DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 31 is 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.
Claim 31 recites the limitation "the sensor" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 30-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Applicants attention is drawn to example 45, and the analysis of claim 1 in Appendix 1 to the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility Life Sciences & Data Processing Examples.
Claim 30 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising stored processor readable instructions, the processor readable instructions, when executed by a computer system, are arranged to cause the computer system to at least:
A) obtain an angular distribution of electromagnetic radiation after reflection from a multilayer structure;
B) generate a first function at least partially based on the angular distribution of the electromagnetic radiation;
C) compare the first function to a plurality of known functions associated with a plurality of known angular reflectivity profiles to identify a second function from the plurality of known functions that is most similar to the first function; and
D) determine an angular reflectivity profile of the multilayer structure at least partially based on a known angular reflectivity profile that is associated with the second function.
Step 1: Claim 30 is directed to non-transitory computer-readable medium. Claims 31-35 depend from claim 30. Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories of a product or a machine.
Step 2A, prong one: Limitation B generates a function based on data obtain in Limitation A. Generating a function to describe data is a mathematical concept which is an abstract idea. In this case, as disclosed, using Zernike polynomials to describe an angular distribution is a mathematical technique to describe a pupil plane of an optical system.
Limitation C determines similar second functions by comparison with the first function. Analyzing functions that represent data to determine similarities is a mental process using a mathematical solution and is an abstract idea. In this case, performing a comparison between contributions of the Zernike polynomials involves assessing similarities in each of the contribution amount.
Limitation D determines a data profile that is associated with the most similar second function. Determining a data profile based on known correlated elements is a mental process and a can also be understood as a mathematical process when using a fitting process, such as least squares fitting, and is a n abstract.
Step 2A, prong two and Step 2B: Limitation A gathers data relating to distribution of radiation. The data gathering is an extra insignificant activity because it contributes only data for analysis (see MPEP 2106.05(A) and 2106.05(g)).
The non-transitory computer-readable medium, is also an additional generic element that represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer (see 2106.05(f)). Once the determinations are all made, then no action is taken. Therefore, there is no integration of the exception into a practical application. A general purpose computer is not a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)).
Dependent claims 31-35, each describe further instructions for data manipulation through mathematical concepts, or determining further profile data without practical application.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-29 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Claims 16-29 remain allowable for the reasons previously provided.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 Steven H Whitesell whose telephone number is (571)270-3942. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00 AM - 5:30 PM (MST).
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, Curt Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/Steven H Whitesell/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights