DETAILED ACTION
Non-Final Rejection
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 5-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Each of claims 5-15 falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP § 2106.03. For example, each of claims 5-7 and 13-15 fall within category of process. For example, each of claim 8-12 falls within category of machine, i.e., a “concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices.” Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1348–49, 111 USPQ2d at 1719 (quoting Burr v. Duryee, 68 U.S. 531, 570, 17 L. Ed. 650, 657 (1863)).
Regarding Claims 5-7
Step 2A – Prong 1
Exemplary claim 5 is directed to an abstract idea of a corrosion estimation method.
The abstract idea is set forth or described by the following italicized limitations:
5. A corrosion estimation method, comprising:
estimating, based a particle diameter of soil of a target land, a relationship between an underground depth of the target land and an oxygen concentration in soil; and
estimating, based a corrosion rate of a target metal at a ground surface of the target land and the relationship between the underground depth and the oxygen concentration, a relationship between the underground depth and the corrosion rate from a relationship between the oxygen concentration and the corrosion rate.
The italicized limitations above represent a mathematical concept (i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships or rules or idea). Therefore, the italicized limitations fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
For example, the limitations “estimating, based a particle diameter of soil of a target land, a relationship between an underground depth of the target land and an oxygen concentration in soil; and estimating, based a corrosion rate of a target metal at a ground surface of the target land and the relationship between the underground depth and the oxygen concentration, a relationship between the underground depth and the corrosion rate from a relationship between the oxygen concentration and the corrosion rat” is mathematical concept (i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships or rules or idea), see 2106.04(a)(2). Limitations are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (discussing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)).
Step 2A – Prong 2
Claim 5 does not include additional elements (when considered individually, as an ordered combination, and/or within the claim as a whole) that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B
Claim 5 does not include additional elements, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The reasons for reaching this conclusion are substantially the same as the reasons given above in § Step 2A – Prong 2. For brevity only, those reasons are not repeated in this section. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(g) and MPEP §§2106.05(II).
Dependent Claims 6-7
Dependent claims 6-7 fail to cure this deficiency of independent claim 5 (set forth above) and are rejected accordingly. Particularly, claims6-7 recite limitations that represent (in addition to the limitations already noted above) either the abstract idea or an additional element that is merely extra-solution activity, mere use of instructions and/or generic computer component(s) as a tool to implement the abstract idea, and/or merely limits the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
For example, the limitations of Claims 6-7 are mathematical concepts.
Regarding Claims 8-12
Step 2A – Prong 1
Exemplary claim 8 is directed to an abstract idea of a corrosion estimation.
The abstract idea is set forth or described by the following italicized limitations:
8. A corrosion estimation device, comprising: a central processing unit; and
a storage device storing a program to be executed by the central processing unit, the program including instructions to:
estimate, based a particle diameter of soil of a target land, a relationship between an underground depth of the target land and an oxygen concentration in soil; and
estimate, based a corrosion rate or a corrosion amount of a target metal at a ground surface of the target land and the relationship between the underground depth and the oxygen concentration, a relationship between the underground depth and the corrosion rate or the corrosion amount from a relationship between the oxygen concentration and the corrosion rate or the corrosion amount.
The italicized limitations above represent a mathematical concept (i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships or rules or idea). Therefore, the italicized limitations fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
For example, the limitations “estimate, based a particle diameter of soil of a target land, a relationship between an underground depth of the target land and an oxygen concentration in soil; and
estimate, based a corrosion rate or a corrosion amount of a target metal at a ground surface of the target land and the relationship between the underground depth and the oxygen concentration, a relationship between the underground depth and the corrosion rate or the corrosion amount from a relationship between the oxygen concentration and the corrosion rate or the corrosion amount” is mathematical concept (i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships or rules or idea), see 2106.04(a)(2). Limitations are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (discussing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)).
Step 2A – Prong 2
Claim 8 does not include additional elements (when considered individually, as an ordered combination, and/or within the claim as a whole) that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Only additional element is “A corrosion estimation device, comprising: a central processing unit; and a storage device storing a program to be executed by the central processing unit, the program including instructions to: ”. This element amounts to mere use of a generic computer components of a system, which is well understood routine and conventional (see background of current discloser and IDS and PTO 892) and this element individually does not provide a practical application. In view of the above, the “additional element” individually or combine does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. see MPEP 2106.05(d).
In view of the above the “additional elements” individually do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. Furthermore, the “additional elements” in combination amount to a generic computer components with computer software, where such computers and software amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer(s) and/or mere use of a generic computer component(s) as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, these elements in combination do not provide a practical application. The combination of additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, and for this additional reason, the combination of additional elements does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea..
Step 2B
Claim 8 does not include additional elements, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The reasons for reaching this conclusion are substantially the same as the reasons given above in § Step 2A – Prong 2. For brevity only, those reasons are not repeated in this section. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(g) and MPEP §§2106.05(II).
Dependent Claims 9-12
Dependent claims 9-12 fail to cure this deficiency of independent claim 8 (set forth above) and are rejected accordingly. Particularly, claims 9-12 recite limitations that represent (in addition to the limitations already noted above) either the abstract idea or an additional element that is merely extra-solution activity, mere use of instructions and/or generic computer component(s) as a tool to implement the abstract idea, and/or merely limits the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
For example, the limitations of Claims 9-12 are mathematical concepts.
Regarding Claims 13-15
Step 2A – Prong 1
Exemplary claim 13 is directed to an abstract idea of a corrosion estimation method.
The abstract idea is set forth or described by the following italicized limitations:
13. A corrosion estimation method, comprising: estimating, based a particle diameter of soil of a target land, a relationship between an underground depth of the target land and an oxygen concentration in soil; and
estimating, based a corrosion amount of a target metal at a ground surface of the target land and the relationship between the underground depth and the oxygen concentration, a relationship between the underground depth and the corrosion amount from a relationship between the oxygen concentration and the corrosion amount..
The italicized limitations above represent a mathematical concept (i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships or rules or idea). Therefore, the italicized limitations fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
For example, the limitations “A corrosion estimation method, comprising: estimating, based a particle diameter of soil of a target land, a relationship between an underground depth of the target land and an oxygen concentration in soil; and estimating, based a corrosion amount of a target metal at a ground surface of the target land and the relationship between the underground depth and the oxygen concentration, a relationship between the underground depth and the corrosion amount from a relationship between the oxygen concentration and the corrosion amountt” is mathematical concept (i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships or rules or idea), see 2106.04(a)(2). Limitations are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (discussing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)).
Step 2A – Prong 2
Claim 13 does not include additional elements (when considered individually, as an ordered combination, and/or within the claim as a whole) that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B
Claim 13 does not include additional elements, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The reasons for reaching this conclusion are substantially the same as the reasons given above in § Step 2A – Prong 2. For brevity only, those reasons are not repeated in this section. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(g) and MPEP §§2106.05(II).
Dependent Claims 14-15
Dependent claims 14-15 fail to cure this deficiency of independent claim 13 (set forth above) and are rejected accordingly. Particularly, claims 14-15 recite limitations that represent (in addition to the limitations already noted above) either the abstract idea or an additional element that is merely extra-solution activity, mere use of instructions and/or generic computer component(s) as a tool to implement the abstract idea, and/or merely limits the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
For example, the limitations of Claims 14-15 are mathematical concepts.
Examiner Notes
There is no prior art rejection over claims 5, 8 and 13, however there is 101 rejection. However, closets prior arts fail to teach the limitations of “estimating, based a particle diameter of soil of a target land, a relationship between an underground depth of the target land and an oxygen concentration in soil; and estimating, based a corrosion rate of a target metal at a ground surface of the target land and the relationship between the underground depth and the oxygen concentration, a relationship between the underground depth and the corrosion rate from a relationship between the oxygen concentration and the corrosion rate. (claim 5)”, “estimate, based a particle diameter of soil of a target land, a relationship between an underground depth of the target land and an oxygen concentration in soil; and estimate, based a corrosion rate or a corrosion amount of a target metal at a ground surface of the target land and the relationship between the underground depth and the oxygen concentration, a relationship between the underground depth and the corrosion rate or the corrosion amount from a relationship between the oxygen concentration and the corrosion rate or the corrosion amount(claim 8)”; “estimating, based a particle diameter of soil of a target land, a relationship between an underground depth of the target land and an oxygen concentration in soil; and estimating, based a corrosion amount of a target metal at a ground surface of the target land and the relationship between the underground depth and the oxygen concentration, a relationship between the underground depth and the corrosion amount from a relationship between the oxygen concentration and the corrosion amount. (claim 13)”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
a) Mineta et al. (US 2022/0414486) disclose a prediction device for predicting an objective variable from an explanatory variable by combining two or more prediction models, and a method therefor. One of the prediction models specifies information to be input and information to be output on the basis of scientific phenomenology of a prediction target. In the following, the present invention will be described by way of example of a prediction device that predicts corrosion of underground equipment made of metal. the corrosion rates of the metal in the soil at different water contents includes soil specific characteristic and is directly related to the environmental factors in the ground. In particular, it has been found that it is closely related to a soil particle size distribution. Further, for example, the type of soil, the color of the soil, the conductivity, the chemical reaction species, the amount thereof, and the like are also greatly related. Therefore, the information related to the corrosion rates of the metal in the soil at different water contents can be estimated from a first prediction model representing the relationship with the environmental factors in the ground including information related to the soil particle size distribution.
Ohta et al. (US 2011/0272065) disclose primary fine-crystalline alloy ribbons of 5 mm in width and 16-25 .mu.m in thickness each having a structure, in which fine crystal grains having an average diameter of 30 nm or less were dispersed in an amorphous phase at a volume fraction of 2-25%. These primary fine-crystalline alloy ribbons were subject to a nano-crystallization heat treatment in a nitrogen gas having an oxygen concentration of 15%, to produce soft magnetic alloy ribbons. The average diameter and volume fraction of fine crystal grains in each soft magnetic alloy ribbon were measured by the methods described below. It was thus found that each soft magnetic alloy ribbon had a structure in which fine crystal grains having an average diameter of 60 nm or less were dispersed in an amorphous phase at a volume fraction of 50% or more. The concentration distributions of Fe, B and Cu and corrosion resistance of each soft magnetic alloy ribbon were measured by the above methods. The average concentrations (atomic %) of Fe, B and Cu up to the depth of 10 nm from the surface, the Cu/Fe atomic ratio (%), the B/Fe atomic ratio (%),the concentration distribution of B in the alloy layer, and the corrosion resistance are shown in Table 7.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD K ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)270-0328. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m..
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.
/MOHAMMAD K ISLAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857