This Office action is in response to application filed on 5/22/2024.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1, 11, and 20, the examiner submits that under Step 1 of the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence (see also 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance) for evaluating claims for eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, the claims are to a process and manufactures (device and CRM), which are one of the statutory categories of invention.
Continuing with the analysis, under Step 2A - Prong One of the test, the limitations (see Italic font) of:
Regarding claim 1:
the limitations “receiving, by a device, spectroscopic data associated with an iteration of a dynamic process; generating, by the device and based on the spectroscopic data, a process profile associated with the iteration of the dynamic process; generating, by the device and based on the process profile, a slope profile associated with the iteration of the dynamic process; determining, by the device, a trend of the process profile; and identifying, by the device, a set of slope thresholds associated with the iteration of the dynamic process based on the trend” fall into the grouping of mathematical concepts, e.g., determine a trend, identify slope thresholds, iteration of a dynamic process. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I.
Regarding claim 11:
the limitations “one or more memories; and one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories, configured to: obtain time-series spectroscopic data associated with an iteration of a dynamic process; generate, based on the time-series spectroscopic data, a process profile associated with the iteration of the dynamic process; generate, based on the process profile, a slope profile associated with the iteration of the dynamic process; and compute a set of slope thresholds associated with the iteration of the dynamic process based on the slope profile and a trend characteristic of the process profile” fall into the grouping of mathematical concepts, e.g., determine a trend, identify slope thresholds, iteration of a dynamic process. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I.
Regarding claim 20:
the limitations “one or more instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a device, cause the device to: obtain a process profile associated with an iteration of a dynamic process based on spectroscopic data associated with the iteration of the dynamic process; generate a slope profile associated with the iteration of the dynamic process based on the process profile; identify a set of slope thresholds associated with the iteration of the dynamic process based on the slope profile and a trend associated with the process profile; and determine an end point of another iteration of the dynamic process based on the set of slope thresholds” fall into the grouping of mathematical concepts, e.g., determine a trend, identify slope thresholds, iteration of a dynamic process. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I.
Thus, the claims recite a judicial exception under Step 2A - Prong One of the test.
Furthermore, under Step 2A - Prong Two of the test, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements recited in the claims (non-italic text as disclosed in Prong One above):
Regarding claim 1:
“A method comprising: “receiving, by a device, spectroscopic data associated with an iteration of a dynamic process” generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g., a method for iterative processing spectroscopic data). See MPEP.2106.05(h); and adds insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., mere data gathering) using elements recited at a high level of generality (i.e., a device). See MPEP 2106.05(g),
Regarding claim 13:
“A device, comprising: one or more memories; and one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories, configured to: obtain time-series spectroscopic data associated with an iteration of a dynamic process” generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g., a device for iterative processing spectroscopic data). See MPEP.2106.05(h); adds insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., mere data gathering) using elements recited at a high level of generality (i.e., a device). See MPEP 2106.05(g); and adds the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP.2106.05(f).
Regarding claim 20:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a set of instructions, the set of instructions comprising: one or more instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a device, cause the device to: obtain a process profile associated with an iteration of a dynamic process based on spectroscopic data associated with the iteration of the dynamic process” generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g., a CRM for iterative processing spectroscopic data). See MPEP.2106.05(h); adds insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., mere data gathering) using elements recited at a high level of generality (i.e., a device). See MPEP 2106.05(g); and adds the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP.2106.05(f).
Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered individually and in
combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea when considering the claims as a whole. The claims are directed to a judicial exception under Step 2A of the test.
Additionally, under Step 2B of the test, the claims do not include additional elements that, when considered individually and in combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements:
generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., A method/a device/CRM for iterative processing spectroscopic data), which as indicated in the MPEP: “As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible “simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application” (see MPEP 2106.05(h));
recite extra-solution activity (i.e., mere data gathering) using elements recited at a high level of generality (i.e., a device), which as indicated in the MPEP: “Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more in Step 2B is whether the additional elements add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The term “extra-solution activity” can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process” (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) (see MPEP 2106.05(g)); and
append generic computer components (i.e., processors and/or memories) used to facilitate the application of the abstract idea (i.e., mere computer implementation), which as indicated in the MPEP: “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more” (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claims, when considered as a whole, do not provide significantly more under Step 2B of the test. Based on the analysis, the claims are not patent eligible.
With regards to the dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19, they are also directed to the non-statutory subject matter because:
they just extend the abstract idea of the independent claim by additional limitations (claims 2-10 and 12-19), that under the broadest interpretation in light of the specification, cover performance of the limitations using mathematical concepts, and
the additional elements recited in the dependent claims, when considered individually and in combination, refer to extra-solution activities and recited at a high level of generality (e.g., processor, claims 12, 15-19), which as indicated in the Office's guidance does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A -Prong Two) and/or do not provide significantly more (Step 2B).
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)(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 1-3, 8, 11-13, 17, and 20 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated over Proell et al., hereinafter Proell, US 2026/0235504.
As per Claim 1, Proell teaches a method, comprising:
receiving, by a device, spectroscopic data associated with an iteration of a dynamic process (The spectroscopic measurement “step i.” and acquiring of the image data “step ii.”, see [0015]-[0016], occur on different time points Tl and T2, see [0021], and repetitions steps i. and ii., considered an iteration of a dynamic process, [0052] );
generating, by the device and based on the spectroscopic data, a process profile associated with the iteration of the dynamic process (The imaging device and/or the spectrometer device moved between, during, the repetitions of steps i. and ii, considered generating a spatial or process profile, see [0054]-[0055], [0190]);
generating, by the device and based on the process profile, a slope profile associated with the iteration of the dynamic process ( Item of information derived from the image data and/or the spectroscopic data suitable for identifying the sample. The item of identification information may comprise at least one of: at least one item of information about a degree of inhomogeneity, at least one item of information about components of the sample, at least one item of information about a mixture of the components, at least one item of information about a mixing ratio of the components, considered generating a slope profile, see [0036], [0039] );
determining, by the device, a trend of the process profile ( Plotting signal intensity I on the y-axis against wavelength 𝜆 on the x-axis is considered analyzing a process profile, see [0184], because the graph shows a spectral trend, as the peak 206 “wavelength” changes from curve 1 “baseline” to curve 2 as shown in Fig 3A ); and
identifying, by the device, a set of slope thresholds associated with the iteration of the dynamic process based on the trend ( Fig 3A shows spectrum graph 132 having first and second spectral curves 184, and the signal intensity I plotted on the y-axis is shown as a function of wavelength plotted on the x-axis, is it considered identify a set of slope thresholds based on the trend, see [0184] ).
As per Claim 2, Proell teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising determining, using the set of slope thresholds, an end point of the iteration of the dynamic process based on the slope profile (It is noted a slope threshold includes both start and end points. Fig 3A shows the spectroscopic data may, e.g. be graphically represented in the form of a spectral curve 184, wherein the signal intensity I plotted on the y-axis 186 is shown as a function of wavelength λ plotted on the x-axis 188, see [0184], considered used for determining slope thresholds ).
As per Claim 3, Proell teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the end point is determined further based on a set of end point criteria ( spectroscopic measurement and acquiring of the image data occurs on different time points T1 and T2. It is noted the rate of change (slope) between two different time points because T1 occurs before T2, thus, T1 serves as an initial reference point and T2 considered as an endpoint criteria because where the system stop changing, e.g., the end point T2 is determined based on the peak “wavelength” change in intensity, see [0186], [0184] ).
As per Claim 8, Proell teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising identifying, based on the spectroscopic data, a starting time point of the spectroscopic data to be used for determining an end point of the iteration of the dynamic process, wherein a starting time point associated with generating the slope profile is at or after the identified starting time point of the spectroscopic data ( the spectroscopic measurement and acquiring of the image data occurs on different time points T1
and T2, where T1 (start time of a slope profile) and T2 (endpoint time) considered a start time of the next iteration, see [0186] ).
As per Claim 11, Proell teaches a device, comprising: one or more memories; and one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories (see [0056], [0105]), configured to:
obtain time-series spectroscopic data associated with an iteration of a dynamic process ( The spectroscopic measurement and acquiring of the image data, see [0015]-[0016], occurs on different time points Tl and T2 “time-series”, see [0021], and repetitions of it, considered an iteration of a dynamic process, see [0052] );
generate, based on the time-series spectroscopic data, a process profile associated with the iteration of the dynamic process (The imaging device and/or the spectrometer device moved between, during, the repetitions of steps i. and ii, e.g., from T1 to t2, considered generating a spatial or process profile, see [0054]-[0055], [0190] );
generate, based on the process profile, a slope profile associated with the iteration of the dynamic process (Item of information derived from the image data and/or the spectroscopic data suitable for identifying the sample. The item of identification information may comprise at least one of: at least one item of information about a degree of inhomogeneity, at least one item of information about components of the sample, at least one item of information about a mixture of the components, at least one item of information about a mixing ratio of the components, considered generating a slope profile, see [0036], [0039] ); and
compute a set of slope thresholds associated with the iteration of the dynamic process based on the slope profile ( Fig 3A shows spectrum graph 132 having first and second spectral curves 184, and the signal intensity I plotted on the y-axis is shown as a function of wavelength plotted on the x-axis, considered computing/analyzing a set of slope thresholds, see [0184] ), and a trend characteristic of the process profile ( The graph shows a spectral trend, as the peak 206 “wavelength” changes from curve 1 “baseline” to curve 2, considered a trend of the process profile ).
Claim 12 is rejected for the same rationale as in claim 2.
Claim 13 is rejected for the same rationale as in claim 3.
As per Claim 17, Proell teaches the device of claim 11, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to identify, based on the time-series spectroscopic data, a starting time point of the spectroscopic data to be used for determining an end point of the iteration of the dynamic process, wherein a starting time point associated with generating the slope profile is at or after the identified starting time point of the spectroscopic data ( The spectroscopic measurement and acquiring of the image data occurs on different time points T1 and T2, where T1 (start time of a slope profile) and T2 (endpoint time) considered a start time of the next iteration, see [0186] ).
As per Claim 20 Proell teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a set of instructions, the set of instructions comprising: one or more instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a device, cause the device to:
obtain a process profile associated with an iteration of a dynamic process based on spectroscopic data associated with the iteration of the dynamic process (The spectroscopic measurement “step i.” and acquiring of the image data “step ii.”, see [0015]-[0016], occur on different time points Tl and T2, see [0021], and repetitions steps i. and ii., considered an iteration of a dynamic process, [0052] );
generate a slope profile associated with the iteration of the dynamic process based on the process profile ( Item of information derived from the image data and/or the spectroscopic data suitable for identifying the sample. The item of identification information may comprise at least one of: at least one item of information about a degree of inhomogeneity, at least one item of information about components of the sample, at least one item of information about a mixture of the components, at least one item of information about a mixing ratio of the components, considered generating a slope profile, see [0036], [0039] );
identify a set of slope thresholds associated with the iteration of the dynamic process based on the slope profile (Fig 3A shows spectrum graph 132 having first and second spectral curves 184, and the signal intensity I plotted on the y-axis is shown as a function of wavelength plotted on the x-axis, considered computing/analyzing a set of slope thresholds, see [0184] ), and a trend associated with the process profile ( The graph shows a spectral trend, as the peak 206 “wavelength” changes from curve 1 “baseline” to curve 2, considered a trend of the process profile ); and
determine an end point of another iteration of the dynamic process based on the set of slope thresholds ( Image 200 derived from the image data of the repetitions of step ii., see [0190], [0053]. It is noted image 200 derived from the image data of the repetitions of step ii., considered acts as both the endpoint of the data-acquisition loop and the starting point for downstream evaluation step as another iteration).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation under AIA of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action.
A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 4-6, 9-10, 14-15, and 18-19 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Proell in view of Ringemann et al., hereinafter Ringemann, US 2020/0158655.
As per Claim 4, Proell teaches the method of claim 3, wherein the set of slope thresholds comprises a lower slope threshold and an upper slope threshold ( Fig 3A shows peaks identified on a spectral baseline curve “solid line” and response curve “broken line”, considered as showing both a lower slope threshold, i.e., the peak end “falling” and an upper slope threshold, i.e., the peak start “rising” ).
Proell does not teach the set of end point criteria require a particular percentage of a quantity of consecutive values of the slope profile to be within the lower slope threshold and the upper slope threshold.
Ringemann teaches the set of end point criteria require a particular percentage of a quantity of consecutive values of the slope profile to be within the lower slope threshold and the upper slope threshold ( a slope of the measurement curve can be compared to at least one threshold value for determining if the measurement curve has reached the end value, considered defining endpoint criteria for an automated measurement curves, see [0034], because evaluating whether a specific percentage of consecutive slope values falls between a lower and upper threshold is a valid and common method for determining if a measurement curve has stabilized or reached its end value ).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention, to modify the teaching of Proell comparing the slope of a measurement curve to a threshold value over a specific sequence of consecutive points as taught by Ringemann that would facilitate the slope or change in the measurement curve that reaches a predetermined threshold, an end point of the detection reaction may be determined (Ringemann, [0134]).
As per Claim 5, Proell teaches the method of claim 1, Proell does not explicitly teach wherein the trend indicates that the process profile trends upward, and determining the set of slope thresholds comprises: determining the set of slope thresholds based on a minimum value of the slope profile.
Ringemann teaches the trend indicates that the process profile trends upward ( a first order or higher order derivative of the measurement curve may be used and may be fitted considered trend upward, see [0101] ), and determining the set of slope thresholds comprises: determining the set of slope thresholds based on a minimum value of the slope profile (the slope of the measurement curve compared to the at least one threshold value for determining the measurement curve has reached the end value, considered determining the set of slope thresholds based on a minimum value of the slope profile, see [0136] ).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention, to modify the teaching of Proell having the trend upward and determining the set of slope thresholds based on the minimum value as taught by Ringemann that would facilitate the slope or change in the measurement curve that reaches a predetermined threshold, an end point of the detection reaction may be determined (Ringemann, [0134]).
As per Claim 6, Proell teaches the method of claim 1, Proell does not explicitly teach wherein the trend indicates that the process profile trends downward, and determining the set of slope thresholds comprises: determining the set of slope thresholds based on a maximum value of the slope profile.
Ringemann teaches the trend indicates that the process profile trends downward ( the slope of the measurement curve compared to the at least one threshold value for determining the measurement curve has reached the end value considered trends downward, see [0136] ), and determining the set of slope thresholds comprises: determining the set of slope thresholds based on a maximum value of the slope profile (about 100% for the upper measurement curve considered slope threshold based on the maximum value, see [0207] ).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention, to modify the teaching of Proell having the trend downward and determining the set of slope thresholds based on the maximum value as taught by Ringemann that would facilitate the slope or change in the measurement curve that reaches a predetermined threshold, an end point of the detection reaction may be determined (Ringemann, [0134]).
As per Claim 9, Proell teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the iteration of the dynamic process is a first iteration of the dynamic process, the set of slope thresholds is a first set of slope thresholds (It is noted a first iteration of a dynamic process includes a first set of slope thresholds as a baseline or initial step in a loop. The rate of change “slope” between two points T1 and T2, and T2 considered the end point “stop changing” determined based on the peak changes intensity as shown in Fig 3A, see [0186] ), and the method further comprises: identifying a second set of slope thresholds associated with a second iteration of the dynamic process ( the rate of change “slope” between two points T1 and T2, and T2 considered the end point “stop changing” determined based on the peak changes intensity, thus, t2 considered a start point for the next “second iteration” iteration of the dynamic process ).
Proell does not teach identifying a master set of slope thresholds based on the first set of slope thresholds and the second set of slope thresholds.
Ringemann teaches identifying a master set of slope thresholds based on the first set of slope thresholds and the second set of slope thresholds (a slope of the measurement curve is compared to threshold value(s) for determining if the measurement curve has reached the end value, considered identifying a master set of slope thresholds based on a first and second slope threshold, see [0034] ).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention, to modify the teaching of Proell determining if the measurement curve has reached the end value as taught by Ringemann that would facilitate the slope or change in the measurement curve that reaches a predetermined threshold, an end point of the detection reaction may be determined (Ringemann, [0134]).
As per Claim 10, Proell in view of Ringemann teaches the method of claim 9, Ringemann further teaches comprising determining, using the master set of slope thresholds, an end point of at least one of the first iteration of the dynamic process or the second iteration of the dynamic process (once the slope or change reaches a predetermined threshold, an end point of the detection reaction is determined, see [0134], consider determining an endpoint of a first iteration of the dynamic process ).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention, to modify the teaching of Proell to determine an endpoint of the first iteration as taught by Ringemann that would facilitate the slope or change in the measurement curve that reaches a predetermined threshold, an end point of the detection reaction may be determined (Ringemann, [0134]).
Claim 14 is rejected for the same rationale as in claim 5.
Claim 15 is rejected for the same rationale as in claim 6.
Claim 18 is rejected for the same rationale as in claim 9.
Claim 19 is rejected for the same rationale as in claim 10.
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Proell in view of Overcash et al., hereinafter Overcash, US 2021/0311011.
As per Claim 7, Proell teaches the method of claim 1, Proell does not further teaches comprising performing normalization of the process profile prior to generating the slope profile.
Overcash teaches performing normalization of the process profile prior to generating the slope profile ( [0242] last 6 lines: normalizing the difference between a first and second score based on freshness (or normalizing the time rate of score decay) is considered a form of normalization of the process profile prior to generating a slope profile, see [0242], [0181] ).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention, to modify the teaching of Proell to perform normalization of the process profile prior to generating the slope profile.as taught by Overcash that would facilitate a portion of the sample spectroscopic data indicating measurements of the electromagnetic waves associated with the samples at wavelengths within the corresponding range of wavelengths, or corresponding to the selected sub-band and the property data (Overcash, [0181]).
Claim 16 is rejected for the same rationale as in claim 7.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2022/0082497 of Sukuta (Spectroscopic method and apparatus for prediction of non-alcoholic and alcoholic beverages quality parameters and properties).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to LYNDA DINH whose telephone number is (571) 270-
7150. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10 PM-6 PM ET.
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, 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 https://ppairmy.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/LYNDA DINH/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/LINA CORDERO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights