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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection under 35 USC 101, applicant argues on pages 7-11:
“The claims and specification solve the technical problems that were seen in conventional technologies. For example, claim 15 provides a technical advantage by enabling non-contact, in-situ, full-field, and quantitatively calibrated wear measurement of thin-film-coated burls through detector-acquired image processing at the pixel-intensity level, generation of a signal from extracted pixel intensity values, and comparison of that signal to a material-specific reference model that relates optical transmission to coating thickness and extinction factors to compute a wear area ratio and issue an automated warning (see, e.g., Specification at [0077]- [0079], [0089], [0090]-[0094], [0105]-[0107]), thereby overcoming conventional wear-measurement technologies such as white-light interferometry (sensitivity to coating optical parameters), AFM (insufficient field of view), SEM (inaccurate wear depth determination), TOF-SIMS (time-consuming), and profilometry (limited resolution), which require invasive, localized, or offline measurements and are unsuitable for efficient in-situ monitoring (Specification at [0070]-[0071])”.
While the examiner agrees that a claim is eligible under 35 USC 101 when there is an integrated practical application such that the claimed invention improves another technology, the examiner respectfully disagrees that the pending claims recite an improvement in the technology.
Applicant states that “claim 15 provides a technical advantage by enabling non-contact, in-situ, full-field, and quantitatively calibrated wear measurement of thin-film-coated burls through detector-acquired image processing at the pixel-intensity level, generation of a signal from extracted pixel intensity values, and comparison of that signal to a material-specific reference model that relates optical transmission to coating thickness and extinction factors to compute a wear area ratio and issue an automated warning”. While the examiner agrees with this statement, there does not appear to be any claimed nexus between the claimed limitations and any improvement to the technology, as the claim merely applies generic image acquisition and processing to perform mathematical calculations and data analysis.
Therefore the rejection under 35 USC 101 is maintained.
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.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 15, the claim recite “acquiring a reference model associated with one or more layers of a coating material disposed on a surface of a plurality of burls on a clamping interface; acquiring one or more images of the clamping interface with a detector; processing the one or more images to extract pixel intensity values corresponding to the coating material and to identify bright pixels based on the pixel intensity values; generating a signal based on the extracted pixel intensity values; comparing the signal associated to the reference model stored in a memory; determining a quantity of wear of a burl area of interest in the image data for a top surface of the clamping interface based on the comparing; and issuing a warning signal or output when the intensity of the signal is greater than a threshold”. As a result of the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed invention, providing different types of data and doing processing of that data amounts to a mental process that could be practically performed in the human mind. Such a process is considered an abstract idea in view of, for example, CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d, 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011), as the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper" to be an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because direct application of a judicial exception in a meaningful way beyond routine data gathering. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there are no positively recited steps are to how the image data is acquired; instead, the claim merely recites obtaining image data using a generic detector as an input to the recited image-processing. The additional limitations of processing the one or more images to extract pixel intensity values and identify bright pixels, generating a signal based on the extracted pixel intensity values, comparing the signal to the reference model, and determining a quantity of wear based on the comparison. These limitations merely analyze information and derive a result from the analyzed information. Further, the limitation of issuing a warning signal or output when the intensity of the signal is greater than a threshold merely communicates the result of the analysis and constitutes insignificant post-solution activity. The claim does not apply the judicial exception in a meaningful way beyond routine data gathering, data analysis, mathematical calculations, and outputting a result. Without any meaningfully claimed limitation as to how the data is gathered, it is not possible for the claimed abstract idea to be integrated into a judicial exception.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for similar reasons as set forth above as to why the claim is not integrated into a practical application. There do not appear to be any additional limitations in the claim other than the abstract idea of analyzing data and comparing it to a threshold. Since there are no additional limitations, it is not possible for the claim to include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 15, the claim further recite “wherein the quantity of wear comprises a wear area ratio defined by a ratio of an intensity of bright pixels to an intensity of all pixels in the one or more images.” As disclosed in the instant specification, the limitation recites a mathematical calculation because it determines a wear area ratio using a ratio of bright-pixel intensity to total-pixel intensity ([0092-0096]). In this light, in view of the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in view of the specification, the claim encompasses a series of mathematical calculations. This is considered an abstract idea in view of, for example, Digitech Image Techs, LLC v. Electronics/or Imaging, Inc., 758F.3d 1344, 111 USPQ2d 1717 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim is directed only to an abstract idea that, in the best understanding of the examiner, is performed on a generic processor and memory, as well as a detector configured to acquire image data, perform comparisons, and determine a wear quantity. Simply performing a series of mathematical equations on image data, determining a wear area ratio using a ratio of bright-pixel intensity to total-pixel intensity, in order to determine a quantity of wear, would not be an improvement in the functioning of the computer or any other technology, as merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea cannot serve to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and MPEP 2106.05(f). Without any additional meaningfully claimed limitations, such as limitations directed as to how the calculations improve the operation of image-processing system, it is not possible for the claimed abstract idea to be integrated into a practical application.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the only positively recited element is the generic processor, which the examiner associates with the processes of a computer. The use of a computer in its ordinary capacity for well understood tasks ( e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g. a mathematical equation or calculation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 2016) or Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015) along with MPEP 2106.05(f).
As a result, claim 15 is rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the 35 USC § 101 rejection set forth in this Office action.
Claims 1, 3-11, and 13-14 are allowed over the prior art of record.
Regarding claims 1 and 10, the prior arts of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious the claimed subject matter of the instant application as a whole either taken alone or in combination, in particular, prior art of record does not teach “a first side of the clamping interface comprises a plurality of burls and a layer of a coating material disposed on a surface of the plurality of burls, and wherein the quantity of wear comprises a wear area ratio defined by a ratio of an intensity of bright pixels to an intensity of all pixels in the image data” in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim.
Mihara et al. (JP H11118434 A) (hereinafter, “Mihara”) is the closet prior art to claim 1. Mihara discloses a method and system for in-line, non-contact, non-destructive measurement of layer thickness and layer weight of sheet-like materials, including multilayer plastics and coated metals, during continuous production. The method measures infrared light transmission at specific wavelengths (1.5-15 μm) where the transmittance of the target layer is <0.8 of the flat transmittance region, converting it to layer thickness using know absorption coefficients, and then deriving layer weight from thickness assuming known density. The measurement system includes an infrared source, spectral element, and light receiver arranged on a reciprocating frame.
Franke et al. (US Pub 2013/0231892 A1) discloses a non-contact optical metrology system for monitoring wear of industrial liners. It collects laser-scanner point-cloud data, aligns it to a reference coordinate system based on a CAD model or baseline scan, and calculates linear thickness or displacement as a quantitative wear metric.
Hayashi et al. (JP 2008139177 A) discloses a non-contact optical method for measuring the thickness of a film layer on a semiconductor wafer. The method irradiates the wafer with inspection light, detects transmitted light, and generates a signal representing a characteristic curve of intensity (or absorption) versus wavelength. This signal is then compared to reference data to calculate the thickness of the film layer.
However, the above prior arts fail to teach the limitations of claims 1 and 10. Specifically “a first side of the clamping interface comprises a plurality of burls and a layer of a coating material disposed on a surface of the plurality of burls, and wherein the quantity of wear comprises a wear area ratio defined by a ratio of an intensity of bright pixels to an intensity of all pixels in the image data ”.
Therefore, prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious the instant application claimed invention as a whole either taken alone or in combination.
Claims 3-9, 11, and 13-14 are dependent from claims 1 and 10 and therefore are also included in the allowed subject matter.
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 CHRISTINA XING whose telephone number is (571)270-7743. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9AM - 5 PM.
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, Kara Geisel can be reached at 571-272-2416. 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.
/C.X./Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/Kara E. Geisel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights