Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/12/24 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Status
3. Claims 1-7 are cancelled. Claims 8-10 are pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a reading means configured to”, “a feature quantity extraction means”, “a learning means configured to” in claim 8 and “a computer device configured to” in claim 10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
5. Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an Abstract idea without significantly more.
6. Regarding claim 8, the claim(s) recite(s) “A computer device for particle identification comprising: a reading means configured to receive a first unique identifier associated with a first physical property of a first sensor and save the received first unique identifier in the storage means with the processor; a feature quantity extraction means configured to receive first measurement data from the first sensor that measures a known particle belonging to a known class, extract first feature quantity information with the processor, and save the extracted first feature quantity information in the storage means; and a learning means configured to generate, with the processor, a machine learning optimization parameter by treating the first feature quantity information and the first physical property associated with the first unique identifier as teaching data and treating the known class as a teaching label” directed to an abstract idea. The claim recites steps of data gathering, data processing using mathematical algorithm or mental process using generic computer elements. The machine learning step appears to do data processing without any significant details. This idea is similar to a basic concept of collecting data and manipulating/processing data which is found to be an abstract idea by the courts (See Parker v Flook and Electric Power Group vs. Alstom Grid 2016).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because it appears that the data gathering and data processing steps are provided generally linking the use of judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of art (particle identification) (MPEP 2106 h).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because at least one processor, at least one storage means, sensor which are simply routine/conventional elements in the field of art. See prior art of record which shows that these elements are generic, routine and well-known in the field of art: Isami (US 2002/0026292), Figures 1-19; Hongo et al. (US 2014/0374255), Figures 1-8; Brun et al. (US 2015/0377763), Figures 1-7; Nishida et al. (US 2021/0285911), Figures 1-19.
7. Claim 9 is also rejected as it further depends on claim 8.
8. Regarding claim 10, the claim(s) recite(s) “A system for particle identification, the system comprising: a computer device configured to receive, from each of the plurality of sensors, a physical property of each sensor, measurement data measured by each sensor, and a unique identifier for each sensor over a network, and save the received information in association with each other in a database, wherein the computer device is configured to extract feature quantity information from measurement data related to a measurement of a known particle belonging to a known class performed by one or more of the plurality of sensors, generate a machine learning optimization parameter by treating at least the feature quantity information as teaching data, and save the generated machine learning optimization parameter in association with the unique identifier of each of the one or more sensors in the database, and the computer device is configured such that, upon detecting that a process of identifying an unknown particle is to be performed using a specific sensor from among the plurality of sensors, the computer device searches the database for a machine learning optimization parameter usable for identifying the unknown particle with the specific sensor, and if an available machine learning optimization parameter exists, the computer device transmits, over a network, a notification including a measurement condition under which a measurement of the unknown particle by the specific sensor should be performed on a basis of a physical property of a sensor associated with the unique identifier associated with the available machine learning optimization parameter, and causes the specific sensor to adjust the measurement condition” directed to an abstract idea. The claim recites steps of data gathering, data processing using mathematical algorithm or mental process using generic computer elements. The machine learning step appears to do data processing without any significant details. This idea is similar to a basic concept of collecting data and manipulating/processing data which is found to be an abstract idea by the courts (See Parker v Flook and Electric Power Group vs. Alstom Grid 2016).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because it appears that the data gathering and data processing steps are provided generally linking the use of judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of art (particle identification) (MPEP 2106 h).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because sensors, computer device which are simply routine/conventional elements in the field of art. See prior art of record which shows that these elements are generic, routine and well-known in the field of art: Isami (US 2002/0026292), Figures 1-19; Hongo et al. (US 2014/0374255), Figures 1-8; Brun et al. (US 2015/0377763), Figures 1-7; Nishida et al. (US 2021/0285911), Figures 1-19.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NEEL D SHAH whose telephone number is (571)270-3766. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9AM-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, Judy Nguyen can be reached at 571-272-2258. 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.
/NEEL D SHAH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858