Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
Claims 2-20 are currently presented for Examination.
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 Amendment
3. The amendment filed on 10/30/2025 has been entered and considered by the examiner. By the amendment, claims 2, 13-15, 18-19 are amended and claim 20 is new. In view of amendment made, the 101 rejection and the prior art rejection is still maintained. See office action.
Applicant 101 arguments
"When determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception, into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two..., examiners should consider whether the judicial exception is applied with, or by use of, a particular machine. "MPEP 2106.05(b). Amended claim 2 is directed to "operating [a] coordinate measuring machine using the selected one of the changed measurement sequences to measure the plurality of surface regions of the object." The selected changed measurement sequence is tied to the coordinate measuring machine, which imposes meaningful limits on the scope of the claim. Claims 13 and 14 further define the practical application of any alleged abstract idea. Amended claim 2 amounts to significantly more than any alleged abstract idea, because it improves measurement technology. "The courts have also found that improvements in technology beyond computer functionality may demonstrate patent eligibility." MPEP 2106.05(a)(II). Claim 2 does not simply recite software to be run on a general-purpose computer and instead improves measurement techniques that are beyond general computer functionality. "Examples that the courts have indicated may be sufficient to show an improvement in existing technology include ... vi. Components or methods, such as measurement devices or techniques, that generate new data...."App. No. 1. MPEP 2106.05(a)(II). Claim 2 is directed to measurement technology and more particularly to developing a measurement sequence to control operation of a coordinate measuring machine in measuring an object. For at least the above reasons, the Applicant respectfully asserts that claim 2 is directed to statutory subject matter. Independent claims 15, 18, and 19 are directed to statutory subject matter for at least similar reasons as independent claim 2. The remaining claims are dependent and likewise are directed to statutory subject matter.
Examiner response
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant arguments. The claim limits the scope to a coordinate measuring machine (CMM), but fails to limit how that machine operates in a non-conventional way. The step merely uses the CMM to 'measure' using a 'specified position and alignment'—the exact, routine function for which CMMs were designed. The machine is still performing its intended, routine function: moving a sensor to specified points and taking measurements. The novel element is the order of the points visited, not the mechanism of visiting them. The CMM technology itself is unchanged and unenhanced by the optimization step. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that generic computer implementation or conventional physical steps do not add significantly more to an abstract idea. This is a generic instruction to apply the result of the abstract idea, not a technological improvement to the machine itself. The optimization occurs abstractly, and the machine merely executes a list of standard movements. This does not transform the CMM into a 'particular machine' for eligibility purposes, as it is performing only routine functions. "The applicant asserts that claim 2 'improves measurement technology' and generates 'new data.' However, the claims themselves do not recite any specific, non-conventional steps that achieve this. The efficiency gained by optimizing the sequence is a computational improvement in scheduling, not a fundamental improvement in the underlying measurement technique or sensor technology." "For an 'improvement' to satisfy § 101, the claim must specify a technological solution beyond generic computing. The claims here simply describe using two algorithms to arrive at an optimized list of points to visit. The data gathered is the same type of data gathered by any CMM; the only difference is the order in which it's gathered. This is a claim to an abstract result (efficiency), not a claim to an improved technical process for measurement itself." "The claims remain directed to the abstract idea of optimizing the order of operations. The combination of conventional data gathering, conventional optimization algorithms run on a computer, and conventional operation of a standard CMM does not amount to 'significantly more' than the abstract idea itself. No inventive concept transforms the claim into patent-eligible subject matter." Thus, the claim limitation “operating the coordinate measuring machine using the selected one of the changed measurement sequences to measure the plurality of surface regions of the object" is a post-solution activity that merely applies the result of the abstract calculation (the optimized sequence) using a conventional machine in a conventional manner. It does not integrate the abstract idea into a new, non-conventional technological process or an improvement to the CMM's technology itself.
Applicant 103 arguments
Amended claim 2 recites "the first algorithm and the second algorithm are performed at least partially in parallel." The Office Action acknowledges that Georgi fails to disclose this feature, but states that this feature is taught by Yoshida specifically, in paragraph [0206]. Yoshida does include the phrase "parallel algorithms" in a single paragraph as part of a series of definitions: "For easier understanding, definitions of terms used in this specification will be described below." Yoshida, [0187]. "Parallel algorithms: model in a distributed population." Yoshida, [0206]. There is no further description of this term in Yoshida, much less any discussion of performance of algorithms in parallel. Additionally, Yoshida is completely silent regarding performing algorithms in parallel that ascertain changed measurement sequences and assessment variables, as amended claim 2 recites.
Examiner response
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant arguments and still maintains the rejection under the combination of Georgi and Yoshida. The instant specification ties the first and second algorithms to the Traveling Salesperson Problem (TSP) algorithm (see instant specification [0117]) and that the Yoshida discloses the first and second algorithms and their function (ascertaining changed measurement sequences and assessment variables). Yoshida discusses "finding a sequence of a short time indicating a measurement order of the chip areas and alignment marks AM" (para 116-117). Yoshida further teaches the use of "a linear programming method, a Lin and Kernighan's approach, a K-Opt method, or a genetic algorithm" (para 116-117) to achieve this goal, thus disclosing multiple algorithms. The process of using these search techniques to find a "sequence of a short time" (the assessment variable being the "short time" or overall movement time) fulfills this limitation. The examiner's position is that the feature of performing these algorithms "at least partially in parallel" is an obvious implementation choice based on common knowledge in the relevant art and the suggestion in Yoshida. Yoshida's mention of "Parallel algorithms: model in a distributed population" (in the context of GA optimization for TSP) serves as a further confirmation that this concept is within the scope of knowledge of a POSITA in this field. (see para 181-206) A POSITA would be motivated by a desire for improved efficiency and speed (a predictable result) to implement the algorithms in parallel. Thus, the rejection for claim 2 is still maintained.
Applicant arguments
Georgi does not teach or suggest that "the relative relationship specifies a maximum admissible time interval, within which the at least two surface regions are allowed to be measured when carrying out the changed measurement sequence," as recited in claim 15 (emphasis added). Instead, Georgi teaches optimizing an overall measurement time of the measurement sequence, such that the overall measurement time is as close to a target time as possible. See, for example, paragraphs [0037] and [0038] of Georgi. Optimizing an overall measurement time of a measurement sequence is very different from specifying a maximum admissible time interval between measuring two surface regions. Additionally, Georgi does not teach or suggest that "the relative relationship specifies a relative sequence of the at least two surface regions within the changed measurement sequence," as recited in claim 15 (emphasis added). Instead, Georgi teaches measuring "linkage elements, "which are features of the object to be measured which represent a spatial relationship between two or more geometric elements on the measured object. For example, a linkage element may be the distance between the edges of the two features on the measurement object. Georgi is silent on changing a measurement sequence based on the order in which surface regions are measured. Measuring the distance between the edges of the two features is very different from specifying a relative sequence (in other words, an order) for measuring two surface regions.
Examiner response
The applicant's argument that optimizing the overall measurement time is "very different" from specifying a maximum admissible time interval or a relative sequence between two specific regions for claim 15 and 19 is unpersuasive. These specific constraints are merely routine engineering parameters used to achieve the general time optimization goal explicitly taught by Georgi. In the case of measurements in a manufacturing environment, the measurement time, i.e. the time required for recording the measurement values, plays an important role in addition to the measurement accuracy." [Georgi, para 0038] This statement strongly suggests a need to control time. A person of ordinary skill in the art, when tasked with minimizing the overall measurement time (as taught by Georgi to meet a "defined target time"), would be motivated to set specific "maximum admissible time intervals" between features that are time-sensitive (e.g., if parts cool rapidly or vibrate) to ensure the required accuracy is maintained within the time limits. This is an obvious design choice explicitly motivated by the time-critical nature described in Georgi.
The applicant argues Georgi is silent on the order of surface regions and only discusses spatial relationships of "linkage elements." This applicant argument ignores the core of Georgi's disclosure, which is "generating the measurement sequence" [0037-0038]. A "sequence" is, by definition, a particular order in which related things follow each other. Optimizing a "measurement sequence" for time, as taught by Georgi, is fundamentally about finding the most efficient order of measurements. The "relative sequence" limitation is simply a description of the resulting order inherent in any time-optimized sequence generated by Georgi's method. The reference to "linkage elements" as features representing a "spatial relationship" does not negate the fact that these elements must still be measured in a specific, time-efficient order to meet the overall target time objective. Georgi suggests changing the control commands to find the most efficient path (order) between measurement points. It would be obvious for a skilled artisan to optimize the order (relative sequence) of measuring the two surface regions to achieve the overall "performance optimization" taught by the Georgi. Thus, claim rejection for claim 15 and 19 are still maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §101
4. 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.
5. Claims 2-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. These claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
(Step 1) Is the claims to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Claims: 2-17 and 20 are directed method or process, which falls on the one of the statutory category.
Claim 18-19 is directed to device or machine, which falls on the one of the statutory category.
(Step 2A) (Prong 1) Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea? (Judicially recognized exceptions)?
Claim 2 and 18 recites:
changing a measurement sequence, in which to measure the plurality of surface regions, multiple times using a first algorithm and using a second algorithm, wherein, with each change of the measurement sequence, the first and second algorithms each ascertain a changed measurement sequence and an assessment variable; (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers mental process including an evaluation or judgment that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper therefore falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Also, this limitation describes the abstract concept of optimization or a set of mathematical calculations (the "first and second algorithms" and "assessment variables") to determine an optimal order of operations. This algorithmic sequencing, assessment, and selection process can be performed in the human mind, possibly with pen and paper, or using general-purpose computing. It does not require a specific, unconventional physical implementation or a change in the fundamental operation of the physical machine itself beyond simply receiving a list of steps. The parallel processing also relates to computational efficiency, a generic computer function, rather than an improvement to a specific physical machine's technology. So, it falls under the combination of mental process and mathematical concepts of abstract ideas)
selecting one of the changed measurement sequences based on the assessment variables; (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers mental process including an evaluation or judgment that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper therefore falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.)
Step 2A, Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception
In accordance with Step 2A, Prong 2, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 2 and 18 recites the additional elements of obtaining a plurality of surface regions of an object to be measured by a measurement sensor with respect to a specified property is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of gathering data), and amounts to mere data gathering and falls under the insignificant extra solution activity. (See MPEP 2106.05(g)) The additional element of “wherein, to measure a respective surface region, the measurement sensor is arranged by the coordinate measuring machine according to at least one of a specified position and a specified alignment” describes the standard, conventional operation of a CMM probe moving in a 3D coordinate system. CMMs inherently move to specified positions and alignments as part of their intended, routine use. The additional elements of the first algorithm and the second algorithm are performed at least partially in parallel is a mere instruction to do it on a computer with generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f); The additional element of “operating the coordinate measuring machine using the selected one of the changed measurement sequences to measure the plurality of surface regions of the object" is a generic instruction to apply the result of the abstract calculation (the selected sequence) or is a post-solution activity that merely applies the result of the abstract calculation (the optimized sequence) using a conventional machine in a conventional manner. Simply using a conventional machine to perform tasks in a newly calculated order does not transform an abstract optimization into a patent-eligible application, especially if the machine operates conventionally during the process. The additional elements of a computer device for setting a measurement sequence for a coordinate measuring machine, the computer device comprising: a memory; and at least one processor configured to execute instructions stored in the memory in claim 18 is also the mere instruction to do it on a computer with generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f); Thus, a method for controlling a coordinate measuring machine is no more than generally linking to the field of use as discussed on MPEP 2106.05(h). Therefore, claims 2 and 18 are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of obtaining a plurality of surface regions of an object to be measured by a measurement sensor with respect to a specified property is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of gathering data), and amounts to mere data gathering and falls under the insignificant extra solution activity. (See MPEP 2106.05(g)) and is well-understood, routine or conventional. ((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 at1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v.Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363,115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The additional element of “wherein, to measure a respective surface region, the measurement sensor is arranged by the coordinate measuring machine according to at least one of a specified position and a specified alignment” describes the standard, conventional operation of a CMM probe moving in a 3D coordinate system. CMMs inherently move to specified positions and alignments as part of their intended, routine use. The additional elements of the first algorithm and the second algorithm are performed at least partially in parallel is a mere instruction to do it on a computer with generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f); The additional element of “operating the coordinate measuring machine using the selected one of the changed measurement sequences to measure the plurality of surface regions of the object" is a generic instruction to apply the result of the abstract calculation (the selected sequence) or is a post-solution activity that merely applies the result of the abstract calculation (the optimized sequence) using a conventional machine in a conventional manner. Simply using a conventional machine to perform tasks in a newly calculated order does not transform an abstract optimization into a patent-eligible application, especially if the machine operates conventionally during the process. The additional elements of a computer device for setting a measurement sequence for a coordinate measuring machine, the computer device comprising: a memory; and at least one processor configured to execute instructions stored in the memory in claim 18 is also the mere instruction to do it on a computer with generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f); Claim therefore, when taken as a whole, still does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, a method for controlling a coordinate measuring machine is no more than generally linking to the field of use as discussed on MPEP 2106.05(h). Therefore, claims 2 and 18 are directed to abstract idea.
Claim 3 further recites wherein the measurement sensor is moved relative to the object for measuring successive surface regions so as to adopt the at least one position and/or alignment assigned to the surface regions in each case. It is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of gathering data), and amounts to mere data gathering and falls under the insignificant extra solution activity. (See MPEP 2106.05(g)) and is well-understood, routine or conventional. ((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 at1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v.Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363,115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Claim therefore, when taken as a whole, still does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned for claim 2.
Claim 4 further recites wherein the assessment variable is ascertained based on movements of the measurement sensor that are required to reach successive surface regions. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers mental process including an evaluation or judgment that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper therefore falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Claim therefore, when taken as a whole, still does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned for claim 2.
Claim 5 further recites wherein: the first algorithm ascertains an initial measurement sequence as a start sequence for the second algorithm and has a higher computational speed than the second algorithm, and a measurement sequence with an at least local optimum of the assessment variable is able to be found more quickly with the first algorithm than with the second algorithm. This limitation is analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more,” are “within the realm of abstract ideas. So, it falls under the combination of mental process and mathematical concepts of abstract ideas. It is using generic computer can be considered a tool to perform mathematical/mental concepts of abstract idea. Claim therefore, when taken as a whole, still does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned for claim 2.
Claim 6 further recites wherein a probability of ascertaining a measurement sequence with a further, at least locally optimal assessment variable after a measurement sequence with an at least locally optimal assessment variable has already been found is greater with the second algorithm than with the first algorithm. This limitation is analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more,” are “within the realm of abstract ideas. So, it falls under the combination of mental process and mathematical concepts of abstract ideas. It is using generic computer can be considered a tool to perform mathematical/mental concepts of abstract idea. Claim therefore, when taken as a whole, still does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned for claim 2.
Claim 7 further recites wherein: the first algorithm ascertains an initial measurement sequence as a start sequence for the second algorithm and has a higher computational speed than the second algorithm; and a probability of ascertaining a measurement sequence with a further, at least locally optimal assessment variable after a measurement sequence with an at least locally optimal assessment variable has already been found is greater with the second algorithm than with the first algorithm. This limitation is analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more,” are “within the realm of abstract ideas. So, it falls under the combination of mental process and mathematical concepts of abstract ideas. It is using generic computer can be considered a tool to perform mathematical/mental concepts of abstract idea. Claim therefore, when taken as a whole, still does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned for claim 2.
Claim 8 further recites wherein: the first algorithm and the second algorithm are carried out at least partially in parallel; and the first algorithm and the second algorithm are similar but proceed from different initial measurement sequences. Algorithms are fundamentally a set of step-by-step instructions to solve a particular problem or perform a task. In mathematics, they serve as a way to formalize and execute mathematical procedures, making complex calculations more manageable. A generic computer, designed for a wide range of tasks, is equipped with a Central Processing Unit (CPU) or multiple cores that execute these algorithms. Thus, this limitation is a mathematical/optimization algorithm, without more,” are “within the realm of abstract ideas where a generic computer can be considered a tool to perform mathematical concepts of abstract idea. So, it falls under the mathematical concepts of abstract ideas. Performing parallel is a mere instruction to do it on a computer with generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f); Claim therefore, when taken as a whole, still does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned for claim 2.
Claim 9 further recites wherein: the first algorithm and the second algorithm are carried out at least partially in parallel; and the algorithms differ with respect to at least one of computational speeds of the algorithms and output frequencies of intermediate results of the algorithms. Algorithms are fundamentally a set of step-by-step instructions to solve a particular problem or perform a task. In mathematics, they serve as a way to formalize and execute mathematical procedures, making complex calculations more manageable. A generic computer, designed for a wide range of tasks, is equipped with a Central Processing Unit (CPU) or multiple cores that execute these algorithms. Thus, this limitation is a mathematical/optimization algorithm, without more,” are “within the realm of abstract ideas where a generic computer can be considered a tool to perform mathematical concepts of abstract idea. So, it falls under the mathematical concepts of abstract ideas. Performing parallel is a mere instruction to do it on a computer with generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f); Claim therefore, when taken as a whole, still does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned for claim 2.
Claim 10 further recites wherein a termination criterion for at least one of the algorithms is defined by a maximum admissible number of changes in the measurement sequence without finding an at least locally optimal assessment variable. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers mental process including an evaluation or judgment that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper therefore falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Claim therefore, when taken as a whole, still does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned for claim 2.
Claim 11 further recites wherein a maximum admissible number of variations is selected based on a number of surface regions. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers mental process including an evaluation or judgment that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper therefore falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Claim therefore, when taken as a whole, still does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned for claim 2.
Claim 12 further recites controlling the measurement sensor using the selected measurement sequence to measure the plurality of surface regions of the object. It is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of gathering data), and amounts to mere data gathering and falls under the insignificant extra solution activity. (See MPEP 2106.05(g)) and is well-understood, routine or conventional. ((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 at1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v.Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363,115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Claim therefore, when taken as a whole, still does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned for claim 2.
Claim 13 further recites operating the coordinate measuring machine includes at least one of moving the measurement sensor relative to the object and moving the object relative to the measurement sensor. It is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of gathering data), and amounts to mere data gathering and falls under the insignificant extra solution activity. (See MPEP 2106.05(g)) and is well-understood, routine or conventional. ((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 at1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v.Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363,115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Claim therefore, when taken as a whole, still does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned for claim 2.
Claim 14 further recites wherein operating the coordinate measuring machine includes, for each point in an order specified by the selected measurement sequence, at least one of moving the measurement sensor relative to the object and moving the object relative to the measurement sensor. It describes that the machine is following the output of the abstract calculation. It confirms that the sequence generation is "pre-solution activity" and the machine operation is "post-solution activity." physical operation (moving the sensor/object) is a result-oriented application of the abstract idea, not an integration of the idea into the fundamental technology of the CMM itself. The machine is still just moving in its standard, routine manner. It is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of gathering data), and amounts to mere data gathering and falls under the insignificant extra solution activity. (See MPEP 2106.05(g)) and is well-understood, routine or conventional. ((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 at1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v.Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363,115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Claim therefore, when taken as a whole, still does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned for claim 2.
Regarding claim 15 and 19
(Step 2A) (Prong 1) Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea? (Judicially recognized exceptions)?
Claim 15 and 19 recites:
A method for selecting a measurement sequence for a coordinate measuring machine, the method comprising:
changing a measurement sequence, in which to measure the plurality of surface regions, multiple times using at least one algorithm, wherein, with each change of the measurement sequence, the at least one algorithm respectively ascertains a changed measurement sequence and an assessment variable; (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers mental process including an evaluation or judgment that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper therefore falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Also, this limitation is analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more,” are “within the realm of abstract ideas. So, it falls under the mental process or mathematical concepts of abstract ideas)
selecting one of the changed measurement sequences based on the assessment variables, wherein: a relative relationship of at least two surface regions of the plurality of surface regions is specified as a condition to be observed by each of the changed measurement sequences, and at least one of: the relative relationship specifies a maximum admissible time interval, within which the at least two surface regions are allowed to be measured when carrying out the changed measurement sequence, and the relative relationship specifies a relative sequence of the at least two surface regions within the changed measurement sequence. (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers mental process including an evaluation or judgment that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper therefore falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.)
Step 2A, Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception
In accordance with Step 2A, Prong 2, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 15 and 19 recites the additional elements of obtaining a plurality of surface regions of an object to be measured by a measurement sensor with respect to a specified property is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of gathering data), and amounts to mere data gathering and falls under the insignificant extra solution activity. (See MPEP 2106.05(g)) The additional element of “wherein, to measure a respective surface region, the measurement sensor is arranged by the coordinate measuring machine according to at least one of a specified position and a specified alignment” describes the standard, conventional operation of a CMM probe moving in a 3D coordinate system. CMMs inherently move to specified positions and alignments as part of their intended, routine use. The additional element of “operating the coordinate measuring machine using the selected one of the changed measurement sequences to measure the plurality of surface regions of the object" is a generic instruction to apply the result of the abstract calculation (the selected sequence) or is a post-solution activity that merely applies the result of the abstract calculation (the optimized sequence) using a conventional machine in a conventional manner. Simply using a conventional machine to perform tasks in a newly calculated order does not transform an abstract optimization into a patent-eligible application, especially if the machine operates conventionally during the process. The additional elements of a computer device, the computer device comprising: a memory; and at least one processor configured to execute instructions stored in the memory in claim 19 is the mere instruction to do it on a computer with generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f); Therefore, claim 19 is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of obtaining a plurality of surface regions of an object to be measured by a measurement sensor with respect to a specified property is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of gathering data), and amounts to mere data gathering and falls under the insignificant extra solution activity. (See MPEP 2106.05(g)) and is well-understood, routine or conventional. ((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 at1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v.Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363,115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The additional element of “wherein, to measure a respective surface region, the measurement sensor is arranged by the coordinate measuring machine according to at least one of a specified position and a specified alignment” describes the standard, conventional operation of a CMM probe moving in a 3D coordinate system. CMMs inherently move to specified positions and alignments as part of their intended, routine use. The additional element of “operating the coordinate measuring machine using the selected one of the changed measurement sequences to measure the plurality of surface regions of the object" is a generic instruction to apply the result of the abstract calculation (the selected sequence) or is a post-solution activity that merely applies the result of the abstract calculation (the optimized sequence) using a conventional machine in a conventional manner. Simply using a conventional machine to perform tasks in a newly calculated order does not transform an abstract optimization into a patent-eligible application, especially if the machine operates conventionally during the process. The additional elements of a computer device, the computer device comprising: a memory; and at least one processor configured to execute instructions stored in the memory in claim 19 is also the mere instruction to do it on a computer with generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f); Claim therefore, when taken as a whole, still does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, a method for controlling a coordinate measuring machine is no more than generally linking to the field of use as discussed on MPEP 2106.05(h). Therefore, claim 2, 15 and 19 are directed to abstract idea.
Claim 16 further recites wherein the relative relationship specifies a maximum admissible time interval, within which the at least two surface regions are allowed to be measured when carrying out the measurement sequence. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers mental process including an evaluation or judgment that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper therefore falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Claim therefore, when taken as a whole, still does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned for claim 15.
Claim 17 further recites wherein the relative relationship specifies a relative sequence of the at least two surface regions within the measurement sequence. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers mental process including an evaluation or judgment that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper therefore falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Claim therefore, when taken as a whole, still does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned for claim 15.
Claim 20 further recites wherein the first algorithm ascertains an initial measurement sequence as a start sequence for the second algorithm and has a higher computational speed than the second algorithm. It is further defining the relationship between two algorithms (one providing a "start sequence" for the other) that falls under mathematical concepts of abstract ideas. This is a classic example of an idea that can be performed in the human mind (mentally designing efficient algorithm handoffs) or using generic computer operations. The focus functioning and efficiency of the algorithms, which are mathematical procedures themselves. Claim therefore, when taken as a whole, still does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned for claim 2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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 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.
7. 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.
8. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
9. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
10. Claims 2-8 and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GEORGI et al. (PUB NO: US 20180045511 A1), hereinafter GEORGI in view of Yoshida et al .(US 20010053962 A1)
Regarding claim 2 and 18
GEORGI teaches a method for controlling a coordinate measuring machine, (see para 56-The coordinate measuring machine 12 has a control unit 26, with the aid of which the drives (not provided with a designation here) for the workpiece receptacle 14 and the measuring head 16 are driven in order to carry out a measurement) the method comprising:
GEORGI teaches a method for selecting a measurement sequence for a coordinate measuring machine, (see para 56- The coordinate measuring machine 12 has a control unit 26, with the aid of which the drives (not provided with a designation here) for the workpiece receptacle 14 and the measuring head 16 are driven in order to carry out a measurement. Furthermore, the control unit 26 takes up the measurement values of the measuring head 16 and makes them available to an evaluation unit 28 for further evaluation. In the illustrated exemplary embodiment, the evaluation unit 28 is a PC, on which configuration and evaluation software is executed, such as e.g. the CALYPSO software specified at the outset, the latter, however, having been extended by a few capabilities. The configuration and evaluation software makes it possible, on the one hand, to generate a measurement sequence for carrying out an automated measurement on a measured object according to the novel method.) the method comprising:
Regarding claim 18- A computer device for setting a measurement sequence for at least one coordinate measuring machine, (see para 56- The coordinate measuring machine 12 has a control unit 26, with the aid of which the drives (not provided with a designation here) for the workpiece receptacle 14 and the measuring head 16 are driven in order to carry out a measurement. Furthermore, the control unit 26 takes up the measurement values of the measuring head 16 and makes them available to an evaluation unit 28 for further evaluation. In the illustrated exemplary embodiment, the evaluation unit 28 is a PC, on which configuration and evaluation software is executed, such as e.g. the CALYPSO software specified at the outset, the latter, however, having been extended by a few capabilities. The configuration and evaluation software makes it possible, on the one hand, to generate a measurement sequence for carrying out an automated measurement on a measured object according