DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
2. 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.
3. Claims 1, 9 and 2-8 (by virtue of their dependency to claim 1) recite the limitation “a measurement unit” which have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because they use a generic placeholder, such as “a measurement unit”, coupled with functional language but without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claims 1-9 have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 101 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
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.
5. Claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under the 2019 PEG (now been incorporated into MPEP 2106), the revised procedure for determining whether a claim is "directed to" a judicial exception requires a two-prong inquiry into whether the claim recites: (1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human interactions such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes); and (2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h)).
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look to whether the claim: (3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not "well-understood, routine, conventional" in the field (see MPEP § 2106.0S(d)); or (4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Claims 1-22 are directed to an abstract idea of principal components analysis (PCA) dimensionality reduction.
Specifically, representative claim 1 recites:
A system, comprising:
an input for accepting an input signal from a Device Under Test (DUT);
a measurement unit for generating first measurement data and second measurement data from the input signal; and
one or more processors configured to:
(S1) derive at least one principal component from the first and second measurement data using principal component analysis, and
(S2) remap the first measurement data and the second measurement data to a principal component domain derived from the at least one principal component.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
The highlighted portion of the claim constitutes an abstract idea under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance and the additional elements are NOT sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions, as analyzed below:
Step
Analysis
1. Statutory Category ?
Yes.
System
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes.
See the bolded portion as listed above.
Under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), each and the combination of the limitations S1 and S2 encompasses mathematical concepts, namely a series of calculations leading to one or more numerical results or answers, which also encompasses mental processes, i.e. data manipulation, evaluation and judgment, that can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. Note, the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. See CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). See also to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).III
Nothing in the bolded portion precludes the limitations S1 and S2 from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of paper/pen by employing mathematical relationships to manipulate existing information for practicing the abstract idea.
Therefore, the bolded portion of instant claim 1, reciting a series of mathematical concepts and mental process, amounts to an abstract idea falling within a combination of the “Mental Process” and “Mathematical Concepts” groupings of Abstract Ideas defined by the 2019 PEG.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No.
Under its BRI, each or the combination of the limitations of “an input for accepting an input signal from a Device Under Test (DUT)” and “a measurement unit for generating first measurement data and second measurement data from the input signal” encompasses a process of gathering the data/information necessary for performing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(3): … that were described as mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea. See also Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 13863, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering).
The claim does not require any particular devices or sensors to generate the “input signal” from the DUT. Thus claim 1 would monopolize the abstract idea across a wide range of applications.
The claim recites the limitation “one or more processors configured to …” at a high level of generality. That is, other than reciting “one or more processors” nothing in the claim element precludes the identified abstract idea from practically being performed in the mind. It has been held that the mere nominal recitation of a generic processor does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
The claim as a whole does not meet any of the following criteria to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
An additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to affect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Various considerations are used to determine whether the additional elements are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. However, in all of these respects, the claim fails to recite additional elements which might possibly integrate the claim into a particular practical application. At most, it only generally links the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(2).
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two above, none of the claimed additional elements is considered to be qualified for a significant or meaningful limitation and/or an “inventive concept”, because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The recited additional limitations amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using well-known/conventional techniques. See the prior art cited in sections 8-11 below in this Office Action.
The claim is therefore ineligible under 35 USC 101.
The dependent claims 2-9 inherit attributes of the independent claim 1, but does not add anything which would render the claimed invention a patent eligible application of the abstract idea. The claim merely extends (or narrows) the abstract idea which does not amount for "significant more" because it merely adds details to the algorithm which forms the abstract idea as discussed above.
Claims 10-22 are ineligible under 35 USC § 101 for the same reason as for claims 1-9 set forth above.
Double Patenting
6. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
7. Claims 1, 7-8, 10, 16-17, 19 and 21-22 are provisionally rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 9 and 16 of copending Application No. 18211410, and in view of Chen et al. (CN 111338897 A, machine translation).
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter of claims 1, 7-8, 10, 16-17, 19 and 21-22 of the present application (hereinafter ‘110) has been fully taught by claims 1, 9 and 16
of the copending Application No. 18211410 (hereinafter ‘410) in view of Chen, as shown below:
‘110 (present application)
‘410 (copending application)
1. A system, comprising: an input for accepting an input signal from a Device Under Test (DUT); a measurement unit for generating first measurement data and second measurement data from the input signal; and one or more processors configured to:
derive at least one principal component from the first and second measurement data using principal component analysis, and
remap the first measurement data and the second measurement data to a principal component domain derived from the at least one principal component.
1. A system, comprising: an input for accepting a dataset including at least two sets of data in a dataset domain; and one or more processors configured to:
derive at least two principal components from the dataset using principal component analysis, the at least two principal components being orthogonal to one another,
map the dataset to a principal component domain derived from the at least two principal components, generate additional data in the principal component domain, and remap the additional data in the principal component domain back to the dataset domain as a newly generated dataset.
7. The system according to claim 1, in which the one or more processors are further configured to:
remap the first measurement data and the second measurement data from the principal component domain back to a measurement domain using information from only a single principal component.
1. A system, comprising: an input for accepting a dataset including at least two sets of data in a dataset domain; and one or more processors configured to: derive at least two principal components from the dataset using principal component analysis, the at least two principal components being orthogonal to one another, map the dataset to a principal component domain derived from the at least two principal components, generate additional data in the principal component domain, and
remap the additional data in the principal component domain back to the dataset domain as a newly generated dataset.
8. The system according to claim 1, in which the one or more processors are further configured to:
remap the first measurement data and the second measurement data from the principal component domain back to a measurement domain using information from less than all of the components in the principal component domain.
1. A system, comprising: an input for accepting a dataset including at least two sets of data in a dataset domain; and one or more processors configured to: derive at least two principal components from the dataset using principal component analysis, the at least two principal components being orthogonal to one another, map the dataset to a principal component domain derived from the at least two principal components, generate additional data in the principal component domain, and
remap the additional data in the principal component domain back to the dataset domain as a newly generated dataset.
A literal comparison between claims 1, 7 and 8 of ‘110 with claim 1 of ‘410 indicates that the conflicting claims are not patentably distinct from each other except the limitations discussed as follows:
Claim 1 of ‘110 recite that said input signal is from a Device Under Test (DUT), claim 1 of ‘410 does not cover this feature.
However, Chen teaches an input (e.g., 105 in Fig. 1) for accepting an input signal from a Device Under Test (e.g., 101/102/103 in Fig. 1).
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 claimed in ‘410 to acquire the input signal from a Device Under Test as taught by Chen, in order to monitor and check the performance of the Device Under Test using the PCA techniques as claimed. The mere application of a known invention to a specific instance by those skilled in the art would have been obvious.
Claims 7 and 8 of ‘110 recite: said remap the first measurement data and the second measurement data from the principal component domain back to a measurement domain uses information from only a single principal component and/or information from less than all of the components in the principal component domain; Claim 1 of ‘410 does not cover these features.
However, Chen teaches the features in question (see discussion form claims 7 and 8 set forth in sections 10-11 below in this Office Action.
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 claimed in ‘410 in view of Chen to remap the first measurement data and the second measurement data from the principal component domain back to the original dataset domain as a reconstructed dataset which is less biased by errors in the data as taught by Chen (para. 0067). Doing so would allow for reducing the interference of the noise in the data, which improves the identification efficiency and accuracy (Chen, Abstract).
Claims 10, 16-17, 19 and 21-22 are provisionally rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting for the same reasons as for claims 1, 7 and 8 set forth above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
8. 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; or
(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.
9. Claims 1-6, 9-15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by TAKATS et al. (US 20180057852 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 10, TAKATS discloses a system and a method for practicing the system, the system comprises: an input (e.g., 106/108 in Fig. 10A) for accepting an input signal (para. 0164) from a Device Under Test (DUT) (e.g., 107 in Fig. 10A); a measurement unit (e.g., the REIMS device) for generating first measurement data and second measurement data (para. 0394: “a set of three sample peak-intensity values” read on the claimed first measurement data and second measurement data) from the input signal (para. 0024, 0116, 0164-0169, 0394-0395); and one or more processors (para. 0841-0843; see also claim 230: “a processor adapted to analyse said spectrometric data”) configured to: derive at least one principal component from the first and second measurement data using principal component analysis (para. 0395-0396), and remap (i.e., project) the first measurement data and the second measurement data to a principal component domain derived from the at least one principal component (para. 0392: “a step 2104 of projecting the set of intensity values for the sample spectrum into PCA-LDA model space”; see also para. 0397-0398).
Regarding claim 19, TAKATS discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing one or more instructions, which, when executed by one or more processors of a computing device (para. 0841), cause the computing device to: receive an input signal from a Device Under Test (para. 0164); generate N sets of measurement data from the input signal (para. para. 0024, 0116, 0164-0169, 0394-0395); derive M principal components from the N sets of measurement data using principal component analysis, where M is a range [1, N] (para. 0373, 0377; Note with the broadest reasonable interpretation to the claim, the plain meaning of “M is a range [1, N]” encompasses: 1 <= M <= N, i.e., M is any integer from 1 to N); and remap the first measurement data and the second measurement data to a principal component domain derived from the M principal components (para. 0392: “a step 2104 of projecting the set of intensity values for the sample spectrum into PCA-LDA model space”; see also para. 0397-0398).
Regarding claims 2-4, 11-13 and 20, TAKATS discloses: the system according to claim 1, in which the one or more processors are further configured to perform statistical analysis on the remapped data (para. 0398, 0401-0414); wherein the statistical analysis comprises mean and standard deviation analysis (para. 0412-0414); wherein the one or more processors are further configured to show a result of the statistical analysis on an output display (para. 0110, 0416, 0698, 0842-0843, 0863).
Regarding claims 5 and 14, TAKATS discloses: the system according to claim 1, in which the one or more processors are further configured to generate a plot from the remapped data and show the plot on an output display (para. 0110, 0416, 0698, 0842-0843, 0863).
Regarding claims 6 and 15, TAKATS discloses: the system according to claim 5, in which the plot is a histogram, a time-trend plot, or a spectrum display (para. 0350, 0698, 0708).
Regarding claims 9 and 18, TAKATS discloses: the system according to claim 1, in which N sets of measurement data are generated by the measurement unit, and in which the one or more processors are configured to derive M principal components from the N sets of measurement data, where M is a range [1, N] (para. 0373, 0377; Note with the broadest reasonable interpretation to the claim, the plain meaning of “M is a range [1, N]” encompasses: 1 <= M <= N, i.e., M is any integer from 1 to N).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. 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 of this title, 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.
11. Claims 7-8, 16-17 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TAKATS et al. in view of Chen et al. (CN 111338897 A, machine translation).
Regarding claims 7, 16 and 21, TAKATS does not mention explicitly: the system according to claim 1, in which the one or more processors are further configured to: remap the first measurement data and the second measurement data from the principal component domain back to a measurement domain using information from only a single principal component.
Chen teaches a PCA dimensionality reduction algorithm comprising: acquiring a set of measurement data (para. 0010); deriving at least one principal component from the set of measurement data using principal component analysis, and remapping the set of measurement data into a principal component domain derived from the at least one principal component (para. 0010, 0042, 0058, 0064, 0066); and remapping the set of measurement data from the principal component domain back to a measurement domain using information from only a single principal component (para. 0067: “ … and then pull the projection back to the original space. … if only the first principal component is used for projection and reconstruction, the error after reconstruction is small for most data”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify TAKATS in view of Chen to remap the first measurement data and the second measurement data from the principal component domain back to the original dataset domain as a reconstructed dataset which is less biased by errors in the data as taught by Chen (para. 0067). Doing so would allow for reducing the interference of the noise in the data, which improves the identification efficiency and accuracy (Chen, Abstract).
Regarding claims 8, 17 and 22, TAKATS does not mention explicitly: the system according to claim 1, in which the one or more processors are further configured to: remap the first measurement data and the second measurement data from the principal component domain back to a measurement domain using information from less than all of the components in the principal component domain.
Chen teaches a PCA dimensionality reduction algorithm comprising: remapping the set of measurement data from the principal component domain back to a measurement domain using information from less than all of the components in the principal component domain (para. 0067).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify TAKATS in view of Chen to remap the first measurement data and the second measurement data from the principal component domain back to the original dataset domain as a reconstructed dataset which is less biased by errors in the data as taught by Chen (para. 0067). Doing so would allow for reducing the interference of the noise in the data, which improves the identification efficiency and accuracy (Chen, Abstract).
Contact Information
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIUQIN SUN whose telephone number is (571)272-2280. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am-6:00pm.
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 on (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.
/X.S/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/SHELBY A TURNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857