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 .
In response to the restriction requirement, Applicant elected claims 1, 4-7, 15-16, 17, and 20 for further examination. As a result, claims 2-3, 8-14, and 18-19 are withdrawn from further prosecution.
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, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because:
Step 1 (MPEP 2106. 3, subsection II): The claims, after reviewing the entire application disclosure, considered as a whole, are determined to be directed to one of the statutory category (processes, machines, manufactures, and compositions of matter): A method/medium/device.
Step 2A (MPEP 2106. 4, subsection II):
Prong One: The claims recite the limitation of calculating an evaluation value from the signal of the sensor channels as an index of deterioration state of the line sensor. This limitation is analyzed including concepts directed to “mathematical concepts” that falls within at least one of the groupings of abstract idea (MPEP 2106.04(a) Abstract Ideas: The enumerated groupings of abstract ideas: Mathematical concepts, Certain methods of organizing human activity, Mental processes). As a result, the claims recite a judicial exception.
Prong Two: The additional steps/actions/elements recited in the claims:
- detecting an interference fringe using the line sensor – obtaining information (MPEP 2106.05(g));
- determining a deterioration state of the line sensor (Insignificant post solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g))
When viewed in combination of as a whole, the recited additional steps/actions/elements do no more than add insignificant extra-solution to the judicial exception. As a result, these additional steps/actions/elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. These claims are therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The additional steps/actions/elements recited in the claims, detecting an interference fringe by a line sensor and determining a deterioration state of the line sensor, are well known in the field as evidenced by the prior art cited in the rejection below, do not amount significant to add an inventive concept to the claims, because they do is no more than adding insignificant pre-solution and post-solution activities to the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Matsumoto (US 2010 073863).
Matsumoto discloses a deterioration evaluation method of a line sensor, comprising:
detecting an interference fringe of pulse laser light using the line sensor (FIG. 6B shows the interference waveform and the line sensor CCD);
calculating, based on a signal value obtained from each of a plurality of sensor channels included in a sensor channel range being at least a part of the line sensor in accordance with light intensity of the interference fringe (FIG. 6B and FIGs. 7-8: The signal of the interference waveform), an evaluation value which is an index of deterioration for each of the sensor channels or each group of the sensor channels, and storing the evaluation value in a storage device; and determining a deterioration state of the line sensor based on the evaluation value (page 2, lines 26-28: Due to long time usage, the deterioration of the optical sensor array (CCD sensor) has occurred and caused the non-uniformity of the sensor sensitivity. Page 3, lines 27-31: The optical sensitivity of each channel is calculated to provide a correction value for each channel).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 4-5, 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto (JP 2010 073863) in view of Moriya (US 2019/0107438).
Matsumoto discloses the claimed invention as discussed above except wherein the evaluation value is a light amount integration value obtained by integrating the signal value or a value calculated by performing non-linear conversion on the light amount integration value.
Moriya discloses a system comprising a line sensor having a plurality of sensor channels for detecting an interference fringe (FIG. 1, element 18d), wherein the data from the output of the line sensor is integrated by adding the current and new data of the intensity distribution profile to provide a accumulate intensity distribution profile (FIG. 17, steps S409-S410b).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Matsumoto’s system to include integrating the light intensity outputted from the line sensor to provide the accumulated intensity distribution profile of the line sensor as taught by Moriya (paragraph [0165]).
Regarding to claims 5, 15: wherein the light amount integration value is obtained by dividing an integration value of the signal value by a second constant, wherein a processor executes a process of calculating the evaluation value from data of the signal value for each of the sensor channels, a process of storing the evaluation value in the storage device, and a process of outputting a determination result as determining a deterioration state of the line sensor based on the evaluation value (Moriya: FIG. 19 shows the array data butter where the light amount of each channel of the line sensor is stored. The claim language does not specify the second constant; the claimed second constant thus can be broadly interpreted as “1”; As a result, the quantity of light stored in the array data buffer is as itself).
Regarding to claim 16: wherein the process of outputting the determination result includes at least one of a process of displaying the determination result on a display device, a process of performing notification based on the determination result, and a process of recording the determination result in a log (Moriya: FIG. 22, element 1010).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto (JP 2010 073863) in view of Moriya (US 2019/0107438), and further in view of Kawatoko (JP 2005 156301).
Matsumoto, as modified, discloses the claimed invention as discussed above, except wherein the light amount integration value is obtained by integrating a value obtained by subtracting a
third constant from the signal value.
Kawatoko discloses a system comprising a line sensor for detecting an interference fringe to output a signal relating to the light amount of the interference fringe after removing/subtracting noise (third constant) to stabilize the signal (page 5, 2nd paragraph).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Matsumoto’s system, as modified, to include removing or subtracting noise from the signal to stabilize the signal as taught by Kawatoko (page 5, 2nd paragraph).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The primary reasons for the indication of the allowability of the claim is the inclusions therein, in combination as currently claimed, of the limitation that wherein the non-linear conversion is conversion reflecting a sensor deterioration characteristic indicating relationship between an irradiation energy integration amount of the pulse laser light and a decrease in sensor sensitivity is neither disclosed nor taught by the cited prior art of record, alone or in combination.
CONTACT INFORMATION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAM S NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2151.
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, DOUGLAS RODRIGUEZ, can be reached on 571-431-0716. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LAM S NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853