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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: remove “[Math. 1]” on line 4 of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 18 recites the limitations, “calculates a necessary number of times of emission for each of the plurality of electromagnetic waves acquired by the acquisition section, on a basis of each of the plurality of acquired electromagnetic waves, the necessary number of times of emission being a certain number of times of emission that is necessary for measurement.” This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind but for a generic computer component. That is, other than reciting “a calculator”, an alternative name for a computer processor, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from being perform in the mind. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites an additional element: “an acquisition section that acquires a plurality of electromagnetic waves of different frequencies, each of the plurality of electromagnetic waves being emitted to a measurement-target object and detected by entering through the measurement-target object”. The acquisition section represents a mere data gathering activity and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As recited in MPEP section 2106.05(g), data gathering is considered insignificant extra-solution activity in light of Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. V. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering). Furthermore, the additional element, “a calculator”, is recited at a high-level of generality, i.e. generic computer processor for performing generic computer functions, such as calculation and/or data manipulation and does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is patent ineligible.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 19 recites the limitations, “ acquiring a plurality of electromagnetic waves of different frequencies, each of the plurality of electromagnetic waves being emitted to a measurement-target object and detected by entering through the measurement-target object and calculating a necessary number of times of emission for each of the plurality of electromagnetic waves acquired by the acquisition section, on a basis of each of the plurality of acquired electromagnetic waves, the necessary number of times of emission being a certain number of times of emission that is necessary for measurement.” This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind but for a generic computer component. That is, other than reciting “a computer system”, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from being perform in the mind. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites one additional element, using the computer system to perform both steps of acquiring and calculating. However, the computer system is recited at a high-level of generality, i.e. performing generic computer functions of collecting data and calculating the collected data such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is patent ineligible.
Independent claim 20 recites subject matter that is similar or analogous to that of claim 19, and therefore the claim is also patent ineligible.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because a computer program is merely a set of instructions capable of being executed by a computer, the computer program itself is not a process but it is an abstract idea, which does not fall within one of the statutory categories of the invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-17 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, applicant has sufficiently defined and claimed a sensor apparatus, whereby the prior art does not teach or suggest calculates a necessary number of times of emission for each of the plurality of electromagnetic waves acquired by the acquisition section, on a basis of each of the plurality of acquired electromagnetic waves, the necessary number of times of emission being a certain number of times of emission that is necessary for measurement, in combination with all other limitations set forth in the claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The closest prior art, Itsuji et al. (WO 2005/026941) teaches a sensor apparatus comprises an emitter (101) that emits a plurality of electromagnetic waves of different frequencies to a measurement-target object; a detector (103) that detects the plurality of electromagnetic waves entering the detector through the measurement-target object.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MINH Q PHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3898. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-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, Stephanie Bloss can be reached at 571-272-3555. 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.
MINH Q. PHAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2852
/MINH Q PHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights