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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
According to the first part of the analysis, in the instant case, claims 1-7 and 10 are directed to a method, claims 8-9 are directed to using a film thickness calculation device to perform the method. Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Regarding claim 1:
A method for calculating a film thickness of a grain boundary oxide layer remaining on a steel sheet after a pickling treatment, the method comprising:
intensity-measuring a fluorescent X-ray intensity of an element comprised in the steel sheet and constituting an oxide in the grain boundary oxide layer; and
film thickness-calculating, using the fluorescent X-ray intensity measured in the intensity-measuring, a film thickness of the grain boundary oxide layer based on a correlation between a pre-extracted fluorescent X-ray intensity and the film thickness of the grain boundary oxide layer.
Step 2A Prong 1:
“intensity-measuring a fluorescent X-ray intensity of an element comprised in the steel sheet and constituting an oxide in the grain boundary oxide layer” is directed to math because the x-rays emitted by one element can be absorbed or enhanced by another element nearby. To extract the true concentration of an oxide at a grain boundary from the measured intensity, software applies multivariable matrix correction equations to mathematically subtract these inter-element interference patterns.
“film thickness-calculating, using the fluorescent X-ray intensity measured in the intensity-measuring, a film thickness of the grain boundary oxide layer based on a correlation between a pre-extracted fluorescent X-ray intensity and the film thickness of the grain boundary oxide layer” is directed to math because the “pre-extracted” data acts as a reference set. In practice, scientists measure known standards and use statistical regression to map out a mathematical equation that best fits the data points. The relationship between X-ray intensity and thickness is governed by exponential calculus.
Each limitation recites in the claim is a process that, under BRI covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of a generic “measurement” which is a mere indication of the field of use. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Further, the claim recites the step of "intensity-measuring a fluorescent X-ray intensity of an element comprised in the steel sheet and constituting an oxide in the grain boundary oxide layer; and film thickness-calculating, using the fluorescent X-ray intensity measured in the intensity-measuring, a film thickness of the grain boundary oxide layer based on a correlation between a pre-extracted fluorescent X-ray intensity and the film thickness of the grain boundary oxide layer” which as drafted, under BRI recites a mathematical calculation. The grouping of "mathematical concepts” in the 2019 PED includes "mathematical calculations" as an exemplar of an abstract idea. 2019 PEG Section |, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Thus, the recited limitation falls into the "mathematical concept" grouping of abstract ideas. This limitation also falls into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas, because the recited mathematical calculation is simple enough that it can be practically performed in the human mind, e.g., scientists and engineers have been solving the Arrhenius equation in their minds since it was first proposed in 1889.
Note that even if most humans would use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper, a slide rule, or a calculator) to help them complete the recited calculation, the use of such physical aid does not negate the mental nature of this limitation. See October Update at Section I(C)(i) and (iii).
Additional Elements:
Step 2A Prong 2:
“A method for calculating a film thickness of a grain boundary oxide layer remaining on a steel sheet after a pickling treatment” recited in the preamble does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“intensity-measuring a fluorescent X-ray intensity of an element comprised in the steel sheet and constituting an oxide in the grain boundary oxide layer” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“film thickness-calculating, using the fluorescent X-ray intensity measured in the intensity-measuring, a film thickness of the grain boundary oxide layer based on a correlation between a pre-extracted fluorescent X-ray intensity and the film thickness of the grain boundary oxide layer” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim is merely manipulating or analyzing the data using math and mental process.
This is similar to electric power: MPEP 2106.05(h) vi. Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. 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 integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
The claim as a whole does not meet any of the following criteria to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
An additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Step 2B:
“A method for calculating a film thickness of a grain boundary oxide layer remaining on a steel sheet after a pickling treatment” recited in the preamble does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“intensity-measuring a fluorescent X-ray intensity of an element comprised in the steel sheet and constituting an oxide in the grain boundary oxide layer” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“film thickness-calculating, using the fluorescent X-ray intensity measured in the intensity-measuring, a film thickness of the grain boundary oxide layer based on a correlation between a pre-extracted fluorescent X-ray intensity and the film thickness of the grain boundary oxide layer” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106
The claim is therefore ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding claim 6:
A method for determining plating properties of a steel sheet from a grain boundary oxide layer remaining on the steel sheet after a pickling treatment, the method comprising:
intensity-measuring a fluorescent X-ray intensity of an element being comprised in the steel sheet and constituting an oxide in the grain boundary oxide layer; and
determining plating properties of the steel sheet directly based on the fluorescent X-ray intensity measured in the intensity-measuring.
Step 2A Prong 1:
“intensity-measuring a fluorescent X-ray intensity of an element being comprised in the steel sheet and constituting an oxide in the grain boundary oxide layer” is directed to math because the x-rays emitted by one element can be absorbed or enhanced by another element nearby. To extract the true concentration of an oxide at a grain boundary from the measured intensity, software applies multivariable matrix correction equations to mathematically subtract these inter-element interference patterns.
“determining plating properties of the steel sheet directly based on the fluorescent X-ray intensity measured in the intensity-measuring” is directed to math because the relationship between thickness and intensity is non-linear due to X-ray getting absorbed as they travel through the metal, the software must run iterative calculations (numerical algorithms) until the theoretical mathematical intensity maches the actual measured intensity.
Each limitation recites in the claim is a process that, under BRI covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of a generic “measurement” which is a mere indication of the field of use. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Further, the claim recites the step of "intensity-measuring a fluorescent X-ray intensity of an element being comprised in the steel sheet and constituting an oxide in the grain boundary oxide layer; and determining plating properties of the steel sheet directly based on the fluorescent X-ray intensity measured in the intensity-measuring” which as drafted, under BRI recites a mathematical calculation. The grouping of "mathematical concepts” in the 2019 PED includes "mathematical calculations" as an exemplar of an abstract idea. 2019 PEG Section |, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Thus, the recited limitation falls into the "mathematical concept" grouping of abstract ideas. This limitation also falls into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas, because the recited mathematical calculation is simple enough that it can be practically performed in the human mind, e.g., scientists and engineers have been solving the Arrhenius equation in their minds since it was first proposed in 1889.
Note that even if most humans would use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper, a slide rule, or a calculator) to help them complete the recited calculation, the use of such physical aid does not negate the mental nature of this limitation. See October Update at Section I(C)(i) and (iii).
Additional Elements:
Step 2A Prong 2:
“A method for determining plating properties of a steel sheet from a grain boundary oxide layer remaining on the steel sheet after a pickling treatment” recited in the preamble does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“intensity-measuring a fluorescent X-ray intensity of an element comprised in the steel sheet and constituting an oxide in the grain boundary oxide layer” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“determining plating properties of the steel sheet directly based on the fluorescent X-ray intensity measured in the intensity-measuring” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim is merely manipulating or analyzing the data using math and mental process.
This is similar to electric power: MPEP 2106.05(h) vi. Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. 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 integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
The claim as a whole does not meet any of the following criteria to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
An additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Step 2B:
“A method for determining plating properties of a steel sheet from a grain boundary oxide layer remaining on the steel sheet after a pickling treatment” recited in the preamble does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“intensity-measuring a fluorescent X-ray intensity of an element comprised in the steel sheet and constituting an oxide in the grain boundary oxide layer” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“determining plating properties of the steel sheet directly based on the fluorescent X-ray intensity measured in the intensity-measuring” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim is therefore ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding claim 2, “wherein a plurality of correlations are pre-extracted in accordance with manufacturing conditions of the steel sheet, and wherein in the film thickness-calculating, one correlation is selected from the plurality of correlations in accordance with the manufacturing conditions of the steel sheet” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claim 3, “distance-measuring a measurement distance, the measurement distance being a distance between the steel sheet and a measurement position of the fluorescent X-ray intensity measured in the intensity-measuring; and intensity-correcting the fluorescent X-ray intensity measured in the intensity-measuring is based on the measurement distance, wherein, in the film thickness-calculating, the fluorescent X-ray intensity corrected in the intensity-correcting is used instead of the fluorescent X-ray intensity measured in the intensity-measuring” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claim 4, “wherein an acid used in the pickling treatment is hydrochloric acid, and wherein the element in the intensity-measuring is Mn” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claim 5, “calculating a film thickness of the grain boundary oxide layer by the method of claim 1; and determining plating properties of the steel sheet by using, as a determination indicator, the film thickness of the grain boundary oxide layer calculated in the calculating” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claim 7, “method for manufacturing a plated steel sheet, the method comprising: hot-rolling a steel sheet serving as a base material; pickling an oxide scale on a surface of the steel sheet after the hot-rolling is removed, by an acid; and plating property-determining plating properties of the steel sheet from a grain boundary oxide layer remaining on the steel sheet after the pickling, comprising using the method of claim 5” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 8 is similar to claims 1-3 but recites a film thickness calculation device comprising an intensity measurer, a distance measurer, an intensity corrector, and a film thickness calculator configured to perform the steps as in claims 1-3. These additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality and do not add significantly more to the judicial exception. These elements are generic computing devices that perform generic functions. Using generic computer elements to perform an abstract idea does not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. See 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. Moreover, “the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 223; see also FairWarninglP, LLCv. latric SysInc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citation omitted) (“[T]he use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter”).
On the record before us, we are not persuaded that the hardware of claim 8 integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Nor are we persuaded that the additional elements are anything more than well-understood, routine, and conventional so as to impart subject matter eligibility to claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, “a storage configured for storing a plurality of correlations extracted in accordance with manufacturing conditions of the steel sheet, wherein the film thickness calculation portion comprises a function of selecting one correlation from the plurality of correlations in accordance with the manufacturing conditions of the steel sheet” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claim 10, “method for manufacturing a plated steel sheet, the method comprising: hot-rolling a steel sheet serving as a base material; pickling an oxide scale on a surface of the steel sheet, after the hot-rolling is removed, by an acid; and plating property-determining plating properties of the steel sheet from a grain boundary oxide layer remaining on the steel sheet after the pickling, comprising using the method of claim 6” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Hence the claims 1-10 are treated as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Geddes et al. (WO2021118966 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Geddes et al. disclose a method for calculating a film thickness of a grain boundary oxide layer remaining on a steel sheet after a pickling treatment (abstract, para. [0076], claim 1), the method comprising:
intensity-measuring a fluorescent X-ray intensity of an element comprised in the steel sheet and constituting an oxide in the grain boundary oxide layer; and film thickness-calculating, using the fluorescent X-ray intensity measured in the intensity-measuring, a film thickness of the grain boundary oxide layer based on a correlation between a pre-extracted fluorescent X-ray intensity and the film thickness of the grain boundary oxide layer (abstract, para. [0076], claim 1, Fig.3, The determination of an elemental composition via XRF comprises measuring and processing the intensity of fluorescent X-rays, a correlation between the film thickness and the measured concentration of iron).
Regarding claim 2, Geddes et al. disclose wherein a plurality of correlations are pre-extracted in accordance with manufacturing conditions of the steel sheet, and wherein in the film thickness-calculating, one correlation is selected from the plurality of correlations in accordance with the manufacturing conditions of the steel sheet (para. [0068]).
Regarding claim 4, Geddes et al. disclose wherein an acid used in the pickling treatment is hydrochloric acid (para. [0014]), and wherein the element in the intensity-measuring is Mn (see fig.15-3).
Regarding claim 5, Geddes et al. disclose a method for determining plating properties of a steel sheet from a grain boundary oxide layer remaining on the steel sheet after a pickling treatment, the method comprising: calculating a film thickness of the grain boundary oxide layer by the method of claim 1; and determining plating properties of the steel sheet by using, as a determination indicator, the film thickness of the grain boundary oxide layer calculated in the calculating.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(1) as being anticipated by Ando et al. (JP200924815 A).
Regarding claim 6, Ando et al. disclose a method for determining plating properties of a steel sheet from a grain boundary oxide layer remaining on the steel sheet after a pickling treatment (pages 5, 8), the method comprising: intensity-measuring a fluorescent X-ray intensity of an element being comprised in the steel sheet and constituting an oxide in the grain boundary oxide layer (page 8); and determining plating properties of the steel sheet directly based on the fluorescent X-ray intensity measured in the intensity-measuring (page 9).
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(1) as being anticipated by Hiroaki (JPS60133308A).
Regarding claim 8, Hiroaki discloses a film thickness calculation device configured for measuring a film thickness of a grain boundary oxide layer remaining on a steel sheet after a pickling treatment, the film thickness calculation device comprising: an intensity measurer configured for measuring a fluorescent X-ray intensity of an element being comprised in the steel sheet and constituting an oxide in the grain boundary oxide layer; a distance measurer configured for measuring a measurement distance being a distance between the steel sheet and a measurement position of the fluorescent X-ray intensity of the intensity measurement portion; an intensity corrector configured for correcting, based on the measurement distance, the fluorescent X-ray intensity measured by the intensity measurement portion; and a film thickness calculator configured for calculating a film thickness of the grain boundary oxide layer based on: a correlation between a pre-extracted fluorescent X-ray intensity and the film thickness of the grain boundary oxide layer; and the fluorescent X-ray intensity corrected by the intensity correction portion (see page 1-2).
Regarding claim 9, Hiroaki discloses storage configured for storing a plurality of correlations extracted in accordance with manufacturing conditions of the steel sheet, wherein the film thickness calculation portion comprises a function of selecting one correlation from the plurality of correlations in accordance with the manufacturing conditions of the steel sheet (page 2).
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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [ Geddes et al. (WO2021118966 A1) in view of Hiroaki (JPS60133308A).
Regarding claim 3, Geddes et al. fail to disclose distance-measuring a measurement distance, the measurement distance being a distance between the steel sheet and a measurement position of the fluorescent X-ray intensity measured in the intensity-measuring; and intensity-correcting the fluorescent X-ray intensity measured in the intensity-measuring is based on the measurement distance, wherein, in the film thickness-calculating, the fluorescent X-ray intensity corrected in the intensity-correcting is used instead of the fluorescent X-ray intensity measured in the intensity-measuring.
Hiroaki teaches distance-measuring a measurement distance, the measurement distance being a distance between the steel sheet and a measurement position of the fluorescent X-ray intensity measured in the intensity-measuring; and intensity-correcting the fluorescent X-ray intensity measured in the intensity-measuring is based on the measurement distance, wherein, in the film thickness-calculating, the fluorescent X-ray intensity corrected in the intensity-correcting is used instead of the fluorescent X-ray intensity measured in the intensity-measuring (Hiroaki, pages 1-2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Hiroaki with the teaching of Geddes et al in order to provide improving measurement accuracy when performing measurements.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN H LE whose telephone number is (571)272-2275. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 7:00am – 3:30pm Eastern Time.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shelby A. Turner can be reached on (571) 272-6334. 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.
/JOHN H LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
