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 11/21/25 in view of amending claims 1 and 8 to not invoke 112(f), have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, the interpretation under 112(f) is not a rejection, and any language in a claim referring to a non-structural generic placeholders would invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) such as: "mechanism for," "module for," "device for," "unit for," "component for," "element for," "member for," "apparatus for," "machine for," or "system for" (See MPEP 2181(I)(A)). When it is unclear what structure is Applicant referring to and the Examiner must refer to the Applicant’s disclosure to determine the structure, the claimed structure is considered a generic place holder. In the event Applicant would like to not invoke 112(f) interpretation of claim 1 in view of the imaging device of the claim, Applicant may resort to further amend the claim to replace the “imaging device” with either a –camera-- or --image sensor--. Applicant my further amend claim 8 to include either a processor or circuitry to perform the functions of the claim.
Claim Interpretation
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “image acquisition device . . .for acquiring. . .” in claim 1; “a control unit, receiving an arriving signal . . .”; “a recognition unit, performing feature recognition. . .”; “a first generation unit, generating a mover arriving. . .”; and “a second generation unit, generating a calibration signal . . .” in claim 8.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
35 U.S.C. 101 requires that a claimed invention must fall within one of the four eligible categories of invention (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) and must not be directed to subject matter encompassing a judicially recognized exception as interpreted by the courts. MPEP 2106. Three categories of subject matter are found to be judicially recognized exceptions to 35 U.S.C. § 101 (i.e. patent ineligible) (1) laws of nature, (2) physical phenomena, and (3) abstract ideas. MPEP 2106(II). To be patent-eligible, a claim directed to a judicial exception must as whole be directed to significantly more than the exception itself. See 2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, 79 Fed. Reg. 74618, 74624 (Dec. 16, 2014). Hence, the claim must describe a process or product that applies the exception in a meaningful way, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Id
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 1 is directed to receiving an arriving signal of a mover, controlling, in response to the signal, an image acquisition device to acquire an image of the mover, performing feature recognition on the image of the mover, and acquiring an actual coordinate position of a preset feature image area, and generating a mover-arriving detection result, without additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Specifically, the steps of “performing feature recognition on the image of the mover, and acquiring an actual coordinate position of a preset feature image area in the image of the mover”; “generating a mover-arriving detection result”; and “generating a calibration signal” are abstract ideas. They steps refer to mental process of visually recognizing a feature in an image and designating a position within the image, inherently including a coordinate, and by mental process of generating as result, as an outcome, of the designation of coordinate observation analysis. Claims do recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A). An example of claims that recite mental processes include: a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Therefore, claim 1 meets step 2A, prong 1.
Claim 8 is further evaluated in step 2A, prong two, for complying the guidelines for the purposes of practical application determination for additional elements in the claim that integrate the judicial exception into an improvement in the art. The "improvements" analysis in Step 2A determines whether the claim pertains to an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology without reference to what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. That is, the claimed invention may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by demonstrating that it improves the relevant existing technology although it may not be an improvement over well-understood, routine, conventional activity. In the instant case, the claim further additional elements i.e. receiving an arrival signal at a station and controlling an image acquisition device based on the received signal, to acquire an image. Simply detecting a signal prior to controlling an image acquisition device to capture and image, and generating a signal alone as calibration, do not add to the operating of machines or computer performance technology since these signal detections and actions are considered well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1)). Therefore, the claim fails step 2A, prong two for improving the functioning of a computer or to another technology.
The claim is further examined for eligibility under step 2B to determine whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.05). Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application recites significantly more in Step 2B is whether the additional elements add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The Supreme Court has explained that the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. The Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. In the instance case, the step of receiving certain signal as data to capture an image is referring to an insignificant pre-solution activity of gathering data, and generating based on a detection, a calibration signal is considered an insignificant post solution activity. Therefore, the claim fails step 2B as well and hence the claim is not eligible under 101. The claim further requires “units” for the performing the functions outlined above however, claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C). The Court concluded that the algorithm could be performed purely mentally even though the claimed procedures "can be carried out in existing computers long in use, no new machinery being necessary.". In the instant case, the recognition and the first generation units of the claim, as disclosed, recite nothing more than recognition and generation by mental process using a generic computer to do so. Therefore, claim 8 is not eligible under 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5, 7 and 9 are allowed. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art or the prior art of record specifically, US 2022/0363499 A1 to Abe, does not disclose:
. . . in response to receiving an arriving signal for a mover corresponding to a preset detection station, controlling an image acquisition device disposed above the detection station to acquire an image of the mover; performing feature recognition on the image of the mover, and acquiring an actual coordinate position of a preset feature image area in the image of the mover; generating a mover-arriving detection result based on the actual coordinate position; and generating a calibration signal for the position of the mover based on the mover-arriving detection result, . . . . . .
. . . . . generating an arriving and detection control signal according to the detection station identification information corresponding to them over identification information, wherein the arriving and detection control signal is configured to control each mover of the movers to be detected to move to a respective detection station, of claims 1 and 9 combined with other features and elements of the claim;
Claims 2-5 and 7 depend from an allowable base claim and are thus allowable themselves.
Claim 8 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C 101, set forth in this Office action. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art or the prior art of record specifically, US 20220363499 A1 to Abe, does not disclose:
. . . in response to receiving an arriving signal for a mover corresponding to a preset detection station, controlling an image acquisition device disposed above the detection station to acquire an image of the mover; performing feature recognition on the image of the mover, and acquiring an actual coordinate position of a preset feature image area in the image of the mover; generating a mover-arriving detection result based on the actual coordinate position; and generating a calibration signal for the position of the mover based on the mover-arriving detection result, of claim 8 combined with other features and elements of the claim.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHERVIN K NAKHJAVAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5731. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-05:00 PST.
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, Sue Lefkowitz can be reached at (571)272-3638. 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.
/SHERVIN K NAKHJAVAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2672