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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/17/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Rejections under 35 USC§ 101:
The amendments do not overcome the rejections under 35 USC§ 101. The amended limitations are addressed in detail herein below.
Rejections under 35 USC§ 103:
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 10, and 15 have been considered and are persuasive.
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. Claim 15 recite " issuing a warning signal or output when the intensity of the signal is greater than a threshold''. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed invention is to acquire data and perform mathematical analysis on said data. As a result of that broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitations amount 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 USPQ 2d 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 a 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 to the analysis. 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 data is measured; instead, the claim merely analyzes data by comparing a signal intensity to a threshold and makes a decision to issue a warning. Without any meaningfully claimed limitation as to how the data is measured, 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.
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
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.
/CHRISTINA I XING/ Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/Kara E. Geisel/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877