DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 17/694,682, filed on 15 March 2022.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, lines 11-12 recite the limitation “the target color data” which should be amended to recite “the multichannel target color data Ci” to provide proper antecedence and improve the clarity of the claim.
Regarding claim 1, line 12 recites the limitation “a difference between the target color and the standard color” which should be amended to recite “a difference between the target color data and the standard color channel data” to provide proper antecedence in the claim.
Further regarding claim 1, line 20 recites the limitation “wi is a wavelength”. Line 20 formats the wavelength variable with a lowercase “w”, however, in all other instances in claim 1, the wavelength variable if formatted with an uppercase “W”. Please amend line 20 to instead recite “[[wi]] Wi is a wavelength”.
Further regarding claim 1, line 30 recites an equation that includes the coefficient
R
λ
which is not properly definied within the claim. However, since line 29 recites the calculation of a reflectivity value according to the equation recited on line 30, the examiner assumes
R
λ
is the coefficient that represents the reflectivity value. Therefore, the examiner assumes applicant intends for line 29 to instead recite “the reflectivity
R
λ
”. If this is applicant’s intent, please amend accordingly.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. It appears to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and is replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. While the examiner has identified several instances of such errors below, applicant’s assistance in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware is requested.
Claim 1 claims “A reflectivity measuring method based on a multichannel spectrum” which comprises steps S201-S206. However, all of steps S201-S206 are written in past tense. For instance, in claim 1 (note: emphasis is given to the bolded and underlined words identified below):
Step S201 recites the limitations “standard reflectivity and corresponding multichannel sampling data are arranged in a main unit” on lines 4-5, “n standard colors are measured by the main unit” on line 6, “n standard colors are measured by a standard machine” on line 7, and “these data are arranged in the main unit” on line 8.
Step S202 recites the limitation “a measured sample is measured by the main unit” on line 9.
Step S203 recites the limitations “the main unit is traversed” on line 11, “a difference between the target color and the standard color based on each channel is calculated” on lines 12-13, “total differences are calculated” on line 15, “a position
m
(
m
∈
n
)
is obtained according to a minimum value” on line 17, and “Sm,i and Tm,λ corresponding to the minimum value are recorded” on line 18.
Step S204 recites the limitations “target color data Cᵢ are calculated” on line 19 and “cλ is calculated with Cᵢ and Wᵢ” on lines 20-21.
Step S205 recites the limitation “advancing color Sm,i is calculated” on line 25.
Step S206 recites the limitation “the reflectivity is calculated and outputted” on line 29.
A claim is only limited by its positively recited elements. See MPEP § 2115. When the steps of a method claim are written in past tense, it becomes unclear to a person having ordinary skill in the art as to whether the method steps are intended to be positively recited claim elements that impose meaningful limits on the claim or not. This lack of clarity leads to uncertainty regarding the scope of the method, as it is unclear what limitations, if any, actually limit the claim. Thus, because steps S201-S206 of the reflectivity measuring method all recite limitations that are not positively recited, the scope of claim 1 is unclear to a person having ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, claim 1 is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). The examiner assumes applicant intends for the method steps S201-S206 to instead recited positively recited limitations (e.g. on lines 4-5 instead reciting ‘arranging standard reflectivity and corresponding multichannel sampling data in a main unit’). If this is applicant’s intent, please amend accordingly.
Further regarding claim 1, lines 4-5 recite the limitation “standard reflectivity and corresponding multichannel sampling data are arranged in a main unit”. It is unclear how standard reflectivity and corresponding multichannel sampling data can be arranged in a main unit (i.e. a colorimeter, see applicant’s paragraphs 0063-0067). Data is not typically defined as a physical object that can be arranged in a detection device, such as applicants “main unit”. Rather, data more typically relates to signals or measurements output from a detection device or made through observation. Therefore, claim 1 is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). The examiner assumes applicant intends for lines 4-5 to convey that standard reflectivity data and multichannel sampling data are both gathered in and/or collected by the main unit. If this is applicant’s intent, please amend accordingly.
Further regarding claim 1, lines 7-8 recite the limitation “n standard colors are measured by a standard machine to obtain λ reflectivity data Tn,λ of each color”. It is unclear what the element “a standard machine” is referring to. Applicant’s specification only refers to “a standard machine” as itself (paragraphs 0022 and 0092), and otherwise does not provide any other indication as to what the standard machine might be. Is the “standard machine” another main unit or colorimeter? The same main unit or colorimeter as the main unit recited on line 6 of claim 1? A lookup table or calibration chart? A processor comprising previously measured reflectivity data? Some other machine that provides a measurement for the n standard colors? Because these questions cannot be ascertained by one having ordinary skill in the art, claim 1 is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). The examiner assumes applicant intends to convey that the “standard machine” recited on line 7 is a separate color measurement device. If this is applicant’s intent, please amend accordingly. No new matter should be entered.
Further regarding claim 1, lines 4-8 recite “S201, standard reflectivity and corresponding multichannel sampling data are arranged in a main unit: n standard colors are measured by the main unit to obtain i-channel data Sn,i of each standard color, n standard colors are measured by a standard machine to obtain λ reflectivity data Tn,λ of each color, and these data are arranged in the main unit”. Applicant’s use of a colon after the term “main unit” on line 5 appears to suggest that the limitations found on lines 6-8 are meant to provide a further explanation of the limitations introduced on lines 4-5. However, the limitations recited on lines 6-8 appear to introduce the next step in the reflectivity measuring method, rather than providing an explanation for the limitations found on lines 4-5. Thus, it is unclear how the limitations recited on lines 6-8 of claim 1 relate and/or provide a further explanation for the limitations recited on lines 4-5. Therefore, claim 1 is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). The examiner assumes applicant intends for the colon found on line 5 following the term “main unit” to instead be a semi-colon, which would indicate the beginning on a new step in the reflectivity measuring method. If this is applicant’s intent, please amend accordingly.
Further regarding claim 1, lines 7-8 recite the limitation “to obtain λ reflectivity data Tn,λ”. It is unclear what the coefficient “λ” is being defined as. Typically the Greek letter λ signifies a specific wavelength of light, however, in the context of the limitation recited on lines 7-8 of claim 1, the coefficient “λ” appears to refer to a quantity or integer. Thus, it is unclear what the coefficient “λ” is intended to represent, is “λ” a wavelength? A quantity or integer? Some other value? Therefore, claim 1 is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). For examination purposes, the examiner assumes applicant intends for the coefficient “λ” to represent a wavelength. If this is applicant’s intent, please amend accordingly.
Further regarding claim 1, line 8 recites the limitation “and these data are arranged in the main unit”. It is unclear what the element “these data” is referring to. Line 6 of claim 1 recites the limitation “i-channel data Sn,i”, and lines 7-8 recite “λ reflectivity data Tn,λ”. Is the element “these data” referring to the “i-channel data Sn,i”? The “λ reflectivity data Tn,λ”? Both the “i-channel data Sn,i” and the “λ reflectivity data Tn,λ”?
Furthermore, it is unclear how data can be arranged in applicant’s main unit. As previously discussed, data is not typically defined as a physical object, rather data more typically relates to signals or measurement outputs from a detection device or made through observation. With this in mind, it is unclear how the data recited on line 8 can be arranged in the main unit (colorimeter, paragraph 0064).
Because these questions cannot be ascertained by one having ordinary skill in the art, claim 1 is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). The examiner assumes applicant intends for the element “these data” recited on line 8 of claim 1 to refer to both the “i-channel data Sn,i” and the “λ reflectivity data Tn,λ”. Further, the examiner assumes that applicant intends to convey that the “i-channel data Sn,i” and the “λ reflectivity data Tn,λ” are both gathered, to some capacity, in the main unit. If this is applicant’s intent, please amend accordingly. No new matter should be entered.
Further regarding claim 1, line 9 recites the limitation “a measured sample is measured by the main unit”. It is unclear what is applicant intends to convey with this limitation. The term “a measured sample” indicates that the sample being measured is a previously measured sample, however, the claim does not previously recite the measurement of the sample recited on line 9. Furthermore, it is unclear what constitutes “a measured sample”. Is the measured sample any sample that has been previously measured by applicant’s main unit? A sample that has been previously measured with another measurement device? Does applicant intend to convey that “a measured sample” is a/the ‘measurement sample’ or ‘sample for measurement’? Because these questions cannot be ascertained by a person having ordinary skill in the art, claim 1 is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). The examiner assumes applicant intends for “a measured sample is measured by the main unit” recited on line 9 of claim 1 to convey that a sample, which is about to be measured by the main unit, is measured by the main unit (i.e. ‘measuring a sample with the main unit…’). If this is applicant’s intent, please amend accordingly.
Further regarding claim 1, lines 11-12 recites the limitation “the main unit is traversed to find standard color channel data Sn,i closest to the target color data”. It is unclear what is meant by “the main unit is traversed to find standard color channel data”. As previously discussed, data is not typically defined as a physical object, rather data more typically relates to signals or measurement outputs from a detection device or made through observation. With this in mind, it is unclear how the main unit (colorimeter, paragraph 0064) can be traversed to find data that is the closest to another piece of data (i.e. the target color data). Therefore, claim 1 is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). The examiner assumes applicant intends for lines 11-12 of claim 1 to convey that the main unit is traversed to find a standard color whose color channel data is the closest in value to the target color data measured in step S202. If this is applicant’s intent, please amend accordingly.
Further regarding claim 1, line 19 recites the limitation “the i-channel target color data Cᵢ are calculated as λ-channel data cλ”. Lines 9-10 of claim 1 previously recite that the target color data
C
i
is obtained through a measurement of a sample. However, the language used on line 19 suggests to one having ordinary skill in the art that the target color data
C
i
are calculated quantities. Furthermore, the equations shown on lines 22-24 show target color data
C
i
being used to calculate λ-channel data cλ. Thus, it is unclear what the coefficient “
C
i
” is being defined as. Is
C
i
data that is measured or is
C
i
data derived through calculation? Therefore, claim 1 is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). The examiner assumes the coefficient
C
i
is intended to be target color data that is obtained through measurement, and that line 19 is intended to instead recite ‘calculating λ-channel data cλ corresponding to the i-channel target color data Cᵢ’. If this is applicant’s intent, please amend accordingly.
Further regarding claim 1, line 25 recites the limitation “i-channel advancing color Sm,i". However, the coefficient “Sm,i” was previously introduced on line 18 as referring to standard color channel data at a position
m
(
m
∈
n
)
. It is unclear if the “i-channel advancing color Sm,i" recited on line 25 is the same coefficient as “Sm,i” recited on line 18 of claim 1, or if the two coefficients are intended to represent different quantities. Therefore, claim 1 is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). The examiner assumes that the two “Sm,i” coefficients recited on lines 18 and 25 of claim 1 are intended to be the same coefficient. If this is applicant’s intent, please amend accordingly.
Further regarding claim 1, line 25 recites the limitation “i-channel advancing color Sm,i is calculated as λ-channel data sλ”. As outlined above, the examiner has interpreted the coefficient “Sm,i” as being the standard color channel data at a position
m
(
m
∈
n
)
. The standard color channel data was previously recited as being data that was obtained through measurement (see lines 6-7 of claim 1). However, the language used on line 25 suggests to one having ordinary skill in the art that the standard color channel data
S
m
,
i
are calculated quantities. Furthermore, the equations recited on lines 26-28 show the standard color channel data
S
m
,
i
being used to calculate λ-channel data sλ. Thus, it is unclear what the coefficient
S
m
,
i
is defined as. Is
S
m
,
i
data that is measured or is
S
m
,
i
data derived through calculation? Therefore, claim 1 is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). The examiner assumes the coefficient
S
m
,
i
is intended to be standard color channel data that is obtained through measurement, and that line 25 is intended to instead recite ‘calculating λ-channel data sλ corresponding to the i-channel standard color channel data at a position
m
(
m
∈
n
)
Sm,i as follows:’. If this is applicant’s intent, please amend accordingly.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims will be addressed according to the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidelines (see MPEP § 2106).
Interpretation of the claims:
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the terms of the claim are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2111.
Step 1:
Claim 1 is directed to a method and therefore falls within one of the statutory categories of invention (process).
Step 2A Prong One:
Claim 1 recites the following limitations on lines 12-30 that are all considered to be abstract ideas that fall into the “mathematical concepts” grouping of abstract ideas:
“a difference between the target color and the standard color based on each channel is calculated as follows:
d
n
,
i
=
S
n
,
i
-
C
i
total differences are calculated as follows:
D
n
=
d
n
,
1
2
+
d
n
,
2
2
+
…
+
d
n
,
8
2
a position
m
(
m
∈
n
)
is obtained according to a minimum value of the total difference Dn, and Sm,i and Tm,λ corresponding to the minimum value are recorded;
S204, the i-channel target color data Cᵢ are calculated as λ-channel data cλ, wherein Cᵢ is the ith channel data, and Wᵢ is a wavelength corresponding to the ith channel; cλ is calculated with Cᵢ and Wᵢ:
k
i
=
C
i
+
1
-
C
i
W
i
+
1
-
W
i
b
i
=
C
i
+
1
-
k
i
*
W
i
+
1
c
λ
=
k
i
*
λ
+
b
i
S205, i-channel advancing color Sm,i is calculated as λ-channel data sλ:
k
i
'
=
S
m
,
i
+
1
-
S
m
,
i
W
i
+
1
-
W
i
b
i
'
=
S
m
,
i
+
1
-
k
i
'
*
W
i
+
1
s
λ
=
k
i
'
*
λ
+
b
i
'
S206, the reflectivity is calculated and outputted as follows:
R
λ
=
T
m
,
λ
s
λ
*
c
λ
”
Step 2A Prong Two:
Claim 1 recites the following additional elements, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas identified above into a practical application:
“S201, standard reflectivity and corresponding multichannel sampling data are arranged in a main unit” recited on lines 4-5. This limitation, as best understood by the examiner, merely recites that standard reflectivity and multichannel sampling data are gathered/collected by the main unit. Thus, this limitation amounts to no more than mere data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity. Insignificant extra solution activity does not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
“n standard colors are measured by the main unit to obtain i-channel data Sn,i of each standard color” recited on lines 6-7. This limitation also amounts to no more than mere data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity.
“n standard colors are measured by a standard machine to obtain λ reflectivity data Tn,λ of each color” recited on lines 7-8. This limitation also amounts to no more than mere data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity.
“these data are arranged in the main unit” recited on line 8. This limitation, as best understood by the examiner, merely recites that the standard color channel data Sn,i and the λ reflectivity data Tn,λ are both gathered/collected by the main unit. Thus, this limitation also amounts to no more than mere data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity.
“S202, a measured sample is measured by the main unit to obtain multichannel target color data Ci” recited on lines 9-10. This limitation also amounts to no more than mere data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity.
“S203, the main unit is traversed to find standard color channel data Sn,i closest to the target color data” recited on lines 11-12. This limitation, as best understood by the examiner, merely recites that the main unit’s gathered data is examined to find the standard color channel data Sn,i that is closest in value to the multichannel target color data Ci. Thus, this limitation also amounts to no more than mere data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity.
Step 2B:
Claim 1 does not comprise any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions identified above. As outlined above in the Step 2A Prong Two analysis, lines 4-12 of claim 1 comprise additional elements that amount to no more than necessary data gathering in order to gather the parameters necessary to solve for the reflectivity (equation found on line 30 of claim 1). This mere data gathering is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity that also does not amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas identified above. Furthermore, measuring standard colors to generate color channel and reflectivity data to assess with the measurement results of a target sample color is a widely known technique in the art that is considered to be well understood, conventional, and routine to one having ordinary skill in the art. The courts have held that well understood, conventional, and routine activities known to those having ordinary skill in the art are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than a judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Conclusion:
The courts have decided that natural phenomena, laws of nature, and abstract intellectual concepts, such as mental processes and mathematical concepts, are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work (Gottschalk v Benson, 409 U.S.63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). It is well established that the mere physical or tangible nature of additional elements, such as a data input or detection step, does not automatically confer eligibility on a claim directed to an abstract idea (see Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v CLS Bank, 573 US, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 USPQ.2d 1976 (2014)).
Therefore, for the reasons outlined above, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Conclusion
A statement regarding the prior art is not made at this time in view of the above cited rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101 and 112. See the attached PTO-892 form for a list of relevant prior art found by the examiner throughout their search.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOAH J HANEY whose telephone number is (571)270-1282. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm eastern time.
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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at (571) 270-5789. 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.
/NOAH J. HANEY/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/MICHELLE M IACOLETTI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877