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 on 9/08/2026 with respect to claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been considered but are moot because the new ground.
Applicant’s arguments filed 9/08/2026 with respect to the claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Thus, the claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 has been withdrawn.
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 1-20 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, representative Claim 1 recites:
A computer
receiving a measured spectrum including a plurality of measured spectrum data points, wherein the measured spectrum is a result of a measurement reflecting a current chemical and physical state of the sample obtained by vibrational spectroscopy;
accessing a spectrum library comprising a plurality of calibrated reference spectra having respective reference-spectrum representations;
determining a representation of the measured spectrum in a same representation space as the respective reference-spectrum representations;
determining, among the respective reference-spectrum representations, representations of k nearest neighbor reference spectra in a vicinity of the representation of the measured spectrum, in accordance with predefined metrics;
identifying a subset of the reference spectra in the spectrum library from the representations;
computing for each measured spectrum data point of the measured spectrum data points, an average value of corresponding data points of the reference spectra in the subset to determine an averaged reference spectrum including a plurality of averaged reference spectrum data points, and computing, for each measured spectrum data point, a standard deviation of corresponding data points of the reference spectra in the subset;
determining a weighted difference spectrum in which each data point of the weighted difference spectrum is determined by computing a difference between a measured spectrum data point of the measured spectrum data points and a corresponding averaged reference spectrum data point of the averaged reference spectrum data points, and dividing the difference by the standard deviation
computed for that measured spectrum data point;
determining deviating data points where a value of the weighted difference spectrum exceeds a predefined deviation threshold;
determining whether the characteristic of the sample conforms or does not
conform in accordance with a predefined conformity rule based on the determined deviating data points; and
transmitting a control command configured to cause a process apparatus to physically control a processing state of the sample based on whether the characteristic of the sample is determined to conform or not conform.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements.”
Step 1: 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 (Process).
Step 2A, Prong One: 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 groupings of subject matter when recited as such in a claim limitation that 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, the limitations of “determining a representation of the measured spectrum in a same representation space as the respective reference-spectrum representations (see paras.[0015] of instant application),” “determining, among the respective reference-spectrum representations, representations of k nearest neighbor reference spectra in a vicinity of the representation of the measured spectrum, in accordance with predefined metrics (see paras.[0008], [0015], [0038] of instant application),” “identifying a subset of the reference spectra in the spectrum library from the representations (see paras. [0015], [0017] and Fig 2, 1300 of instant application),” are mathematical calculations. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word "calculating" in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of "determining" a variable or number using mathematical methods or "performing" a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)C).
Further limitation of “computing for each measured spectrum data point of the measured spectrum data points, an average value of corresponding data points of the reference spectra in the subset to determine an averaged reference spectrum including a plurality of averaged reference spectrum data points, and computing, for each measured spectrum data point, a standard deviation of corresponding data points of the reference spectra in the subset (see paras. [0022], [0041]-[0042] and Fig 2, 1400 of instant application ),” “determining a weighted difference spectrum in which each data point of the weighted difference spectrum is determined by computing a difference between a measured spectrum data point of the measured spectrum data points and a corresponding averaged reference spectrum data point of the averaged reference spectrum data points, and dividing the difference by the standard deviation computed for that measured spectrum data point (see para. [0042] of instant application),” “determining deviating data points where a value of the weighted difference spectrum exceeds a predefined deviation threshold (see para. [0042] of instant application)” are mathematical calculations. The limitations of “computing for each measured spectrum data point of the measured spectrum data points, an average value of corresponding data points of the reference spectra in the subset,” “determining a weighted difference spectrum”, and “determining deviating data points where a value of the weighted difference spectrum exceeds a predefined deviation threshold” are indicative of mathematical calculations. Further, the limitation of “determining whether the characteristic of the sample conforms or does not conform in accordance with a predefined conformity rule based on the determined deviating data points (see para. [0042] of instant application)” is mental processing (evaluation/judgement) and/or mathematical calculations. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical calculations, then it falls within “Mathematical concepts” and “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claims 14 and 18.
Step 2A, Prong Two: 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. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Therefore, none of the additional elements indicate a practical application.
Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
Step 2B:
The above claims comprise the following additional elements:
In Claim 1: a computer transmitting a control command configured to cause a process apparatus to physically control a processing state of the sample based on whether the characteristic of the sample is determined to conform or not conform; and
In Claim 14: a computer program product for determining a characteristic of a sample, the computer program product being tangibly embodied on a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and comprising instructions that, when executed by at least one computing device, are configured to cause the at least one computing device (preamble); receiving a measured spectrum including a plurality of measured spectrum data points, wherein the measured spectrum is a result of a measurement reflecting a current chemical and physical state of the sample obtained by vibrational spectroscopy; accessing a spectrum library comprising a plurality of calibrated reference spectra having respective reference-spectrum representations; transmitting a control command configured to cause a process apparatus to physically control a processing state of the sample based on whether the characteristic of the sample is determined to conform or not conform; and
In Claim 18: a system for determining a characteristic of a sample (preamble); at least one memory including instructions; and at least one processor that is operably coupled to the at least one memory; obtaining a measured spectrum as the fingerprint of the sample, wherein the measured spectrum is a result of a measurement reflecting a current chemical and physical state of the sample obtained by vibrational spectroscopy; accessing a spectrum library comprising a plurality of calibrated reference spectra; receiving a measured spectrum including a plurality of measured spectrum data points, wherein the measured spectrum is a result of a measurement reflecting a current chemical and physical state of the sample obtained by vibrational spectroscopy; accessing a spectrum library comprising a plurality of calibrated reference spectra having respective reference-spectrum representations; cause, by transmitting a control command to a process apparatus, the manufacturing apparatus to physically control a processing state of the sample based on whether the characteristic of the sample is determined to conform or not conform.
The additional elements such as the computer, computer program product being tangibly embodied on a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, system, at least one memory, and at least one processor in claims 1, 14, and 18 are recited at a high-level of generality without descriptions of its specific structure/features to perform the claimed features for producing the mathematical process addressed above (MPEP 2106.05(d)).
Further, the additional element of “a computer
Further, note that additional elements of “receiving a measured spectrum including a plurality of measured spectrum data points, wherein the measured spectrum is a result of a measurement reflecting a current chemical and physical state of the sample obtained by vibrational spectroscopy” and “accessing a spectrum library comprising a plurality of calibrated reference spectra having respective reference-spectrum representations;” are insignificant (gathering data) extra-solution activity to perform abstract idea that is mathematical calculations or mental processes (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Further, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these additional elements/steps are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the relevant based on the prior art of record (Brown (US 20110257918 A1), Hargreaves (US 20170314992 A1)). For example, Brown and Hargreaves teach receiving a measured spectrum including a plurality of measured spectrum data points, wherein the measured spectrum is a result of a measurement reflecting a current Hargreaves chemical and physical state of the sample obtained by vibrational spectroscopy and accessing a spectrum library comprising a plurality of calibrated reference spectra having respective reference-spectrum representations (Fig. 6A and paras. [0072], [0080]-[0083] of Brown; paras. [0070]-[0076] of Hargreaves).
Furthermore, additional elements “transmitting a control command configured to cause a process apparatus to physically control a processing state of the sample based on whether the characteristic of the sample is determined to conform or not conform” is a broadly and generally recited as control process based on abstract idea which is equivalent to “apply it” (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Transmitting with the intended result of controlling a process is similar to example 48, claim 2, step h that is ineligible (see page 24). Example 47 claim 3 has very specific steps related to the disclosed system detecting network intrusions and takes real-time remedial actions, including dropping suspicious packets and blocking traffic from suspicious source addresses. The background section further explains that the disclosed system enhances security by acting in real time to proactively prevent network intrusions (see page 23).
Claim 1 does not present tangible or physical elements/components and/or integration of improvements to be indicative of specific features/structure/acts, for example, how and or with what to determine whether the characteristic of the sample conforms or does not conform in accordance with a predefined conformity rule based on the determined deviating data points for example. Therefore, the claims have no significance more beyond the abstract idea. Further, an abstract idea itself is just that, abstract, and whether such feature is or is not significant does not preclude it from being considered abstract. An abstract idea by itself, whether it or not it has a benefit, does not reasonably overcome a 101 rejection because it is still an abstract idea. Therefore, the above advantages relate to abstract idea limitations which are not considered. The Improvements in the abstract idea are not qualified as improvements indicating a practical application. The pending claims are not patent eligible since a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(a).I) and an improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology (see MPEP 2106.05(a).II and MPEP 2106.05(a).II: Examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology include: iii. Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48)). This is just a processor running mathematics using k nearest neighbor algorithm or mental processes. Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claims 14 and 18. Therefore, the independent claims 1, 14, and 18 are ineligible.
Regarding claims 2-13, 15-17, and 19-20,
All features recited in these claims are abstract ideas, as all features found in these claims are directed towards mathematical calculations or mental processes steps. The explanation for the rejection of Claims 2-13, 15-17, and 19-20 therefore are incorporated herein and applied to Claims 1, 14, and 18. These claims therefore stand rejected for similar reasons as explained in above Claims 1, 14, and 18.
No prior art is being applied to Claims 1-20 because the prior art does not disclose or make obvious “computing for each measured spectrum data point of the measured spectrum data points, an average value of corresponding data points of the reference spectra in the subset to determine an averaged reference spectrum including a plurality of averaged reference spectrum data points, and computing, for each measured spectrum data point, a standard deviation of corresponding data points of the reference spectra in the subset; determining a weighted difference spectrum in which each data point of the weighted difference spectrum is determined by computing a difference between a measured spectrum data point of the measured spectrum data points and a corresponding averaged reference spectrum data point of the averaged reference spectrum data points, and dividing the difference by the standard deviation computed for that measured spectrum data point; determining deviating data points where a value of the weighted difference spectrum exceeds a predefined deviation threshold; determining whether the characteristic of the sample conforms or does not conform in accordance with a predefined conformity rule based on the determined deviating data points.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Brown (US 2003/0195708 A1) teaches a method for determining a property of an unknown material including the steps of determining the IR spectrum of the unknown material, fitting the IR spectrum to a linear combination of known spectra in a database, wherein a database includes spectra of reference materials whose assay properties are known, and determining the property of the unknown material from the assay properties of the reference materials.
Laborde et al. (US 2018/0299373 A1) teaches that the invention relates to a characterization device (50) for characterizing a sample (S) comprising: a memory (MEM) storing a measured spectrum (A.sub.s+p) of said sample, performed through a translucent material, and a measured spectrum of the translucent material (A.sub.p), a processing unit (PU) configured to: determine a spectral energy (E.sub.s+p) of the measured spectrum (A.sub.s+p) of the sample through the translucent material (A.sub.s+p), estimate a coefficient ({circumflex over (γ)}) from said spectral energy (E.sub.s+p) and, determine a corrected spectrum (Â.sub.s) of the sample from the measured spectrum (A.sub.s+p) of the sample through the translucent material and from a corrected spectrum of the translucent material (Â.sub.p).
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 SANGKYUNG LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3669. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, LEE RODAK can be reached at 571-270-5628. 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.
/SANGKYUNG LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/LEE E RODAK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
