DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-11 are pending in the application.
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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a controller configured to…” in claims 1-8 and 10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof (for example, please see the Specification at paragraph [0014] and Figure 1).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites:
a controller configured to accept an operation of selection of an analysis data item(s) acquired by an analyzer, to accept an operation of selection of a script(s) to be used to analyze data based on the analysis data item(s), to accept an operation of adjustment of a parameter(s) to be used to execute the script(s); and to analyze the data by executing the script(s) based on the adjusted parameter(s); and
a display configured to display an analysis result obtained by the analysis of the data by the controller.
Limitation (a) , as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a controller,” “selection of a script(s)” and “execute the script(s),” nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “controller” and “script(s)” language, “accept an operation of selection,” “accept an operation of adjustment” and “analyze the data” in the context of this claim encompass the user manually selecting a piece of data, manually selecting a criteria to analyze the selected data, manually changing the criteria used to analyze the data and manually thinking about or making a judgement about the data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of “selection of a script(s),” “execute the script(s)” and “executing the script(s).” Selection and execution of the script(s) is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. selecting and executing a generic computer program) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim also recites the additional element of “a controller” configured to perform the “accept operation of selection,” “accept operation of adjustment” and “analyze data” steps. The controller is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. a generic computer controller to implement the steps) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim also recites the additional element of “a display configured to display an analysis result obtained by the analysis of the data by the controller.” The display is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. a generic computer display for displaying analysis results) and merely meant as a means to provide output (i.e. data display). Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial except does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim as a whole does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “a controller,” “selection of a script(s),” “execute the script(s)” and “executing the script(s)” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “a display configured to display an analysis result obtained by the analysis of the data by the controller” is mere data output, which is extra-solution activity and considered insignificant. Therefore, even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept.
The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 11 recites:
a step of accepting selection of an analysis data item(s) acquired by an analyzer;
a step of accepting selection of a script(s) to be used to analyze data based on the analysis data item(s);
a step of accepting adjustment of a parameter(s) to be used to execute the script(s); and
a step of analyzing the data by executing the script(s) based on the adjusted parameter(s).
Limitations (a), (b) and (c), as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “selection of a script(s)” and “execute the script(s),” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “script(s)” language, “accepting selection” and “accepting adjustment” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually selecting a piece of data, manually selecting a criteria to analyze the selected data, and then manually changing the criteria used to analyze the data. Similarly, limitation (d), as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of a generic computer component. That is, other than reciting “executing the script(s),” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “executing the script(s)” language, “analyzing the data” in the context of this claim encompasses the user thinking about or making a judgement about the data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional elements of “selection of a script(s),” “execute the script(s)” and “executing the script(s).” Selection and execution of the script(s) is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. selecting and executing a generic computer program) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “selection of a script(s),” “execute the script(s)” and “executing the script(s)” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Murakami U.S. Publication 2015/0279033.
Referring to claim 1, Murakami teaches a data analysis apparatus comprising:
a controller configured to accept an operation of selection of an analysis data item(s) acquired by an analyzer (as shown in Figure 2 for example, user selection 207 of a portion of an image) (paragraphs [0058]-[0061] and [0263]-[0264]; this is further shown in Figures 13A-13E), to accept an operation of selection of a script(s) to be used to analyze data based on the analysis data item(s) (as shown in Figure 2 for example, the user can select a script from menu 208 to apply to the selected portion of the image) (paragraphs [0058]-[0061] and [0263]-[0264]; this is further shown in Figures 13A-13E), to accept an operation of adjustment of a parameter(s) to be used to execute the script(s) (as shown in Figures 13A-13E for example, the user can adjust the parameters for the “Viewpoint Setting”, “Scattering Image Data Calculation Setting” and “Transmitted Light Component Suppression Setting”) (paragraphs [0263]-[0267]), and to analyze the data by executing the script(s) based on the adjusted parameter(s) (when the user adjusts the parameters for the various settings, analysis processing is executed with respect to the selected portion of the image) (paragraphs [0263]-[0267]); and
a display configured to display an analysis result obtained by the analysis of the data by the controller (as shown in Figure 13A for example, analysis processing results for the selected portion of the image is displayed) (paragraphs [0263]-[0267]).
Referring to claim 2, Murakami teaches the data analysis apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to make the display to display a parameter adjustment screen for adjusting the parameter(s) in accordance with an operation provided by a user, and to accept an operation of adjustment of one or more parameters in the parameters on the parameter adjustment screen (Figures 13B-13E show various screens that allow the user to adjust the parameters of the various settings) (paragraphs [0263]-[0267]).
Referring to claim 3, Murakami teaches the data analysis apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the controller is configured to accept an operation(s) of adjustment of a plurality of parameters on a common adjustment screen as the adjustment screen (Figures 13B-13E show examples of common adjustment screens that allow the user to adjust a plurality of parameters) (paragraphs [0263]-[0267]).
Referring to claim 4, Murakami teaches the data analysis apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the controller is configured to display the data before the script is applied, and test output data that is obtained by applying to the data the script whose parameter(s) is/are adjusted on a test basis sided by side on the parameter adjustment screen (as shown in Figure 13A for example, the data before and after analysis processing are displayed side by side on the left-side region 1301 and right-side region 1302) (paragraph [0264]).
Referring to claim 5, Murakami teaches the data analysis apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the controller is configured to accept the operation(s) of selection of the script(s) on the adjustment screen (user selection to execute a selected processing function) (paragraphs [0263]-[0267]).
Referring to claim 6, Murakami teaches the data analysis apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the controller is configured to selectively display the data before the script is applied, and test output data that is obtained by applying to the data the script whose parameter(s) is/are adjusted on a test basis on a screen for accepting an operation that is provided by the user to instruct to display the parameter adjustment screen on the display (Figure 13A shows the display of the data before the analysis processing function is applied on the left-side region 1301 and output data from applying the analysis processing function to the data on the right-side region 1302) (paragraphs [0263]-[0267]).
Claim 11 recites a method embodiment comprising essentially the same limitations as those recited in the apparatus embodiment of claim 1. Therefore, the limitations of claim 11 are rejected similarly to the rejection of the limitations of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami U.S. Publication 2015/0279033, as applied to claims 1-2 above, and further in view of Watanabe et al. US Publication 2022/0005188 (hereinafter “Watanabe”).
Referring to claim 7, Murakami teaches all of the limitations as applied to claims 1-2 above. In addition, Murakami teaches wherein the script includes an analysis algorithm for analyzing the data (a plurality of image processing functions can be selected from the menu; the image processing functions provide for image analysis processing algorithms, such as N/C ratio calculation) (Murakami: paragraphs [0263]-[0267] and [0362]-[0374]; this is further shown in Figures 13B-13E and 16A-16D); and the controller is configured to make the display to display, on a dataset generation screen that is displayed on the display when generating a dataset, the adjustment screen for adjusting a parameter(s) in accordance with the operation provided by the user (for example, the screens shown in Figures 13B-13E allow the user to adjust the parameters) (Murakami: paragraphs [0263]-[0267]), and to make the display to display, on an analysis flow generation screen that is displayed when generating an analysis flow that includes a plurality of analysis algorithms combined with each other, the adjustment screen for adjusting a parameter(s) of the analysis algorithms in accordance with the operation provided by the user (for example, Figures 2 and 13A-13E show a plurality of analysis algorithms, i.e. a plurality of function processing that can be selected from the menu) (Murakami: [0263]-[0267]). However, Murakami fails to explicitly teach that each script includes a machine learning generation algorithm for generate machine learning data items to be used for machine learning. Similar to Murakami, Watanabe also teaches applying a script to data items (using parameters to apply image processing) (Watanabe: paragraph [0085]). In addition, Watanabe teaches a machine learning generation algorithm for generate machine learning data items to be used for machine learning (the generating unit performs machine learning to generate evaluation recipes) (Watanabe: paragraphs [0069]-[0070], [0102]-[0109], [0229] and [0234]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the script taught by Murakami to include the machine learning generation algorithm taught by Watanabe to obtain the limitations taught by claim 7. The use of machine learning (i.e. AI) in script generation is well-known in the computer arts; one would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to obtain accurate and appropriate results (Watanabe: paragraphs [0005]-[0007] and [0051]-[0052]).
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami U.S. Publication 2015/0279033, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Asai U.S. Publication 2016/0034234.
Referring to claim 8, Murakami teaches all of the limitations as applied to claim 1 above. In addition, Murakami teaches a parameter definition file that defines parameter adjustment information relating to adjustment of the parameter(s) (Figure 13D shows selection of parameters from a drop-down list for Method, Viewpoint Weighting Function 1 and Viewpoint Weighting Function 2) (Murakami: paragraphs [0450], [0454] and [0541]), and to correlate the script(s) and the parameter definition file that are previously registered on the registration screen with each other and store the script(s) and the parameter definition file correlated with each other (as shown in Figure 13D for example, the parameters for Viewpoint Weighting Function 1 and Viewpoint Weighting Function 2 have been calculated in advance and stored in the memory) (Murakami: paragraphs [0450], [0454] and [0541]). However, Murakami fails to explicitly teach displaying a registration screen for previously registering the script(s) and the parameter definition file. Similar to Murakami, Asai also teaches a display that accepts adjustments to parameters (using edit button 83 shown in Figure 2 to change parameter values) (Asai: paragraph [0037]). In addition, Asai teaches wherein the controller is configured to make the display to display a registration screen for previously registering the script(s) and a parameter definition file that defines parameter adjustment information relating to adjustment of the parameter(s) (the parameter lists registered by the user for the Auto Print setting are displayed in area 81 of the screen shown in Figure 2) (Asai: paragraphs [0033]-[0037]), and to correlate the script(s) and the parameter definition file that are previously registered on the registration screen with each other and store the script(s) and the parameter definition file correlated with each other (the user can select the “Register Auto Print Setting” button 82 to cause the registered parameter list to be stored as the Auto Print setting) (Asai: paragraphs [0033]-[0037]). All of the elements of claim 8 are known in Murakami and Asai. The only difference is the combination of the “old elements” into a single device, i.e. the data analysis apparatus. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to place the registration screen for previously registering the script and the parameter definition file with each other, as taught by Asai, in the apparatus of Murakami, since the operation of displaying the registration screen is no way dependent on the operation of the other elements of the claim and displaying the registration screen could be used in combination with the data analysis apparatus to achieve the predictable result of allowing the user to use a registration screen to previously register and correlate a script with a parameter definition file.
Referring to claim 9, Murakami, as modified, teaches the data analysis apparatus according to claim 8, wherein the parameter definition file includes information on initial value(s) of the parameter(s), an adjustable range of the parameter(s) and a type(s) of the parameter(s) (for example, the parameters shown in the parameter list in Figure 2 of Asai include initial values for paper size, highest image quality range, paper type, etc.) (Asai: paragraphs [0033]-[0037]).
Referring to claim 10, Murakami, as modified, teaches the data analysis apparatus according to claim 8, wherein the controller is configured to determine whether a format of the parameter definition file is correct when registering the parameter definition file (the parameters are stored in a binary data format; therefore, the registered parameters to be stored has to be in the binary data format) (Asai: paragraphs [0022]-[0023]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on form PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action. The documents cited therein: US20180107460 and US20180107762 to Takata et al. teach changing parameters to create a script to apply to an input image; US20070260713 to Moorer et al. teaches the display of a user-editable script; and US11966309 to Hsu et al. teaches modifying a script by adjusting parameters.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TING ZHOU LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-4058. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Thursday 9AM – 1PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kieu Vu can be reached on (571) 272-4057. 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.
/TING Z LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171