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 .
This action is responsive to communication filed on 01/05/2024.
Claims 1-9 are pending.
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: “a calibration data manager configured to…” in claims 1 and 7, “a setting data manager configured to…” in claim 1 and, a traceability determiner is configured to…” in claims 1-7.
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.
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.
Examiner has identified the corresponding structure of a setting data manager 16 is, for example a semiconductor memory, a magnetic memory, an optical memory, or the like (see para. 0034); calibration data manager 17 is, for example, a semiconductor memory, a magnetic memory, an optical memory, or the like (para. 0036); and the traceability determiner 18 includes at least one processor, at least one dedicated circuit, or a combination thereof (see para. 0041).
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. A subject matter eligibility analysis is set forth below. See MPEP 2106.
Under Step 1 of the analysis, claim 1, belongs to a statutory category namely a measuring instrument.
Under Step 2A, prong 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
The claim(s) 1 recite(s) concepts related to mathematical algorithms/concepts, and mental processes and concepts performed in the human mind e.g. observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion for “a traceability determiner, wherein the calibration data includes a plurality of calibration results and a plurality of calibration conditions, the calibration results indicating a difference in measurement results from a higher-level standard, each calibration result is associated with the calibration condition corresponding to a time at which the calibration result was acquired, and the traceability determiner is configured to compare the setting condition and the measurement value to the plurality of calibration conditions, in a case in which there exists a matching calibration condition, among the plurality of calibration conditions, that matches the setting condition and the measurement value, calculate a calibrated measurement value by correcting the measurement value with the calibration result associated with the matching calibration condition”, which describes mathematical concepts and data characterization (emphasis added).
The concepts discussed above can be considered to describe mental processes, namely concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper, and/or mathematical concepts, namely a series of calculations leading to one or more numerical results or answers (emphasis added). Although, the claim does not spell out any particular equation or formula being used, the lack of specific equations for individual steps merely points out that the claim would monopolize all possible calculations in performing the steps. These steps recited by the claims, therefore amount to a series of mental or mathematical steps, making these limitations amount to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, prong 2 of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception(s) into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the abstract idea is not performed by using any particular device and because the recitation of “calibration data manager” “setting data manager”, “traceability determiner” recited by claim 1 amounts to the recitation of generic purpose computer and because the recitation of “a sensor”, “measuring instrument”, “traceable measurement”, “a measurement value measured by the sensor” is mere gathering recited at high level of generality and the results of the algorithm are merely output/stored as part of insignificant post-solution activity (i.e. store calibration data, memory capable of storing measurement value, store the calibrated measurement value in the memory) and are not used in any particular matter as to integrate the abstract idea in a practical application.
Under Step 2B, 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, as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, merely amount to a general purpose computer, used to apply the abstract idea and mere data gathering/output recited at a high level of generality and insignificant extra-solution activity that when further analyzed under Step 2B is found to be well-understood, routine and conventional activities as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); and because the data of performing the algorithm must necessarily be “obtained” and the use of a general purpose computer to implement the abstract idea for performing the algorithm does not amount to significantly more than the recitation of the abstract idea itself.
Therefore, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Dependent claims 2-9 merely expand on the abstract idea by appending additional steps to the mathematical algorithm on their respective independent claim 1.
Dependent claims 2-9 merely expands on the abstract idea by reciting additional steps related to mathematical algorithms/concepts, and mental processes and concepts performed in the human mind e.g. observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion and mere characterization of the data acquired (claims 3-6) and applied for performing the abstract idea. Dependent claims 2-9, do not set forth further additional elements that integrate the rejected abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, these claims are found to be ineligible for the reasons described with respect to independent claim 1 from which they depend.
With respect to dependent claim 2, the claim further recites aspects of the abstract idea and introduces the additional element of “…the traceability determiner is configured to store the measurement value measured by the sensor as is in the memory as an uncalibrated measurement value” however this amounts to insignificant post solution activities and generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use.
With respect to dependent claim 3, the claim further recites aspects of the abstract idea and introduces the additional element of “a display, wherein the traceability determiner is configured to display, on the display, the calibrated measurement value or the uncalibrated measurement value” however this amounts to insignificant post solution activities and generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use.
With respect to dependent claim 4, the claim further recites aspects of the abstract idea and introduces the additional element of “…the traceability determiner is configured to display, on the display, the calibrated measurement value together with a notation indicating that the calibrated measurement value is a traceable value” however this amounts to insignificant post solution activities and generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use.
With respect to dependent claim 5, the claim further recites aspects of the abstract idea and data characterization and introduces the additional element of “…the traceability determiner is configured to display an alarm on the display” however this amounts to insignificant post solution activities and generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use.
With respect to dependent claim 6, the claim further recites aspects of the abstract idea and data characterization and introduces the additional element of “…the traceability determiner is configured to refrain from displaying, on the display, the notation indicating that the calibrated measurement is traceable value even in a case in which the calibrated measurement value is calculated” however this amounts to insignificant post solution activities and generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use.
With respect to dependent claim 7, the claim further recites aspects of the abstract idea and data characterization and introduces the additional element of “… using calibration data selected by a user from among the plurality of sets of calibration data” however this amounts to insignificant post solution activities and generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use.
With respect to dependent claim 8, the claim further recites aspects of the abstract idea and data characterization and introduces the additional element of “…wherein the measuring instrument with bult-in calibration data is an optical power meter” however this amounts to insignificant post solution activities and generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use.
With respect to dependent claim 9, the claim further recites aspects of the abstract idea and introduces the additional element of “…wherein the setting condition and the calibration condition include a wavelength light as an item” however this amounts to data characterization and generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use.
Therefore, for similar reasons as discussed above, the additional elements disclosed by dependent claims 2-9 fail to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Therefore claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugiura et al. US Patent 4,927,266 (hereinafter Sugiura) in view of Yokogawa Electric Corp JPH0617056Y2 (hereinafter Yokogawa).
Regarding claim 1, Sugiura disclose a measuring instrument with built-in calibration data capable of traceable measurement (abstract; col. 1, ll. 8-13; claim 11), comprising:
a sensor (see Fig 5; col. 7, ll.6-12, 25-25-36, wherein a photodetector is disclosed);
a calibration data manager configured to store calibration data of the measuring instrument with built-in calibration data (see abstract; col. 7, ll. 37-45; col. 8, ll. 38-44, 49-56; col. 9, ll. 23-35, 59-67; claim 11, wherein CPU 117 compares the designated and stored calibration level, wherein the calibration level is set by calibration level setting unit; wherein CPU causes second controller to supply predetermined control signals to adjuster; wherein the calibration data manager resides on the CPU, therefore the calibration data manager configured to store calibration data is implied);
a setting data manager configured to store a setting condition of the measuring instrument with built-in calibration data (see abstract; col. 7, ll. 37-45; col. 8, ll. 38-44, 49-56; col. 9, ll. 23-35, 59-67; claim 11, wherein CPU 117 compares the designated and stored calibration level, wherein the calibration level is set by calibration level setting unit; wherein the setting data manager resides on the calibration level setting unit); and
a traceability determiner (see col. 5, ll. 14-26, wherein control means compare optical output level set signal with an output signal from monitoring means), wherein
the calibration data includes a plurality of calibration results and a plurality of calibration conditions, the calibration results indicating a difference in measurement results from a higher-level standard (col. 2, ll. 44-50; col. 3, ll. 7-27; col. 3, ll. 65-68; col. 6, ll. 40-63, wherein a difference is obtained between measured value an set value of desired level),
each calibration result is associated with the calibration condition corresponding to a time at which the calibration result was acquired (see col. 4, ll. 5-21; col. 4, ll. 39-46, wherein optical signals are calibrated with high precision within a measurement time interval) , and
the traceability determiner is configured to compare the setting condition and the measurement value to the plurality of calibration conditions (see col. 5, ll. 14-26, wherein control means compare optical output level set signal with an output signal from monitoring means), in a case in which there exists a matching calibration condition, among the plurality of calibration conditions, that matches the setting condition and the measurement value, calculate a calibrated measurement value by correcting the measurement value with the calibration result associated with the matching calibration condition (col. 4, ll. 5-21; col. 5, ll. 14-27; col. 5, ll. 45-58; col. 6, ll. 16-38, wherein control means compare optical output level set signal from setting means with output signal from output light monitoring means for adjusting the level of the output light of the desired level set by the optical output means in accordance with a comparison error, and when the comparison error becomes zero, for maintaining a value corresponding control signal to control such that the optical output means outputs output light of the desired level set by the optical output means).
Although a memory is implied by the system of Sugiura (see col. 9 ll. 59-68), however Sugiura do not expressly or explicitly disclose a memory capable of storing a measurement value measured by the sensor; and store the calibrated measurement value in the memory.
Yokogawa disclose a device for calibrating an optical power meter where a light receiving head unit (photodiode/sensor) and a non-volatile memory are disclosed. Yokogawa further disclose a laser having a reference wavelength and an optical power measurement standard for measuring the optical power of the calibration reference wavelength laser, measuring the laser having a calibration reference wavelength with the optical power meter to be calibrated and the measured value and the optical power; and wherein the optical power characterized by calculating the calibration reference wavelength with the measurement value of the measurement standard device, and storing/writing the calibration value data in the electrically erasable non-volatile memory is disclosed (see claim 1; page 1 description section first paragraph). Yokogawa further disclose a built-in electrically erasable non-volatile memory in a light receiving head section, and stores calibration value data of a calibration reference wavelength obtained by calculation in the memory (see last paragraph on page 1; see page 2, paragraph (c)). The measured value is inputted to the controller, where the calibration value is being calculated (See page 2, paragraphs (B)-(C)); and wherein calibration value data at calibration reference wavelength is rewritten in the memory. Yokogawa further disclose using measurement standard device to measure in the memory, a microprocessor calculates measured value and measure value of optical power meter for calibration to calculate calibration value of calibration reference wavelength and the calculated value data is received and wherein the memory can be adapted to write the values calculated (see antepenultimate paragraph on page 2).
Given the teachings of Yokogawa it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Sugiura with a memory capable of storing a measurement value measured by the sensor; and store the calibrated measurement value in the memory for the benefit of providing a means for easily accessing data needed for calibration in order to make possible to obtain a calibration device which is easy to calibrate and can be automated (see penultimate paragraph on page 2).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Sugiura and Yokogawa disclose the materials as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Sugiura further disclose wherein the measuring instrument with built-in calibration data is an optical power meter (see abstract, col. 4, ll. 57-64).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Sugiura and Yokogawa disclose the materials as discussed above with respect to claim 8.
However Sugiura do not expressly or explicitly disclose that the setting condition and calibration condition include a wavelength of light as an item.
Yokogawa disclose a calibration system of an optical power meter where the calibration device which is a laser light source having a calibration reference wavelength and wherein an optical measuring standard device for measuring the output light of the calibration reference wavelength laser light source is disclosed (see page 2, fourth paragraph).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention given the teachings of Yokogawa to configure the calibration system of Sugiura such that the setting condition and the calibration condition include a wavelength of light as an item, for the benefit of providing an enhance system such that correction of spectral sensitivity is performed (see fourth paragraph on page 2) and that variations in sensitivity due to individual products are automatically calibrated allowing for easy and automated calibration (See penultimate paragraph on page 2).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugiura et al. US Patent 4,927,266 (hereinafter Sugiura) in view of Yokogawa Electric Corp JPH0617056Y2 (hereinafter Yokogawa) in further view of Yajima Yasuo JP2009074830A (hereinafter Yasuo).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of the combination of Sugiura and Yokogawa disclose the materials as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
However the combination do not expressly or explicitly disclose the calibration data manager is configured to store a plurality of sets of calibration data linked to national standards of a plurality of countries, and the traceability determiner is configured to calculate the calibrated measurement value using calibration data selected by a user from among the plurality of sets of calibration data.
Yasuo disclose a calibration method of a measuring instrument where a plurality of sets of calibration data linked to national standards of a plurality of countries (see abstract), and to calculate the calibrated measurement value using calibration data selected by a user from among the plurality of sets of calibration data (see abstract, 0042 wherein a user is guided on the display using the standard instrument and user can perform the settings using the standard pre-registered, see para. 0032-0033, 0042).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention given the teachings of Yasuo discussed above to configure the system of Sugiura as modified by Yokogawa so that the calibration data manager/CPU is configured to store a plurality of sets of calibration data linked to national standards of a plurality of countries, and the traceability determiner/control means is configured to calculate the calibrated measurement value using calibration data selected by a user from among the plurality of sets of calibration data for the benefit of ensuring quality, safety and efficiency and mutual recognition of measurements ensuring that measurements are performed in conformity with established standards.
Discussion of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record cite in form PTOL-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Stetson et al. US2017/0343695A1 discloses a magneto optical detecting apparatus, where uncalibrated magnetic field data can be stored as a baseline curve (see para 0864).
Saaski EP0411106B1 disclose a thermos-optical current sensor including a resistive or semiconducting sensing element that has an optical property that varies as a function of temperature. The thermos-optical current sensor may be used as a field meter to measure the intensity of an electromagnetic field or as a current meter to measure the current flowing through power line (See abstract).
Imamura et al. US Patent 5148233 disclose an optical attenuation calibration method and apparatus and optical power meter calibration apparatus for calibrating the optical attenuation or linearity of an object to be calibrated (see abstract, col. 1, ll. 12-43).
Reed US Patent 5087808 disclose an optical power meter to measure optical power and noise meter that measures optical noise and display to displaying the optical noise to optical power voltage (See abstract, col. 1, ll. 5-11), wherein the optical power and noise meter includes a detector housing and photodiode which is disposed in the detector housing (see col. 3, ll. 30-53).
With respect to claim 2, currently rejected under 35 USC 101, the closest prior art of record Stetson disclose a magneto optical apparatus, where uncalibrated magnetic field data can be stored as a baseline curve, however the combination of Sugiura and Yokogawa and Stetson either in singularly or in combination fails to anticipate or render obvious the orderly combination of steps set forth by dependent claim 2 in particular the step of “wherein in a case in which no calibration condition matches the setting condition and the measurement value, the traceability determiner is configured to store the measurement value measured by the sensor as is in the memory as an uncalibrated measurement value” without the use of impermissible hindsight.
With respect to claims 3-6 the closest prior art of record either in singularly or in combination fails to anticipate or render obvious the limitations set forth by the claims for the reasons discussed above with their respective parent claim 2 from which they depend.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YARITZA H PEREZ BERMUDEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1520. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Shelby A Turner can be reached at (571) 272-6334. 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.
/YARITZA H. PEREZ BERMUDEZ/
Examiner
Art Unit 2857
/SHELBY A TURNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights