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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Interpretation
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: “calculation unit”, ‘comparison unit”, in claims 1-2, 7-8 and 11-19.
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 § 112
Claim limitation ““calculation unit” and ‘comparison unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Specification is silent regarding those terms. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
At step 1, the claim recites a method comprising a combination of “manufacturing equipment providing…”, “calculating unit receiving…”, “comparison unit generating…” and “generating …” is a system, which is a statutory category of invention.
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “a calculation unit receiving the previous data string and outputting an upper control limit value and a lower control limit value accordingly”; and “a comparison unit generating an exponentially weighted moving average (EWMA) slope value based on the real-time data string, and comparing the EWMA slope value with the upper control limit value and the lower control limit value to generate a comparison result.” These limitations - recite a mathematical and mental process – that is a concept which may be performed in mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations or human mind, such as an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion. (see MPEP MPEP § 2106.07(a) and 2106.04(a)). The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).) These claims may also be a recitation of a mathematical concept, i.e. mathematical calculation. Applicant uses “generating a comparison result” without any characterization. Specification paragraph 22-0025 discloses generating results without any practical use. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation therefore can be calculated using pen and pencil and show the results or using a generating computer to calculate, compare and evaluation of such a simple equation is in principle performable in the human mind. - – Notwithstanding the recitation of generic computer components, the Courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained, "courts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind." (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (see Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 585, 198 USPQ 193, 195 (1978).
At step 2A, prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “a manufacturing equipment providing a previous data string and a real-time data string.”
The manufacturing equipment providing data are recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). 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 (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). The limitation providing data, calculating limits, comparing EMMA slope and generating comparison results at a high level of generality. Therefore, it is insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Similarly, generating comparison results for display limitation represents extra-solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements in this claim do no more than automate the mental processes that the system uses to perform calculating, comparing (evaluation), using the computer components as a tool (see 2106.04(d)).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements “manufacturing equipment providing a previous data string and a real-time data string” no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Providing data by an equipment’s as discuss above, represent mere data gathering and is insignificant extra-solution activity. The “generating result” limitation, as discussed above, represents mere data output and is a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Further, both of these elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional (see USPGPUB 2012/0123583) and see 2106.04(a)(2).
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims (2-19) did not recite any additional elements that could overcome the rejections. Dependent claims recite mathematical concepts, and it’s also rejected.
It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and listed on the attached PTO Form 892 but not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hazen et al USPGPUB 2012/0123583 teaches methods, systems, and a computer-readable storage medium for controlling a discrete-type manufacturing process (e.g., an injection molding process) with a multivariate model. Data representing process parameters, operating parameters, or both of the manufacturing process are received. The received data is compared with a multivariate model that approximates the manufacturing process to provide a result. Upon the result of the comparing satisfying a condition, one or more values for a set of operating parameters for the manufacturing process are determined. When the one or more determined values for the set of operating parameters satisfies a criterion, at least one operating parameter of the manufacturing process is updated.
Cella et al USPGPUB 20230206329 A1 teaches a methods for transaction platforms include various systems interacting with each other and transacting in various ways. A method for configuring and launching a marketplace includes: identifying, by a processing system having one or more processors, an opportunity to facilitate configuration of a new marketplace; receiving marketplace opportunity data, wherein the marketplace opportunity data includes information related to a set of assets of one or more types; determining configuration parameters to be implemented in the new marketplace; determining the feasibility of implementing the configuration parameters in the new marketplace; determining data resources to support the new marketplace; determining an architecture of the new marketplace; determining the configuration of the data resources in a data model for the marketplace; configuring a marketplace object; connecting selected data resources to populate the marketplace object; and launching the new marketplace.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZIAUL KARIM whose telephone number is (571)270-3279. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8:00-4:00 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mohammad Ali can be reached on 571 272 4105. 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.
/ZIAUL KARIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2119
Prosecution Insights