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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1:
According to the first part of the analysis, in the instant case, claims 1-10 are directed to a material recognition system, claim 11-20 are directed to a material recognition method. Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Regarding claim 11:
A material recognition method, applied to a material recognition system, comprising:
fetching, by a fetching device of the material recognition system, a target object;
transmitting, by an ultrasound transmitter of at least on sensing device of the material recognition system, an ultrasound emitting signal on a surface of the target object;
receiving, by an ultrasound receiver of the at least on sensing device, an ultrasound received signal on the surface of the target object, wherein when the fetching device fetches the target object, the ultrasound transmitter and the ultrasound receiver touch the surface of the target object, and wherein there is a fixed distance between the ultrasound transmitter and the ultrasound receiver; and
recognizing, by a processing device of the material recognition system, a material of the target object according to the ultrasound emitting signal, the ultrasound received signal, and the fixed distance.
Step 2A Prong 1:
“fetching, by a fetching device of the material recognition system, a target object” is directed to mental step of data gathering.
“receiving, by an ultrasound receiver of the at least on sensing device, an ultrasound received signal on the surface of the target object, wherein when the fetching device fetches the target object, the ultrasound transmitter and the ultrasound receiver touch the surface of the target object, and wherein there is a fixed distance between the ultrasound transmitter and the ultrasound receiver” is directed to math because this setup often used in sensors to measure the distance to an object, relies on mathematical formulas to determine the position of objects based on the time it takes for sound to travel. A fixed-distance ultrasound setup relies on mathematical equations to covert the time delay of sound waves into usable distance measurements.
“recognizing, by a processing device of the material recognition system, a material of the target object according to the ultrasound emitting signal, the ultrasound received signal, and the fixed distance” is directed to a mental step of identifying the results of analyzing data.
Each limitation recites in the claim is a process that, under BRI covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of a generic “sensor, body part, and measurement” which is a mere indication of the field of use. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Further, the claim recites the step of “receiving, by an ultrasound receiver of the at least on sensing device, an ultrasound received signal on the surface of the target object, wherein when the fetching device fetches the target object, the ultrasound transmitter and the ultrasound receiver touch the surface of the target object, and wherein there is a fixed distance between the ultrasound transmitter and the ultrasound receiver” which as drafted, under BRI recites a mathematical calculation. The grouping of "mathematical concepts” in the 2019 PED includes "mathematical calculations" as an exemplar of an abstract idea. 2019 PEG Section |, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Thus, the recited limitation falls into the "mathematical concept" grouping of abstract ideas. This limitation also falls into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas, because the recited mathematical calculation is simple enough that it can be practically performed in the human mind, e.g., scientists and engineers have been solving the Arrhenius equation in their minds since it was first proposed in 1889.
Note that even if most humans would use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper, a slide rule, or a calculator) to help them complete the recited calculation, the use of such physical aid does not negate the mental nature of this limitation. See October Update at Section I(C)(i) and (iii).
Additional Elements:
Step 2A Prong 2:
“A material recognition method, applied to a material recognition system, comprising” recited in the preamble does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“fetching, by a fetching device of the material recognition system, a target object” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“receiving, by an ultrasound receiver of the at least on sensing device, an ultrasound received signal on the surface of the target object, wherein when the fetching device fetches the target object, the ultrasound transmitter and the ultrasound receiver touch the surface of the target object, and wherein there is a fixed distance between the ultrasound transmitter and the ultrasound receiver” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“recognizing, by a processing device of the material recognition system, a material of the target object according to the ultrasound emitting signal, the ultrasound received signal, and the fixed distance” is directed to insignificant activity and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The claim is merely selecting data, manipulating or analyzing the data using math and mental process, and identifying the results.
This is similar to electric power: MPEP 2106.05(h) vi. Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
The claim as a whole does not meet any of the following criteria to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
An additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Step 2B:
“A material recognition method, applied to a material recognition system, comprising” recited in the preamble does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“fetching, by a fetching device of the material recognition system, a target object” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“receiving, by an ultrasound receiver of the at least on sensing device, an ultrasound received signal on the surface of the target object, wherein when the fetching device fetches the target object, the ultrasound transmitter and the ultrasound receiver touch the surface of the target object, and wherein there is a fixed distance between the ultrasound transmitter and the ultrasound receiver” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“recognizing, by a processing device of the material recognition system, a material of the target object according to the ultrasound emitting signal, the ultrasound received signal, and the fixed distance” is directed to insignificant activity and does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. See MPEP 2106.05(g) and 2106.05(d)(ii), third list, (iv).
The claim is therefore ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 1 is similar to claim 11 but recites a material recognition system, comprising: a fetching device, configured to fetch a target object; at least one sensing device, configured in a fetching part of the fetching device. These additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality and do not add significantly more to the judicial exception. These elements are generic computing devices that perform generic functions. Using generic computer elements to perform an abstract idea does not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. See 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. Moreover, “the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 223; see also FairWarninglP, LLCv. latric SysInc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citation omitted) (“[T]he use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter”).
On the record before us, we are not persuaded that the hardware of claim 1 integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Nor are we persuaded that the additional elements are anything more than well-understood, routine, and conventional so as to impart subject matter eligibility to claim 1.
Regarding claims 2 and 12, “wherein the processing device further obtains ultrasound transmission speed information according to the ultrasound emitting signal, the ultrasound received signal, and the fixed distance” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, “wherein the processing device further recognizes the material of the target object according to the ultrasound transmission speed information and a look-up table” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, “wherein the processing device further obtains time-domain information and frequency-domain information of the ultrasound emitting signal and the ultrasound received signal, and inputs the ultrasound transmission speed information and ultrasound features corresponding to the time-domain information and the frequency-domain information into a machine learning model to recognize the material of the target object”, the claims do not recite any details regarding how the machine learning model functions or is trained. Instead, the claims are found to utilize machine learning model as a tool that provides nothing more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a general purpose computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Additionally, the use of machine learning model merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Therefore, the use of machine learning model to perform steps that are otherwise abstract does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence; and Example 47, ineligible claim 2.
Regarding claims 5 and 15, “wherein the processing device further indicates the ultrasound features according to the time-domain information and the frequency-domain information of the ultrasound emitting signal and the ultrasound received signal, wherein the ultrasound features comprise an impedance value, an attenuation value, a distortion value and a complexity of the ultrasound emitting signal and the ultrasound received signal” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, “wherein the ultrasound transmitter and the ultrasound receiver are configured in parallel in the sensing device” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, “wherein the ultrasound transmitter and the ultrasound receiver are stuck flatly to the surface of the target object” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, “wherein a first sensing device is configured in a first side of the fetching part of the fetching device, and a second sensing device is configured in a second side of the fetching part of the fetching device” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, “wherein the sensing device further comprises a pressure sensor to determine whether the ultrasound transmitter and the ultrasound receiver have touched the surface of the target object” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claims 10 and 20, “wherein the fetching device is a robot arm, a chuck device, a probe device, or a gripper device” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Hence the claims 1-20 are treated as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (TW 202321687 A).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Chen et al. disclose a material recognition system (page 1: an object picking system based on ultrasonic recognition), comprising:
a fetching device, configured to fetch a target object (page 1: Object picking systems such as robotic arms are commonly used in automated production lines to pick up objects and move them to designated locations);
at least one sensing device, configured in a fetching part of the fetching device, wherein the sensing device comprises: an ultrasound transmitter, transmitting an ultrasound emitting signal on a surface of the target object; and an ultrasound receiver, receiving an ultrasound received signal on the surface of the target object, wherein there is a fixed distance between the ultrasound transmitter and the ultrasound receiver (page 6: The object picking system of this embodiment mainly includes a picking device 11 , a pressure sensing module 12 , an ultrasonic sensing module 13 and a control device 10 electrically connected to the above devices, page 7: the ultrasonic sensing module 13 may include an ultrasonic transmitter 130 for emitting ultrasonic waves and an ultrasonic
receiver 131 for receiving ultrasonic waves, page 8: the ultrasonic transmitter and ultrasonic receiver in the integrated sensor can maintain a fixed
distance, page 11: the object-contacting side of the pick-up device 11 can be
closely attached to the surface of the object, page 13: In FIG. 15, the distance between the ultrasonic transmitter 130 and the ultrasonic receiver 131 is fixed. The wave propagation time t1 of the ultrasonic wave in the object is measurable, for example, it is the time difference between the transmission time of the transmission wave TX signal and the reception time of the reception wave RX signal.); and
a processing device, coupled to the fetching device and the at least one sensing device, and recognizing a material of the target object according to the ultrasound emitting signal, the ultrasound received signal, and the fixed distance, wherein when the fetching device fetches the target object, the ultrasound transmitter and the ultrasound receiver touch the surface of the target object (page 2: It is worth mentioning that when ultrasonic waves propagate in objects with different physical characteristics, different sound speeds and attenuation amplitudes will be produced. The present invention can identify the material of the object by analyzing the above changes. Specifically, in the ultrasonic recognition stage, the control device 10 can be set to control the pick-up device 11 to contact the object with a small force so that the object contact side where the ultrasonic sensing module 13 is located is close to the object (for example, the object contact side There is no gap with the object), the ultrasonic data of the object is obtained through the ultrasonic sensing module 13, the recognition result of the object is obtained based on the ultrasonic data, and the picking force is set based on the recognition result, page 3: the ultrasonic sensing module
13 can emit ultrasonic waves toward the object, and can receive ultrasonic waves (reflected waves) passing through the object to generate ultrasonic data. When ultrasonic waves propagate in objects with different physical characteristics, different sound speeds and attenuation amplitudes will be produced. The present invention can identify the material of the object by analyzing the above changes).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Chen et al. disclose wherein the processing device further obtains ultrasound transmission speed information according to the ultrasound emitting signal, the ultrasound received signal, and the fixed distance (page 13: the speed of the ultrasonic wave in the object (ie the aforementioned sensing speed) can be calculated through the abovementioned
setting distance and wave propagation time t1.).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Chen et al. disclose wherein the processing device further recognizes the material of the target object according to the ultrasound transmission speed information and a look-up table (page 14: the storage device 14 can store the look-up table 140. The lookup table 140 records the spectrum-material correspondence between various preset spectrums and multiple preset materials. The control device 10 can read the look-up table 140 from the storage device 14 to obtain a variety of preset spectral waveforms, and obtain a preset material that matches the spectrum as the material of the object.).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Chen et al. disclose the processing device further obtains time-domain information and frequency-domain information of the ultrasound emitting signal and the ultrasound received signal, and inputs the ultrasound transmission speed information and ultrasound features corresponding to the time-domain information and the frequency-domain information into a machine learning model to recognize the material of the target object (page 14: Step S36: The control device 10 performs frequency-domain conversion on the ultrasonic data of the object to convert the ultrasonic data of
the object from the space/time domain to the frequency domain to obtain the ultrasonic spectrum of the object. Step S38: The control device 10 reads the machine learning model 141 from the storage device 14, and inputs the ultrasonic data of the object into the machine learning model 141 to determine the material of the object as the material of the recognition result)
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Chen et al. disclose wherein the processing device further indicates the ultrasound features according to the time-domain information and the frequency-domain information of the ultrasound emitting signal and the ultrasound received signal, wherein the ultrasound features comprise an impedance value, an attenuation value, a distortion value and a complexity of the ultrasound emitting signal and the ultrasound received signal (pages 10-11).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Chen et al. disclose the ultrasound transmitter and the ultrasound receiver are configured in parallel in the sensing device (page 8: In the embodiment of FIG. 4 , the ultrasonic transmitter 310 , the pressure sensing module 312 , and the ultrasonic receiver 311 are arranged horizontally and sequentially on the object contact side).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Chen et al. disclose the ultrasound transmitter and the ultrasound receiver are stuck flatly to the surface of the target object (page 11: the object-contacting side of the pick-up device 11 can be closely attached to the surface of the object).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Chen et al. disclose a first sensing device is configured in a first side of the fetching part of the fetching device, and a second sensing device is configured in a second side of the fetching part of the fetching device (page 19: Wherein the pressure sensing module includes a first pressure sensing layer and a second pressure sensing layer Wherein one end of the integrated sensor is sequentially provided with the first non-conductive layer, the ultrasonic transmitter, the first pressure sensing layer and the first sound-absorbing layer from the object contacting side toward the inside; Wherein the other end of the integrated sensor is sequentially provided with the second non-conductive layer, the ultrasonic receiver, the second pressure sensing layer and the second sound-absorbing layer from the object contacting side toward the inner direction).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Chen et al. disclose the sensing device further comprises a pressure sensor to determine whether the ultrasound transmitter and the ultrasound receiver have touched the surface of the target object (page 2: a pressure sensing module and an ultrasonic sensing module are arranged on the object contact side of the pickup device, page 3: The pressure sensing module 12 can be disposed on the object contact side of the pickup device 11. The ultrasonic sensing module 13 can be disposed on the object contact side of the pickup device 11. In this way, when the pick-up device 11 touches or picks up an object, the reaction force of the object will trigger a corresponding pressure sensing value on the pressure sensing module 12, the ultrasonic sensing module13 can emit ultrasonic waves toward the object, and can receive ultrasonic waves (reflected waves) passing through the object to generate ultrasonic data).
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Chen et al. disclose the fetching device is a robot arm, a chuck device, a probe device, or a gripper device (page: Object picking systems such as robotic arms).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN H LE whose telephone number is (571)272-2275. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 7:00am – 3:30pm Eastern Time.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shelby A. Turner can be reached on (571) 272-6334. 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.
/JOHN H LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857