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 .
Response to Arguments
Objection to Title
The objection to the amended title is maintained since it is not any more informative.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112(f)
Applicant argues the “system” recites structural computer components and executable instructions that configure the components to perform the recited functions and therefore sufficient structure is recited in the claims to avoid invoking 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). The Examiner is not persuaded because the computer components are general purpose (generic) computer components and the instructions/algorithm of the “executable instructions” are not recited in the claims. No evidence is before the examiner that these elements are sufficient to perform the claimed functions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
Applicant states claims have been amended. The Examiner acknowledges claims have been amended. According, a new ground of rejection has been found.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
Applicant argues claims 29 and 30 satisfies the requirement of § 112(d) because reliance on MPEP 2115 is misplaced. In response, the Examiner is not persuaded because claims 29 and 30 are drawn to the structure of a system, however, claims 29 and 30 only further limit the data operated intended to be operated by the system. Applicant does not identify how the data of claims 29 and 30 further limit the structure of the system, i.e. the subject matter of claim 21. The Office action cited to MPEP 2115’s guidance that objects worked upon by an apparatus does not distinguish the structure of the apparatus. Applicant argues that the limitations of claims 29 and 30 add further restrictions on limitations already in claim 21. This does not show the claims 29 and 30 further limit the structure covered by claim 21. If the limitations in claim 21 that are being further narrow are drawn to how the system is intended to be use or statements of desired result, the narrower limitation may not further limit the structure of the system itself. As an analogy, take a claim drawn to the structure of a digital camera that is configured to take color images of objects. A dependent claim that only states the objects are red roses does not necessarily further limit the structure of the camera itself. The fact that the object of the independent claim is further narrowed by a dependent claim does not necessarily further limit the subject matter of the independent claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicant argues because the claims recite steps “that are not directed to mathematical calculations in the abstract” and that the specification describes improvement to conventional color batch correction. In response, the grounds ineligibility is that the claims recite a judicial exception, an abstract idea of mathematical calculations, and that the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or additional elements that amount to significantly more. Limitations from the specification that may demonstrate an improvement to conventional color batch correction are not imported into the claims. The “particular ordered combination of processor-executed operations” to not amount to significantly more when the ordered-combination of operations fall under the abstract idea and are executed by a processor.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant argues Numata does not determine delta values comprising distances between three-dimensional coordinates. Applicant describes Numata as “evaluates differences using conventional tristimulus values XYZ and L*a*b* coordinates,” but it is not clear why this is not equivalent to “determine delta values comprising distances between three-dimensional coordinates.” The disclosure does not show that “distance” is determined and so it appears to mean the same as the “change” described in the disclosure. If this is not so, it would raise the question if there is proper support for “distance” to mean something else. In the case of Numata, the disclosed change or distance of the coordinates appears to be equivalent to Numata’s “differences” of coordinates.
Applicant argues Kang explains that neural network algorithm approaches require “substantial experimentation.” It is not clear the relevance of this. If Applicant is purporting that the proposed modification requires undue experimentation, the Examiner is not persuaded because no reasoning is provided that Kang’s statement of “substantial experimentation” establishes “undue experimentation.” As to Applicant’s statement that Kang does not teach determining delta values and the use of machine learning to predict adjustments to a coating formulation, Kang was not relied upon for such teachings in the grounds of rejection.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. The current title is highly vague and provides little informative value for a person of ordinary skill in the art whether the document warrants further review. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. MPEP 606.01 guides that a descriptive title may result in slightly longer title, but the loss in brevity of title will be more than offset by the gain in its informative value in indexing, classifying, searching, etc.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
The "system" in claims 21-30. In claim 1, the "system" is configured to perform the functions. No evidence is before the examiner that the term "system" is the name for structure that performs the claimed functions. The claim cites structures such as "processor" and "computer-readable media having instructions." The processor and computer readable media with instructions are understood to be generic computer related components and do not appear to be sufficient structure to perform the claimed functions because no evidence was found by the Examiner that these structures are sufficient to perform the claimed functions. This interpretation appears to be reasonable and similar to example claim 9 in MPEP 2181(V) where claim 9 recites an image processing assembly comprising a system that is configured to perform several functions which is guided as invoking 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). Furthermore, the algorithm is not found to be self-evident based on the claimed functions and would require consulting the specification for the algorithm.
The "non-transitory computer-readable medium/media" in claims 36-40. See MPEP 2181(V).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 21-40 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.
Independent claims 21 and 31 recite the "determine delta value between in each coordinate of the set of three-dimensional coordinates for each coated panel of the set of coated panels by computing a distance value between each coordinate in the three-dimensional color space" and the specification does not mention distance being computed. Under the assumption that “distance value” is not recognized to be the same as the disclosed “change in each coordinate…,” the disclosure does not describe the “distance value” to demonstrate that the inventor had possession of this claimed matter.
Dependent claims 22-30, and 32-40 are rejected for the same reason by virtue of their dependence on claim 21 or 31. For examination purposes, the clam will be interpreted as the difference between the coordinates of each panel.
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.
Claims 21-40 are 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.
Independent claims 21 and 31 recite the "determine delta value between in each coordinate of the set of three-dimensional coordinates for each coated panel of the set of coated panels by computing a distance value between each coordinate in the three-dimensional color space" and the specification does not mention distance being computed. Under the assumption that “distance value” is not recognized to be the same as the disclosed “change in each coordinate…”
Dependent claims 22-30, and 32-40 are rejected for the same reason by virtue of their dependence on claim 21 or 31. For examination purposes, the clam will be interpreted as any difference between the data of one panel with the data of different panel.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 29 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 29 and 30 depend on claim 21 which is drawn to the structure of a product, namely a system comprising a processor and a CRM, the system processing spectral data. MPEP 2115 guides that objects worked upon by an apparatus do not serve to structurally distinguish. Claims 29 and 30 provides a limitation to the data and is not found to further limit the structure of the system. Although claim 29 recites the data is obtained from a spectrophotometer, the spectrophotometer is not taken as an element of the system. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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) 21-40, as interpreted by the Examiner, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Numata et al. (US 6,539,325) in view of Kang (US 2013/0249956).
Note: The claims 21-30 are directed to the structure of a system comprising a processor and a CRM having instructions. The limitation pertaining to the spectral data of each coated panel is not found to be an element of the algorithm/instructions, but rather the data are objects worked upon by the system. The same applies to limitations directed to the coated panels as these panels are not elements of the system. See MPEP 2115. The claims are interpreted as to what the processor/CRM/algorithm is, and limitations as to the data operated on by the system are not found to impart any particular structure to the processor/CRM/algorithm and thus do not serve to structurally distinguish in a patentable manner.
Numata shows a color matching apparatus for automotive repair paint as follows:
21. A system for performing color batch correction, comprising:
one or more processors (column 13, lines 20-25: "personal computer is one equipped with a CPU…, an internal memory …, a hard disk unit…"; column 15, lines 47-51: "computer" or "CPU"); and
one or more computer-readable media (see above) having stored thereon executable instructions that (column 13, lines 30-40), when executed at the one or more processors, configure the system to perform at least the following:
receive spectral data corresponding to a set of coated panels, wherein each coating of each coated panel comprises one or more base coatings and at least an amount of a colorant, each coated panel of the set of coated panels having a different amount of the colorant (column 4, lines 59-61: "using spectral reflectance data at a plurality of viewing angles as generated with a plurality of coated samples…thus obtained");
convert the spectral data for each coated panel of the set of coated panels into a set of three-dimensional coordinates, the three-dimensional coordinates comprising a lightness value (L*), a red/green value (a*), and a blue/yellow value (b*) in a color space (column 5, lines 43-45: "a convergence computation can be carried out by the metameric method monitoring the difference from a target using the tristimulus values XYZ and coordinates L*a*b*”);
determine a delta value between each coordinate of the set of three-dimensional coordinates for each coated panel of the set of coated panels by computing a (“the magnitude of difference”) value between each coordinate in the three-dimensional color space (column 14, lines 21-25: "The color difference measuring function, also mentioned above, is a function which assesses the degree of agreement between a paint prepared according to the predicted formulation and the sample”; column 10, lines 40-44: "the magnitude of difference between the optical density calculated from the measured spectral reflectance of a coated plate prepared under certain conditions and the optical density theoretically calculated");
execute (e.g. fuzzy logic; column lines 1-column 12, line 37), the change in each coordinate of the set of three-dimensional coordinates for each coated panel of the set of coated panels; (column 10, lines 29-33: "For example, when 3 kinds of colorants are involved, their correlations can be expressed in a trigonal prismatic coordinate space defined by the coordinate representing the total formulating amount and the coordinates representing the formulating ratios of the respective colorants, respectively, based on the total formulation.")
receive data associated with a first coating and a target coating, the data indicating a delta value calculated between the first coating and the target coating, wherein the delta value comprises a (“the magnitude of difference”) between three-dimensional coordinates associated with the first coating and the target coating (see citations above regarding the coordinates; column 4, lines 58-61:"using spectral reflectance data…thus obtained is compared with the reflectance of the target color");
determine one or more adjustments to make to the first coating and a predicted delta reduction value based at least in part on applying the (column 4, lines 64-67:"If the difference from the target color is greater than a predetermined value, a correction computation for necessary convergence is repeated"); and
output an indication of the one or more adjustments and the predicted delta reduction value (column 4, line 67:"the result is outputted").
Regarding the machine learning algorithm, Numata shows fuzzy logic being used for the spectral data analysis and adjustment determination but does not show a machine learning algorithm is used.
Kang shows a CIE lab color space conversion method where a neural network algorithm, i.e., a machine learning algorithm, was known to be used for accurate target color conversion (Para. [0006]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious modify the fuzzy logic of Numata with machine learning algorithm taught by Kang in order to accurately analyze and adjust the color values to produce the target color.
Regarding the “distance value between each coordinate in the three-dimensional color space,” Numata uses the term “difference” between the coordinates rather than “distance.” As interpreted by the Examiner, these are taken to have the same meaning to one of ordinary skill in the art (See discussion of “distance” in the 35 U.S.C. § 112(1) section above) where Numata discusses the differences of the coordinates, e.g. "the magnitude of difference” at column 10, lines 40-44. In the alternative, Official notice is taken that Numata’s teaching of the “magnitude of difference or “difference” in the coordinates, (e.g., "a convergence computation can be carried out by the metameric method monitoring the difference from a target using the tristimulus values XYZ and coordinates L*a*b*” at column 5, lines 43-45:), encompasses “distance.” Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious calculate the distance between the coordinates in order to obtain the “magnitude of difference” as called for by Numata.
22. The system of claim 21, wherein the executable instructions for receiving the spectral data comprise instructions that, when executed at a processor, configure the system to:
receive spectral data associated with measurements of each coated panel of the set of coated panels taken at multiple angles (Being a processor with algorithms, there is no reason why the device of Numata cannot receive the claimed data. Furthermore see column 12, lines 25-30).
23. The system of claim 22, wherein the multiple angles comprise 15, 25, 45, 75, or 110 degree angles, or any combination thereof (Being a processor with algorithms, there is no reason why the device of Numata cannot receive the claimed data. Furthermore see column 12, lines 25-30).
24. The system of claim 22, wherein the executable instructions for determining the change in each coordinate of the three-dimensional coordinates comprises instructions that, when executed at a processor, configure the system to:
determine the change in each coordinate of the set of three-dimensional coordinates on a per-angle basis, wherein a change is calculated at each angle of the multiple angles (column 12, lines 25-30; column 13, line 66 - column 14 line 3).
25. The system of claim 22, where in the executable instructions include instructions that are executable to configure the system to:
add an indication of the data associated with the target coating and the first coating, the one or more adjustments and the predicted delta reduction value to the set of coated panels (Numata and Kang show all the elements as discussed for claim 22, but no not show adding the parameters as recited in claim 25. Kang states that neural networks require a large number experiments. With the neural network requiring a large number of experiments and being that it is a neural, i.e. learning, algorithm, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add more data for the neural network in to learn from and thereby improve the accuracy of the color).
26. The system of claim 21, wherein the executable instructions for determining the one or more adjustments include instructions that are executable to configure the system to:
determine amounts of one or more pigments to add to the first coating, wherein the predicted delta reduction value is based at least in part on the amounts of the one or more pigments (column lines 25-29: "As to the colorants, the formulation information can be expressed in a coordinate system representing the total formulating amount of all the colorants and the formulating ratios of the respective colorants"; column 17, lines 9-15: "Based on the result of computation, the paint components were weighed out with the electronic balance to prepare a paint. A coated plate was prepared with this paint in the same manner [Symbol font/0x44]as the target coated plate. This coated plate was measured and the color difference [Symbol font/0x44]E from the target color was determined").
27. The system of claim 21, wherein the executable instructions for outputting the one or more adjustments and the predicted delta reduction value include instructions that are executable to configure the system to:
display, to a user of the system, the amounts of one or more pigments to add to the first coating, the predicted delta reduction value, a root mean square delta value, or any combination thereof (column 17, lines 29-32: "The color of the predicted formulation during said weighing was displayed in parallel with the target color for each of the highlight direction, front direction and shade direction and visually monitored on the color display.").
28. The system of claim 21, wherein the machine learning algorithm comprises a linear regression algorithm or other supervised machine learning algorithms (With Numata and Kang combined, with Numata teaching a linear algorithm (column 8, lines 28-540) and Kang teaching the machine learning algorithm, the combination would yield the linear regression algorithm. Alternatively, Official notice is taken that supervised learning algorithms were well known. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to use a supervised learning algorithm in order to monitor and ensure the learning is performed with accurate data.)
29. The system of claim 21, wherein the spectral data for the set of coated panels comprise measurements taken using a spectrophotometer (column 12, lines 7-8: "data generated with a multiangle spectrophotometer").
30. The system of claim 21, wherein the data associated with the target coating and the first coating comprise a product identifier, a color code, or both (Numata does not show the data for the target coating to be identified by a color code. Official notice is taken that the use of color codes for automotive paint was well known. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious use a color code for the target color in order to simplify the identification and specification of the target color).
31. As to claim 31, please see the citations given for claim 21 above).
32. The method of claim 31, wherein receiving the spectral data comprises:
receiving spectral data associated with measurements of each coated panel of the set of coated panels taken at multiple angles (See the citations given for claim 22 above).
33. The method of claim 32, wherein the multiple angles comprise 15, 25, 45, 75, or 110 degree angles, or any combination thereof (See the citations given for claim 23 above).
34. The method of claim 31, further comprising:
adding an indication of the data associated with the target coating and the first coating, the one or more adjustments and the predicted delta reduction value to the set of coated panels (See the citations given for claim 25 above).
35. The method of claim 31, wherein determining the one or more adjustments further comprises:
determining amounts of one or more pigments to add to the first coating, wherein the predicted delta reduction value is based at least in part on the amounts of the one or more pigments (See the citations given for claim 26 above).
36. As to claim 36, please see the citations given for claim 21 above).
37. As to claim 37, please see the citations given for claim 21 above).
38. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 37, wherein the multiple angles comprise 15, 25, 45, 75, or 110 degree angles, or any combination thereof. (See the citations given for claim 23 above)
39. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 36, wherein the computer-executable instructions comprise:
adding an indication of the data associated with the target coating and the first coating, the one or more adjustments and the predicted delta reduction value to the set of coated panels (See the citations given for claim 25 above).
40. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 36, wherein the computer-executable instructions for determining the one or more adjustments further comprise computer-executable instructions that, when executed at a processor, cause the computer system to perform the method comprising:
determining amounts of one or more pigments to add to the first coating, wherein the predicted delta reduction value is based at least in part on the amounts of the one or more pigments (See the citations given for claim 26 above).
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 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception, abstract idea, without significantly more.
Step 1: Independent claims 21 and 36 are drawn to a product and independent claim 31 is drawn to a process. These claims are directed to a statutory category.
Step 2A:
A claim is eligible at revised Step 2A unless it recites a judicial exception and the exception is not integrated into a practical application of the application.
Prong 1: Prong One of Step 2A evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception
Examiner notes that independent claim 21, 31, and 36 recites the steps of --convert the spectral data…, determine a change in each coordinate…, and analyze, using a machine learning algorithm, the change in each coordinate…, which fall under mathematical calculations.
The dependent claims limit the abstract idea to – type of received data, further mathematical calculations, or communication preferences – which constitute Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity or the mathematical calculations.
Hence under Prong One of Step 2A, claims 21-40 recite a judicial exception.
Prong 2: Prong Two of Step 2A evaluates whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
The only additional elements recited by the independent claims, beyond the judicial exception, are recitations of "output an indication.." in the last clause and the use of a machine learning algorithm.
The focus of the claims is not on improvement in computers, but on certain independently abstract ideas that merely use a generic computer component (a machine learning algorithm, processor, CRM, non-transitory CRM, and "output" such as a display) as a tool. Steps that do nothing more than spell out what is means to “apply it on a computer” cannot confer patent eligibility. Thus, the claimed limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Hence, under Prong Two of PEG 2019, the independent claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
For the above reasons, claims are ineligible under Step 2A.
Step 2B:
In Step 2B, the evaluation consists of whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception.
The independent claims also recite "receive spectral data corresponding to a set of coated panels…" and "receive data associated with a first coating and target coating…" These amount to insignificant data gathering in order practice the judicial exception and thus do not add significantly more
Hence, the claims are ineligible under Step 2B.
Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
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 Hwa Andrew S Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-2419. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-5:30pm.
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.
/Hwa Andrew Lee/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
