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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on December 18, 2024 complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The following analysis is based on the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) published on January 7, 2019 (84 Fed. Reg. 50). See Also MEPE 2106.04(a)(2)(II).
With regard to claim 11:
Step 1:
Claim 1 meets step 1 requirement as it is directed towards a process which is statutory subject matter. In this case, “a method” satisfies a “process” category.
Step 2A, prong 1 test:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? Yes, claim 1 as a whole recites a method facilitating steps of organizing human activity e.g., mental process as explained in details below.
Claim 1 in general is about how the method provides for “generating calibration data for a target lens that is the lens to be calibrated, the calibration data matching observation information corresponding to the spectral information generated with use of the target lens with a true value of the spectral information”.
The limitations of “generating calibration data for a target lens that is the lens to be calibrated, the calibration data matching observation information corresponding to the spectral information generated with use of the target lens with a true value of the spectral information” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in a mental process/step (a mathematical relationship, formula, or calculation). That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the processing from being performed as a mental process, or merely on pencil and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of a mental step which could be performed with pen and paper, then it falls within the “mental steps” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, prong 2 test:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No as explained below.
The claim does not recite any physical elements nor does it recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. As will be explained below, these various tasks can be performed as mental steps. With respect to the functions of “generating calibration data for a target lens that is the lens to be calibrated, the calibration data matching observation information corresponding to the spectral information generated with use of the target lens with a true value of the spectral information” the broadest reasonable interpretation would have encompassed any forms of calculating inclusive of mental calculations.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No as explained below.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception does not amount to significantly more because it is not integrated into a practical application. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In particular, the claims do not recite additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. §102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 10-11 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hegyi et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2016/0123811 A1) (hereafter referred to as “Hegyi (‘811)”).
With regard to claim 1, Hegyi (‘811) describes generating calibration data for a target lens that is the lens to be calibrated, the calibration data matching observation information corresponding to the spectral information generated with use of the target lens with a true value of the spectral information (refer for example to paragraphs [0063], [0068], [0072], [0079] and [0080]).
As to claim 2, Hegyi (‘811) describes wherein the liquid crystal device and the polarizing element modulate incident light incident through the lens to generate modulated light, to generate a modulated image including the modulated light, and the spectral information is generated from the modulated image and the calibration data (refer for example to paragraphs [0040] and [0051]).
In regard to claim 3, Hegyi (‘811) describes wherein the spectral information is generated on a basis of a plurality of the modulated images for respective applied voltages varied from each other, the modulated images being generated by the applied voltages applied to the liquid crystal device, and modulation characteristics of the liquid crystal device and the polarizing element according to a change in the applied voltages, and the calibration data is applied to the modulation characteristics (refer for example to paragraphs [0051] through [0054]).
With regard to claim 10, Hegyi (‘811) describes wherein the calibration data is a value based on a birefringence index of the liquid crystal device, the birefringence index being set in association with coordinates on the modulated image and an applied voltage to the liquid crystal device (refer for example to paragraphs [0042] and [0051]).
As to claim 11, Hegyi (‘811) describes wherein the calibration data is a value obtained by multiplication of the birefringence index of the liquid crystal device by a thickness of the liquid crystal device, the birefringence index being set in association with the coordinates on the modulated image and the applied voltage to the liquid crystal device (refer for example to paragraph [0059]).
With regard to claim 13, Hegyi (‘811) describes wherein the calibration data is held as a representative of a plurality of sample points in a two-dimensional pixel space on the modulated image (refer to paragraphs [0041], [0042], [0045], [0047] and [0072]).
As to claim 14, Hegyi (‘811) describes wherein the calibration data between the sample points is generated by interpolation (refer for example to paragraph [0072]).
In regard to claim 15, Hegyi (‘811) describes wherein the polarizing element includes a first polarizing element and a second polarizing element provided at a front stage and a rear stage of the liquid crystal device, the first polarizing element transmits polarized light forming a positive angle of 45 degrees with respect to a fast axis of the liquid crystal device, and the second polarizing element transmits polarized light forming a negative angle of 45 degrees with respect to the fast axis of the liquid crystal device (refer for example to paragraphs [0036], [0040], [0046], [0050] and [0051]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-9 and 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hegyi (‘660), (‘661), (‘834), (‘036) and (‘831) all disclose systems similar to applicant’s claimed invention.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jose L. Couso whose telephone number is (571) 272-7388. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 5:30am to 1:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Bella, can be reached on 571-272-7778. 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 Center information webpage on the USPTO website. For more information about the Patent Center, see https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center. Should you have questions about access to the Patent Center, contact the Patent Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 571-272-4100 or via email at: ebc@uspto.gov .
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.
/JOSE L COUSO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2667
August 13, 2026
Prosecution Insights