DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-19 are presented for examination.
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.
3. 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.
4. 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:
system including a plurality of modules configured to determine/obtain… in claim 1; the plurality of modules which invokes 112(f). Specification has no description for supporting structure to perform function.
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
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. Specifically, independent claim 1 is 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.
Regarding Claim 1:
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes, the claim is directed to a method and a system (a side plate controlling system including a data acquisition module, a communication module, a selection module, .....and therefore is machine), which is a statutory category of invention.
Step 2A Prong 1: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
The limitations “the selection module is configured to determine an actual
overflow coefficient and an actual width of the overflow surface of an actual overflow brick system based on the overflow coefficient and the product specification; the width shrinkage module is configured to determine an actual critical shrinkage width based on the width of the overflow surface, the critical shrinkage width, and the actual width of the overflow surface; the side plate flow module is configured to determine an average shrinkage flow rate of a side plate based on a lead-out amount of the actual overflow brick system, a width of an effective surface of a glass substrate, and the actual width of the overflow surface; the edge elongation factor module is configured to determine an edge elongation factor of the glass substrate based on the actual width of the overflow surface, the width of the effective surface, and a thickness of the glass substrate; and the side plate thickness module is configured to determine an average thickness of the side plate based on the thickness of the glass substrate, the average shrinkage flow rate of the side plate, the lead-out amount, a width of a lead-out plate, and the width of the effective surface”, etc. The limitations above, as drafted, is a process or function that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. This process is a mental process as described in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), because the recited processing is simple enough to be practically performed in the human mind.
Step 2A Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
The claim further recites ““wherein the data acquisition module is configured to obtain an overflow coefficient, a product specification, a width of an overflow surface, and a critical shrinkage width of a standard overflow brick system”; The limitations of “data aquation module configured to obtain overflow”, “adjusting…the coefficient” and “output the adjusted …coefficient” are amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data, making judgment and adjusting data until the desire expectation of outcome is not satisfied (MPEP 2106.05 (g)): i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. “the judgment output module is configured to: in response to determining that a magnitude relationship between the average thickness of the side plate and the thickness of the glass substrate satisfies a preset corresponding relationship, output the actual overflow coefficient and the actual width of the overflow surface corresponding to the actual overflow coefficient; “in response to determining that the magnitude relationship between the average thickness of the side plate and the thickness of the glass substrate does not satisfy the preset corresponding relationship, adjust the actual overflow coefficient until the magnitude relationship between the average thickness of the side plate and the thickness of the glass substrate satisfies the preset corresponding relationship, output the adjusted actual overflow coefficient and an adjusted actual width of the overflow surface corresponding to the adjusted actual overflow coefficient, wherein the adjusting process includes performing one or more iterations; are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to extra-solution activity of receiving data (MPEP 2106.05(g): i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. In addition, judgment output model for outputting overflow coefficient is executed at a computing device amounts to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h), example (vi)). The limitations to output overflow coefficient values and adjusted overflow value amount to extra-solution activity of receiving data (MPEP 2106.05(g): i.e. extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process.” These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and are thus insignificant extra‐solution activities. When viewed individually or on combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Do the limitations add elements amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No, the limitations do not add elements amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. As recited above, the additional elements “which are directed to insignificant extra‐solution activities.
As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “communication module to communicate with the data acquisition module, the selection module, the width shrinkage module, the side plate flow module, the edge elongation factor module, the side plate thickness module, the judgment output module, and an overflow brick production system" are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Further, the receiving and accessing steps simply append well-understood and conventional activity of receiving data over a network (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i): “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information). Thus, when taken alone, the individual elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.” These additional elements, when considered separately or in combination, are well‐understood, routine and conventional activities in the field (as shown in the court case, mere data gathering is considered routine and conventional activities. See In re Meyers, 688 F.2d 789, 794; 215 USPQ 193, 196‐97 (CCPA 1982)) and do not add inventive concept into the claim.
Therefore, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, and is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claims 2-19:
Dependent claims 2-19 do not contain additional limitations that integrate the exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the exception.
7. Examiner's note: To qualify as a § 101 statutory process, the claim should positively recite the particular machine to which it is tied, for example by identifying the apparatus that accomplishes the method steps, or positively recite the subject matter that is being transformed, for example by identifying the material that is being changed to a different state.
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to 8applicant’s disclosure.
Li et al., US publication no. 2022/0267187, discloses a system for sheet forming
thickness control of an overflow brick, the system including: a data acquisition module, a
communication module, a selection module, and a judgment output module, wherein
the data acquisition module is configured to obtain obtaining a free flow thickness
distribution and a free flow speed distribution of an overflow of a glass on an overflow
surface of the overflow brick through simulation; a selection module is configured to
calculate an equivalent drawing speed distribution of an overflow guide plate and a
critical equivalent drawing speed of the overflow guide plate; calculating an equivalent
drawing thickness distribution and a forming thickness distribution of the overflow
of the glass; calculating an extreme thickness difference of a formed glass substrate;
the communication module is configured to communicate the data acquisition module,
the selection module and the judgment output module; and the judgment output module
configures to determine the extreme thickness difference is smaller than or equal to the preset threshold, processing the overflow brick and producing the glass substrate in
accordance with the current parameters.
Yu, US publication no. 2014/0352359, discloses a composite glass forming
system applied in the process of producing sheet glass mainly comprises a slotted
nozzle downdraw glass forming device and an overflow downdraw glass forming device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHUN CAO whose telephone number is (571)272-3664. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:00 am-3:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kamini Shah can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free)?
/CHUN CAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115