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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/08/2026 has been entered.
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.
After 2019 PEG
MPEP 2106 outlines a two-part analysis for Subject Matter Eligibility as shown in the chart below.
PNG
media_image1.png
930
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Step 1, the claimed invention must be to one of the four statutory categories. 35 U.S.C. 101 defines the four categories of invention that Congress deemed to be the appropriate subject matter of a patent: processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter.
Step 2, the claimed invention also must qualify as patent-eligible subject matter, i.e., the claim must not be directed to a judicial exception unless the claim as a whole includes additional limitations amounting to significantly more than the exception.
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry, as shown in the chart below.
PNG
media_image2.png
681
881
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Prong One asks does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? In Prong One examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e. whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. If the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea enumerated in MPEP § 2106.04(a), a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon), the claim requires further analysis in Prong Two. If the claim does not recite a judicial exception (a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea), then the claim cannot be directed to a judicial exception (Step 2A: NO), and thus the claim is eligible at Pathway B without further analysis. Abstract ideas can be grouped as, e.g., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes.
Prong Two asks does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? If the additional elements in the claim integrate the recited exception into a practical application of the exception, then the claim is not directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A: NO) and thus is eligible at Pathway B. This concludes the eligibility analysis. If, however, the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception (Step 2A: YES), and requires further analysis under Step 2B.
Claims 1-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? Yes.
Step 2A: Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea (judicially recognized exceptions)? Yes (see analysis below).
Prong one: Whether the claim recites a judicial exception? (Yes). The claim recites:
1. A system for data collection in an industrial production system including a plurality of components, the system for data collection comprising:
a sensor communication circuit structured to interpret a plurality of data values from a sensed parameter group, wherein the sensed parameter group includes a plurality of sensors including a vibration sensor and a temperature sensor, and wherein the plurality of sensors are operatively coupled to at least one of the plurality of components;
a data analysis circuit structured to:
detect an off-nominal operating condition of at least one component of the industrial production system based on detecting that the plurality of data values from the vibration sensor indicate a vibration pattern that matches a stored vibration fingerprint together with detecting that the plurality of data values from the temperature sensor indicate a change in a temperature, wherein the stored vibration fingerprint is associated with the off-nominal operating condition of the at least one component of the industrial production system;
determine a physical location of the vibration pattern based on the stored vibration fingerprint; and
identify at least one component of the industrial production system associated with the physical location of the vibration pattern; and
a response circuit structured to modify a production-related operating parameter of the at least one component in response to the detected off-nominal operating condition.
These above bold-faced limitations are directed to mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations; and/or mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (or with a pen and paper). Note that “modify a production-related operating parameter of the at least one component” is a relatively broad term that can mean modifying a component’s operation status (i.e., data). Therefore it is an abstract idea.
Prong two: Whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception? (No). The claim recites additional elements as underlined above. The industrial production system and sensed parameter group coupled to the components are recited as to indicate the technological environment and the source of data (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). The sensor communication circuit, data analysis circuit, and response circuit can be a generic processor or computer invoked for the data processing (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, the additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements (other than the judicial exception) that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No (see analysis below).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to make the claim significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two above, the additional element(s) in the claim are to invoke a generic computer for its computing power to facilitate the application of the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), and to indicate the data source or environment, which is a field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Considered as a whole, the claim does not amount to more the abstract idea.
Claim 13 is similarly rejected by analogy to claim 1.
Dependent claims 2-12 and 14-25 when analyzed as a whole respectively are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they either extend (or add more details to) the abstract idea or the additional recited limitation(s) (if any) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea., as discussed below: there is no additional element(s) in the dependent claims that sufficiently integrates the claims into a practical application of, or makes the claims significantly more than, the judicial exception (abstract idea). The additional element(s) (if any) are mere instructions to apply an except, field of use, and/or insignificant extra-solution activities (applied to Step 2A_Prong Two and Step 2B; see MPEP 2016.05(f)-(h)) and/or well-understood, routine, or conventional (applied to Step 2B; see MPEP 2106.05(d)) to facilitate the application of the abstract idea.
On the other hand, claims 26 and 27 are eligible under 35 USC 101 because “an automated change in a rate of operation of the at least one component of the industrial production system, or an automatic shutdown of the at least one component of the industrial production system” is a change of physical operations of the component, not just a change in data. This makes the claims a practical application. See specification [00773].
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 8, 11-15, 17, 19, 20, and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Scott et al. (US 20200284694 A1; cited previously).
Regarding claim 1, Scott teaches a system for data collection in an industrial production system including a plurality of components (i.e., “A monitoring system for monitoring a machine”; see Abstract; “inspect machines”; see [0188]), the system for data collection comprising:
a sensor communication circuit structured to interpret a plurality of data values from a sensed parameter group (i.e., “The one or more processing systems receive the sensor data”; see Abstract), wherein the sensed parameter group includes a plurality of sensors including a vibration sensor and a temperature sensor (i.e., “The monitoring device typically includes a plurality of sensors 113, each of which is adapted to sense one or more characteristics. Whilst any suitable sensors could be used, in general the sensors 113 include at least a vibration sensor that senses vibrations transmitted from the machine to the vibration sensor via the coupling 121. However, other sensors, such as temperature sensors, or the like, could be used”; see [0085]), and wherein the plurality of sensors are operatively coupled to at least one of the plurality of components (i.e., “a monitoring device 110 having a housing 120 and a coupling 121 that physically attaches the housing 120 to machine E that is to be monitored”; see [0084]);
a data analysis circuit (i.e., 130) structured to:
detect an off-nominal operating condition of at least one component of the industrial production system (i.e., “the processing system 130 analyses the sensor data to determine a machine status… include an indication of whether the machine is functioning as expected, or if not the nature of any problem”; see [0091]) based on detecting that the plurality of data values from the vibration sensor indicate a vibration pattern that matches a stored vibration fingerprint together with detecting that the plurality of data values from the temperature sensor indicate a change in a temperature (i.e., “the reference data being indicative of at least one of: signals from the one or more sensors; parameters derived from signals from the one or more sensors; patterns derived from signals from the one or more sensors; reference thresholds derived from the signals from the one or more sensors; and, reference ranges derived from the signals from the one or more sensors”; see [0027]; “the parameters include at least one of: a noise level; a noise frequency; a temperature; a temperature change; a rate of temperature change; a vibration frequency; a vibration magnitude; a vibration pattern; a vibration change; and, a rate of vibration change”; see [0029]; “The nature of the analysis will vary depending on the preferred implementation but could include comparison to either the reference data or reference ranges derived therefrom, with this being used to determine a machine status at step 740 and also to check whether the monitoring device has moved or its integrity has been in any way affected”; see [0169]), wherein the stored vibration fingerprint is associated with the off-nominal operating condition of the at least one component of the industrial production system (i.e., “The reference data can include sensor data collected during a reference time period, or information derived therefrom, such as defined ranges or thresholds of different sensor readings that correspond to normal and/or abnormal operation of the machines”; see [0168]);
determine a physical location of the vibration pattern based on the stored vibration fingerprint (i.e., “by comparing the sensor signals to reference behaviour of the machine”; [0112]; “The sensor data also typically includes a monitoring device identifier, allowing the processing system(s) to identify the monitoring device from which sensor data has been received. By associating each monitoring device with a respective piece of machine, this in turn allowing the processing system(s) to determine the machine to which the sensor data relates”; see [0136]; “each data packet, the server 330 determines the device identifier associated with the received sensor data. This allows the server 330 to identify the machine to which the sensor data relates… an installer can record an indication of the monitoring device and the machine, with this being used to establish a machine profile, which includes basic information regarding the machine, such as an indication of a machine type, identification information such as a name, serial number, or the like, a location”; see [0167]; that is, each sensor data is associated with a machine and its location; the sensor data is compared with a reference behavior of a corresponding machine; if anomality or failure is found by the comparison, the corresponding machine and its location is identified); and
identify at least one component of the industrial production system associated with the physical location of the vibration pattern (i.e., “In the example of FIG. 8A a user interface 800 is presented including a map 810, having a number of icons 811 showing the location of respective assets. The icons can be encoded to show a current asset status, for example using colours such green, amber and red to signify if the machine operation is normal, marginal, or failed or failing”; see [0147]); and
a response circuit structured to modify a production-related operating parameter of the at least one component in response to the detected off-nominal operating condition (i.e., “The one or more processing systems receive the sensor data, analyse the sensor data to determine a machine status and either store an indication of the machine status as part of machine status data associated with respective machine or cause a status indication indicative of the machine status to be displayed”; see Abstract; “generates an alert depending on results of the determination”: see [0037]; “provide alerts… schedule maintenance”; see [0188]).
Regarding claim 2, Scott further teaches:
wherein the sensed parameter group comprises a fused plurality of sensors including the vibration sensor and the temperature sensor (i.e., “the plurality of sensors include at least one of: at least one current sensor; a noise sensor; an acoustic sensor; a temperature sensor; a pressure sensor; a humidity sensor; a movement sensor; and, an optical sensor”; see [0025]).
Regarding claim 3, Scott further teaches:
a pattern recognition circuit structured to determine a recognized pattern value in response to the plurality of data values from the sensed parameter group comprising the fused plurality of sensors (i.e., “determines operational data using signals from the one or more sensors, the operational data being based on at least one of: signals from the one or more sensors; parameters derived from signals from the one or more sensors; and, patterns derived from signals from the one or more sensors… a vibration pattern”; see [0028]-[0029]), wherein the recognized pattern value includes a secondary value comprising a component overtemperature value (i.e., “a temperature change”; see [0029]; “if signals from the sensors do not exceed certain threshold values during the first time period, then if signals exceed these threshold values during monitored operation, this could be indicative of a problem that requires maintenance or additional investigation”; see [0113]).
Regarding claim 5, Scott further teaches:
wherein the data analysis circuit analyzes the plurality of data values including a variation in the temperature over time in fusion with the vibration pattern from the vibration sensor (i.e., “the parameters include at least one of: a noise level; a noise frequency; a temperature; a temperature change; a rate of temperature change; a vibration frequency; a vibration magnitude; a vibration pattern; a vibration change; and, a rate of vibration change”; see [0029]).
Regarding claim 7, Scott further teaches:
a library, wherein the library stores a plurality of vibration fingerprints (i.e., “the reference data being indicative of at least one of: signals from the one or more sensors; parameters derived from signals from the one or more sensors; patterns derived from signals from the one or more sensors; reference thresholds derived from the signals from the one or more sensors; and, reference ranges derived from the signals from the one or more sensors”; see [0027]; “The reference data can include different sets of reference data established during different time periods, for example to account different operation of the machine at different times of the day or week”; see [0168]) and associated off-nominal operating conditions (i.e., “The reference data can include sensor data collected during a reference time period, or information derived therefrom, such as defined ranges or thresholds of different sensor readings that correspond to normal and/or abnormal operation of the machines”; see [0168]), and wherein the plurality of vibration fingerprints include the stored vibration fingerprint that matches the vibration pattern (i.e., “The nature of the analysis will vary depending on the preferred implementation but could include comparison to either the reference data or reference ranges derived therefrom, with this being used to determine a machine status at step 740 and also to check whether the monitoring device has moved or its integrity has been in any way affected”; see [0169]).
Regarding claim 8, Scott further teaches:
wherein each of the plurality of vibration fingerprints stored in the library includes at least one of a frequency, a spectra, a peak frequency location, a wave peak shape, a waveform shape, a wave envelope shape, phase information, or a phase shift (i.e., “the parameters include at least one of: a noise level; a noise frequency; a temperature; a temperature change; a rate of temperature change; a vibration frequency; a vibration magnitude; a vibration pattern; a vibration change; and, a rate of vibration change”; see [0029]).
Regarding claim 11, Scott further teaches:
wherein the fused plurality of sensors is self-organized (i.e., “Sensor data indicative of the vibrations and any other measured parameters can then be transferred to one or more remote processing systems, allowing these to be analysed to ensure the machine is functioning correctly. This reduces the level of processing required by the monitoring device, allowing this to be implemented using relatively cheap and straightforward sensors and associated hardware, in turn allowing the sensors to be deployed widely without undue expense. Consequently, a number of different monitoring devices can be attached to a variety of different pieces of machine (generally referred to as assets), allowing these to be monitored centrally, making it easy for an entity to monitor a wide range of distributed assets”; see [0094).
Regarding claim 12, Scott further teaches:
an expert system seeded with the data values from the vibration sensor to determine if a change in a parameter (i.e., “different pumping levels”) of a machine of the industrial production system affects an intrinsic operation of the machine (i.e., “a pump in a pumping facility may be adapted to operate at different pumping levels during different times of the day, for example starting up at 7 am, operating at an intermediate capacity until midday and then operating at maximum capacity until 5 pm. Accordingly, the machine learning approach can identify these patterns and then analyse reference and operational data at similar times of the day to ensure that operational data is compared to reference data collected when the pump is exhibiting similar behaviours”; see [0122]).
Regarding claim 13, the claim recites the same substantive limitations as claim 1 and is rejected by applying the same teachings.
Regarding claim 14, the claim recites the same substantive further limitations as claim 2 and is rejected by applying the same teachings.
Regarding claim 15, the claim recites the same substantive further limitations as claim 3 and is rejected by applying the same teachings.
Regarding claim 17, the claim recites the same substantive further limitations as claim 5 and is rejected by applying the same teachings.
Regarding claim 19, the claim recites the same substantive further limitations as claim 7 and is rejected by applying the same teachings.
Regarding claim 20, the claim recites the same substantive further limitations as claim 8 and is rejected by applying the same teachings.
Regarding claim 23, Scott further teaches:
detecting the operating condition further based on one or more additional parameters, wherein the one or more additional parameters includes at least one of a decreased flow rate, an increase in the temperature, a material in use, a duration of use, a power source, an installation, or an ambient sensed condition including at least one of an ambient noise or an ambient temperature (i.e., “the parameters include at least one of: a noise level; a noise frequency; a temperature; a temperature change; a rate of temperature change; a vibration frequency; a vibration magnitude; a vibration pattern; a vibration change; and, a rate of vibration change”; see [0029]).
Regarding claim 24, the claim recites the same substantive further limitations as claim 12 and is rejected by applying the same teachings.
Regarding claim 25, Scott further teaches:
determining that the change in the parameter alters a vibration fingerprint of the machine such that a stored vibration fingerprint of the machine for a normal operation is no longer correct (i.e., “the system can be adapted to compare reference and operational data determined during corresponding time intervals during which the machine is expected to exhibit similar behaviour. For example, a pump in a pumping facility may be adapted to operate at different pumping levels during different times of the day, for example starting up at 7 am, operating at an intermediate capacity until midday and then operating at maximum capacity until 5 pm. Accordingly, the machine learning approach can identify these patterns and then analyse reference and operational data at similar times of the day to ensure that operational data is compared to reference data collected when the pump is exhibiting similar behaviours”; see [0122]; note that the stored reference data cannot be applied when no matching pumping level (i.e., no similar behaviour) is found).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 4 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scott.
Regarding claim 4, the prior art applied to the preceding linking claim(s) teaches the features of the linking claim(s).
Scott does not explicitly disclose:
an input selection system that determines a fusion of the plurality of sensors including the vibration sensor and the temperature sensor based on learning from feedback to improve prediction of the off-nominal operating condition.
However, it is well-known to verify assumptions by experiments. Also, Scott further teaches determining the fused sensors based on the nature of the machine and preferred implementation (see [0116]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an input selection system that determines a fusion of the plurality of sensors including the vibration sensor and the temperature sensor based on learning from feedback to improve prediction of the operating condition, as claimed. The rationale would be to select a preferred combination of fusion of sensors based on a result (feedback) of experiment with different combinations of fusion of sensors.
Regarding claim 16, the claim recites the same substantive further limitations as claim 4 and is rejected by applying the same teachings.
Claims 9 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scott in view of Sakatani et al. (US 7034711 B2; cited previously; hereinafter “Sakatani”).
Regarding claim 9, the prior art applied to the preceding linking claim(s) teaches the features of the linking claim(s).
Scott does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the plurality of data values from the temperature sensor and the plurality of data values from the vibration sensor are multiplexed into a data steam that combines the plurality of data values in a time series.
But Sakatani teaches:
wherein the plurality of data values from the temperature sensor and the plurality of data values from the vibration sensor are multiplexed into a data steam that combines the plurality of data values in a time series (i.e., “The multiplexer 6 multiplexes the signals output from the vibration sensor module 4 and the temperature sensor module 5 respectively so that the signals can be separated later as detection data independent of each other”; see col. 10, lines 32-35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Scott in view of Sakatani, by providing a multiplexer, such that the plurality of data values from the temperature sensor and the plurality of data values from the vibration sensor are multiplexed into a data steam that combines the plurality of data values in a time series, as claimed. The rationale would be to facilitate data communications.
Regarding claim 21, the claim recites the same substantive further limitations as claim 9 and is rejected by applying the same teachings.
Claims 10 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scott in view of Miyasaka et al. (US 20080234964 A1; cited in IDS; hereinafter “Miyasaka”).
Regarding claim 10, the prior art applied to the preceding linking claim(s) teaches the features of the linking claim(s).
Scott does not explicitly disclose:
a peak detection circuit structured to verify consistency of timing of peak values between the plurality of data values from the vibration sensor and the plurality of data values from the temperature sensor.
But Scott further teaching presenting both time-series vibration data and time-series temperature data to allow an operator to view and verify the data (see [0175]-[0176] and FIG. 8B).
And Miyasaka teaches the timing relationships between the vibration peaks and temperature signals in an aging status (see [0185] and FIGs. 3-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Scott in view of Miyasaka to provide a peak detection circuit structured to verify consistency of timing of peak values between the plurality of data values from the vibration sensor and the plurality of data values from the temperature sensor, as claimed. The rationale would be to facilitate better assessment of the machine’s status using the additional timing information.
Regarding claim 22, the claim recites the same substantive further limitations as claim 10 and is rejected by applying the same teachings.
Claims 26 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scott in view of Pluemer (US 20160091398 A1; cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 26, the prior art applied to the preceding linking claim(s) teaches the features of the linking claim(s).
Scott does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the modification of the production-related operating parameter of the at least one component includes at least one of: an automated change in a rate of operation of the at least one component of the industrial production system, or an automatic shutdown of the at least one component of the industrial production system.
But Pluemer teaches:
automating a shutdown of a machine in response to a machine malfunction or failure (see [0039]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Scott in view of Pluemer, such that the modification of the production-related operating parameter of the at least one component includes at least one of: an automated change in a rate of operation of the at least one component of the industrial production system, or an automatic shutdown of the at least one component of the industrial production system, as claimed. The rationale would be to prevent further damage and to allow maintenance of the machine by shutting down the machine.
Regarding claim 27, the claim recites the same substantive further limitations as claim 26 and is rejected by applying the same teachings.
Notes
Claims 6 and 18 distinguish over the closest prior art of record as discussed below.
Regarding claims 6 and 18, the closest prior art of record fails to teach the feature (claim 6 as the representative): “wherein the data analysis circuit omits an average temperature from a variation in the temperature over time to produce a resulting delta change in the temperature that is processed through a Fourier transform to produce a frequency spectrum, and wherein the data analysis circuit determines whether the frequency spectrum correlates to the off-nominal operating condition,” in combination with the rest of the claim limitations as claimed and defined by the Applicant.
Response to Arguments
Regarding 35 USC 101, Applicant argued: Applicant disagrees with the assertion that prior claim 1 is directed to "mathematical concepts - mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations; and/or mental processes - concepts performed in the human mind (or with a pen and paper)" where the additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea. Office Action, p. 6, last 2 lines-p.7, lines 1-2, and p.7, lines 10-11. In addition, Applicant asserts that claim 1, as amended, recites a practical application including "determin[ing] a physical location of the vibration pattern based on the stored vibration fingerprint; and identify[ing] at least one component of the industrial production system associated with the physical location... modify[ing] a production-related operating parameter of the at least one component. Thus, Applicant asserts, claim 1 is allowable under 35 USC § 101, as are claims 2-11 and 26 ultimately dependent thereupon. Claim 13 is similarly amended and thus, Applicant asserts, allowable for similar reasons as are claims 14-25 and 27 ultimately dependent thereupon. Applicant respectfully requests the withdrawal of the rejection under 35 USC § 101.
The Examiner respectfully submits that the argued features are not additional elements, but are part of the abstract idea, as indicated in the Step 2A - Prong One above. Claim 1, viewed as a whole, is still focused on the abstract idea. On the other hand, claims 26 and 27 are eligible because they include meaningful additional elements that make the claims a practical application of the abstract idea.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 35 USC 103 have been considered but are moot because a new ground of rejection has been found, upon a renewed study of the references, and in response to the amendment. See the rejections above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN C KUAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7066. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00AM-5:30PM.
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, Andrew Schechter can be reached at (571) 272-2302. 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 C KUAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights