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 .
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 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim(s) recite(s) collecting data, selecting correlation data, and calculating a value using that correlation, which constitutes mathematical relationships and mental processes, which are abstract ideas. Specifically, the claim recites, storing characteristic data including correlation information between a reflected light intensity index and an unburned combustibles concentration, selecting stored data having a similar first reflected light intensity index, obtaining a second reflected light intensity index, and calculating an unburned combustibles concentration using the stored correlation information. These steps amount to: identifying a correlation between variables, selecting the relevant dataset, and performing a calculation based on that correlation. Such operations constitute mathematical relationships and data analysis, which fall within the abstract idea category. Furthermore, the selecting and calculating steps can be performed mentally or with pen and paper, and therefore, constitute mental processes, which is another recognized category of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements beyond the abstract idea (including a storage, and an arithmetic processor) merely perform generic data storage and processing functions. The claim does not recite any specific sensor or measurement apparatus, any improvement to optical measurement technology, any particular machine configuration, or any physical transformation of material. The storage and arithmetic processor merely serve as generic computer components used as tools to perform the abstract idea. Using generic computer components to store data and execute calculations does not meaningfully limit the abstract idea
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements (storage, arithmetic processor, selector, calculator) represent generic computer functions such as storing information, retrieving data, selecting data, and performing calculations. These are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities in the field of computer technology. The claims merely implement the abstract idea on a generic computing system. Accordingly, claims 1 and 9 are directed to an abstract idea and do not include additional elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, claims 1 and 9 are directed under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 3–5 and 11–13 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea including selecting stored characteristic data and calculating an in-ash unburned combustibles concentration using correlation information between reflected light intensity indices and combustibles concentration. The claims further define aspects of the abstract idea, including the particular mathematical definitions of the reflected light intensity indices and additional information contained in the stored data. Specifically, claims 3 and 11 recite that the first reflected light intensity is a standardized reflectance spectrum determined by dividing a reflectance by an average value of the reflectance, which is a mathematical calculation applied to measured data. Claims 4 and 12 recite that the second reflected light intensity index is a reflectance obtained by dividing a reflected light intensity by a reflected light intensity of a standard white board, which also constitutes a mathematical relationship applied to measured values. Claims 5 and 13 recite that each piece of characteristic data further contains fuel type information, and that the fuel type corresponding to the selected characteristic data is estimated for the subject ash, which represents additional data evaluation and information selection performed using the stored dataset. Therefore, these limitations recite mathematical relationships, data analysis, and mental processes, which fall within the abstract idea category.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitations merely further define the content of the data and mathematical calculations used in performing the abstract idea recited in independent claims 1 and 9. The claims do not recite a specific improvement to a measurement device, a particular technological improvement in spectroscopy, a specific machine configuration, or any transformation of matter beyond the data analysis. Instead, the additional limitations simply describe, mathematical normalization of reflectance data, mathematical scaling of intensity values, and additional informational fields associated with the stored dataset. Such limitations merely refine the abstract data analysis performed by the system or method, and therefore do not meaningfully limit the abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations amount to well-understood, routine, and conventional mathematical operations and data organization techniques, including normalizing reflectance values, calculating ratios of measured intensities, and associating additional informational attributes with stored data. These limitations merely specify how the abstract mathematical analysis is performed, and therefore do not provide an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. Accordingly, claims 3–5 and 11–13 are directed to an abstract idea and do not include additional elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, claims 3–5 and 11–13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 2, 6–8, 10, and 14 are not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, as these claims set forth significant definitive structure and additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea as shown in the rejections of claims 1, 3–5, 9, and 11–13 above. Notably, if these claims are amended to include the details of claims 1 and 9, they would be allowable.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 6–8, 10, and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 2, the prior art does not teach or suggest the claimed, “a measurer including: a light source that irradiates ash with light; and a spectroscope that separates reflected light from the ash into multiple wavelengths, and measures reflected light intensities at the multiple wavelengths, respectively, wherein the arithmetic processor further includes an index calculator that obtains, for the subject ash, the reflected light intensities that have been measured by the measurer at the multiple wavelengths, respectively, and based on the obtained reflected light intensities at the multiple wavelengths, calculates the first reflected light intensity index and the second reflected light intensity index of the subject ash”, in combination with the language of claim 1, presently rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding claims 6–8, the prior art does not teach or suggest the claimed, “An electrostatic separator comprising: an ash layer that is a layer of ash in which conductive particles and insulating particles are mixedly present; a conductive particle recovery container that recovers a first powder that is separated from the ash by electrostatic separation, the first powder containing the conductive particles; an insulating particle recovery container that recovers a second powder that is obtained by separating the first powder from the ash; wherein the system measures the in-ash unburned combustibles concentration of at least one of the first powder or the second powder”, in combination with the language of system claim 1, presently rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding claim 10, the prior art does not teach or suggest the claimed, “irradiating the subject ash with light; separating, by a spectroscope, reflected light from the subject ash into multiple wavelengths, and measuring reflected light intensities at the multiple wavelengths, respectively; and calculating the first reflected light intensity index and the second reflected light intensity index based on the reflected light intensities of the subject ash that have been measured at the multiple wavelengths, respectively”, in combination with the language of claim 9, presently rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding claim 14, the prior art does not teach or suggest the claimed, “measuring the in-ash unburned combustibles concentration of the subject ash either by analyzing gas that is generated when the subject ash is subjected to ignition or by measuring a weight of the subject ash after the subject ash is subjected to the ignition; and modifying, based on the measured in-ash unburned combustibles concentration, either the characteristic data of the subject ash that is stored in the storage or the characteristic data of ash whose fuel type corresponds to that of the subject ash”, in combination with the language of claim 9, presently rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO–892 form. The references cited herewith teach systems, devices, and methods for measuring particles or unburned ash/carbon, with configurations similar to the present application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN D WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2726. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-6:30pm.
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, Walter Lindsay can be reached at 571-272-1674. 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.
/RYAN D WALSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852