DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The following analysis is performed in accordance with the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (hereinafter 2019 PEG), as set forth in MPEP §2106. Step 1
Step 1 of the 2019 PEG asks whether the claim is to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Claims 1-16 are directed to an apparatus.
Claims 17-20 are directed to a method. Claim 21 is directed to a product.
Claim 21 is not directed to one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter. However, for purposes of analyzing the claims under the 2019 PEG, the examiner will treat claim 21 as being directed to the statutory category of a product.
Step 2A Prong One
Step 2A Prong One of the 2019 PEG asks whether the claim recites an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon.
The examiner has identified the following judicial exceptions in the claims:
Claim 1 recites
a predicting device comprising: a processing condition acquisition unit which acquires a development processing condition in developing; a developing solution data acquisition unit which acquires developing solution data indicating a composition of a developing solution; a prediction unit which generates prediction data in which a composition of a developing solution after development is predicted, based on the development processing condition and the developing solution data; and an output unit which outputs information corresponding to the prediction data.
The generating of prediction data amounts to a mathematical calculation based upon a presumed formula or algorithm, as discussed in MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(I). Additionally, this step could be reasonably performed in the human mind, as discussed in MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III). The device as a whole is apparently nothing more than a generic computer performing generic computer functions to implement the abstract ideas on a computer.
Claim 1 therefore recites abstract ideas.
Similarly, claims 2-16 all recite limitations which are abstract ideas of mathematical concepts, and/or processes that could reasonably be performed in the human mind. The prediction unit, the recommended condition generation unit recited in claim 4, and the predicting device as recited in claim 8, all merely perform calculations via an algorithm, which could reasonably be performed in the human mind. Claims 2-16 recite abstract ideas.
Claim 17 recites “generating prediction data in which a composition of a developing solution after development is predicted, based on the development processing condition and the developing solution data.” This amounts to a mathematical calculation based upon a presumed formula or algorithm. Additionally, this step could reasonably be performed in the human mind.
Claim 17 recites abstract ideas.
With respect to claim 18, the claim further recites, in a broad and generic manner, how the generating the prediction data is performed, which amounts to a mathematical concept. Claim 18 recites abstract ideas.
With respect to claims 19 and 20, the claims recites diagnosing that an abnormality has occurred, and defining what constitutes an abnormality. However, this may be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. Claims 19 and 20 recite abstract ideas.
With respect to claim 21, while being drawn to a non-transitory computer-readable medium, the steps recited therein are the same as those recited in claim 17. The only additionally recited functionality is that the steps are executed by computer. However, the computer is only recited at a high level of generality. Claim 21 recites abstract ideas.
Step 2A Prong Two
Step 2A Prong Two of the 2019 PEG asks whether a claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claims 1-16 recite no additional elements, other than generic input/output units, or a generic controller. These limitations can be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer, and are mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, the additional element of a computer does not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, or any of the indicia set forth in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(I).
Claims 17-18 recite no additional elements. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the other steps recited (acquiring a condition, acquiring developing solution data, and then outputting information) are mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. No further practical applications are recited.
Claims 19 and 20 recite a diagnosing step. However, no practical application of what is to be done with the diagnosis is recited. That is, the only step that is required is a mental one. Therefore, no further practical applications are recited.
Claim 21 does not recite any additional elements, other than a broad recitation to a computer, which does not add significantly more to the judicial exception.
Step 2B
Step 2B of the 2019 PEG asks whether the claim provide an inventive concept, i.e., whether the claim recites additional element(s) or a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim.
None of claims 1-21 include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because even when considered in combination, the additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. When considered individually, or as an ordered combination with other claim elements, the additional elements fail to integrate the recited judicial exceptions into a practical application under any of the indicia set forth in MPEP §2106.04(d), or improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field as set forth in MPEP §2106.05(a).
For these reasons, there are no inventive concepts in claims 1-21, and are therefore ineligible as being directed to judicial exceptions of abstract ideas.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 14-17 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Yoshida et al. (EP 1091253A2). Regarding claim 1, Yoshida et al. disclose “a predicting device (paragraph 57) comprising: a processing condition acquisition unit which acquires a development processing condition in developing (paragraph 57: size); a developing solution data acquisition unit which acquires developing solution data indicating a composition of a developing solution (paragraph 64); a prediction unit which generates prediction data in which a composition of a developing solution after development is predicted, based on the development processing condition and the developing solution data (paragraphs 63 and 64: predicting the amount of alkaline components consumed is the same as predicting the concentration); and an output unit which outputs information corresponding to the prediction data (paragraph 57: generates control signals).” Regarding claim 14, Yoshida et al. further disclose “wherein the developing solution is an aqueous developing solution containing at least any of a surfactant or a development accelerator (paragraph 77 and 79), and the developing solution data acquisition unit acquires, as the developing solution data, at least any of a concentration of a development residue, a concentration of the surfactant, a concentration of the development accelerator, or a pH in the developing solution (paragraph 63), and the prediction unit generates, as the prediction data, at least any of the concentration of the development residue, the concentration of the surfactant, the concentration of the development accelerator, or the pH in the developing solution after the development (paragraph 64: predicting the amount of alkaline components consumed is the same as predicting the concentration).” Regarding claim 15, Yoshida et al. further disclose “wherein the processing condition acquisition unit acquires, as the development processing condition, at least any of a type of a developing device, an amount of the developing solution, a temperature of the developing solution in the developing, a developing time, a contact pressure of a developing brush, a number of rotations of the developing brush, a maintenance condition of the developing solution, a size of a plate that is made, an image rate, or a development depth (paragraph 57: size).” Regarding claim 16, Yoshida et al. further disclose “a developing device for an original plate, comprising the predicting device according to claim 1 (title).” Regarding claim 17, Yoshida et al. disclose “a predicting method comprising: acquiring a development processing condition in developing (paragraph 57); acquiring developing solution data indicating a composition of a developing solution (paragraph 64); generating prediction data in which a composition of a developing solution after development is predicted, based on the development processing condition and the developing solution data (paragraphs 63 and 64); and outputting information corresponding to the prediction data (paragraph 57).”
Regarding claim 21, Yoshida et al. disclose “a non-transitory computer-readable medium having recorded thereon a predicting program (paragraphs 26 and 57-59) that, when executed by a computer, causes the computer to function as: a processing condition acquisition unit which acquires a development processing condition in developing (paragraph 57); a developing solution data acquisition unit which acquires developing solution data indicating a composition of a developing solution (paragraph 64); a prediction unit which generates prediction data in which a composition of a developing solution after development is predicted, based on the development processing condition and the developing solution data (paragraphs 63 and 64); and an output unit which outputs information corresponding to the prediction data (paragraph 57).”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA D ZIMMERMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2749. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 9:30AM-6:30PM, First Fridays: 9:30AM-5:30PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Stephen Meier can be reached at (571) 272-2149. 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.
/JOSHUA D ZIMMERMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights