of the alleged particular machine.
Applicant argues on p. 9 that the claims are eligible at Step 2B, because “the above-mentioned features” of the claim are not well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art. This argument is not persuasive. The analysis at Step 2B does not consider whether “above-mentioned features” of a claim are well-understood, routine, or conventional. Instead, only the additional elements are analyzed to determine whether they are well-understood, routine, or conventional. As set forth in the rejection of the claims below, the additional elements recited in the claims are well-understood, routine, and conventional, and therefore fail to provide an inventive concept that makes the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas.
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 and 3-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract ideas without significantly more, as set forth below.
The following analysis is performed in accordance with the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (hereinafter 2019 PEG), as set forth in MPEP § 2106.
Step 1
Step 1 of the 2019 PEG asks whether the claim is to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Claims 1 and 3-10 are directed to a method.
Claim 11 is directed to an apparatus.
Step 2A Prong One
Step 2A Prong One of the 2019 PEG asks whether the claim recites an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon.
The examiner has identified the following judicial exceptions in the claims:
Claim 1 recites:
receiving a plurality of process values when the crystal ingot cutting machine uses a cutting wire to cut a crystal ingot, wherein the process values comprise a plurality of tension values measured, by the at least one tension sensor of the crystal ingot cutting machine, from the cutting wire;
dividing the process values into N groups, and determining a statistical property of each of the groups, wherein N in a positive integer;
identifying at least one outlier value in the process values based on the statistical property of each of the groups, or determining a statistical property variation corresponding to each of the groups based on the statistical property of each of the groups;
and providing a wire breakage warning associated with the cutting wire in response to determining that the at least one outlier value in the process values meets a first warning condition, or the statistical property variation corresponding to each of the groups meets a second warning condition.
These claim limitations are abstract ideas of mathematical concepts, as discussed in MPEP §§2016.04(a)(2)(I), and/or mental processes, as discussed in MPEP §2016.04(a)(2)(III). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the mental processes cover performance of the limitations in the mind, and/or with pen and paper, but for the implication of generic computer components that are used merely as a tool to implement the abstract ideas. That is, other than implying a processor, nothing in the claim precludes the mental process steps from practically being performed in the human mind. Additionally, the mere nominal implication of a generic processor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping.
Claim 1 therefore recites abstract ideas.
Claim 3 recites:
wherein the groups comprise an i-th group, i is an index value and 1 < i <N, the statistical property of each of the groups comprises a first quartile and a third quartile of the process values of each of the groups, and the step of identifying the at least one outlier value in the process values based on the statistical property of each of the groups comprises:
determining a first outlier threshold value corresponding to the i-th group based on the first quartile and the third quartile corresponding to the i-th group;
in response to determining that there is at least one in the process values of the i-th group exceeding the first outlier threshold value, determining the at least one as the at least one outlier value corresponding to the i-th group;
in response to determining that none of the process values of the i-th group exceeds the first outlier threshold value, determining that the i-th group does not have the corresponding at least one outlier value.
These claim limitations are abstract ideas of mathematical concepts, as discussed in MPEP §§2016.04(a)(2)(I), and/or mental processes, as discussed in MPEP §2016.04(a)(2)(III). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the mental processes cover performance of the limitations in the mind, and/or with pen and paper, but for the implication of generic computer components that are used merely as a tool to implement the abstract ideas. That is, other than implying a processor, nothing in the claim precludes the mental process steps from practically being performed in the human mind. Additionally, the mere nominal implication of a generic processor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping.
Claim 3 therefore recites abstract ideas.
Claim 4 recites:
wherein the step of determining the first outlier threshold value corresponding to the i-th group based on the first quartile and the third quartile corresponding to the i-th group comprises:
obtaining a difference between the first quartile and the third quartile corresponding to the i-th group, and determining a first factor;
obtaining a first product of the difference and the first factor, and summing the first product with the third quartile corresponding to the i-th group as the first outlier threshold value.
These claim limitations are abstract ideas of mathematical concepts, as discussed in MPEP §§2016.04(a)(2)(I), and/or mental processes, as discussed in MPEP §2016.04(a)(2)(III). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the mental processes cover performance of the limitations in the mind, and/or with pen and paper, but for the implication of generic computer components that are used merely as a tool to implement the abstract ideas. That is, other than implying a processor, nothing in the claim precludes the mental process steps from practically being performed in the human mind. Additionally, the mere nominal implication of a generic processor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping.
Claim 4 therefore recites abstract ideas.
Claim 5 recites:
wherein the first factor is between 0.1 and 2, or between 2 and 5.
These claim limitations are abstract ideas of mathematical concepts, as discussed in MPEP §§2016.04(a)(2)(I), and/or mental processes, as discussed in MPEP §2016.04(a)(2)(III). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the mental processes cover performance of the limitations in the mind, and/or with pen and paper, but for the implication of generic computer components that are used merely as a tool to implement the abstract ideas. That is, other than implying a processor, nothing in the claim precludes the mental process steps from practically being performed in the human mind. Additionally, the mere nominal implication of a generic processor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping.
Claim 5 therefore recites abstract ideas.
Claim 6 recites:
determining a plurality of first group sets in the groups, wherein each of the first group sets comprises consecutive k groups in the groups, wherein k is an integer and 1k<_N;
in response to determining that a number sum of the at least one outlier value corresponding to the groups in any of the first group sets is not less than a first number, determining that the at least one outlier value in the process values meets the first warning condition;
in response to determining that the number sum of the at least one outlier value corresponding to the groups in any of the first group sets is less than the first number, determining that the at least one outlier value in the process values does not meet the first warning condition.
These claim limitations are abstract ideas of mathematical concepts, as discussed in MPEP §§2016.04(a)(2)(I), and/or mental processes, as discussed in MPEP §2016.04(a)(2)(III). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the mental processes cover performance of the limitations in the mind, and/or with pen and paper, but for the implication of generic computer components that are used merely as a tool to implement the abstract ideas. That is, other than implying a processor, nothing in the claim precludes the mental process steps from practically being performed in the human mind. Additionally, the mere nominal implication of a generic processor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping.
Claim 6 therefore recites abstract ideas.
Claim 7 recites:
wherein the groups comprise a j-th group and a (j+1)-th group, j is an index value and 1 < j < N, and the step of determining a statistical property variation corresponding to each of the groups based on the statistical property of each of the groups comprises:
obtaining a difference between the statistical property of the (j+1)-th group and the statistical property of the j-th group as the statistical property variation corresponding to the (j+1)-th group.
These claim limitations are abstract ideas of mathematical concepts, as discussed in MPEP §§2016.04(a)(2)(I), and/or mental processes, as discussed in MPEP §2016.04(a)(2)(III). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the mental processes cover performance of the limitations in the mind, and/or with pen and paper, but for the implication of generic computer components that are used merely as a tool to implement the abstract ideas. That is, other than implying a processor, nothing in the claim precludes the mental process steps from practically being performed in the human mind. Additionally, the mere nominal implication of a generic processor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping.
Claim 7 therefore recites abstract ideas.
Claim 8 recites:
determining a plurality of second group sets in the groups, wherein each of the second group sets comprises consecutive p groups in the groups, wherein p is an integer and 1 <p<N;
in response to determining that the statistical property variation of each of the groups in any of the second group sets is within a predetermined range, determining that the statistical property variation corresponding to each of the groups meets the second warning condition;
in response to determining that the statistical property variation of each of the groups in each of the second group sets is not within the predetermined range, determining that the statistical property variation corresponding to each of the groups does not meet the second warning condition.
These claim limitations are abstract ideas of mathematical concepts, as discussed in MPEP §§2016.04(a)(2)(I), and/or mental processes, as discussed in MPEP §2016.04(a)(2)(III). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the mental processes cover performance of the limitations in the mind, and/or with pen and paper, but for the implication of generic computer components that are used merely as a tool to implement the abstract ideas. That is, other than implying a processor, nothing in the claim precludes the mental process steps from practically being performed in the human mind. Additionally, the mere nominal implication of a generic processor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping.
Claim 8 therefore recites abstract ideas.
Claim 9 recites:
wherein the statistical property of each of the groups comprises a third quartile of the process values of each of the groups.
These claim limitations are abstract ideas of mathematical concepts, as discussed in MPEP §§2016.04(a)(2)(I), and/or mental processes, as discussed in MPEP §2016.04(a)(2)(III). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the mental processes cover performance of the limitations in the mind, and/or with pen and paper, but for the implication of generic computer components that are used merely as a tool to implement the abstract ideas. That is, other than implying a processor, nothing in the claim precludes the mental process steps from practically being performed in the human mind. Additionally, the mere nominal implication of a generic processor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping.
Claim 9 therefore recites abstract ideas.
Claim 10 recites:
not providing the wire breakage warning associated with the cutting wire in response to determining that the at least one outlier value in the process values does not meet the first warning condition, and the statistical property variation corresponding to each of the groups does not meet the second warning condition.
These claim limitations are abstract ideas of mathematical concepts, as discussed in MPEP §§2016.04(a)(2)(I), and/or mental processes, as discussed in MPEP §2016.04(a)(2)(III). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the mental processes cover performance of the limitations in the mind, and/or with pen and paper, but for the implication of generic computer components that are used merely as a tool to implement the abstract ideas. That is, other than implying a processor, nothing in the claim precludes the mental process steps from practically being performed in the human mind. Additionally, the mere nominal implication of a generic processor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping.
Claim 10 therefore recites abstract ideas.
Claim 11 recites:
receiving, a plurality of process values when the crystal ingot cutting machine uses a cutting wire to cut a crystal ingot, wherein the process values comprise a plurality of tension values measured, by the at least one tension sensor of the crystal ingot cutting machine, from the cutting wire;
dividing the process values into N groups, and determining a statistical property of each of the groups, wherein N in a positive integer;
identifying at least one outlier value in the process values based on the statistical property of each of the groups, or determining a statistical property variation corresponding to each of the groups based on the statistical property of each of the groups;
and providing a wire breakage warning associated with the cutting wire in response to determining that the at least one outlier value in the process values meets a first warning condition, or the statistical property variation corresponding to each of the groups meets a second warning condition.
These claim limitations are abstract ideas of mathematical concepts, as discussed in MPEP §§2016.04(a)(2)(I), and/or mental processes, as discussed in MPEP §2016.04(a)(2)(III). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the mental processes cover performance of the limitations in the mind, and/or with pen and paper, but for the implication of generic computer components that are used merely as a tool to implement the abstract ideas. That is, other than implying a processor, nothing in the claim precludes the mental process steps from practically being performed in the human mind. Additionally, the mere nominal implication of a generic processor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping.
Claim 11 therefore recites abstract ideas.
Step 2A Prong Two
Step 2A Prong Two of the 2019 PEG asks whether a claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claims 1 recites the additional elements of:
a device integrated into a crystal ingot cutting machine;
at least one tension sensor of the crystal ingot cutting machine;
a processor of the device integrated into a crystal ingot cutting machine.
The processor is nothing more than a generic computer performing generic computer functions to implement the abstract ideas on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. Accordingly, the additional elements of a processor and storage circuit do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The additional elements of the crystal ingot cutting machine and tension sensor merely represent the extra-solution activity of data gathering that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exceptions, and therefore represent insignificant extra-solution activity, as set forth in MPEP §2106.05(g). Additionally, the crystal ingot cutting machine and tension sensor are merely an attempt to generally link the abstract ideas to a particular technological environment or field of use, as set forth in MPEP §2106.05(h). Finally, whether considered individually or in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application under any of the indicia set forth in MPEP § 2106.04(d).
Whether considered individually, or as an ordered combination with other claim elements, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application under any of the indicia set forth in MPEP § 2106.04(d), or improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field as set forth in MPEP § 2106.05(a).
Therefore, claim 1 is directed to the judicial exception of abstract ideas.
Claims 3-10 recite no further additional elements than those recited in claim 1, and claims 3-10 are therefore also directed to the judicial exception of abstract ideas.
Claim 11 recites the additional elements of:
a crystal ingot cutting machine;
a storage circuit storing a program code; and
a processor coupled to the storage circuit and accessing the program code to execute; and
a tension sensor of the crystal ingot cutting machine.
The processor and storage circuit are apparently nothing more than a generic computer performing generic computer functions to implement the abstract ideas on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. Accordingly, the additional elements of a processor and storage circuit do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The additional elements of the crystal ingot cutting machine and tension sensor merely represent the extra-solution activity of data gathering that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exceptions, and therefore represent insignificant extra-solution activity, as set forth in MPEP §2106.05(g). Additionally, the crystal ingot cutting machine and tension sensor are merely an attempt to generally link the abstract ideas to a particular technological environment or field of use, as set forth in MPEP §2106.05(h). Finally, whether considered individually or in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application under any of the indicia set forth in MPEP § 2106.04(d).
Whether considered individually, or as an ordered combination with other claim elements, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application under any of the indicia set forth in MPEP § 2106.04(d), or improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field as set forth in MPEP § 2106.05(a).
Therefore, claim 11 is directed to the judicial exception of abstract ideas.
Step 2B
Step 2B of the 2019 PEG asks whether the claim provide an inventive concept, i.e., whether the claim recites additional element(s) or a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim.
Regarding claims 1 and 3-10, as discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element of the processor amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A, or provide an inventive concept to make the claim amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions in Step 2B.
The crystal ingot cutting machine and tension sensor merely represent the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering necessary to perform the abstract ideas, and are recited at a high level of generality, and therefore fail to provide an inventive concept, as set forth in MPEP § 2106.05(g). Additionally, these additional elements are merely an attempt to generally link the abstract ideas to a particular technological environment or field of use, as set forth in MPEP §2106.05(h). Finally, the crystal ingot cutting machine, including a wire tension sensor, are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art (Kim et al., KR 101448697 B1: “In this embodiment, a tension measuring device (20) is installed to measure the tension of the wire (13) running between a plurality of main rollers (11, 12) in order to monitor the increase in tension of the wire (13) due to such first heat wear,” ¶ 0039), and therefore fail to provide an inventive concept, as set forth in MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Whether considered individually, or as an ordered combination with other claim elements, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept that makes the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas.
Therefore, there are no inventive concepts in claims 1 and 3-10, and claims 1 and 3-10 are therefore ineligible as being directed to judicial exceptions of abstract ideas.
Regarding claim 11, as discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements of the processor and storage circuit amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A, or provide an inventive concept to make the claim amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions in Step 2B.
The crystal ingot cutting machine and tension sensor merely represent the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering necessary to perform the abstract ideas, and are recited at a high level of generality, and therefore fail to provide an inventive concept, as set forth in MPEP § 2106.05(g). Additionally, these additional elements are merely an attempt to generally link the abstract ideas to a particular technological environment or field of use, as set forth in MPEP §2106.05(h). Finally, the crystal ingot cutting machine, including a wire tension sensor, are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art (Kim et al., KR 101448697 B1: “In this embodiment, a tension measuring device (20) is installed to measure the tension of the wire (13) running between a plurality of main rollers (11, 12) in order to monitor the increase in tension of the wire (13) due to such first heat wear,” ¶ 0039), and therefore fail to provide an inventive concept, as set forth in MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Whether considered individually, or as an ordered combination with other claim elements, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept that makes the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas.
For these reasons, there are no inventive concepts in claim 11, and claim 11 is therefore ineligible as being directed to judicial exceptions of abstract ideas.
Conclusion
Applicant should note that while claims 1 and 3-11 are not rejected under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 or 103, claims 1 and 3-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, and are not otherwise patentable.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEO T HINZE whose telephone number is (571)272-2864. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-2.
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, Stephen Meier can be reached on (571)272-2149. 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.
/LEO T HINZE/
Patent Examiner
AU 2853
08 October 2025
/STEPHEN D MEIER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853