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 .
Claims 1-2, 5, 9-12, 14-21 are pending in the application.
Examiner’s Note: The examiner has cited particular passages including column and line numbers, paragraphs as designated numerically and/or figures as designated numerically in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claims, other passages, paragraphs and figures of any and all cited prior art references may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing an eventual response, to fully consider the context of the passages, paragraphs and figures as taught by the prior art and/or cited by the examiner while including in such consideration the cited prior art references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention. MPEP 2141.02 VI: “PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS."
Response to Amendment and Arguments
Claims 4-5, 13-14 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101. Applicant has amended the independent claims 1, 11, 17 to include to subject matter of dependent claims 4 and 8. However, the applicant has not rewritten or amended the claims to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101.
The applicant’s arguments are not persuasive because the claims, when considered as a whole, remain directed to a mathematical concept and do not integrate the concept into a practical application under Step 2A Prong One and Two, nor recite significantly more under Step 2B.
Applicant’s amendment and arguments filed 04/222026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
The Examiner agrees that the claims fall within a statutory under Step 1 of the eligible analysis. However, the claims remain directed to a judicial exception and are not patent eligible for the reasons set forth below.
Step 2A, Prong One
Applicant acknowledges that the claims recite mathematical operations. The Examiner maintains that the claims recite a mathematical concept, namely, computing a statistical significance level by calculating a p-value through computing a solution to an equation derived from inverting an Agresti-Coull confidence interval, wherein the equation is a cubic polynomial or a non-linear equation and a root of the equation is computed using a point estimate and, in certain embodiments, a cumulative distribution function of a standard normal distribution.
Such limitations recite mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas, mathematical calculations, and mathematical algorithms, which constitute a mathematical concept and therefore an abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Accordingly, the claims recite a judicial exception.
Step 2A, Prong Two
Applicant argues that the claims are integrated into a practical application because they utilize a sensor array to test items for detects and are applied in manufacturing environment. The argument is not persuasive.
The additional elements beyond the recited mathematic concept include:
(1) testing, using a sensor array, a batch of items for defects;
(2) obtaining from the sensor array a number of defective items; and
(3) characterizing the batch as a sample from a population.
These limitations merely gather data to use as inputs to the recited mathematical calculations. Data gathering activities performed before a mathematical analysis do not integrate the exception into a practical application. See MPEP §2106.05(g).
The claims do not recite any additional technological operation performed on the tested items, any modification of the manufacturing process, any control of manufacturing equipment, any automatic rejection or acceptance of products, or any physical transformation resulting from the computed p-value. Rather, after obtaining defect counts from the sensor array, merely calculate a statistical significant level.
The recited sensor array is used only a s a source of data. The mathematical calculations themselves are not tied to any improvement in the operation of the sensor array, nor do the claim recite any improvement in sensor technology, data acquisition technology, processor functionality, or computer technology.
Applicant’s assertion that the claimed framework produces consistent decision thresholds and reproducible outcomes is likewise not persuasive. The alleged improvement resides in the mathematical technique itself, namely, the particular manner in which the p-value is calculated. Improvements to a mathematical model, statistical method, or algorithm are improvements to the abstract idea itself and do not constitute integration into a practical application. See SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2018); Digitech Image Technologies, LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Furthermore, although Applicant characterizes the claims as solving a manufacturing problem, the claims do not recite any specific manufacturing action based on the computed significance level. The manufacturing environment merely provides the context in which the mathematical calculations are performed. Limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not integrate the exception into a practical application. See MPEP §2106.05(h).
Applicant further argues that the limitations requiring inversion of an Agresti-Coull confidence interval and solving a cubic polynomial or non-linear equation define a specific computational framework rather than a result-oriented outcome.
The Examiner agrees that these limitations narrow the claimed mathematical technique. However, a specific mathematical technique remains a mathematical concept. The recitation of a particular mathematical formular or algorithm does not convert the abstract idea into a practical application when the claim merely applies the formula to collected data and reports the result.
Accordingly, the claims do not integrate the recited mathematical concept into a practical application.
Step 2B
Applicant further argues that the claimed inversion of an Agresti-Coull confidence interval and associated equation-solving framework constitute an inventive concept.
The argument is not persuasive.
The inventive concept inquiry requires significantly more than the judicial exception itself. The additional elements beyond the mathematical concept are limited to a sensor array, obtaining defect counts, and generic processing operations. These elements perform the conventional functions of collecting data and supplying inputs to the mathematical calculations.
The alleged novelty identified by Applicant resides in the mathematical framework itself, specifically:
Inverting an Agresti-Coull confidence interval;
Deriving a cubic polynomial or non-linear equation;
Computing a root of the equation; and
Computing a p-value form that solution.
However, a novel or non-obvious mathematical algorithm does not supply an inventive concept because the inventive concept must be found in elements other than the judicial exception itself. See Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138 (Fed. Cir. 2016); SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
The claims do not recite any unconventional sensor technology, unconventional manufacturing equipment, unconventional computer architecture, or unconventional data acquisition mechanism. Instead, the sensor array merely provides defect information that is subsequently processed according to the claimed mathematical framework.
Therefore, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements amount to no more than applying a mathematical concept using generic data collection and processing components. Such limitations do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
In conclusion, the claims recite mathematical concept and merely apply that concept to defect data collected from a sensor array. The additional elements do not integrate the mathematical concept into a practical application and do not provide significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Accordingly, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §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.
Claims 1-2, 5, 9-11-12, 14-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claim 11 recites a system. Thus, the claim is to a machine, which are statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong one: the claim recites “a processor configured to: test, using the sensor array, a batch of items in a stage of a process for defects that meet a predefined defect criteria”. The limitation “test” a batch of item in a stage of a process for defects that meet a predefined defect criteria, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “test” in the context of this claim encompasses an observation and evaluation that an item is defected because the shape does not meet a predetermined specification.
The limitation “computing a statistical significance level of a difference between a proportion of defects in the stage of the process and a predefined proportion threshold by calculating a p-value of a statistical test about the proportion of the defects through computing a solution to an equation derived from inverting an Agresti-Coull confidence interval for the proportion of defects, wherein the equation is an underlying equation for computing the p-value and (a) wherein the equation is a cubic polynomial, and a root of the cubic polynomial is computed by computing a point estimate of an unknown population proportion or (b) wherein the equation is a non-linear equation, the root of the non-linear equation is computed by computing a point estimate of an unknown population proportion, and the root of the non-linear equation is further computed in terms of a cumulative distribution function of a standard normal distribution.” As evident from the specification, the limitation computing is a mathematical process for calculating a p-value by inverting an Agresti-Coull confidence interval, which involve volving mathematical equations (cubic polynomial or non-linear equation) related to a cumulative distribution function of a standard normal distribution. The Agresti-Coull method itself is a way to compute confidence intervals for binomial proportions. Thus, the limitation “computing” recites a concept that falls into the “Mathematical concept” group of abstract ideas. This limitation also falls into the “Mental process” group of abstract ideas, because the recited mathematical calculation is simple enough that it can be practically performed in the human mind with the help of pen and paper or a calculator (note: the use of such physical aid does not negate the nature of this limitation. Thus, the claim recites a concept that falls into the “Mathematical Concept” and “Mental Process” groups of abstract ideas.
Step 2A Prong Two: Besides the abstract ideas, the claim recites additional element of the processor configured to obtain from the sensor array, a number of items in the batch with the defects, the batch of items is a sample from a population of items. This additional element represents mere data gathering (obtaining number of item defected) that is necessary for used of the recited judicial exception (the number values are used in limitation computing the proportion of defects) and is recited at a high level of generality. The limitation “obtain” is the claim is thus insignificant extra-solution activity. The processor, sensor array is also an additional elements which is configured to carry out limitation inspect, obtain, compute, i.e., they are the tool that is used to obtain number of defected item and perform the mathematical calculation. But the processor, sensor array are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than it is a processor and a sensor array) that they represent no more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. As such, it is nothing more than an attempt to generally link the used of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a computer. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2B: The claim as a whole does not amounts to significantly more than the recited
exception. The claim has two additional elements. The first is the processor, which is configured to perform limitations inspect, obtain, and compute. As explained previously, the controller is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The second additional element is a sensor array performs it conventional function of detecting defects and is recited at a high level of generality. The claim does not improve the functioning of a computer or inspection system, but merely applies mathematical analysis to collected data. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not eligible.
Regarding independent claim 1 and 17, claim 1 is directed to a method, and claim 17 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program. The claims, however, recite the same limitations of claim 11 and do not provide any additional element amount to significant more. Therefore, the claim 1 and 17 are not eligible.
Regarding claims 2, 5, 9-10, they dependent on claim 1 and do not provide any additional element amount to significant more than an abstract idea.
Regarding claims 14-16, they are dependent on claim 11 and does not provide any additional element amount to significant more than an abstract idea.
Regarding claims 18-21, they dependent on claim 17 and does not provide any additional element amount to significant more than an abstract idea.
Claims 2 and 12 merely adds the step of “abandoning the plurality of items” based on the statistical result. This is a post-solution activity that applies the abstract statistical determination. Such a decision or classification based on mathematical analysis does not add a technological improvement and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea of claim 1.
Claims 5, 14, and 19 specified that the root of the cubic polynomial is further computed in terms of a cumulative distribution function of a standard normal distribution. Use of a normal distribution and its CDF is a fundamental statistical tool and constitutes an abstract mathematical concept. This limitation does not add an inventive concept.
Claims 9, 15, and 20 limits the process to a manufacturing process. This is a field-of-use limitation that does not integrate the abstract statistical analysis into a technological improvement of manufacturing machinery or processes.
Claims 10, 16, and 21 recite performing the abstract steps at multiple stages of manufacturing process. Repeating the same abstract statistical analysis across stages does not transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter and remains a routine application of statistical quality control.
Therefore, 2, 5, 9-10, 12, 14-16, 18-21 are not eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim1-2, 5, 9-12, 14-21 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C 101, set forth in this Office Action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent No. 6,636,818 to Lawrence teaches after the calculation is made, the items may be sampled at the desired sample size to obtain samples, and a KDR of the items that are manufactured may be determined from the samples. After the items are sampled, the measured response variable for each of the samples may be provided to the computer, and the computer can calculate an estimate of the KDR, so that the estimate of the KDR can be compared to the KDR that was calculated. After providing the computer with the measured response variable for each of the samples, a point estimate of a process defect rate for the items that are manufactured also may be calculated based on the measured response variable for each of the samples.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VINCENT HUY TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7210. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-4:00.
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, Kamini S Shah can be reached at 571-272-2279. 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.
VINCENT H TRAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2115
/VINCENT H TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115
Prosecution Insights