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 07/10/2026, with respect to claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Beginning on page 8, Applicant states that the previous Office Action's mental process characterization rested on treating the matrix correction and weight percentage generation language as merely descriptive and not positively recited. The Examiner acknowledges that the claims have been amended to overcome that interpretation.
Applicant then states that matrix correction cannot be considered mental steps or math because the claims solve the technical problem that conventional spectral libraries and comparison techniques cannot reliably characterize compositions with sparse or absent measured spectra, and that it is a specific technical architecture that changes how a material analysis system operates. This is not persuasive because the claim, as written, does not reflect involvement of spectral libraries and comparison techniques, nor does the claim reflect being strictly a material analysis system. The claim, as written, requires determining a known composition “based on” component weight percentage data and a target composition, generating two spectra using matrix correction, and finally generating a spectrum of a target composition “based on” the previous two spectrums. In other words, the claim recites using two spectra to make a third, which are considered mental steps and math, because the spectra are clearly represented as data in matrices that can be analyzed mentally, and matrix correction, a mathematical procedure, is used to generate the first two spectra.
On page 15, Applicant states that the processor and memory can no longer be considered generic as they perform the specific matrix correction based generation steps to address the technical problem stated, and therefore integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. This is not persuasive because the processor and memory are just used as tools to perform the math and mental steps, and as stated above the claim does not seem to clearly reflect the alleged solution to the problem of characterizing compositions without relying on physically measured or exhaustive library spectra.
Applicant’s arguments, beginning on page 16, filed 07/10/2026, with respect to claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 have been fully considered, along with amendments, and are persuasive, insofar that the cited prior art of record does not seem to fairly teach or suggest generating the synthesized spectrum of the known composition from weight percentage composition of components of the known composition using a matrix correction procedure, and
generating the first synthesized spectrum of the target composition from weight percentage composition of components of the target composition using the matrix correction procedure. More specifically, the cited Dasaratha reference teaches correcting the known and target spectra using a Savitzky-Golay filter, as opposed to generating the spectra using weight percentage composition and matrix correction. The rejections of claims 1-4 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 15-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the program instructions" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Due to this, it is not clear whether the "computer program product" should be interpreted as program instructions itself or as a computer readable medium as discussed in [0276] of the specification which describes the computer program product as including a CRM storing instructions thereon. To promote compact prosecution the Examiner will interpret the computer program product in light of [0276] of the specification.
Claims 16-20 are rejected for their dependence on claim 15.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-20 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.
Specifically, Claim 1 recites:
A system, comprising:
a memory that stores computer executable components; and
a processor that executes at least one of the computer executable components that:
determines, based on component weight percentage data, a known composition having a same component as a target composition; and
generates, for the target composition, a second synthesized spectrum of the target composition based on a synthesized spectrum of the known composition and on a first synthesized spectrum of the target composition, wherein the generating comprises:
generating the synthesized spectrum of the known composition having been generated from weight percentage composition of components of the known composition using a matrix correction procedure, and
generating the first synthesized spectrum of the target composition having been generated from weight percentage composition of components of the target composition using the matrix correction procedure.
While Claim 8 recites:
A computer-implemented method, comprising:
synthesizing, by a system operatively coupled to a processor, a revised synthesized spectrum of a target composition, the synthesizing comprising:
generating, by the system, an intermediary synthesized relationship being a relationship defining a per-energy-range delta of photon counts a synthesized spectrum of a known composition and a first synthesized spectrum of the target composition, wherein the generating comprises:
generating the synthesized spectrum of the known composition from component weight percentages of the known composition using a matrix correction procedure, and
generating the first synthesized spectrum of the target composition component weight percentages of the target composition using the matrix correction procedure;
aggregating, by the system, the intermediary synthesized relationship and a measured spectrum of the known composition by combining photon counts of corresponding energy ranges; and
generating, by the system, an aggregated synthesized spectrum based on the aggregating and being the revised synthesized spectrum of the target composition.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (machine).
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter when recited as such in a claim limitation, that covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) and mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion.
For example, in claim 1, the steps of “generating the synthesized spectrum of the known composition having been generated from weight percentage composition of components of the known composition using a matrix correction procedure (matrix correction of organized data, then plotting spectrum), and
generating the first synthesized spectrum of the target composition having been generated from weight percentage composition of components of the target composition using the matrix correction procedure (matrix correction of organized data, then plotting spectrum)” are treated by the Examiner as belonging to mathematical concept grouping, while the steps of “determines, based on component weight percentage data, a known composition having a same component as a target composition (determination based on information); and
generates, for the target composition, a second synthesized spectrum of the target composition based on a synthesized spectrum of the known composition and on a first synthesized spectrum of the target composition (make a third spectrum based on some combination or observation of the first two)” are treated by the Examiner as belonging to mental process grouping.
In claim 8, the step of “generating, by the system, an intermediary synthesized relationship being a relationship defining a per-energy-range delta of photon counts a synthesized spectrum of a known composition and a first synthesized spectrum of the target composition (determining a relationship based on subtraction), wherein the generating comprises:
generating the synthesized spectrum of the known composition having been generated from weight percentage composition of components of the known composition using a matrix correction procedure (matrix correction of organized data, then plotting spectrum), and
generating the first synthesized spectrum of the target composition having been generated from weight percentage composition of components of the target composition using the matrix correction procedure (matrix correction of organized data, then plotting spectrum); and
generating an aggregated synthesized spectrum based on the aggregating and being the revised synthesized spectrum of the target composition (addition of spectrum values)” is treated by the Examiner as belonging to mathematical concept grouping, while the steps of “synthesizing a revised synthesized spectrum of a target composition (build spectrum based on desired composition), comprising:
generating, by the system, an intermediary synthesized relationship being a relationship defining a per-energy-range delta of photon counts a synthesized spectrum of a known composition and a first synthesized spectrum of the target composition (determination of subtraction based relationship based on information); and
aggregating the intermediary synthesized relationship and a measured spectrum of the known composition (grouping/adding information); and
generating an aggregated synthesized spectrum based on the aggregating and being the revised synthesized spectrum of the target composition (performing the grouping/adding of information)” are treated as belonging to mental process grouping.
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claim 15.
Next, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
The above claims comprise the following additional elements:
Claim 1: a memory that stores computer executable components; and a processor that executes at least one of the computer executable components;
Claim 8: a processor;
Claim 15: a processor.
The additional elements of a memory (generic memory) and a processor (generic processor) are generally recited and are not qualified as particular machines.
In conclusion, the above additional elements, considered individually and in combination with the other claim elements do not reflect an improvement to other technology or technical field, and, therefore, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
However, the above claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B analysis).
The claims, therefore, are not patent eligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 provide additional features/steps which are part of an expanded algorithm, so these limitations should be considered part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims.
The Examiner notes that there are currently no prior art rejections for the reasons discussed above in the “Response to Arguments”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTIAN T BRYANT whose telephone number is (571)272-4194. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday and Alternate Fridays 7:00-4:30.
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, CATHERINE RASTOVSKI can be reached at (571) 270-0349. 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.
/CHRISTIAN T BRYANT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights