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 .
Drawing
The instant application does not include drawing. However, applications other than design applications filed on or after December 18, 2013, although drawings are not required to receive a filing date, drawings should be submitted on filing if necessary for the understanding of the invention because no amendment may introduce new matter into the disclosure of an application after its filing date. The instant application would benefit from drawing as the analysis focusses on derivation and matrix analysis for the purposes of optimizing the combination of the characteristics of DTG (Differentia weight loss) curve.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim rejection – 35 U.S.C. §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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
In reference to clams 1-17: the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., Abstract idea) without significantly more.
The requirement for subject matter eligibility test for products and processes requires first, the claimed invention must be to one of the four statutory categories. 35 U.S.C. §101 defines the four categories of invention that Congress deemed to be the appropriate subject matter of a patent: processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter. The latter three categories define "things" or "products" while the first category defines "actions" (i.e., inventions that consist of a series of steps or acts to be performed).
Second, the claimed invention also must qualify as patent-eligible subject matter, i.e., the claim must not be directed at a judicial exception unless the claim includes additional limitations amounting to significantly more than the exception. The judicial exceptions (also called "judicially recognized exceptions" or simply "exceptions") are subject matter that the courts have found to be outside of, or exceptions to, the four statutory categories of invention, and are limited to abstract ideas, laws of nature and natural phenomena (including products of nature).
In the first step, it is to be determined whether the patent claim under examination is directed to an abstract idea. If so, in the second step of analysis, it is to be determined whether the patent adds to the idea “something more” or "significantly more” that embodies an “inventive concept.”
In the instant case, claim 1 is representative and it is reproduced here with the limitations that are part of the abstract idea in bold:
A method for analyzing a cigarette sample, comprising: (1) preparing the cigarette sample and a plurality of single-grade tobacco samples; (2) collecting thermal analysis spectral data of the cigarette sample and each of the plurality of single-grade tobacco samples; and (3) mapping the thermal analysis spectral data of the plurality of single-grade tobacco samples to the thermal analysis spectral data of the cigarette sample to obtain a leaf composition of the cigarette sample, wherein mapping the thermal analysis spectra of the plurality of single-grade tobacco samples to the thermal analysis spectrum of the cigarette sample comprises:
- obtaining a first derivative of thermogravimetric (TG) spectral curves with respect to time or temperature for each of the cigarette sample and the plurality of single-grade tobacco samples to get a differential weight loss (DTG) curve and a DTG matrix for each of the cigarette sample and the single-grade tobacco samples;
selecting a segment of the DTG curves corresponding to a specific temperature segment within the temperature range of 50 °C-900 °C to provide characteristic DTG matrices for each of the cigarette sample and the plurality of single-grade tobacco samples;
determining an objective function for optimizing a combination of the characteristic DTG matrices of the plurality of single-grade tobacco samples to match the characteristic DTG matrix of the cigarette sample;
determining or setting fitting restrictions for optimizing the combination of the characteristic DTG matrices of the plurality of single-grade tobacco samples to match the characteristic DTG matrix of the cigarette sample; and
optimizing the combination of the characteristic DTG matrices of the plurality of single-grade tobacco samples that has a minimal difference from the characteristic DTG matrix of the cigarette sample to obtain an identity and proportion of single-grade tobacco leaves that are most similar to the cigarette sample as the leaf composition of the cigarette sample.
Step 2A:
Prong I: The claim recites the steps of “(1) preparing the cigarette sample and a plurality of single-grade tobacco samples; (2) collecting thermal analysis spectral data of the cigarette sample and each of the plurality of single-grade tobacco samples; and (3) mapping the thermal analysis spectral data of the plurality of single-grade tobacco samples to the thermal analysis spectral data of the cigarette sample to obtain a leaf composition of the cigarette sample, wherein mapping the thermal analysis spectra of the plurality of single-grade tobacco samples to the thermal analysis spectrum of the cigarette sample” with steps A through E in order to obtain an identity and proportion of single-grade tobacco leaves that are most similar to the cigarette sample as the leaf composition of the cigarette sample. These limitations could be carried out as a purely mental process (at least in some relatively simple situations) and/or they could amount to a mathematical calculation (for example, determining the objective function for optimization). Therefore, the recited method falls in the abstract idea grouping of mental processes and/or mathematical concepts at Prong 1 of the §101 analysis.
Prong II:
This abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application at Prong 2 of the §101 analysis because the claim does not recite sufficient additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim recites the system comprising the additional element such " mapping the thermal analysis spectra of the plurality of single-grade tobacco sample”; however, this exercise would amount collecting of data values or points at a high level of generality per se.
The claim does not recite applying the abstract idea with, or by use of, any machine, nor does the claim affect a real-world transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. The claim amounts to manipulating data: “optimization the combination of the characteristic DTG matrices of the plurality single-grade tobacco samples that has a minimal difference from the characteristic DTG matrix of the cigarette sample..” Therefore, the claimed invention does not appear to be limited to the use of the mental process or math in a particular practical application, but instead the claim appears to monopolize the mental process or math itself, in any practical application where it might conceivably be used.
Step 2B:
Finally, at Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons as discussed above about Prong 2. Claim 1 is rejected as ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Dependent claim 2: the instant claim is directed to the definition of the temperature range which merely adds to the insignificant extra-solution activity being recited which is also a mental process.
Dependent claims 3-11: the instant claims generally talk about what goes on in computational analysis and are considered mathematical derivations of some kind.
Dependent claim 12: the instant claim is directed to using various algorithms for optimization computation and merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity being recited.
Dependent claim 13: the instant claim is directed to characterization of the tobacco leaves sample and is considered insignificant extra solution activity.
Dependent claim 14: the instant claims are directed to formulating a cut tobacco composition using the method of claim 1 and is considered a typical human activity or mental process.
Dependent claims 15-17: the instant claims are directed to characterization of single-grade tobacco leaves and are considered insignificant extra-solution activity.
Art of Interest
In reference to claims 1-17: Choi et al. (U.S. PAP 2008/0059076, hereon Choi) discloses a method for classifying leaves utilizing venation features. The method involves extracting a sample image of venation e.g. pinnate venation (a), by utilizing a curvature scale space (CSS) corner detection algorithm. The sample image is treated to thicken the venation and increase the contrast through a retrieval unit prior to applying canny edge detection technology. The feature point is detected at each point where the calculated curvature angle is a local maximum, and the feature point is a branching point and an end point. The distribution of the feature points of the extracted venation is calculated (see Choi, Abstract).
The instant claim is different in a sense that it is directed to analyzing cigarette or tobacco sample for the purposes of identifying the proportion of single-grade tobacco leaves that are most similar to the cigarette sample as the leaf composition of the cigarette sample using derivative of thermogravimetric (TG) spectral curves with respect to time or temperature of each cigarette sample by determining objective function.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Salmon et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,095,172) discloses a method of processing whole tobacco leaves with stem, veins, and lamina material. The whole tobacco leaves are tipped, to receive tips and butts. The tips and butts are then separated. The separate tips are further processed by cutting or shredding, to receive light and heavy tip material. Once the light tip material is separated from the heavy tip material, the light tip material is dried, before it is finally packaged.
Campbell et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,779,916) discloses a thermo-gravimetric analysis system includes a chamber having an interior; and a sample crucible connected to and inside of the chamber, the sample crucible configured to hold a sample material. The system further includes a reference crucible connected to and inside of the chamber; and a metal organic framework (MOF) crucible connected to and inside of the chamber, separate from the sample crucible, the MOF crucible including an MOF material.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIAS DESTA whose telephone number is (571)272-2214. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30 to 5:00 pm.
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, Andrew M Schechter can be reached at 571-272-2302. 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.
/ELIAS DESTA/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights