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 .
Claims 1-8 are the current claims hereby under examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims 3-8 recite the wording “is effective to” or “is effective for” which has been interpreted as an intended use limitation instead of a required active step or definitive resulting step. For example, claim 2 reciting that “reducing similarity score is effective to decrease the rate of false positive similarity scores” appears to recite an intended use of reducing similarity score. The claim construction does not require any step to be performed, but appears to recite a possible observation of using such a method. Additionally claims 4-8 follow a similar claim construction pattern and have been interpreted as such. Clarification via claim wording is required.
Claims 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. In light of the claim interpretation described above, it appears that the limitations of claims 3-8 fail to further limit the claim from which they depend due to the intended use nature of their claim construction. As such, applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claimed invention is directed to a method of spectral angle mapping that quantifies the spectral similarity between an image pixel spectrum and a known reference spectrum without significantly more.
Analysis of independent claims 1:
Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106.03).
Claims 1 is directed to a method, which describes one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter, i.e., a process/machine. Therefore, further consideration is necessary.
Step 2A of the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106.04).
Prong One: Claim 1 recites an abstract idea. In particular, the claim recites the following:
a. quantifies the spectral similarity between an image pixel spectrum and a known reference spectrum.
The elements recited in claim 1 are drawn to an abstract idea since they involve a mental process that can be practically performed in the human mind including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion and using pen and paper and/or they involve mathematical concepts in the form of mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and/or mathematical calculations.
Step A involves the mental and/or mathematical step of caculating spectral similarities, which can be performed mentally or using pen and paper. The identified abstract step, recited at the high level of generality, does not suggest an undue level of complexity for a person with ordinary skill in the art to be practically performed in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper.
Prong Two: Claim 1 does not recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are “directed to” the abstract idea. There is no practical application because the abstract idea is not applied, relied on, or used in a meaningful way. The processing performed remains in the abstract realm, i.e., the result is not used for a treatment. No improvement to the technology is evident. Therefore, there are no recited additional elements, alone or in combination, that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B of the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106.05).
Claim 1 does not include additional elements, alone or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., an inventive concept) for the same reasons as described above.
In view of the above, there are no additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the above-judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitation as an ordered combination (that is, as a whole) adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, for example, or improves any other technology. There is no indication that the combination of elements permits automation of specific tasks that previously could not be automated. There is no indication that the combination of elements includes a particular solution to a computer-based problem or a particular way to achieve a desired computer-based outcome.
Analysis of the dependent claims:
Claims 2-8, depend from the independent claims. The dependent claims merely further define the abstract idea and are, therefore, directed to an abstract idea for similar reasons: they merely describe additional quantifying details of determining similarity (e.g. claim 2) or whereas claims 3-8 do not seemingly recite any active steps, but appear to merely recite intended use by the wording of “is effective to.” As such, these dependent claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor add significantly to the identified JE.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (CN 113791040).
Claim 1 is directed towards a method of spectral angle mapping that quantifies the spectral similarity between an image pixel spectrum and a known reference spectrum.
Wang et al. is directed towards a method for detecting heavy metal in soil that comprises using spectral angle mapping techniques. Wang et al. at the description for fig. 2 describes obtaining a spectrum image of the soil and extracting the spectrum characteristic data and calculating the spectrum angle according to the characteristic data of the soil image and of the spectrum library and comparing the similarity of the two, which reads on the method of claim 1.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jason Sims, whose telephone number is (571)-272-7540.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Jonathan Moffat can be reached via telephone (571)-272-4390.
Papers related to this application may be submitted to Technical Center 1600 by facsimile transmission. Papers should be faxed to Technical Center 1600 via the Central PTO Fax Center. The faxing of such papers must conform with the notices published in the Official Gazette, 1096 OG 30 (November 15, 1988), 1156 OG 61 (November 16, 1993), and 1157 OG 94 (December 28, 1993) (See 37 CFR § 1.6(d)). The Central PTO Fax Center number 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).
/JASON M SIMS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
