DETAILED ACTION
The following is a FINAL office action upon examination of the application number 18/797560.
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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 3, 9, 10, 13, and 20, have been amended.
Claims 2, 6-8, and 16-18 have been cancelled.
Claims 1, 3-5, 9-15, 19, and 20 are pending.
The rejection under 35 USC 103 is withdrawn in view of the claim amendments filed 4/2/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/29/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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, 3-5, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
(Step 1) Claims 1 and 3-5 are directed to a method; thus these claims are directed to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. Claim 9 is directed to system comprising a processor; thus the system comprises a device or set of devices, and therefore, is directed to a machine which is a statutory category of invention.
(Step 2A) The claims recite an abstract idea instructing how to calculate a residual pulse cost, which is described by claim limitations reciting:
acquiring, from a light source management database, first data in which the component of the light source and an operation pulse count of the component sequentially stored through an operation of the light source are associated with each other;
acquiring, from the light source management database, second data including data in which the component and a first standard guaranteed pulse count of the component in a case of first pulse energy are associated with each other and data in which the component and a second standard guaranteed pulse count of the component in a case of second pulse energy different from the first pulse energy are associated with each other;
acquiring, from the light source management database, sixth data in which the light source and pulse energy of the light source sequentially stored through the operation of the light source are associated with each other;
obtaining an energy average value which is an average value of data of the pulse energy included in the sixth data;
calculating a third standard guaranteed pulse count when the pulse energy is the energy average value by linear interpolation between the first standard guaranteed pulse count and the second standard guaranteed pulse count included in the second data;
acquiring, from a customer contract database, third data in which the light source and a pulse unit price of the light source are associated with each other;
calculating a residual pulse count of the component from the operation pulse count on a latest date of the component included in the first data and the third standard guaranteed pulse count calculated by the linear interpolation;
calculating a residual pulse cost of the component from the residual pulse count and the pulse unit price; and
…display the model, the component name, and the residual pulse cost.
The identified limitations in the claims describing calculating a residual pulse cost (i.e., the abstract idea) fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, which covers fundamental economic practices or, alternatively, the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas since the claims recite mathematical relationships and calculations. Dependent claims 2-8 recite limitations that further narrow the abstract idea (i.e., calculating a residual pulse cost); therefore, these claims are also found to recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because additional elements such as the processor in claim 1, and the processor in claim 9, do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea since these elements are only broadly applied to the abstract ideas at a high level of generality; thus, none of recited hardware offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, in this case, implementation via a processor/computer.
Additional elements such as transmitting a model of the light source, a component name of the component, and the residual pulse cost to a management server via a network and controlling a display unit of the management server to display… do not yield an improvement in the functioning of the computer itself, nor do they yield improvements to a technical field or technology; further, these limitations only add insignificant extra-solution activities (data transmission/display). Accordingly, these additional element do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
(Step 2B) The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (see Spec. [0012]). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Additional elements such as transmitting a model of the light source, a component name of the component, and the residual pulse cost to a management server via a network and controlling a display unit of the management server to display… do not yield an improvement and only add insignificant extra-solution activities (data transmission/display). With respect to data transmission limitations, the courts have recognized the use of computers to receive and transmit data as a well-understood, routine, and conventional, OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network). With respect to data display limitations, the courts have found the presentation of data to be a well-understood, routine, conventional activity, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101, Applicant argues that the claims are integrated into a practical application.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Limitations related to calculating a third standard guaranteed pulse count when the pulse energy is the energy average value by linear interpolation between the first standard guaranteed pulse count and the second standard guaranteed pulse count included in the second data are directed to abstract limitations that further describe calculating a residual pulse cost and fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, which covers fundamental economic practices or, alternatively, the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas since these features describe mathematical relationships and calculations.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAN TORRICO-LOPEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-3247. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-5PM.
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, Beth Boswell can be reached at (571)272-6737. 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.
/ALAN TORRICO-LOPEZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights