DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 2/6/23 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to in the NPL document 7 has not been considered because a copy of the document has not been received.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference characters not mentioned in the specification: “140a, 140b” shown in figure 1A. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "100" and "100’" have both been used to designate the measurement device in figures 1A and 1B (see paragraph 47 of the published application, which states that “100’” designates the alternate device in figure 1E). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign mentioned in the specification: “1563c1” mentioned in paragraph 117 of the published specification. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification does not include reference characters “140a, 140b” shown in figure 1A.
The specification includes reference character “1563c1” (mentioned in paragraph 117 of the published specification), which is not shown in the drawings.
In paragraph 35 of the published application, “1E” should be changed to --1D--.
There is lack of antecedent basis in the specification for determining an opacity of the material sample, as recited in lines 2 and 5 of claim 5 (e.g., see paragraphs 48-51, 55, 59, 113, which disclose determining a porosity or non-breathability, material type, thermal resistance, material properties, but do not disclose determining an opacity of the material sample).
There is lack of antecedent basis in the specification for determining a second environmental characteristic value after an interval of time, determine second information corresponding to a continued suitability of the second environmental characteristic value, and providing the second information to the indicia circuitry (as recited in lines 3-7 of claim 16).
There is lack of antecedent basis in the specification for predicting the environmental characteristic value based on usage data, as recited in line 3 of claim 17 (e.g., see paragraphs 106, 125, and 131 of the published application, which disclose that the user enters a predicted environmental temperature and that the used enters predicted weather).
There is lack of antecedent basis in the specification for a thermostat control signal controlling an HVAC system to bring the environmental characteristic in a predetermined range, as recited in lines 2-3 of claim 18 (e.g., see paragraphs 122 and 125 of the published application, which disclose adjusting/controlling a thermostat, not an HVAC system as claimed).
There is lack of antecedent basis in the specification for the indicia circuitry comprising a speaker configured to emit a sound indicative of the suitability result as in claim 20 (e.g., see paragraphs 46, 61, and 62 of the published application, which disclose that the speaker is for stimulating the material, not for indicating a suitability result).
There is lack of antecedent basis in the specification for the indicia circuitry displaying a prompt for a user to enter biometric characteristics of a user, as in lines 3-4 of claim 21 (e.g., see paragraphs 112, 113, 115, 116, 128, 131, and 138 of the published application, which disclose that a prompt is made for other reasons than for entering biometric characteristics); --sample-- should be added before “thermal” in line 5; and “values” should be changed to --value-- in line 3.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, --and-- should be added after “value;” in line 6.
In claim 2, --sample-- should be added before “thermal” in line 1; and --a-- should be added after “comprises” in line 2.
In claim 4, “and” should be delete from line 3; and --also-- should be added after “is” in line 4.
In claim 5, “and” should be deleted from line 3; --also-- should be added after “is” in line 4; and there is lack of antecedent basis in the specification for determining an opacity of the material sample, as recited in lines 2 and 5 (e.g., see paragraphs 48-51, 55, 59, 113, which disclose determining a porosity or non-breathability, material type, thermal resistance, material properties, but do not disclose determining an opacity of the material sample).
In claim 6, --a-- should be added after “determine” in line 2; “and” should be deleted from line 3; and --also-- should be added after “is” in line 4.
In claim 7, “,” should be changed to --;-- in line 3.
In claim 8, --a-- should be added before “storage” in line 2; --sample-- should be added before “thermal” in line 2; “and” should be deleted from line 3; and “values” should be changed to --value-- in the last line.
In claim 9, --a-- should be added before “remote” in line 2.
In claim 10, --sample-- should be added before “thermal” in line 2; “values; and” should be changed to --value;-- in line 3; --of-- should be added after “outside” in line 5; and --sample-- should be added before “thermal” in line 7.
In claim 11, “display of” should be changed to --display-- in line 3; “a” should be changed to --the-- in line 5; and “determined” should be change to --sample-- in the last line.
In claim 13, “measured” should be changed to --sample-- in lines 6 and 9; and --of-- should be added after “outside” in line 8.
In claim 14, --sample-- should be added before “thermal” in line 5; and “values” should be changed to --value-- in line 5.
In claim 16, “second” should be deleted from lines 5 and 7 (there is lack of antecedent basis in the claim and base claim 1) for a first information, as implied by “second” in lines 5 and 7; and there is lack of antecedent basis in the specification for determining a second environmental characteristic value after an interval of time, determine second information corresponding to a continued suitability of the second environmental characteristic value, and providing the second information to the indicia circuitry (as recited in lines 3-7).
In claim 17, there is lack of antecedent basis in the specification for predicting the environmental characteristic value based on usage data, as recited in line 3 (e.g., see paragraphs 106, 125, and 131 of the published application, which disclose that the user enters a predicted environmental temperature and that the used enters predicted weather).
In claim 18, there is lack of antecedent basis in the specification for a thermostat control signal controlling an HVAC system to bring the environmental characteristic in a predetermined range, as recited in lines 2-3 (e.g., see paragraphs 122 and 125 of the published application, which disclose adjusting/controlling a thermostat, not an HVAC system as claimed).
In claim 20, there is lack of antecedent basis in the specification for the indicia circuitry comprising a speaker configured to emit a sound indicative of the suitability result (e.g., see paragraphs 46, 61, and 62 of the published application, which disclose that the speaker is for stimulating the material, not for indicating a suitability result).
In claim 21, there is lack of antecedent basis in the specification for the indicia circuitry displaying a prompt for a user to enter biometric characteristics of a user, as in lines 3-4 (e.g., see paragraphs 112, 113, 115, 116, 128, 131, and 138 of the published application, which disclose that a prompt is made for other reasons than for entering biometric characteristics); --sample-- should be added before “thermal” in line 5; and “values” should be changed to --value-- in line 3.
Claims 3, 12, 15, and 19 are objected to for being dependent on an objected base claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In claim 1, the recitation of determining a sample thermal property value of a material sample and determining an environmental characteristic value are just receiving/accepting data that a person can perform by being told what the value is or receive it with the aid of pen/paper. The recitation of identifying a range of environmental characteristic values mapped to the sample thermal property value is a mental step of selecting what data to get out of a data source, e.g., memory. The recitation of determining a suitability result corresponding to a suitability of the material sample to the environmental characteristic value based on whether the environmental characteristic value falls within the identified range of environmental characteristic values is math as a comparison of numbers or a mental step of a person reviewing data and make a mental determination whether the value is within a range.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the analysis circuitry is a processor (paragraph 38 of the specification) and the indicia circuitry is a display (paragraph 37 of the specification). Both of these are not a practical application because they are generic computer components. These generically recited computer components do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because a processor and a display are generic computer components that are well known, routine, and conventional.
In claims 4-6, the recitation of determining a moisture content of the material sample and determining a negative suitability result when the moisture content of the material sample exceeds a threshold (as in claim 4), determining an opacity of the material sample and determining a negative suitability result when the opacity exceeds a threshold (as in claim 5), and determining a thickness of the material sample and determining the thermal property value based on the thickness (as in claim 6) are just receiving/accepting data that a person can perform by being told what the value is or receive it with the aid of pen/paper, mental steps of selecting what data to get out of a data source, e.g., memory, and mental steps of a person reviewing data and making a mental determination whether the value is within a threshold and correlating the value to stored data.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the measurement circuitry is a data provider (paragraphs 38 and 39 of the specification) and the analysis circuitry is a processor (paragraph 38 of the specification). Both of these are not a practical application because they are generic computer components. These generically recited computer components do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because a data provider and a processor are generic computer components that are well known, routine, and conventional.
In claims 16 and 17, determining a second environmental characteristic value after an interval of time, determining second information corresponding to a continued suitability of the material sample based on the second environmental characteristic value, and providing the second information to the indicia circuitry (as in claim 16), and predicting the environmental characteristic value based on usage data and determining the suitability based on the predicted environmental characteristic value (as in claim 17) are just receiving/accepting data that a person can perform by being told what the value is or receive it with the aid of pen/paper, mental steps of selecting what data to get out of a data source, e.g., memory, and mental steps of a person reviewing data and making a mental determination whether the value is suitable.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the analysis circuitry is a processor (paragraph 38 of the specification) and the indicia circuitry is a display (paragraph 37 of the specification). Both of these are not a practical application because they are generic computer components. These generically recited computer components do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because a processor and a display are generic computer components that are well known, routine, and conventional.
Claims 2, 3, 7-15, and 18-21 are rejected for being dependent on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 16, it is not clear if the steps recited in the claim are in addition to the steps recited in lines 3-10 of base claim 1, or if they are describing at least one of the steps in lines 3-10 of base claim 1.
In claim 17, it is not clear if the steps recited in the claim are in addition to the steps recited in lines 3-10 of base claim 1, or if they are describing at least one of the steps in lines 3-10 of base claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-21 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, and the objections set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record does not disclose or suggest the following in combination with the remaining limitations of the claims:
A measurement device, comprising analysis circuitry configured to identify a range of environmental characteristic values mapped to the sample thermal property value; and determine a suitability result corresponding to a suitability of the material sample to the environmental characteristic value based on whether the environmental characteristic value falls within the identified range of environmental characteristic values (claim 1).
Conclusion
The references made of record and not relied upon by the examiner are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure by disclosing a measurement device for a material, but do not disclose the allowable subject matter stated above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIRELLYS JAGAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2247. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday-Friday 8-6.
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, Kristina DeHerrera can be reached at 303-297-4237. 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.
/MIRELLYS JAGAN/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2855
2/4/26