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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph 37, “The individually components of the system 10” should read as “The individual components of the system 10”.
In paragraph 39, “foreseen to use an individually measuring device 100” should read as “foreseen to use an individual measuring device 100”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claims will be given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. Claim 1 recites “a parameter list of parameters”. This limitation does not require values or ranges of the parameters to be included in the parameter list. For example, the parameter list could be temperature and pressure without including any specific values for the temperature and pressure.
Claim 3 recites “the controller accesses a database”. Paragraph 30 of the specification states “The controller 110 can access the database 120, which in the present example embodiment is configured in the form of internal memory”. Paragraph 39 states “an external database 300”. The limitation of “a database” will be interpreted to include either internal or external storage.
Claim 5 recites “controller updates the database after determining the measured value”. The claim does not specify or require what information the database is updated with. Paragraph 32 states “The measurement results relating to the material properties of the sample used in the measurement can then be recorded in the database 120, for example”. This is not viewed as limiting on the claim and claim 5 will be interpreted as the controller updating the database with any information.
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.
Claim 10 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.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "a measuring device" in line 1 of the claim. Claim 1 also recites “a measuring device”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, making it unclear whether the measuring device recited in claim 10 is the same as the one recited in claim 1. For examination purposes claim 10 will be interpreted as referring to the measuring device of claim 1. The examiner does not see a simple way of amending the claim to address this problem, other than re-writing the claim in independent form.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea as discussed below. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application for the reasons discussed below. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for reasons discussed below.
Step 1 of the 2019 Guidance requires the examiner to determine if the claims are to one of the statutory categories of invention. Applied to the present application, the claims belong to the statutory class of a process or apparatus.
Step 2A of the 2019 Guidance is divided into two Prongs. Prong 1 requires the examiner to determine if the claims recite an abstract idea, and further requires that the abstract idea belong to one of three enumerated groupings: mathematical concepts, mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activity.
Claim 1 is copied below, with limitations belonging to an abstract idea being underlined.
A method for controlling a measuring device, comprising:
receiving a request to determine a specific measured value by a controller;
establishing by the controller a parameter list of parameters of the measuring device to be set in order to be able to determine the specific measured value; and
outputting the established parameter list to a user of the measuring device by the controller.
The limitation underline can be considered to describe a mental process, namely a decision process of making a list of parameters required to measure a specific value.
The additional limitation of “a measuring device” is a generic product and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional limitation of “receiving a request” and “outputting the established parameters” are insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. data gathering and outputting results (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The additional limitation of “a controller” does not offer a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the method to a computer (see ALICE CORP. v. CLS BANK INT’L 573 U. S. 208 (2014)).
The claim does not recite a particular machine applying or being used by the abstract idea. The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Various considerations are used to determine whether the additional elements are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim does not recite a particular machine applying or being used by the abstract idea. The claim does not effect a real-world transformation or reduction of any particular article to a different state or thing. The claim does not contain additional elements which describe the functioning of a computer, or which describe a particular technology or technical field, being improved by the use of the abstract idea.
Step 2B of the 2019 Guidance requires the examiner to determine whether the additional elements cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The considerations for this particular claim are essentially the same as the considerations for Prong 2 of Step 2A, and the same analysis leads to the conclusion that the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, Claim 1 is rejected as ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 10 is analogous to claim 1, except claim 10 additionally recites “a measuring device”. This is an additional element separate from the abstract idea that needs to be considered at Prong 2 of the 101 analysis. However, “a measuring device” is generic product and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the recited abstract idea. Claim 10 is therefore rejected under 35 USC 101 as well.
Dependent Claims 2-9 are similarly ineligible. Dependent Claim 2 additionally recites “the request to determine” which is mere data gathering. Dependent Claim 3 additionally recites “a database” which is a generic computer component. Dependent Claim 4 additionally recites “a plurality of information regarding material properties and measurement methods” which only limits the abstract idea to a field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Claim 4 additionally recites “controller autonomously establishes the parameter list” which is mere instructions to apply an exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Dependent Claim 5 additionally recites “controller updates the database” which is insignificant extra-solution activity. Dependent Claim 6 adds the recited “monitoring” to the abstract idea limitations discussed above. Claim 6 additionally recites “a sensor device” which is a generic product and does not integrate into a practical application. Claim 6 additionally recites “evaluating… by the controller” which is mere instructions to apply an exception. Dependent Claim 7 additionally recites “controller outputs a warning” which is insignificant post-solution activity. Dependent Claim 8 additionally recites “controller interrupts the determination” which is mere instructions to apply an exception. Dependent Claim 9 additionally recites “controller autonomously changes the parameters” which is mere instructions to apply an exception. None of these dependent claims recite any further additional elements which would cause the claim as a whole to integrate the recited abstract idea into a particular practical application at Prong 2 or provide significantly more than the recited abstract idea at Step 2B. Claims 2-9 are therefore rejected as ineligible under 35 USC 101 as well.
Examiner’s Note
In claim 9, the examiner notes that the function of the change of parameters is not recited. Further information on the effect a change in the parameters has on the measuring device or what is being measured may cause the limitation to be interpreted as a particular transformation (see MPEP 2106.05(c)).
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ritter (US 20210278206 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Ritter teaches a method for controlling a measuring device (Para 3: “method and a device for assisting a user in creating a measurement plan for a measurement to be carried out with a measuring apparatus”), comprising:
receiving a request to determine a specific measured value (Para 24: “receiving a plurality of setting parameters which are selected by a user with regard to one measurement” and Para 99: “the measurement sequence is typically defined in a measurement plan. This comprises defining, in particular, what geometric elements (measurement elements) of the measurement object 14 are intended to be measured”) by a controller (evaluation and control unit 34 Fig. 1);
establishing by the controller a parameter list of parameters of the measuring device to be set in order to be able to determine the specific measured value (S300 Fig. 2; Para 106: “determining a presetting 46 which assigns at least one setting parameter 48 of the evaluated plurality of setting parameters”); and
outputting the established parameter list to a user of the measuring device by the controller (S400 Fig. 2; Para 107: “outputting to a user a setting parameter proposal”).
Regarding Claim 2, Ritter teaches wherein the request to determine a specific measured value further comprises information regarding desired measurement accuracy and/or measurement duration (Para 112: “the user then establishes a plurality of setting parameters 42, in the present case a number of measurement points, a measurement speed and a measurement direction”; The examiner notes that setting the number of measurement points and measurement speed would determine the accuracy and duration of the measurement).
Regarding Claim 3, Ritter teaches wherein the controller accesses a database (Para 100: “evaluation and control unit 34 preferably comprises a processor and a storage device”) when establishing the parameter list (Para 106: “determining a presetting 46 which assigns at least one setting parameter 48 of the evaluated plurality of setting parameters”).
Regarding Claim 4, Ritter teaches wherein the database comprises a plurality of information regarding material properties and measurement methods, and the controller autonomously establishes the parameter list based on the plurality of information (Para 120: “the method recognizes on the basis of the metadata included in the evaluation, for example, that the third cylinder 52 has a similar or identical diameter to the second cylinder 45 (query d=d2), and outputs to the user the setting parameter proposal”).
Regarding Claim 5, Ritter teaches wherein the controller updates the database after determining the measured value (Para 129: “statistical evaluation and/or the evaluation by means of machine-assisted learning are/is effected not just on the basis of two previously received and stored inputs, but rather on the basis of a very large number of previously received and stored inputs”. The examiner notes that “previously received and stored inputs” teaches that the control unit stores information on the storage device after a measurement).
Regarding Claim 10, Ritter teaches a measuring device configured to perform the method of claim 1 (Para 23: “receiving a plurality of setting parameters which are selected by a user with regard to one measurement or control command from a plurality of measurement or control commands for the measurement to be carried out with the measuring apparatus 100”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ritter in view of Braedt (US 20220269233 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Ritter teaches the limitations of claim 1, but Ritter does not explicitly teach monitoring measurement parameters during the determination of the measured value by a sensor device of the measuring device; and evaluating the monitored measurement parameters by the controller.
Braedt teaches monitoring measurement parameters during the determination of the measured value by a sensor device of the measuring device (Gas Sensors and Control System Fig. 3; Para 14: “a method for live monitoring of long-term and/or multi-channel reactions comprises: controlling a chemical reaction apparatus via a modular control system, collecting reaction data via the digital and analog input ports”); and
evaluating the monitored measurement parameters by the controller (Control System Fig. 2; Para 95: “automated control system comprises 6 modular parts as well as an online data monitoring module and a remote interlock module”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the parameter monitoring of Braedt to the measurement device control of Ritter by having the parameter monitoring of Braedt occur during the measurement of Ritter. Doing so would allow for information on if the measuring device is operating as intended.
Regarding Claim 7, Ritter in view of Braedt teaches the limitations of claim 6, and Ritter in view of Braedt further teaches parameters of the established parameter list (S300 Fig. 2; Para 106: “determining a presetting 46 which assigns at least one setting parameter 48 of the evaluated plurality of setting parameters”).
Ritter does not explicitly teach wherein the controller outputs a warning if the monitored measurement parameters deviate.
Braedt teaches the controller outputs a warning if the monitored measurement parameters deviate (Table 3; Para 96: “Alarm triggers for possible safety related conditions include failed gas sensors, toxic/explosive gasses detected in tolerable (alarm 1) and dangerous (alarm 2) concentrations. Additional alarms that are not safety related include over-temperature, reactor over-pressure, and settable reactor pressure changes”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the invention of Ritter in view of Braedt with the alarm triggers of Braedt by having an alarm trigger if the measured parameters of Braedt deviate from the established parameters of Ritter in view of Braedt. Doing so would allow for a user to gain knowledge on if the measuring device is not operating as intended.
Regarding Claim 8, Ritter in view of Braedt teach the limitations of claim 6, and Ritter in view of Braedt further teaches parameters of the established parameter list (S300 Fig. 2; Para 106: “determining a presetting 46 which assigns at least one setting parameter 48 of the evaluated plurality of setting parameters”).
Ritter does not explicitly teach wherein the controller interrupts the determination of the measured value if the monitored measurement parameters deviate.
Braedt teaches wherein the controller interrupts the determination of the measured value if the monitored measurement parameters deviate (Table 3; Para 93: “a small-scale reactor was constructed that is capable of multiple-reactor tests, independent gas flows and gas mixtures, automatic shutoffs for maximum reactor pressure, user settable alarms for reactor pressure change, toxic gas detection outside of the fume hood, a remote shutoff, and a manual emergency shutoff” and Para 96: “Alarm triggers for possible safety related conditions include failed gas sensors, toxic/explosive gasses detected in tolerable (alarm 1) and dangerous (alarm 2) concentrations. Additional alarms that are not safety related include over-temperature, reactor over-pressure, and settable reactor pressure changes”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the invention of Ritter in view of Braedt with the emergency stop of Braedt by having an emergency stop occur if the measured parameters of Braedt deviate from the established parameters of Ritter in view of Braedt. Doing so would allow for a measurement to be stopped when a measuring device is not operating as intended.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ritter in view of Braedt as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Brueckner (US 20210139318 A1) .
Regarding Claim 9, Ritter in view of Braedt teaches the limitations of claim 6, and Ritter in view of Braedt further teaches parameters of the established parameter list (S300 Fig. 2; Para 106: “determining a presetting 46 which assigns at least one setting parameter 48 of the evaluated plurality of setting parameters”).
Ritter and Braedt do not explicitly teach wherein the controller autonomously changes the parameters of the measuring device if the monitored measurement parameters deviate.
Brueckner teaches wherein the controller autonomously changes the parameters of the measuring device if the monitored measurement parameters deviate from the parameters of the established parameter list (1115 Fig. 9; Para 132: “In step 1115, a temperature compensation is then performed on the basis of these individualized temperature compensation parameters in order to thereby achieve the required high measuring accuracy or data quality”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the invention of Ritter in view of Braedt with the parameter compensation of Brueckner by having the parameters adjustment of Brueckner occur when an alarm of Ritter in view of Braedt is triggered. Doing so would ensure the measuring device is operating as intended by ensuring parameters remain within an acceptable range.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Katsuyama (JP 2012181023 A) teaches controlling an automatic analysis by creating an analysis condition file by prompting a user for settings for parameters (Para 20).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODGER MENSING whose telephone number is (571)270-0129. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm.
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, Andrew Schechter can be reached at 571-272-2302. 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.
/RODGER STEWART MENSING/ Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/ANDREW SCHECHTER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights