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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected because the claim recites the limitation: “on the basis” in line 10.
There are insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim use a definite article “the”, however, the claim 1 does not recite the claim limitations of “on a basis”.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“preparing/proposing” in line 2 should read as “preparing and proposing”
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“container/manufacturing line” in line 3 should read as “container and manufacturing line”
“set/reset” in line 5 should read as “set and reset”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because 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.
As to claim 1, the claim recites “A shape acquisition method of acquiring shape information of a target object, the shape acquisition method comprising:
acquiring information of a tilt angle of a measurement surface of the target object at a plurality of measurement points using a plurality of sensor devices respectively, positions of the measurement points being different in one of two directions crossing each other in the measurement surface; and
acquiring a shape of the measurement surface represented by a predetermined polynomial function as the shape information of the target object, the polynomial function including coefficients of terms calculated by fitting a discrete distribution of a physical quantity associated with the tilt angle calculated on the basis of the acquired information of the tilt angle at the plurality of measurement points and position information of the plurality of measurement points to the polynomial function”.
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claim is directed to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (process for claim 1).
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the bold type portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter when recited as such in a claim that covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations).
In claim 1, the step identified in bold type is a mathematical concept, therefore, it is considered to be abstract idea.
Next, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
The claim comprises the following additional elements:
acquiring information of a tilt angle of a measurement surface of the target object at a plurality of measurement points using a plurality of sensor devices respectively, positions of the measurement points being different in one of two directions crossing each other in the measurement surface.
The additional element “acquiring information of a tilt angle of a measurement surface of the target object at a plurality of measurement points using a plurality of sensor devices respectively“ represents necessary data gathering and does not integrate the limitation into a practical application. The additional element “positions of the measurement points being different in one of two directions crossing each other in the measurement surface” is not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it only adds an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
In conclusion, the above additional elements, considered individually and in combination with the other claims elements do not reflect an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not reflect improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, do not recite a particular machine, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and, therefore, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
The above claim, does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generically recited and are well-understood/conventional in a relevant art as evidenced by the prior art of record (Step 2B analysis).
For example, acquiring information of a tilt angle of a measurement surface of the target object at a plurality of measurement points using a plurality of sensor devices respectively is considered necessary data gathering. As recited in MPEP section 2106.05(g), necessary data gathering (i.e., receiving measurement data) is considered extra solution activity in light of Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
For example, positions of the measurement points being different in one of two directions crossing each other in the measurement surface is disclosed by “Naohiro JP 2019052467A”, [0018], [0022], [0032], FIGs. 3 and 8; and “Yuzo JP 2004003933A”, [0001], [0005], [0011], [0012], [0014], [0015], [0022], [0045], [0046].
The claim, therefore, is not patent eligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2-22 provide additional features/steps which are considered part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims, and do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
The dependent claims are, therefore, also not patent eligible.
Examiner’s Note
Regarding Claims 1-22, the most pertinent prior arts are "Naohiro JP 2019052467A", “Tateno US 20100289797”, “Yuzo JP 2004003933A”, "Naohiro JP 2020197082A, hereinafter Naohiro 2", "Takaki JP 2013053490A", "Etsuro JP H08184046A", “Hoon KR 101106166B1”, “Dong CN 112441356B”, and “Jie Li et al. (Wavefront reconstruction for Lateral shearing interferometry based on difference polynomial fitting, IOP Publishing, Journal of Optics, Published 18 May, 2015)”.
As to claim 1, Naohiro teaches acquiring information of a tilt angle of a measurement surface of the target object at a plurality of measurement points using a plurality of sensor devices respectively, positions of the measurement points being different in one of two directions crossing each other in the measurement surface ([0018], [0022], and [0032] disclose the tilt angle information acquisition unit 12 acquires information representing the tilt angle of the core material 21 of the retaining wall constructed, measured using a plurality of tilt angle detection units 4 attached to the core material 21 at predetermined intervals in the longitudinal direction of the core material 21, for each tilt angle detection unit 4; and in Figure 8, the positions of the four tilt angle detection units 4 are shown as measurement points.
The measurement system 1a shown in Figure 3 combines the measurement of absolute displacement in the horizontal and vertical directions (i.e., positions of the measurement points being different in one of two directions crossing each other in the measurement surface - emphasis added by Examiner) targeting the top of the retaining wall 2a with the measurement of relative displacement in the horizontal (out-of-plane) direction of the wall surface by a tilt angle detection unit 4 placed inside the retaining wall 2).
Tateno teaches acquiring a shape of the measurement surface represented by a predetermined polynomial function as the shape information of the target object (Tateno, Abstract, [0002], [0033], [0083]).
However, the prior arts of record, alone or in combination, do not fairly teach or suggest “the polynomial function including coefficients of terms calculated by fitting a discrete distribution of a physical quantity associated with the tilt angle calculated on the basis of the acquired information of the tilt angle at the plurality of measurement points and position information of the plurality of measurement points to the polynomial function.” including all limitations as claimed.
Dependent claims 2-22 are also distinguish over the prior art for at least the same reason as claim 1.
Examiner notes, however, that claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, and therefore, not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
“Gagatin US 8306747B1” teaches “A mobile platform, sensors mounted on the mobile platform, computers, data storage devices, power system, data acquisition hardware, and software form a Travel Way Measurement System. The mobile platform with sensors mounted within and upon it, moves along a surface travel way and records data to determine an accurate location and geometry of the travel way surface, surface features, transverse profile and features along side the travel way surface, structures, signs, and other features above the travel way surface, and utilities, pavement thickness and properties, pavement condition, and bridge deck properties and condition below the travel way surface. The mobile platform and sensors can travel and collect data at up to 60 miles per hour or more. The data acquisition hardware and software protocols permit the synchronization of all the sensor outputs in the temporal and spatial domain or in any other domain resulting from numerical transformation of sensor outputs.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAL CE MANG whose telephone number is (571)272-0370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday- 8:30-12:00, 1:00-5:30 EST.
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, Catherine T Rastovski can be reached at (571) 270-0349. 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.
/LAL CE MANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights