DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. Claims 1-8 are pending and presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The representative claim 1 recites:
An anomaly determination apparatus comprising at least one processor, the at least one processor carrying out:
an acquisition process for acquiring, from a plurality of gas sensors having different responsivities from each other depending on a composition of gas, measurement data for gas generated from a determination target; and
a determination process for determining an anomaly regarding the determination target by comparing reference data with determination data that is obtained from the measurement data from the respective plurality of gas sensors for the determination target and that is obtained in accordance with a relationship between the measurement data.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
Under step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are 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 claims are considered to be in a statutory category (process).
Under Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitation that fall into/recite abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter that, when recited as such in a claim limitation, covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) and/or mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion.
Next, under 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.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitations in the claim are only: at least one processor….an acquisition process for acquiring, from a plurality of gas sensors having different responsivities from each other depending on a composition of gas, measurement data for gas generated from a determination target;. The limitations “an acquisition process for acquiring, from a plurality of gas sensors having different responsivities from each other depending on a composition of gas, measurement data for gas generated from a determination target;” are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., gathering or collecting data using sensors) such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic sensors.
The limitation “at least one processor” is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a computer structure performing a generic computer function of processing information) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components.
Finally, under Step 2B, we consider whether the additional elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as noted above, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as gathering data using generic sensors and processing data using a computer/computing components). Further, the additional elements are conventional in the art, as evidenced by the art of record (see, Ivanov et al. US 20220091083 (hereinafter, Ivanov), ([0071], [0130]), and Carbonelli et al. US 20200271605 (hereinafter, Carbonelli), ([0070], Fig. 6). Therefore, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-5, add further details of the identified abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 6, recites additional elements of “a heating and burning section that heats and burns a determination target so as to generate gas; a plurality of gas sensors that carry out measurement with respect to the gas and that have different responsivities from each other depending on a composition of gas; a display section; and an anomaly determination apparatus according to claim 1, wherein, in a case where it is determined that there is an anomaly in the determination target, the at least one processor further carries out a display control process for causing the display section to display an indication indicating that there is an anomaly in the determination target”. The limitation “a heating and burning section that heats and burns a determination target so as to generate gas”, is recited a high level of generality (i.e., as heating and burning device) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic device.
Further the limitations “the at least one processor further carries out a display control process for causing the display section to display an indication indicating that there is an anomaly in the determination target” is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a computer structure performing a generic computer function of processing and displaying information) such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components.
Furthermore, the limitations “a plurality of gas sensors that carry out measurement with respect to the gas and that have different responsivities from each other depending on a composition of gas” are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as gathering data using sensors) such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic sensors. Further, the additional element is conventional in the art, as evidenced by the art of record (see, Ivanov, ([0071], [0130], [0136], Fig. 19), and Carbonelli, ([0070], Figs. 6 and 8). Therefore, claim 6 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, the claims are rejected with the same rationale as in claim 1.
Claim Objection
5. Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 6 recites “an anomaly detection…a determination target….a plurality of gas sensors….an anomaly determination…..” should read “[[an]] the anomaly detection…[a] the determination target….[a] the plurality of gas sensors….[a] the anomaly determination…” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AlA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 of this title, 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.
7. Claims 1, 6, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ivanov et al. US 20220091083 (hereinafter, Ivanov), in view of Carbonelli et al. US 20200271605 (hereinafter, Carbonelli).
8. Regarding claim 1, Ivanov discloses an anomaly determination apparatus comprising at least one processor, the at least one processor carrying out:
an acquisition process for acquiring, from a plurality of gas sensors having different responsivities from each other depending on a gas, measurement data for gas generated from a determination target ([0127], [0130]: the gas sensors in the sensor array 12 provides information on the gas phases released from the material(s) (.i.e. determination target) used in the additive manufacturing process…[0042]: The number of the gas sensors in the sensor array 12 may be based on a particular application,... Each sensor may be tuned to be selectivity (sensitivity) to specific analytes); and
a determination process for determining an anomaly regarding the determination target by comparing reference data with determination data that is obtained from the measurement data from the respective plurality of gas sensors for the determination target and that is obtained in accordance with a relationship between the measurement data ([0019], [0127], [0130]: The sensor system(s) may be used to determine whether there is a defect in a product made using an additive manufacturing process).
Ivanov does not disclose:
a plurality of gas sensors having different responsivities from each other depending on a composition of gas.
However, Carbonelli discloses:
a plurality of gas sensors having different responsivities from each other depending on a composition of gas ([0011]-[0012]: each of the gas sensors is sensitive for a specific gas).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Ivanov to use a plurality of gas sensors having different responsivities from each other depending on a composition of gas as taught by Carbonelli. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to analyze complicated gas mixtures with one single sensor array (Carbonelli, [0012]).
9. Regarding claims 7 and 8, the claims are rejected with the same rationale as in claim 1.
10. Regarding claim 6, Ivanov in view of Carbonelli disclose an anomaly determination apparatus according to claim 1 as disclosed above.
Ivanov further discloses an anomaly detection apparatus comprising: a heating and burning section that heats and burns a determination target so as to generate gas ; a plurality of gas sensors that carry out measurement with respect to the gas and that have different responsivities from each other ([0042], [0129], [0136]);
a display section; and, wherein, in a case where it is determined that there is an anomaly in the determination target, the at least one processor further carries out a display control process for causing the display section to display an indication indicating that there is an anomaly in the determination target ([0009], [0089], [0156], claim 9).
Ivanov does not disclose:
a plurality of gas sensors having different responsivities from each other depending on a composition of gas.
However, Carbonelli discloses:
a plurality of gas sensors having different responsivities from each other depending on a composition of gas ([0011]-[0012]: each of the gas sensors is sensitive for a specific gas).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Ivanov to use a plurality of gas sensors having different responsivities from each other depending on a composition of gas as taught by Carbonelli. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to analyze complicated gas mixtures with one single sensor array (Carbonelli, [0012]).
11. Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ivanov, in view of Carbonelli, in further view of Briscoe et al. US 20230349874 (hereinafter, Briscoe).
12. Regarding claim 2, Ivanov in view of Carbonelli disclose the anomaly determination apparatus according to claim 1, as disclosed above.
Ivanov further discloses wherein the at least one processor further carries out a normalization process, in the normalization process, the at least one processor generates the determination data by using an amplitude value of measurement data for the determination target, the measurement data being measured by a gas sensor that is among the plurality of gas sensors, to normalize the measurement data measured by the plurality of gas sensors ([0130]: the gas sensors in the sensor array 12 provides information on the gas phases released from the material(s) used in the additive manufacturing process…[0135]: The outputs of each of the gas sensors in the sensor array 12 may be recorded.... Background readings (noise adjustment) may be used to normalize or account for typical gases in the environment). Further, Carbonelli discloses normalized sensor responses ([0058]-[0059]).
Ivanov in view of Carbonelli does not disclose:
the measurement data being measured by a gas sensor that is among the plurality of gas sensors and that has lower specificity than a predetermined criterion to a plurality of measurement targets which have been subjected to measurement by the plurality of gas sensors.
However, Briscoe discloses:
the measurement data being measured by a gas sensor that is among the plurality of gas sensors and that has lower specificity than a predetermined criterion to a plurality of measurement targets which have been subjected to measurement by the plurality of gas sensors ([0023], [0042], [0102]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Ivanov in view of Carbonelli to use the measurement data being measured by a gas sensor that is among the plurality of gas sensors and that has lower specificity than a predetermined criterion to a plurality of measurement targets which have been subjected to measurement by the plurality of gas sensors as taught by Briscoe. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to monitoring and predicting the sensitivity of gas sensors (Briscoe, [0001]).
13. Regarding claim 3, Ivanov in view of Carbonelli disclose the anomaly determination apparatus according to claim 1, as disclosed above.
Ivanov further discloses wherein the at least one processor further carries out a normalization process, the reference data is data that is obtained in accordance with a relationship between measurement data from the plurality of gas sensors for gas generated from a learning target which is normal ([0009], [0127], [0136]), and
in the normalization process, the at least one processor generates the reference data by using an amplitude value of measurement data for the learning target, the measurement data being measured by a gas sensor that is among the plurality of gas sensors, to normalize the measurement data measured by the plurality of gas sensors for the learning target ([0130]: the gas sensors in the sensor array 12 provides information on the gas phases released from the material(s) used in the additive manufacturing process…[0135]: The outputs of each of the gas sensors in the sensor array 12 may be recorded.... Background readings (noise adjustment) may be used to normalize or account for typical gases in the environment). Further, Carbonelli discloses normalized sensor responses ([0058]-[0059]).
Ivanov in view of Carbonelli does not disclose:
the measurement data being measured by a gas sensor that is among the plurality of gas sensors and that has lower specificity than a predetermined criterion to a plurality of measurement targets which have been subjected to measurement by the plurality of gas sensors.
However, Briscoe discloses:
the measurement data being measured by a gas sensor that is among the plurality of gas sensors and that has lower specificity than a predetermined criterion to a plurality of measurement targets which have been subjected to measurement by the plurality of gas sensors ([0023], [0042], [0102]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Ivanov in view of Carbonelli to use the measurement data being measured by a gas sensor that is among the plurality of gas sensors and that has lower specificity than a predetermined criterion to a plurality of measurement targets which have been subjected to measurement by the plurality of gas sensors as taught by Briscoe. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to monitoring and predicting the sensitivity of gas sensors (Briscoe, [0001]).
14. Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ivanov, in view of Carbonelli, in further view of Tanimoto, JP 2021196747A, cited in IDS (hereinafter, Tanimoto).
15. Regarding claim 4, Ivanov in view of Carbonelli disclose the anomaly determination apparatus according to claim 1, as disclosed above.
Ivanov in view of Carbonelli does not disclose:
wherein in the determination process, the at least one processor uses a local outlier factor method to determine an anomaly regarding the determination target.
However, Tanimoto discloses:
wherein in the determination process, the at least one processor uses a local outlier factor method to determine an anomaly regarding the determination target ([0042]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Ivanov in view of Carbonelli to use wherein in the determination process, the at least one processor uses a local outlier factor method to determine an anomaly regarding the determination target as taught by Tanimoto. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to identify anomalies using different machine learning algorithms, such as (Tanimoto, [0002]).
16. Regarding claim 5, Ivanov in view of Carbonelli in view of Tanimoto disclose the anomaly determination apparatus according to claim 4, as disclosed above.
Ivanov further discloses wherein the reference data is data that is obtained in accordance with a relationship between measurement data from the plurality of gas sensors for gas generated from a learning target which is normal ([0009], [0127], [0136]).
Ivanov in view of Carbonelli does not disclose:
the at least one processor further carries out a threshold determination process for determining a threshold from a distribution of the reference data, in the determination process, the at least one processor determines the anomaly regarding the determination target with use of the local outlier factor method in which the threshold is used.
However, Tanimoto discloses:
the at least one processor further carries out a threshold determination process for determining a threshold from a distribution of the reference data, in the determination process, the at least one processor determines the anomaly regarding the determination target with use of the local outlier factor method in which the threshold is used ([0032], [0039], [0042]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Ivanov in view of Carbonelli to use the at least one processor further carries out a threshold determination process for determining a threshold from a distribution of the reference data, in the determination process, the at least one processor determines the anomaly regarding the determination target with use of the local outlier factor method in which the threshold is used as taught by Tanimoto. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to identify anomalies using different thresholds efficiently (Tanimoto, [0039]).
Conclusion
17. Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers, and/or paragraphs, and/or pages in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
18. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EYOB HAGOS whose telephone number is (571)272-3508. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30-5:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Shelby 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.
/Eyob Hagos/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights