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 .
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 the abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the abstract idea of a mathematical concept of “evaluating a percentage of voids in a rubber material with a strain applied thereto based on…the following Equation (1)”. Furthermore, the equation itself appears to be a law of nature.
The claim contains the phrase “improving quantitative evaluation of the voids by determining the percentage of voids in a region outside an observable wavenumber region”, which is an attempt to encompass a purported improvement in the technology, but there is no additional element presented in this phrase. A step of “improving quantitative evaluation of voids” is already completed by the evaluation step previously claimed because “determining the percentage of voids” is exactly the same as “evaluating a percentage of voids”. This appear to be no more than an intended use or implied outcome.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the concept of the abstract idea itself is the only positively recited claim element.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there are no additional limitations beyond the use of the equation. The claim is solely directed towards the use of the stated equation, and as such, it is considered ineligible subject matter in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(B).
Considering claims 2-6, none of the additional limitations are positively recited steps of the method, and therefore, in this instance, do not add significantly more than the original claim limitations.
The general concept of small-angle X-ray scattering analysis on rubber to determine transmittance and intensity is known from the cited prior art and Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Without restating the entirety of the arguments presented above, the Examiner simply directs the Applicant to MPEP 2106.05(a), which reads “the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements”. Here, Applicant has merely reasserted, plainly, that the improvement to the technology arises by the determination/evaluation of the percentage of voids as claimed. There are no additional elements, and thus, the judicial exception/abstract idea, is not sufficient alone to provide the improvement.
Conclusion
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 Jonathan M Dunlap whose telephone number is (571)270-1335. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10AM - 7PM.
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571-272-2375. 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.
/JONATHAN M DUNLAP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855 August 8, 2025