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 .
Drawings
The drawings filed on 10/10/2024 are accepted by the examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 10/10/2024, 7/30/2025(2) are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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: spectral measurement unit, acquisition unit, arithmetic device in claim 10, unit in claim 13.
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 § 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 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) mental steps involving determining a form of the surface of the slab based on the feature quantity acquired in the acquisition step, selecting a temperature calculation method for calculating a temperature of the measurement point from the spectral radiation spectrum, measured in the spectral measurement step, based on a result of the determination in the determination step, wherein the feature quantity includes luminance and a shape, determines a form of the surface of the slab based on the feature quantity acquired by the acquisition unit, selects a temperature calculation method for calculating a temperature of the measurement point from the spectral radiation spectrum, based on a result of the determination, these limitations as described in [0043]-[0046] is recited in high level of generality constitutes as a mental process, such as an evaluation or judgement, that can be performed in the human mind.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitations of measuring a spectral radiation spectrum from a slab including at least three or more wavelengths having different spectral emissivity at a same temperature, acquiring a feature quantity of a surface of the slab at a measurement point of the spectral radiation spectrum; a spectral measurement unit that measures a spectral radiation spectrum from a slab including at least three or more wavelengths having different spectral emissivity at a same temperature; an acquisition unit that acquires a feature quantity of a surface of the slab at a measurement point of the spectral radiation spectrum represent mere data gathering which is an insignificant extrasolution activity. The arithmetic device (claim 10) is recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these computer components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014). Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system (Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l 573 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 U.S.P.Q.2d 1976 (2014)). Accordingly, these additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering is considered well-understood, routine, and conventional, see mpep 2106.05(d), infra applied prior art, references cited. The arithmetic device is recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications, which cannot provide an inventive concept. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system (Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l 573 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 U.S.P.Q.2d 1976 (2014)).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Effect of oxidation on aluminum alloys temperature prediction using multispectral radiation thermometry” to Weng et al. provided in the 07/30/2025 IDS (hereinafter “Weng”), in view of “Multi-spectral temperature measurement based on adaptive emissivity model under high temperature background” to Chen et al. (hereinafter “Chen”).
As for claim 8, Weng substantially discloses temperature measurement method (Weng, see abstract “measure the spectral intensity values under an open-air heating system and a high-vacuum heating system” and Fig. 1) comprising:
a spectral measurement step of measuring a spectral radiation spectrum from a slab including at least three or more wavelengths having different spectral emissivity at a same temperature (Weng, see Fig. 1 spectrometer 3, page 4838 left column “The spectrometer ES200 is able to measure spectral radiation intensity values over the wavelength range 1.2–5.7 um…only the wavelength range from 3 to 4 um was chosen to investigate the emissivity behaviors in this study”);
an acquisition step of acquiring a feature quantity of a surface of the slab at a measurement point of the spectral radiation spectrum (Weng, see page 4836 right column “The surface average roughness for each sample were measured by a surface profilometer (Alpha-StepMA-1450, TencorInstrui), and average roughness of samples were controlled in the range of 0.2–0.45 um”);
a determination step of determining a form of the surface of the slab based on the feature quantity acquired in the acquisition step (Weng, see page 4836 right column, it is inherent that the surface profilometer includes a processor that determines the roughness of samples from its collected data); and
a selection step of selecting a temperature calculation method for calculating a temperature of the measurement point from the spectral radiation spectrum, measured in the spectral measurement step (Weng, see page 4839 left column “Eight MRT emissivity models, HRR, IST, IST⁄, IWS,WLT,WLT⁄, LLE and LEM were examined for accuracy in temperature determination”).
Weng does not explicitly disclose selecting temperature calculation method based on a result of the determination in the determination step. However, Chen in an analogous art discloses selecting temperature calculation method based on a result of the determination in the determination step (Chen, see page 4 section 2.2 “Emissivity model selection method based on BP network”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Chen into the method of Weng. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to obtain more accurate temperature measurement results (Chen, see abstract).
Claim 10 is an apparatus claim corresponds to the method claim 8, it is therefore rejected under similar reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 8.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weng, in view of Chen, further in view of US20180143142 to Kaukonen et al. (hereinafter “Kaukonen”).
As per claim 9, the rejection of claim 8 is incorporated, the combination of Weng and Chen does not explicitly disclose the feature quantity includes luminance and a shape. However, Kaukonen in an analogous art discloses the feature quantity includes luminance and a shape (Kaukonen, see [0038]-[0040] “thermographic image”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Kaukonen into the above combination of Weng and Chen. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to monitor the heat of the surface that does not affect observation or monitoring and allow data generated by one or more measuring devices can be combined with the complete image (Kaukonen, see [0007]).
Claim(s) 11, 13-14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weng, in view of Chen, further in view of US20210032720 to Nishida.
As per claim 11, the rejection of claim 8 is incorporated, Weng further discloses a temperature at a measurement point calculated by a temperature calculation method selected by the temperature measurement method (Weng, see page 4839 left column). The combination of Weng and Chen does not explicitly disclose a temperature control method comprising a step of controlling a temperature of a slab based on a temperature at a measurement point. However, Nishida in an analogous art discloses a temperature control method comprising a step of controlling a temperature of a slab based on a temperature at a measurement point (Nishida, see [0031]-[0032]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Kaukonen into the above combination of Weng and Chen. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to control the steel sheet temperature to a given range in the annealing furnace (Nishida, see [0008] and [0010]).
Claim 13 is an apparatus claim corresponds to the method claim 11, it is therefore rejected under similar reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 11.
As per claim 14, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated, Nishida further discloses a method for manufacturing a steel material, comprising a step of controlling a temperature of a slab using the temperature control method (Nishida, see [0031]-[0033]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Kaukonen into the above combination of Weng and Chen. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to control the steel sheet temperature to a given range in the annealing furnace (Nishida, see [0008] and [0010]).
As per claim 16, the rejection of claim 13 is incorporated, Nishida further discloses a facility for manufacturing a steel material comprising the temperature control apparatus (Nishida, see [0031]-[0033]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Kaukonen into the above combination of Weng and Chen. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to control the steel sheet temperature to a given range in the annealing furnace (Nishida, see [0008] and [0010]).
Claim(s) 12 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weng, in view of Chen, in view of Kaukonen, further in view of Nishida.
As per claim 12, the rejection of claim 9 is incorporated, Weng further discloses a temperature at a measurement point calculated by a temperature calculation method selected by the temperature measurement method (Weng, see page 4839 left column). The combination of Weng, Chen and Kaukonen does not explicitly disclose a step of controlling a temperature of a slab based on a temperature. However, Nishida in an analogous art discloses a step of controlling a temperature of a slab based on a temperature (Nishida, see [0031]-[0032]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Kaukonen into the above combination of Weng, Chen and Kaukonen. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to control the steel sheet temperature to a given range in the annealing furnace (Nishida, see [0008] and [0010]).
As per claim 15, the rejection of claim 12 is incorporated, Nishida further discloses a step of controlling a temperature of a slab using the temperature control method (Nishida, see [0031]-[0033]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Kaukonen into the above combination of Weng, Chen and Kaukonen. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to control the steel sheet temperature to a given range in the annealing furnace (Nishida, see [0008] and [0010]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
US20200033268 discloses a scale composition determination device (10) determines that Fe.sub.2O.sub.3 has been generated in the outermost layer of a scale (SC) in the case where at least one of spectral emissivities at one wavelength and the other wavelength that are measured by radiometers for spectral emissivity measurement (21a, 21b) is not within a predetermined range including spectral emissivities of FeO at one wavelength and the other wavelength, and determines that Fe.sub.2O.sub.3 has not been generated in the outermost layer of the scale (SC) in the case where all of the spectral emissivities at one wavelength and the other wavelength that are measured by the radiometers for spectral emissivity measurement (21a, 21b) is within the predetermined range including the spectral emissivities of FeO at one wavelength and the other wavelength.
US5235840 discloses a system for processing steel strips in a hot strip mill includes an apparatus and method for minimizing oxide growth on steel strips and reducing wear on work rolls in the finishing mill. In order to reduce oxide build up, steel strips are sprayed with coolant at selected locations throughout the finishing mill and the surface temperature of the strips is controlled to be within the range of an upper limit (T.sub.u) and a lower limit (T.sub.L) where oxide growth is minimized. Accordingly, wear on the work rolls due to abrasive contact with the steel strips is reduced.
US5314249 discloses radiated ight with a specified wavelength from a material is detected and a first parameter corresponding to the emissivity ratio is obtained from the plurality of detection signals. Since the emissivity takes on different values according to the condition of the surface of the material, the first parameter changes depending on the surface condition of the material. There is a correlation between a physical value indicating a condition of the material surface and the first parameter. The correlation remains equivalent even if a second parameter corresponding to the physical value is used instead of the physical value itself (for example, an optical physical value such as reflectivity and absorptivity, the thickness of a film formed on the material surface, the surface roughness, and the degree of galvannealing). As an example of the parameter corresponding to the physical value, there is the logarithmic ratio between emissivities (ln .epsilon..sub.a /ln .epsilon..sub.b) corresponding to the temperature in the vicinity of the surface. Therefore, a second parameter can be obtained on the basis of the correlation and a physical value can be obtained. When the emissivity or logarithmic emissivity ratio is used as the second parameter, the temperature in the vicinity of the material surface can be obtained from the second parameter and the plurality of detection signals.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON LIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3175. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:30 a.m. – 6:00 p.m. PST.
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, Robert E. Fennema can be reached on (571)272-2748. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JASON LIN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights