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 1-3 and 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Per step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test (See MPEP 2106), claim 1 is directed to a method. While the claim does not recite any active method steps, as discussed above, it appears that the claim is intended to be directed to a process which would within a statutory category (See MPEP 2106.03).
Per step 2A, prong 1, claim 1 recites a first estimation criterion to estimate light output of the particular light-emitting device in a period before a predetermined accumulated light emission time TX; and a second estimation criterion to estimate light output of the particular light-emitting device in a period after the predetermined accumulated light emission time TX, wherein the first estimation criterion and the second estimation criterion are different criteria, wherein each of the first estimation criterion and the second estimation criterion is expressed as a function of accumulated light emission time of the particular light-emitting device, wherein the method comprises, determining a first set of coefficients of the function for the first estimation criterion based on at least a portion of light output data of the particular light-emitting device, the first set of coefficients including a coefficient specific to a type of method for manufacturing the particular light-emitting device and a coefficient specific to the particular light-emitting device; calculating an estimated light output value Px at the predetermined accumulated light emission time Tx by using the first estimation criterion for which the first set of coefficients have been determined; determining a second set of coefficients of the function for the second estimation criterion based on the estimated light output value Px at the predetermined accumulated light emission time Tx calculated using the first estimation criterion for which the first set of coefficient been determined, the second set of coefficients including a coefficient specific to a type of method for manufacturing the particular light-emitting device and a coefficient specific to the particular light-emitting device; and acquiring an estimated value of light output of the light-emitting device by using the first estimation criterion for which the first set of coefficients have been determined and the second estimation criterion for which the second set of coefficients have been determined.
The criteria are disclosed as equations and determining the first and second set of coefficients are determined using those equations (pars. 32-36). Therefore, the abstract idea falls into the mathematical concepts grouping (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I).
The additional element in claim 1 is the computer.
Per step 2A, prong 2, The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the computer recited in claim 1 amounts to instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer (See MPEP 2106.05(f))..
Per step 2B, claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reason..
Claims 2, 3 and 5-9 depend from claim 1 and also do not recite any additional elements. Claims 2, 3 and 5-9 only recite further details of the abstract idea. Therefore, claims 2, 3 and 5-9 are rejected for the same reason.
Claim 10 depends from claim 1 and recites an additional element that the particular light-emitting device emits deep ultraviolet light. This additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it is recited at a high level of generality and does not amount to more than generally linking the abstract idea to a technological environment (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). This additional element is not significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reason.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant states that by defining that coefficients determined based light output data of a particular light-emitting device are specific to the method of manufacturing the particular light-emitting device and specific to the particular light-emitting device itself, claim 1 recites additional elements that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. However, the definition of the criterion and the coefficients are part of the mathematical operations that are in the abstract idea. The only additional element recited in claim 1 is the computer.
Applicant states that claim 1 here seeks to protect the use of the physics of the method of manufacturing a particular light-emitting device and the physics of the particular light-emitting device itself to determine coefficients for first and second estimation criteria for acquiring an estimated light output of the light emitting device. However, the claim does not claim any manufacturing steps. The claim defines steps for performing mathematical operations to determine two sets of coefficients, which are mathematical operations.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANUEL L BARBEE whose telephone number is (571)272-2212. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-5:30..
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, Shelby A Turner can be reached at 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 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.
/MANUEL L BARBEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights