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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 15, it is not clear from the claims or specification how the limitation “predicts interfacial shear strength of the composite resin material based on the acquired first measurement information and the acquired second measurement information.” is performed. Paragraphs 60-65 and 84-85 of the specification do not provide further details or formulas of the prediction algorithm but merely state that prediction device outputs the prediction result.
MPEP 2161.01 states “Specifically, the specification must describe the claimed invention in a manner understandable to a person of ordinary skill in the art in a way that shows that the inventor actually invented the claimed invention at the time of filing. Id.;Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1351, 94 USPQ2d at 1172. The function of the written description requirement is to ensure that the inventor had possession of the specific subject matter later claimed as of the filing date of the application relied on; how the specification accomplishes this is not material. In re Herschler, 591 F.2d 693, 700-01, 200 USPQ 711, 717 (CCPA 1979), further reiterated in In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 217 USPQ 1089 (Fed. Cir. 1983); see also MPEP §§ 2163 - 2163.04”
“When examining computer-implemented functional claims, examiners should determine whether the specification discloses the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor possessed the claimed subject matter at the time of filing. An algorithm is defined, for example, as “a finite sequence of steps for solving a logical or mathematical problem or performing a task.” Microsoft Computer Dictionary (5th ed., 2002).”
Therefore these claims do not satisfy the 112(a) written description requirement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-5, 8-12, 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (US 20210199639 A1; July 1, 2021) in view of Ikeda (WO2021079985A1; April 29, 2021).
Regarding claim 1, Suzuki teaches prediction device comprising:
a hardware processor that: acquires first measurement information and second measurement information obtained by measuring a material property of a material (Claim 27 – a program predicting property of a target receiving first and second data)
predicts a property based on the acquired first measurement information and the acquired second measurement information (Claim 28 - predicting the property based on the prediction parameter).
Suzuki does not teach acquires first measurement information and second measurement information obtained by measuring a material property of a composite resin material containing a fibrous material.
predicts interfacial shear strength of the composite resin material based on the acquired first measurement information and the acquired second measurement information.
Ikeda teaches a hardware processor that acquires material information obtained by measuring a material property of a composite resin material containing a fibrous material (claim 1 – measurement information )
predicts a property of the composite resin material based on the acquired first material information. (Claim 1 – predictive property of composite); shear strength can be used an objective variable (Paragraph 88).
Therefore, from the teaching of Ikeda, it would have been obvious at the time of filing to specify the abovementioned limitations since the prediction of composite properties are known and would allow for expedited interfacial shear strength calculations.
Regarding claim 2, Suzuki in view of Ikeda teach the prediction device according to claim 1. Ikeda further teaches the hardware processor causes an outputter to output information regarding the predicted property (Abstract- puts out mechanical property; Paragraph 88- shear strength).
Regarding claim 4, Suzuki in view of Ikeda teach the prediction device according to claim 1, but fail to teach wherein the first measurement information is generated by a first measurement device, and the second measurement information is generated by a second measurement device different from the first measurement device.
However, it would have been obvious at the time of invention to specify the abovementioned limitation since it has been held that the duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In reHarza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a “web” which lies in the joint, and a plurality of “ribs” projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.).
Therefore, a PHOSITA at the time of filing could have specified that second measurement device as it would aid detection accuracy.
Regarding claim 5, Suzuki in view of Ikeda teach the prediction device according to claim 4. Suzuki wherein at least one of the is a measurement device using an electromagnetic wave or an ultrasonic wave (Paragraph 92 – electromagnetic).
Suzuki does not teach first and second measuring devices.
However, it would have been obvious at the time of invention to specify the abovementioned limitation since it has been held that the duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In reHarza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a “web” which lies in the joint, and a plurality of “ribs” projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.).
Therefore, a PHOSITA at the time of filing could have specified that second measurement device as it would aid detection accuracy.
Regarding claim 8, Suzuki in view of Ikeda teach the prediction device according to claim 1. Suzuki further teaches wherein the hardware processor further acquires third measurement information obtained by measuring the material property of the composite resin material, and the hardware processor predicts the property based on the acquired first measurement information, the acquired second measurement information, and the acquired third measurement information (Paragraph 190-191 third activity data of the compound,). Suzuki does not teach interfacial shear strength.
Ikeda teaches interfacial shear strength. (Paragraph 88)
Therefore from the teaching of Ikeda, it would have been obvious to specify the abovementioned limitation since the shear strength is a known property of interest in resin composites.
Regarding claim 9, Suzuki in view of Ikeda teach the prediction device according to claim 1. Ikeda further teaches wherein the hardware processor predicts the interfacial shear strength using a trained discriminator (Claim 20 – learning processing unit).
Regarding claim 10, Suzuki in view of Ikeda teach the prediction device according to claim 9. Suzuki further teaches wherein the hardware processor extracts a feature from each of the acquired first measurement information and the acquired second measurement information (Paragraph 92- extracting frequency), and predicts the material property using the extracted feature as an input (Paragraph 96- Predicting the target compound). Suzuki does not teach interfacial shear strength.
Ikeda teaches interfacial shear strength. (Paragraph 88)
Therefore from the teaching of Ikeda, it would have been obvious to specify the abovementioned limitation since the shear strength is a known property of interest in resin composites.
Regarding claim 11, Suzuki in view of Ikeda teach the prediction device according to claim 10. Ikeda further teaches wherein the discriminator is subjected to machine learning using the feature as input data and the interfacial shear strength as output data (Claim 1-2, Paragraph 88) .
Regarding claim 12, Suzuki in view of Ikeda teach the prediction device according to claim 1. Suzuki further teaches wherein the material property of the composite resin material is nondestructively measured (Paragraph 88 – optical measurement).
Regarding claim 14 Suzuki in view of Ikeda teach the prediction device according to claim 1. Suzuki further teaches a prediction system comprising: a measurement device that measures a material property of a composite resin material (Claim 27 – a program predicting property of a target receiving first and second data); and the prediction device according to claim 1 (Claim 27 – a program predicting property of a target receiving first and second data)
Suzuki does not teach a material property of a composite resin material containing a fibrous material.
Ikeda teaches a composite resin material containing a fibrous material.. (Paragraph 88)
Therefore from the teaching of Ikeda, it would have been obvious to specify the abovementioned limitation since the shear strength is a known property of interest in resin composites.
Regarding claim 15, Suzuki in view Ikeda teaches a non-transitory recording medium storing a computer readable prediction program for causing a computer to perform operations comprising: acquiring first measurement information and second measurement information obtained by measuring a material property of a material (Claim 27 – a program predicting property of a target receiving first and second data)
predicting a property based on the acquired first measurement information and the acquired second measurement information (Claim 28 - predicting the property based on the prediction parameter).
Suzuki does not teach acquiring first measurement information and second measurement information obtained by measuring a material property of a composite resin material containing a fibrous material.
predicting interfacial shear strength of the composite resin material based on the acquired first measurement information and the acquired second measurement information.
Ikeda teaches a hardware processor that acquiring material information obtained by measuring a material property of a composite resin material containing a fibrous material (claim 1 – measurement information )
predicting a property of the composite resin material based on the acquired first material information. (Claim 1 – predictive property of composite); shear strength can be used an objective variable (Paragraph 88).
Therefore, from the teaching of Ikeda, it would have been obvious at the time of filing to specify the abovementioned limitations since the prediction of composite properties are known and would allow for expedited interfacial shear strength calculations.
Claim(s) 3 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (US 20210199639 A1; July 1, 2021) in view of Ikeda (WO2021079958A1; April 29, 2021) in view of Itami (JP201501651A; June 4, 2015).
Regarding claim 3, Suzuki in view of Ikeda teach the prediction device according to claim 1. Suzuki further teaches wherein the first measurement information and the second measurement information include information of the material. (Abstract – first and second data)
Suzuki in view of Ikeda do not teach wherein the first measurement information and the second measurement information include information regarding an interaction between the fibrous material and a resin in the composite resin material.
Itami teaches measurement information include information regarding an interaction between the fibrous material and a resin in the composite resin material. (Abstract - interfacial strength between the fiber fill and the resin)
Therefore, from the teaching of Itami, it would have been obvious at the time of filing to specify the abovementioned limitation since its known that the interaction between the fiber and the resin are critical for increased interfacial shear strength.
Regarding claim 13, Suzuki in view of Ikeda teach the prediction device according to claim 1, but fail to teach wherein the hardware processor calculates mechanical strength of the composite resin material based on the predicted interfacial shear strength.
Itami teaches wherein the hardware processor calculates mechanical strength of the composite resin material based on the predicted interfacial shear strength (Abstract – mechanical strength and interfacial shear strength shown).
Therefore from the teaching of Itami, it would have been obvious at the time of filing to specify the abovementioned limitation since its known that the interaction between the fiber and the resin are critical for increased interfacial shear strength.
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (US 20210199639 A1; July 1, 2021) in view of Ikeda (WO2021079958A1; April 29, 2021) in view of Ihara (US 20100246930; August 26, 2010).
Regarding claim 6, Suzuki in view of Ikeda teach the prediction device according to claim 5, but fail to teach wherein the first measurement device is an infrared spectrometer.
Ihara teaches wherein the first measurement device is an infrared spectrometer. (Paragraph 25 – composite resin is measured by use of FTI spectrometer)
Therefore, from the teaching of Ihara, it would have been obvious to use an IR spectrometer since it is a known method to measure composite resins.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (US 20210199639 A1; July 1, 2021) in view of Ikeda (WO2021079958A1; April 29, 2021) in view of Ihara (US 20100246930; August 26, 2010) in view of Qiu (CN114397266A; Priority to January 14, 2022).
Regarding claim 7, Suzuki in view of Ikeda in view of Ihara teach the prediction device according to claim 6, but fail to not explicitly teach the second measurement device is an ultrasonic measurement device, a terahertz wave spectrometer, or an impedance spectrometer.
Qiu teaches the measuring device is an ultrasonic measurement device, a terahertz wave spectrometer, or an impedance spectrometer. (Abstract-THz spectrometer imaging composite)
Therefore, from the teaching of Qiu, it would have been obvious to specify the abovementioned limitations since it is a known method and device of measuring composites.
Conclusion
-JP2015101651A teaches a fiber reinforced composite material.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GISSELLE GUTIERREZ whose telephone number is (571)272-4672. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5:00PM.
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, Uzma Alam can be reached at 571-272-3995. 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.
/GISSELLE GUTIERREZ/
Examiner
Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights