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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites: “calculate a distance” where the term calculate is a mental process which can be performed in the human mind, and is therefore directed toward an abstract idea.
“determining that the second sonar signal comprises the key data” where the term determining is a mental process which can be performed in the human mind, and is therefore directed toward an abstract idea.
“in response to determining that the distance calculated is less than a threshold distance” where the term determining is a mental process which can be performed in the human mind, and is therefore directed toward an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are mental processes which are performed by a generic computer, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(D). Furthermore, the specification teaches that “activate” – is just a processor instruction (see para. 17) – which considered merely a post solution activity because the sterilizing is not positively recited as automatically happening or happening at all in the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g). The claim has no sterilizing recited and therefore the abstract ideas have no application, much less a particular practical one.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements that include a sonar emitter emitting a sterilizing signal, a processor, and a sonar receiver are nothing more than well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art of sterilization, particularly in view of Hertlein and Dempsey, which teach a disinfecting system using ultrasound (Col 12 lines 30-51 of Hertlein) and monitoring an environment and communicating with ultrasonic signals (pars. 49, 51, and 82 of Dempsey).
The remaining claims fail to recite any particular practical applications nor any additional elements that remedy the deficiencies of claim 1 and are rejected similarly.
Claim 2 recites the abstract idea “ignore the second sonar signal” where the term “ignore” is a mental process which is similarly rejected for being ineligible, as there is no particular practical application nor any additional elements that amount to anything significantly more.
Claims 3, 12, 13, 14, similarly recite limitations directed towards “executing a function” and “determining”, which also are directed towards abstract ideas and are similarly rejected for being ineligible as there are no particular practical applications nor any additional elements that amount to anything significantly more.
Claim 15 recites limitations in the claim that positively recite the head or neck of a wearer, which is also no patent-eligible subject matter. The recitation that the “strap” “fixes” the shield around a head or neck is a positive one, rendering the claim ineligible. It is advised the language be amended to recite the strap that is configured to be worn around a head or neck of a wearer to overcome this rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks filed 11/19/25 directed towards the 112(b) rejections are persuasive and the rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s remarks filed 11/19/25 directed towards the 101 rejection of claims 1-20 for not falling into one of the four statutory categories of invention and being directed towards signals per se are persuasive and the rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 11/19/25 directed towards the claims being directed towards an abstract idea without significantly more have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that no aspect of the claim can be performed in the human mind, however a human is capable of mentally calculating distances between two objects, like a virus shield and subject, and determining that a sonar signal comprises key data, which encompasses hearing a sound, and determining that the distance calculated is less than a threshold distance which only requires an observation. These processes can be, as claimed, crudely performed mentally by a human or with only the help of simple instruments like a pen and paper, because they only amount to observing, sensing, doing math, and making decisions.
Applicant’s arguments directed towards the hardware recited in the claim are further not persuasive, the courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). A claim directed towards a generic and high level computer-device performing mental processes, such as calculating and determining, is still a claim that recites limitations directed towards an abstract idea. Therefore, Applicant’s argument that the claims do not recite any abstract ideas are found to be not persuasive.
Applicant then argues that the abstract ideas are integrated into a practical application, which is further not persuasive. The activating of the emitter in response to the abstract ideas amounts to a mere “apply it” with respect to the abstract ideas because the term “activate” is both high-level and does not accomplish any particular goal or effect. Therefore, the function of activating cannot be considered to be a practical application. There are no other functions that modify the abstract ideas, and therefore they cannot be said to be integrated into a practical application. Applicant’s arguments directed towards the mask disclosed in the specification are not persuasive because the claims do not recite any of the features or functions argued in relation to that portion of the specification.
Applicant does not present any arguments directed towards any additional elements of the claims, and therefore the claims are considered to be directed towards an abstract idea without significantly more.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENDAN A HENSEL whose telephone number is (571)272-6615. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 8:30 - 7pm;.
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, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571) 270-7698. 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.
/BRENDAN A HENSEL/Examiner, Art Unit 1758