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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references listed in the Information Disclosure Statements filed on 04/26/2024 and 01/22/2026 have been considered by the examiner (see attached PTO-1449 forms).
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites an inspection method of inspecting a moving object, comprising:
a first step of giving an instruction to a moving object as an inspection target to drive the moving object in such a manner that an output value relating to moving of the moving object becomes a predetermined target value; a second step of measuring the output value and acquiring a measured value using an inspection device for inspection on the moving object; a subsequent inspection step of performing the first step and the second step on a plurality of the moving objects different from the moving object as the inspection target when a difference between the target value and the measured value is not within a predetermined first range; and a third step of outputting information indicating the presence of abnormality in the inspection device when the difference between the target value and the measured value is outside a predetermined second range in all the moving objects among the plurality of the moving objects as a result of the subsequent inspection step.
and thus grouped as Mental Processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion).
These judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements, the data gathering step, (claim 1) “a first step of giving an instruction to a moving object as an inspection target to drive the moving object in such a manner that an output value relating to moving of the moving object becomes a predetermined target value; a second step of measuring the output value and acquiring a measured value using an inspection device for inspection on the moving object” are mere data gathering that do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity. Regarding claim 1, “a third step of outputting information indicating the presence of abnormality…”, the elements are considered insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception – see MPEP 2106.05(g). All of which are considered not indicative of integration into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d)).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are considered extra-solution activity of pre-solution and post-solution activity which fall under insignificant extra solution activity and deemed insufficient to qualify as “significantly more” - see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Dependent claims 2-4 when analyzed as a whole are patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea as they are directed mathematical concepts and/or mental processes and do not add significantly more to the abstract idea.
To note: Claim 5 is patent eligible with regards to the Guidance on Subject Matter Eligibility. While the claims are directed to an abstract idea for determining an abnormality in an inspection device, the claims, taken as a whole amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the operations of applying an external force in combination are not considered generic measurement construct but provides meaningful limitations that are not considered routine or conventional see Berkheimer Memorandum (issued April 19, 2018).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-5 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-5 of copending Application No. 18/647,496 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claims the same essential elements.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 and the double patenting rejection set forth in this Office action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
With regards to Claim 1, the prior art of record or any combination of prior art searched fails to teach the limitations of a subsequent inspection step of performing the first step and the second step on a plurality of the moving objects different from the moving object as the inspection target when a difference between the target value and the measured value is not within a predetermined first range.
With regards to Claim 5, the prior art of record or any combination of prior art searched fails to teach the limitations of a subsequent inspection step of performing the stop instructing step and the external force acquiring step on a plurality of the moving objects different from the moving object as the inspection target when a difference between the external force acquired with the timing and force corresponding to the target value is not within a predetermined target external force range.
Relevant Prior Art / Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kwon et al. (US Patent Number 11,745,813 B2) discloses a system and method for vehicle inspection;
Nistler et al. (US Patent Application Publication 20158/0314255 A1) discloses a vehicle inspection system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICKY GO whose telephone number is (571)270-3340. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Arleen M. Vazquez can be reached on (571) 272-2619. 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.
/RICKY GO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights