DETAILED ACTION
The following is a first office action upon examination of application number 18/797560. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1-9 have been examined on the merits discussed below.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 11/5/2024 and 12/19/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are 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 1-9 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 1-8 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 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 second data in which the component and a standard guaranteed pulse count of the component are associated with each other;
acquiring 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 and the standard guaranteed pulse count;
calculating a residual pulse cost of the component from the residual pulse count and the pulse unit price; and
outputting 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 “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas since the identified limitations can be performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper. 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. 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. 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.
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) 1-4 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0333788 (Abe); in view of Profit Potential (Cozad, 2019).
As per claim 1, Abe teaches: a residual pulse cost calculation method for a component of a light source which outputs a pulse laser beam, the method comprising, by a processor: ([0009] …processor to achieve a machine learning function of creating a learning model for estimating a life of a consumable of a laser apparatus)
acquiring 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; ([0100] …the number of oscillation pulses from the laser apparatus 10. [0112] … manage the timings when the primary consumables in each of the laser apparatuses #1 to #w are replaced based primarily on the number of pulses Np produced in the laser oscillation (number of oscillation pulses). [0123] ... FIG. 3, the sequence of events from the change in the gas pressure versus the number of oscillation pulses Np of the laser apparatus 10 [0124] …The number of oscillation pulses is used as one of indexes for inferring the life of each of the primary consumables of the laser apparatus. [0129] The consumable-life-related information includes a file A, a file B, and a file C. The file A is a file that saves data on a log relating to the life of the laser chamber 100. The file B is a file that saves data on a log relating to the life of the monitoring module 108.).
acquiring second data in which the component and a standard guaranteed pulse count of the component are associated with each other; ([0124] …The number of oscillation pulses as a standard life is specified in some cases on a consumable basis)
calculating a residual pulse count of the component from the operation pulse count and the standard guaranteed pulse count; outputting the residual pulse… ([0124] The number of oscillation pulses is used as one of indexes for inferring the life of each of the primary consumables of the laser apparatus. The number of oscillation pulses as a standard life is specified in some cases on a consumable basis [0129] The consumable-life-related information includes a file A, a file B, and a file C. The file A is a file that saves data on a log relating to the life of the laser chamber 100. The file B is a file that saves data on a log relating to the life of the monitoring module 108).
Although not explicitly taught by Abe, Cozad teaches: acquiring third data in which the [light source/unit] and a [pulse unit/unit] price of the [light source/unit] are associated with each other; calculating a residual [pulse cost/profit] of the component from the residual [pulse count/count] and the [pulse unit/unit] price; and outputting the residual [pulse cost/profit]. ([Page 1] …the inventory count is 100 units. The sale price is $5 per widget, and expenses amount to $3 per unit. Profit potential is then: 100 units in inventory x (sale price of $5 per unit - expenses of $3 per unit) = $200 profit potential Put another way: I x (P-E) = PP, where: I = inventory or potential demand, in units. P = sale price per unit. E = expenses per unit. PP = profit potential. It should also be noted that inventory (or potential demand) multiplied by sale price per unit equates to expected revenue).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the teachings of Cozad to the system of Abe would have yielded predictable results and doing so would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow for the calculation of a residual value.
As per claim 2, Abe teaches: the processor calculates the residual pulse count using the operation pulse count on a latest date of the component ([0151] …calculate data on an estimated life Nlife of the consumable to be replaced and the number of oscillation pulses in a remaining life Nre thereof and data on a recommended maintenance date Drec when the consumable is replaced [0212] …The remaining life Nchre of the consumables is calculated from Nchre=Nches−Nch by using the current number of oscillation pulses Nch. [0268] ... compare the number of oscillation pulses calculated based on the desired maintenance date and the data on the working schedule of the laser apparatus 10 with the number of oscillation pulses in the remaining life of the laser apparatus 10 [0276] … the consumable life estimation section 362 is configured to transmit the life of the consumable to be replaced, the remaining life thereof).
As per claim 3, Abe teaches: the residual pulse count is a difference between the standard guaranteed pulse count and the operation pulse count ([0124] The number of oscillation pulses is used as one of indexes for inferring the life of each of the primary consumables of the laser apparatus. The number of oscillation pulses as a standard life is specified in some cases on a consumable basis [0151] … the number of oscillation pulses in a remaining life).
As per claim 4, although not explicitly taught by Abe, Cozad teaches: the residual [pulse cost/profit] is a product of the residual [pulse count/count] and the [pulse unit/unit] price ([Page 1] …the inventory count is 100 units. The sale price is $5 per widget, and expenses amount to $3 per unit. Profit potential is then: 100 units in inventory x (sale price of $5 per unit - expenses of $3 per unit) = $200 profit potential Put another way: I x (P-E) = PP, where: I = inventory or potential demand, in units. P = sale price per unit. E = expenses per unit. PP = profit potential. It should also be noted that inventory (or potential demand) multiplied by sale price per unit equates to expected revenue).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the teachings of Cozad to the system of Abe would have yielded predictable results and doing so would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow for the calculation of a residual value.
As per claim 9, this claim recites limitations substantially similar to those addressed by the rejection of claim 1, above; therefore, the same rejection applies.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0333788 (Abe); in view of Profit Potential (Cozad, 2019); in view of ‘Cost Allocation Guidelines’ (2020).
As per claim 5, although not explicitly taught by Abe, Cozad teaches: the residual[pulse cost/profit] = the residual[pulse count/count] × the [pulse unit/unit] price ([Page 1] …the inventory count is 100 units. The sale price is $5 per widget, and expenses amount to $3 per unit. Profit potential is then: 100 units in inventory x (sale price of $5 per unit - expenses of $3 per unit) = $200 profit potential Put another way: I x (P-E) = PP, where: I = inventory or potential demand, in units. P = sale price per unit. E = expenses per unit. PP = profit potential. It should also be noted that inventory (or potential demand) multiplied by sale price per unit equates to expected revenue).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the teachings of Cozad to the system of Abe would have yielded predictable results and doing so would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow for the calculation of a residual value.
Although not explicitly taught by Abe, ‘Cost Allocation Guidelines’ teaches: acquiring fourth data in which the light source and a price of the light source are associated with each other and fifth data in which the component and a price of the component are associated with each other, wherein … (the price of the component/the price of the light source) (Page 4
PNG
media_image1.png
82
580
media_image1.png
Greyscale
; discloses a proportional cost/price allocation rate).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Abe with the aforementioned teachings of ‘Cost Allocation Guidelines’ with the motivation of proportionally allocating costs (‘Cost Allocation Guidelines’, page 1). Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the teachings of Cost Allocation Guidelines to the system of Abe would have yielded predictable results and doing so would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow for proportional price/cost allocation for a component/service.
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0333788 (Abe); in view of Profit Potential (Cozad, 2019); in view of US 2017/0262772 (Takigawa).
As per claim 6, although not explicitly taught by Abe, Takigawa teaches: acquiring sixth data in which the light source and an operating condition of the light source sequentially stored through the operation of the light source are associated with each other, wherein the standard guaranteed pulse count in the second data is associated with the operating condition of the light source, and the processor calculates the residual pulse count using the standard guaranteed pulse count corresponding to the operating condition ([0005] In the laser apparatus using the LD, it is significant to know a remaining life of the LD, and there are a plurality of documents on conventional technologies. The remaining life means a life remaining until its end. However, the remaining life may vary depending on subsequent driving conditions of the LD. The remaining life herein means a remaining life when the laser apparatus is driven on a standard driving condition. [0020] When the LD is driven on a driving condition that an optical output, a driving current, or a LD temperature is a certain predetermined standard value, in other words, on a standard driving condition, a whole life of the LD can be approximately known. [0021] …the LDs reach life ends first after driving of 30000 hours at 13 A and then after driving of 50000 hours at 10 A [0022] … For example, it is assumed that an average whole life at a driving current of 10 A is 100000 hours and an average whole life at a driving current of 13 A is 50000 hours.).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Abe with the aforementioned teachings of Takigawa with the motivation of knowing a remaining life of a component (Takigawa [0005]). Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the teachings of Takigawa to the system of Abe would have yielded predictable results and doing so would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow for the adjustment of life expectations based on operating conditions.
As per claim 7, Abe teaches: the operating condition is pulse energy of the pulse laser beam, and the processor obtains an energy average value which is an average value of data of the pulse energy from the sixth data, and ([0084] Pulse energy E of the pulsed laser light outputted from the laser apparatus 10 is measured with the pulse energy detector 144, and data on the measured pulse energy E is transmitted from the pulse energy detector 144 to the laser control section 90. [0097] The laser control section 90 is configured to transmit data on the number of oscillation pulses, the charging voltage Vhv, the gas pressure Pch in the laser chamber 100, the pulse energy E o [0230] Out of the life-related parameters described above, life related parameters at least required to accurately estimate the life of the laser chamber 100 include the electrode degradation parameter, the pulse energy stability parameter [0234] The pulse energy stability parameter includes at least variation in the pulse energy)
calculates the residual pulse count using the energy average value ([0008] …a life estimation section configured to calculate the life and a remaining life of the consumable to be replaced based on the learning model for the consumable to be replaced [0024] FIG. 14 shows graphs illustrating an example of calculation of the life and the remaining life of the laser chamber by using the created learning model. [0230] …parameters at least required to accurately estimate the life of the laser chamber 100 include the electrode degradation parameter, the pulse energy stability parameter…).
Conclusion
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