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 Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the plurality of time duration intervals" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner notes that claim 13 may provide antecedence to the limitation. 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.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, as set forth below.
The following analysis is performed in accordance with the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (hereinafter 2019 PEG), as set forth in MPEP §2106.
Step 1
Step 1 of the 2019 PEG asks whether the claim is a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Claim 17 is directed to an apparatus (i.e. a machine).
Step 2A Prong One
Step 2A Prong One of the 2019 PEG asks whether the claim recites an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon.
The examiner has identified the following judicial exceptions in the claims:
Claim 17 recites:
“wherein the programmable code calculates the impulse value as the function of the force value and the time duration according to an equation
J
=
∫
t
1
t
2
F
t
d
t
wherein “J” represents the calculated impulse, “F(t)” represents the force, and “dt” represents the integral with respect to the time duration over which the force acts, shown as “t1”, a starting time, and “t2”, an ending time.”
This claim limitation is a judicial exception of a mathematical concept.
Claim 17 therefore recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two
Step 2A Prong Two of the 2019 PEG asks whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 17, including the limitations of parent claims 1, 14, 15 and 16, recites:
a force sensor adapted to be positioned within the flowing liquid stream, wherein the force sensor relays a force value in response to an applied force of a flowing liquid stream; a controller connected to the force sensor, wherein the controller receives the force value from the force sensor, generates a time duration corresponding to the applied force of the flowing liquid stream, calculates an impulse from the force value and time duration, and generates an impulse value; a display connected to the controller, wherein the display receives the impulse value and displays a representation of the impulse value; and a power source connected to the force sensor, the controller, and the display to provide electrical power thereto, wherein the controller comprises a clock to generate the plurality of time duration intervals, wherein the controller comprises a processor that generates the impulse value from the force value and the plurality of time duration intervals, wherein the processor executes a programmable code to calculate the impulse value.
The controller comprising a clock and processor is recited at a high level of generality; i.e. as a computer performing generic functions of processing and storing data and generating time intervals. This computer is recited so generically that is represents nothing more than a generic structure with instructions to apply the judicial exception. Accordingly, the additional elements of the controller, clock and processor do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The additional elements of the force sensor, display and power source are merely structures that perform the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and displaying that is necessary for the use of the recited judicial exceptions. Therefore, these additional elements are insignificant extra-solution activity, as set forth in MPEP §2106.05(g). Additionally, the differential pressure detector and filtration unit are merely an attempt to generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, as set forth in MPEP §2106.05 (h).
Whether viewed separately or in combination, the additional elements of claim 17 (including the elements of parent claims 1, 14, 15 and 16) fail to integrate the recited judicial exceptions into a practical application, and claim 17 is therefore directed to the judicial exception of abstract ideas.
Step 2B
Step 2B of the 2019 PEG asks whether the claim provides an inventive concept; i.e., whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim.
Regarding claim 17, the force sensor, display and power source are merely structures that perform the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and displaying that is necessary for the use of the recited judicial exception, and therefore fail to provide an inventive concept, as set forth in MPEP §2106.05(g). As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements of the controller, clock and processor amount to no more than a generic structure with instructions to apply the judicial exception. The same analysis applies to Step 2B, i.e. , mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components and insignificant extra-solution activities of data gathering and displaying cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Whether considered alone or in combination, the additional elements of claim 17 fail to provide an inventive concept that makes the claim amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas, and claim 17 is therefore ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-5, 7, 8, 10-12 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0221618 by Freriks (“Freriks”) in view of “Impulse (physics)” by Wikipedia published on 2/13/2022 (“Wikipedia”).
As for claim 1, Freriks discloses an apparatus for measuring and displaying an impulse value of a flowing liquid stream, comprising:
a force sensor (30) adapted to be positioned within the flowing liquid stream, wherein the force sensor (30) relays a force value in response to an applied force of a flowing liquid stream;
a controller (100) connected to the force sensor (30), wherein the controller (100) receives the force value from the force sensor (paragraphs [0049] and [0050]), generates a time duration corresponding to the applied force of the flowing liquid stream (paragraph [0050]), calculates an impulse as a function of the force value and time duration (page 6, claim 1: “the processor generates a score value that is proportional to the force and/or a length of time of the force), and generates an impulse value (paragraph [0057]);
a display (10 or 210) connected to the controller (100), wherein the display (10) receives the impulse value and displays a representation of the impulse value (paragraph [0057]); and
a power source (90) connected to the force sensor, the controller, and the display to provide electrical power thereto (paragraph [0034]).
Freriks does not explicitly disclose that the controller calculates the impulse value as a function of the force value multiplied by the time duration. Instead, Freriks discloses that “the processor generates a score value that is proportional to the force and/or a length of time of the force” (page 6, claim 1). One having ordinary skill in the art can readily envision that the processor generates a score that is proportional to both the force and the length of time of the force. Furthermore, having ordinary skill in the art would also recognize that the product of force and the length of time of the force is the impulse, as demonstrated by Wikipedia. Wikipedia discloses a basic, well-known definition of impulse in which the impulse is calculated as a function of the force value and the time duration according to an equation:
J
=
∫
t
1
t
2
F
t
d
t
wherein “J” represents the calculated impulse, “F(t)” represents the force, and “dt” represents the integral with respect to the time duration over which the force acts, shown as “t1”, a starting time, and “t2”, an ending time (see the “Mathematical derivation in the case of an object of constant mass” section). Wikipedia also discloses that a simple product of force and the length of time of the force is an impulse (see the first equation of the main text).
Because Freriks and Wikipedia both disclose methods for calculating an impulse, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to substitute the method of Wikipedia for the method of Freriks to achieve the predictable result of calculating the impulse.
As for claim 2, Freriks as modified by Wikipedia discloses that the representation of the impulse value is a number (Freriks: paragraph [0057]).
As for claim 3, Freriks as modified by Wikipedia discloses that the representation of the impulse value is non- numerical (Freriks: paragraph [0057]).
As for claim 4, Freriks as modified by Wikipedia discloses that the controller (Freriks: 100) includes a processor (Freriks: 100) on which a code is executed to generate the impulse value (Freriks: paragraph [0045]).
As for claim 5, Freriks as modified by Wikipedia discloses:
a protective shield (Freriks: 8) positioned between the force sensor (Freriks: 30) and at least one of the controller, the display (Freriks: 10), and the battery.
As for claim 7, Freriks as modified by Wikipedia discloses:
a first communication link (Freriks: between 100 and 30 in Fig. 3) connecting the controlled (Freriks: 100) to the force sensor (Freriks: 30);
a second communication link (Freriks: between 100 and 10 in Fig. 3) connecting the display (Freriks: 10) to the controller (Freriks: 100); and
a third communication link (Freriks: paragraph [0034]) connecting the power source (Freriks: 90) to the force sensor (Freriks: 30), the controller (Freriks: 100), and the display (Freriks: 10) to provide electrical power thereto.
As for claim 8, Freriks as modified by Wikipedia discloses that the first, second, and third communication links are wired connections (Freriks: implied for the SPI bus (paragraph [0046]) and battery power).
As for claim 10, Freriks as modified by Wikipedia discloses that the force value is within a range between a minimum force value and a maximum force value (Freriks: implicitly recited because the force value corresponds to a force that can have minimum and maximum values).
As for claim 11, Freriks as modified by Wikipedia discloses the apparatus according to claim 10 (see the rejection of claim 10 above).
Freriks as modified by Wikipedia does not explicitly disclose that the minimum force value is within a range between approximately 0.001 and 0.100 Ibf (0.004 and 0.445 N) because Freriks does not disclose the magnitude of the force applied by a user’s urine.
However, it has been held that mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled." See MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A) and 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.). One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that, with sufficient practice, the magnitude of the force applied by a user’s urine is capable of being scaled up or down.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify the minimum force value of Freriks and Wikipedia to be in the range as claimed because it has been held that scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled.
As for claim 12, Freriks as modified by Wikipedia discloses the apparatus according to claim 10 (see the rejection of claim 10 above).
Freriks as modified by Wikipedia does not explicitly disclose that the maximum force value is within a range between approximately 2.500 and 4.500 Ibf (11.121 and 20.017 N) because Freriks does not disclose the magnitude of the force applied by a user’s urine.
However, it has been held that mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled." See MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A) and 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.). One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that, with sufficient practice, the magnitude of the force applied by a user’s urine is capable of being scaled up or down.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify the maximum force value of Freriks and Wikipedia to be in the range as claimed because it has been held that scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled.
As for claim 14, Freriks as modified by Wikipedia discloses that the controller (Freriks: 100) comprises a clock to generate the plurality of time duration intervals (Freriks: paragraph [0050]).
As for claim 15, Freriks as modified by Wikipedia discloses that the controller (Freriks: 100) comprises a processor (Freriks: 100) that generates the impulse value from the force value and the plurality of time duration intervals (Freriks: paragraph [0050]).
As for claim 16, Freriks as modified by Wikipedia discloses that the processor executes a programmable code to calculate the impulse value (Freriks: paragraph [0045]).
As for claim 17, Freriks as modified by Wikipedia disclose that the programmable code calculates the impulse value according to the claimed equation (see the rejection of claim 1 above).
Claims 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0221618 by Freriks (“Freriks”) in view of “Impulse (physics)” by Wikipedia published on 2/13/2022 (“Wikipedia”) as applied to claims 6 and 7, further in view of U.S. Patent 9,550,115 issued to Silva (“Silva”).
As for claim 6, Freriks as modified by Wikipedia disclose the apparatus according to claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above).
Freriks as modified by Wikipedia does not disclose a second apparatus for measuring and displaying a second impulse value of a second flowing liquid stream, wherein the second apparatus is linked to the apparatus.
However, Silva discloses a second apparatus for measuring and displaying a second value of a second flowing liquid stream, wherein the second apparatus is linked to an apparatus (Abstract).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify the apparatus of Freriks and Wikipedia to includes the second apparatus as disclosed by Silva in order to provide a multi-user gaming environment (Silva: Abstract).
Freriks as modified by Wikipedia and Silva discloses a second apparatus for measuring and displaying a second impulse value of a second flowing liquid stream, wherein the second apparatus is linked to an apparatus, wherein the second apparatus comprises:
a second force sensor (Freriks: 30) adapted to be positioned within the second flowing liquid stream, wherein the second force sensor (Freriks: 30) relays a second force value in response to a second applied force of the second flowing liquid stream;
a second controller (Freriks: 100) connected to the second force sensor (Freriks: 30), wherein the second controller (Freriks: 100) receives the second force value from the second force sensor (Freriks: paragraphs [0049] and [0050]), generates a second time duration corresponding to the second applied force of the second flowing liquid stream (Freriks: paragraph [0050]), calculates a second impulse as a function of the second force value multiplied by the second time duration (Freriks: page 6, claim 1 and Wikipedia: as described in the rejection of claim 1), and generates a second impulse value (Freriks: paragraph [0057]);
a second display (Freriks: 10 or 210) connected to the second controller (Freriks: 100), wherein the second display (Freriks: 10) receives the second impulse value and displays a representation of the second impulse value (Freriks: paragraph [0057]); and
a second power source (Freriks: 90) connected to the second force sensor, the second controller, and the second display to provide electrical power thereto (Freriks: paragraph [0034]).
As for claim 9, Freriks as modified by Wikipedia disclose the apparatus according to claim 7 (see the rejection of claim 7 above) and that the first communication link (between 100 and 30) is a wireless connection (paragraph [0039]).
Freriks as modified by Wikipedia does not explicitly disclose that the second communication link (between 100 and 10) is a wireless connection.
However, Silva discloses a second communication link (between 20 and 18) is a wireless connection (col. 3, lines 15-18).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify the second communication link of Freriks and Wikipedia to be a wireless connection as disclosed by Silva so that the display can be mounted separately from the other components of the apparatus.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0221618 by Freriks (“Freriks”) in view of “Impulse (physics)” by Wikipedia published on 2/13/2022 (“Wikipedia”) as applied to claim 1, further in view of CN 103292858 by Bai et al. (“Bai”).
As for claim 13, Freriks as modified by Wikipedia discloses the apparatus according to claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above) and that the applied force is applied to the force sensor for a time duration separated into a plurality of time duration intervals (Freriks: paragraph [0050]).
Freriks as modified by Wikipedia does not disclose that each of the plurality of intervals is within a range between approximately 100 and 300 ms, in part, because Freriks does not disclose optimizing the time duration interval. Instead, Freriks merely discloses a time duration interval of one second (Freriks: paragraph [0050]).
However, Bai discloses optimizing a time duration interval (paragraph [0015]).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify the time duration interval of Freriks and Wikipedia to be optimized as disclosed by Bai in order to avoid generating too much data while also maintaining accuracy of the measurement (Bai: paragraph [0015]).
Freriks as modified by Wikipedia and Bai does not explicitly disclose that each of the plurality of intervals is within a range between approximately 100 and 300 ms.
However, it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See MPEP 2144.05 (II(A) and In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify each of the plurality of intervals of Freriks, Wikipedia and Bai to be within the claimed range in order to achieve the predictable result of accurately measuring the force applied to the force sensor without generating too much data.
Claims 1-5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0016508 by Baer (“Baer”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2008/0125293 by Ng (“Ng”).
As for claim 1, Baer discloses an apparatus for measuring and displaying an impulse value of a flowing liquid stream (the recitation of a flowing liquid stream describes the intended use of the apparatus and does not structurally distinguish the claimed invention over Baer), comprising:
a force sensor (112) adapted to be positioned within the flowing liquid stream, wherein the force sensor relays a force value in response to an applied force of a flowing liquid stream;
a controller (150) connected to the force sensor (112), wherein the controller (150) receives the force value from the force sensor, generates a time duration corresponding to the applied force of the flowing liquid stream (paragraphs [0045] and [0066]), calculates an impulse as a function of the force value multiplied by the time duration (paragraphs [0055] and [0068]; momentum transfer is equal to the impulse value), and generates an impulse value (paragraphs [0055] and [0068]); and
a display (162) connected to the controller (150), wherein the display receives the impulse value and displays a representation of the impulse value (see Fig. 12B).
Baer does not explicitly disclose a power source as recited.
However, Ng discloses a power source (in 12; see paragraph [0018]) connected to a force sensor (11, 24), a controller (40), and a display (45) to provide electrical power thereto (paragraph [0018]).
Baer and Ng included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the power source of Ng with the force sensor, controller and display of Baer by connecting the power source to the force sensor, controller and display as suggested by paragraph [0018] of Ng that in combination, the power source, force sensor, controller and display merely perform the same functions as each does separately. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify the apparatus of Baer by including the power source as disclosed by Ng to achieve the predictable result of providing power to the force sensor, controller and display.
As for claim 2, Baer as modified by Ng discloses that the representation of the impulse value is a number (Baer: see Fig. 12B and paragraphs [0055] and [0068];).
As for claim 3, Baer as modified by Ng discloses that the representation of the impulse value is non-numerical (Baer: paragraph [0071]).
As for claim 4, Baer as modified by Ng discloses that the controller includes a processor on which a code is executed to generate the impulse value (Baer: see Fig. 1).
As for claim 5, Baer as modified by Ng discloses:
a protective shield (Baer: 111) positioned between the force sensor (Baer: 112) and at least one of the controller, the display (Baer: 162), and the battery.
As for claim 10, Baer as modified by Ng discloses that the force value is within a range between a minimum force value and a maximum force value. (implicitly recited because the force value corresponds to a force that can have minimum and maximum values).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 7 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that the identification of one calculational approach of an impulse does not transform a claim into one reciting an abstract concept without substantially more. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner has shown that the claim recites an abstract idea and that the claim does not recite substantially more than the abstract idea; thus, the claim should be rejected under 35 USC 101.
On pages 9-10 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that Freriks is not interested in the impulse associated with a urine stream. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes that Freriks is interested in both the force of the urine stream, the time duration of the urine stream, and a score value that is proportional to the force and the length of time of the force. One having ordinary skill in the art would understand that an impulse is a quantity based on the force and the time duration of the force; therefore the impulse is a quantity that is at least related to the score value of Freriks.
On page 11 of the Remarks, Applicant states that Baer does not recite the claimed controller. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Baer discloses the claimed controller as described in the rejection above.
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 JUSTIN N OLAMIT whose telephone number is (571)270-1969. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8 am - 5 pm (Pacific).
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, Stephen Meier can be reached at (571) 272-2149. 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.
/JUSTIN N OLAMIT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853