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 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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The following is an analysis of patent matter subject eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 (see MPEP § 2106).
As to claim 1:
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
The independent claims are claims 1, 12, and 19 with claim directed to a process, claim 12 directed to a machine, and claim 19 directed to a manufacture (article produced from materials). Therefore each claims does fall into one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A: Prong one: Does the claim recite an abstract idea?
Representative claim 1 recites:
1. A method for generating clusters of ballistic specimens, the method comprising:
acquiring, using an image acquisition tool, topographic data for at least three ballistic specimens of at least one region of interest; (the examiner finds that this limitation is a mental process consistent with MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Sec. III, Part C regarding a claim that requires a computer but still recites a mental process)
determining, at a computing device, from the topographic data, at least one parameter characterizing optimal toolmark alignment for every distinct pair of the at least three ballistic specimens, each ballistic specimen having a plurality of toolmarks formed thereon; (the examiner finds this this limitation appears to also be a mental process utilizing a computer similar to the above)
determining, at the computing device, from the topographic data, at least one pairwise similarity score associated with optimal toolmark alignment for every distinct pair of the at least three ballistic specimens; (the examiner finds that this limitation is drawn to a mathematical concept consistent with MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Sec. I, Part C regarding mathematical calculations)
determining, at the computing device, at least one triplet-wise consistency measure indicative of a consistency of optimal toolmark alignment for every distinct triplet of the at least three ballistic specimens; and (the examiner finds that this limitation also appears to be a mathematical concept similar to the previous limitation above)
conducting, at the computing device, a cluster analysis based on the at least one similarity score and the at least one consistency measure to generate the clusters of ballistic specimens. (the examiner finds that this limitation also appears to be a mathematical concept consistent with MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Sec. I, Part C regarding mathematical calculations)
Step 2A: Prong two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application?
The additional element appear to be the image acquisition tool, the computing device, and the ballistic specimens and clusters of ballistic specimens. The examiner finds that the image acquisition tool and computing device appear to generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment (MPEP 2106.04(d), Sec. I) and the ballistic specimens and clusters of ballistic specimens appear to generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use as also further explained in MPEP 2106.05(h) – accordingly it appears that there is no improvement to the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea?
The additional elements do not appear to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons as discussed above.
As to claims 2-11: None of the claims dependent upon claim 1 recite any elements that are considered to be any elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or add significantly more and accordingly each is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for reasons similar to claim 1 above.
As to claim 12: A similar analysis applies to claim 12 which is drawn to a system for generating clusters of ballistic specimens. Although claim 12 also recites “at least one processing unit”, “at least one non-stationary computer-readable memory having stored thereon program instructions executable by the processing unit”, these limitations are considered to be well-understood, routine, conventional elements and accordingly claim 12 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for reasons similar to claim 1 above. Additionally, each of claims 13-18, which depend ultimately from claim 12, also are considered to recite only abstract ideas similar to claim 12, instructions to apply an exception (consistent with MPEP § 2106.05(f)), or well-understood, routine, conventional elements consistent with MPEP § 2106.05(d).
As to claims 13-18: None of the claims dependent upon claim 12 recite any elements that are considered to be any elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or add significantly more and accordingly each is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for reasons similar to claim 12 above.
As to claim 19: A similar analysis applies to claim 19 for the reasons similar to claims 1 and 12 above. In particular, the claim is drawn to a computer readable medium having stored thereon program code executable by a processor and accordingly is considered to teach limitations related to instructions that apply an exception in accordance with MPEP § 2106.05(f) as well as the similar limitations and analysis of claim 1 above (but not repeated herein for brevity).
The examiner also notes that claim 19 recites a computer readable medium having stored thereon program code executable by a processor and could therefore be encompassed by carrier waves or transient signals per se. The examiner recommends including “non-transitory” prior to “computer readable medium” in addition to addressing the 35 U.S.C. 101 issues with the instant claim above.
References Cited but not Relied Upon
As to references cited but not relied upon:
Howitt et al. “A calculation of the theoretical significance of matched bullets” discloses a method of bullet identification and appears to be pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Nadeau et al. US PG-PUB 2005/0244080 A1 discloses a method and an apparatus to obtain a surface mapping of a ballistic piece of evidence and appears to be pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN M ROYSTON whose telephone number is (571)270-7215. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30 E.S.T..
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571-272-2375. 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.
/JOHN M ROYSTON/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights