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 .
This action is in response to the communication filed 10/27/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/27/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to applicant’s arguments on pages 6-9 directed towards the previous 101 rejections,
Step 2A, Prong One: Applicant notes the prior memo issued by the Office and argues that claim 1 merely involves a mathematical operation but does not recite a mathematical concept. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Examiner acknowledges that there is a distinction between a claim feature that recites a mathematical concept as opposed to one that merely involves a mathematical concept, MPEP 2106,05(a)(2)(c) explains that “A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word "calculating" in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of "determining" a variable or number using mathematical methods or "performing" a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation” (emphasis added).
Applicant’s claim is expressly reciting the term “calculating,” and a calculation is reasonably a mathematical calculation. In fact, the very term “calculate” is defined to mean “To ascertain by computation” per https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=calculate. As best understood, when applicant claims a “calculation,” this phrase is intended to mean an actual mathematical operation, in light of the disclosure. As such, whether under a broadest reasonable interpretation or the plain and ordinary meaning of the term, applicant’s claim is expressly claiming a mathematical concept.
Similarly, applicant also claims a determination step in Claim 1, and as best understood, this determination of whether a person is or not present is being done by way of mathematical computation. Paragraph [0028] expressly discloses that such a feature is done via an algorithm. An algorithm is a set of mathematical instructions to perform a mathematical operation. At a minimum, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, the determination is a mathematical operation, where by a computation is made by a digital device to determine whether or not a person is present.
Applicant argues that the steps noted form the claim inherently involve arithmetic, but do not set forth any specific mathematical formula equation, or relationship. However, the Examiner respectfully notes that, as seen in the above noted MPEP section, the claims need not recite any specific equation as argued. Instead, the test is whether the feature at issue, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, is itself a mathematical operation, or merely involves such an operation. Here, both under a plain and ordinary meaning interpretation or in light of the disclosure, when applicant claims calculating and determining, these phrases are mathematical operations that when executed achieve the claim features. The distinction because being directed towards a mathematical operation and a use thereof is whether additional steps beyond the inherent calculations noted by applicant are required that would not be considered mathematical. For example, training an AI may require mathematical calculations, but the actual training goes beyond that by adjusting other factors as part of the training. In the instant case, no additional factors are present, as the calculation and determination steps are themselves solely directed towards mathematical operations. As such, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Step 2A, Prong Two:
Under this section, as best understood, applicant’s arguments are directed towards whether the claim provides the type of technological improvement necessary to not be considered abstract. To that point, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As explained in MPEP 2106.04(d)(1), “Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement.”
To that point, the above MPEP section explains that in order to establish that what would otherwise be considered an abstract idea is in fact a technological improvement such that it is not abstract, either the specification must describe the improvement or such an improvement must be reasonably apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. To that point, the Examiner respectfully notes that applicant does not reasonably identify any section of the disclosure itself that includes the type of improvement argued by applicant.
Second, even to the extent that such an improvement is either apparent or discussed, the claims are required to sufficiently reflect that improvement. Meaning, the claims cannot recite mere aspects of the improvement or broadly recite the improvement such that the claims do not reasonably capture that improvement. Instead, the claim itself must reasonably recite and capture the improvement such that the improvement itself is being claimed. In the instant case, the claims to not reasonably recite an improvement, as the claims merely recite well-known components and the computation of a capacitance value, and the use of the computation to determine whether a person is or is not present. Such a claim feature as claimed would not reasonably capture an improvement in the functioning of the sensor as argued. In fact, paragraph [0044] of the original disclosure ties the “high accuracy” of detection to many features from the prior paragraphs, many of which are not claimed. As such, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Furthermore, the Examiner respectfully notes that what applicant is claiming is disclosed by the prior art (Shigetaka (US 2021/0178605)). While the disclosure may disclose a more specific manner of implementing the argued feature, as currently claimed, what applicant is now claiming is that a change is calculated based upon a current and prior measured value for capacitance. However, the only reasonable way any “change” in capacitance can be identified is to reference the current capacitance to a prior measured capacitance. As such, the mere disclosure of detecting a change in capacitance must inherently disclosed the argued and now claimed feature, as any “change” in capacitance can only be between two values of capacitance, one current, and one prior. As such, the examiner respectfully notes that the argued “improvement” is reasonably disclosed by the prior art, and therefore is not reasonably an improvement.
With regard to the arguments on pages 9-12 directed towards the previous 112(a) and (b) rejections,
The previous rejections are withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendment and arguments.
With regard to the arguments on pages 12-14 directed towards the prior art rejections,
Applicant argues that Shigetaka (US 2021/0178605) discloses a fundamentally different process from the process now recited in the claims. Applicant does not provide any specific argument as to why Shigetaka fails to disclose the newly recited claim features. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Shigetaka reasonably discloses the claim, because the only reasonable way that it can be identified that a change in the capacitance has occurred, upon calculation of that change, is to reference the current measured capacitance to a prior measured capacitance. This can be seen in Figures 6 and 7 for example. Without referencing the current measured capacitance to a period measured capacitance, a person of ordinary skill would not be able to identify that any change occurred. As such, what applicant is claiming must be disclosed by the prior art, and the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Claim Objections
Claims 5, 6, 15, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
As to Claims 5, 6, 15, and 16,
The term “cupper” on lines 2 of Claims 5, 6, and 15 and line 1 of Claim 16 contains a typographical issue. As best understood, applicant intends this term to be “copper” as the specification describes the foil tape as a copper foil tape, not a cupper foil tape. As such, this term stands objected to for containing a typographical issue, and it is presumed that applicant means “copper.”
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 1-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s):
As to Claims 1, 11, and 20,
In Claim 1, a detection device which is therefore directed towards an apparatus (Step 1).
This claim further recites “each time the capacitance value is measured, calculate a capacitance value change between the measured capacitance value and a previously-measured capacitance value, determine whether the person is near the target object based on the cumulative amount” on lines 8-9 which amounts to a mathematical concept (mathematical calculation) which has been held to be abstract (Step 2A, Prong One). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because while applicant does later recite that “upon determining that there is a person near the target object, issue a first signal indicating that there is a person near the target object,” such a feature is merely outputting a signal, and the mere outputting of a signal, such as for the purpose of display, has been held to be insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g) and Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). No practical application of the abstract idea is recited (Step 2A, Prong Two).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the only other elements in the claim are “an electrode installed proximate to the target object, a capacitive sensing circuit connected to the electrode an capable of sensing capacitive changes on the electrode, in a particular period, repeatedly measure a capacitance value through the electrode” on lines 3-7. However, these additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because they 1) are necessary data gathering features needed to implement the abstract idea and thus directed towards mere data gathering, and 2) because such features were conventional, as best understood. For example, US 2021/0178605 discloses a capacitive sensing circuit and electrode installed proximate a target object as claimed in paragraph [0019], and further explains that such types of devices are conventional in paragraph [0003]. This claim is therefore directed towards an abstract idea without reciting significantly more, and therefore stands rejected as being directed towards a judicial exception.
In Claim 11, while this claim is a method claim, this claim recites the same claim features as already addressed in above Claim 1, and thus this claim also raises an issue under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same reasons.
In Claim 20, this claim recites the same claim features as already addressed in above Claim 1, and thus this claim also raises an issue under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same reasons. This claim does add a “computer,” but such a computer is not positively recited or required in the claim, and such a recitation does not reasonably overcome the above noted issues because a general purpose computer has been held to recite insignificant extra-solution activity, and applicant’s computer is not claimed to be anything more than a generic purpose computer that has an intended function of executing a function (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)). Also note that the use of such a computer is also reasonably demonstrated to be conventional in US 2021/0178605 (see paragraphs [0003] including the cited reference as well as paragraph [0034] / note microprocessor).
As to Claims 2 and 12,
These claims recite more determination claim features, and a determination, in light of the disclosure, is a mathematical calculation and thus directed towards an abstract idea. These claims therefore do not reasonably recite significantly more than the abstract idea and also stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for being directed towards an abstract idea.
As to Claims 3 and 13,
These claims recite a determination feature, which, as explained above, is a mathematical calculation and thus direction towards an abstract idea. These claims further recite the outputting of a second signal, but similar to that noted in the above rejection of Claims 1 and 11, the mere outputting of a signal has been held to be insufficient extra-solution activity, and therefore these claims also stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for being directed towards an abstract idea.
As to Claim 4,
This claim recites a wireless communication interface, wherein the sensing circuit is configured to control the wireless communication interface to transmit the first signal to an external device, but such a feature does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because it is conventional and therefore directed towards insufficient extra-solution activity. See for example paragraph [0003] of Bachrany et al. (Bachrany) (US 2020/0285295) and paragraphs [0041]-[0043] of Ganton et al. (Ganton) (US 2015/0292856).
As to Claims 5 and 15,
These claims recite the electrode is formed of a copper foil tape, but such a feature does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because it is conventional and therefore directed towards insufficient extra-solution activity. See for example paragraphs [0026],[0027] / note copper metal film which is reasonably a copper foil tape) of Shigetaka (US 2021/0178605) and paragraph [0038] of Sleeman et al. (Sleeman) (US 2018/0157353).
As to Claims 6 and 16,
These claims recite an insulating tape on the copper foil tape and the cupper foil tape is covered by an insulating tape, but such a feature does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because it is conventional and therefore directed towards insufficient extra-solution activity. See for example paragraphs [0024],[0027] / note copper metal film which is reasonably a copper foil tape) of Shigetaka (US 2021/0178605) and paragraph [0038] of Sleeman et al. (Sleeman) (US 2018/0157353).
As to Claim ,
These claims recite an adhesive is applied to a surface of the insulating tape, but such a feature does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because it is conventional and therefore directed towards insufficient extra-solution activity. See for example paragraph [0027] of Shigetaka (US 2021/0178605) and paragraph [0038] (noted bonded) of Sleeman et al. (Sleeman) (US 2018/0157353).
As to Claims 8, 9, 18, and 19,
These claims recite the sensing circuit is configured to enter a sleep state after issuing the first signal, the sensing circuit is configured to exit the sleep state after a particular time elapses from when it entered the sleep state, but such a feature does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because it is conventional and therefore directed towards insufficient extra-solution activity. See for example paragraphs [0057],[0058] of Bachrany et al. (Bachrany) (US 2020/0285295) and paragraph [0062] of Ganton et al. (Ganton) (US 2015/0292856).
As to Claim 10,
This claim recites a housing in which the sensing circuit is stored and having a side surface from which the electrode extends toward a first direction, but such a feature does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because it is conventional and therefore directed towards insufficient extra-solution activity. See for example Figure 1 and paragraphs [0020],[0021],[0022] / note the sensor processor is reasonably in a housing which is attached to the unitary dielectric body including the electrode) of Gifford et al. (Gifford) (US 2004/0178924) and Figures 3A,3B and paragraphs [0046],[0047] of Bachrany et al. (Bachrany) (US 2020/0285295).
As to Claim 14,
This claim recites “transmitting the first signal to an external device,” but where the mere transmitting or outputting of a signal has been held to not amount of significantly more than the abstract idea as it is directed to insufficient extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g) and Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
As to Claims 2-10, 12-16, 18, and 19,
These claims stand rejected for incorporating and reciting the above rejected subject matter of their respective parent claim(s) and therefore stand rejected for the same reasons.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shigetaka (US 2021/0178605).
As to Claims 1, 11, and 20,
Shigetaka discloses an electrode (302 of sensor 11) installed proximate to the target object (robot) (Paragraphs [0019],[0022]), (Figure 2); and a capacitive sensing circuit (12) connected to the electrode and capable of sensing capacitive changes on the electrode (Figures 1,2), (Paragraphs [0019],[0034]), wherein the capacitive sensing circuit is configured to: in a particular period, repeatedly measure a capacitance value through the electrode (Paragraphs [0019],[0034]), (Figures 6,7 / note each obtain value requires a measurement), each time the capacitance value is measured, calculate a capacitance value change between the measured capacitance value and a previously-measured capacitance value (Paragraphs [0019],[0034] / note that this is a property of the system because the only way to detect that a change has occurred in any measured value is to reference it to a prior value), calculate a cumulative amount of the capacitance value changes in the particular period (Paragraphs [0019],[0034] / note the detection of the change in capacitance is the cumulative amount), determine the person is near the target object based on the cumulative amount (Paragraph [0019] / note the detection of a person when the change exceeds a threshold), and upon determining that the person is near the target object, issue a first signal indicating that the person is near the target object (Paragraph [0019] / note the detection result from detection circuit 12 is output to the robot control device 30)), and that the capacitive sensor circuit (12) is a reasonably implemented by a computer running a program in memory (Paragraph [0034] / note microprocessor).
As to Claims 2 and 12,
Shigetaka discloses the sensing circuit is configured to: determine whether the cumulative amount is greater than or equal to a threshold value (Paragraph [0019]), and determine that the person is near the target object when the cumulative amount is greater than the threshold value (Paragraph [0019]).
As to Claims 3 and 13,
Shigetaka discloses the sensing circuit is configured to, upon determining that the person is not near the target object, issue a second signal indicating that the person is not near the target object (Paragraph [0019] / note that the detection result is output, and this result will either be a first signal indicating a person is present, or a second signal indicating no person is detected).
As to Claims 5 and 15,
Shigetaka discloses the electrode is formed of a copper foil tape (Paragraphs [0026],[0027] / note copper metal film which is reasonably a copper foil tape), (Figures 2,3).
As to Claims 6 and 16,
Shigetaka discloses an insulating tape (any of 301,303,305) on the copper foil tape (Figure 3), (Paragraphs [0024],[0027]), the cupper foil tape is covered by an insulating tape (Figure 3), (Paragraphs [0024],[0027]).
As to Claim 7,
Shigetaka discloses an adhesive is applied to a surface of the insulating tape (Paragraph [0027]).
As to Claim 14,
Shigetaka discloses transmitting the first signal to an external device (30) (Figure 5), (Paragraph [0019]).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 4, 8, 9, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shigetaka (US 2021/0178605) in view of Bachrany et al. (Bachrany) (US 2020/0285295).
As to Claim 4,
Shigetaka does not disclose a wireless communication interface, wherein the sensing circuit is configured to control the wireless communication interface to transmit the first signal to an external device.
Bachrany discloses a wireless communication interface, wherein the sensing circuit is configured to control the wireless communication interface to transmit the first signal to an external device (Paragraphs [0003],[0015] / note the interface is the 802.15.4 / radio circuit interface).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Shigetaka to include a wireless communication interface, wherein the sensing circuit is configured to control the wireless communication interface to transmit the first signal to an external device as taught by Bachrany in order to advantageously eliminate the need for wires and thus allow the sensing circuit to communicate any detection result over longer distances without worry that any wires may get tangled, damaged, or otherwise limit the range or ability to communicate the detection results.
As to Claims 8, 9, 18, and 19,
Shigetaka does not disclose the sensing circuit is configured to enter a sleep state after issuing the first signal, the sensing circuit is configured to exit the sleep state after a particular time elapses from when it entered the sleep state.
Bachrany discloses the sensing circuit is configured to enter a sleep state after issuing the first signal, the sensing circuit is configured to exit the sleep state after a particular time elapses from when it entered the sleep state (Paragraphs [0057],[0058]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Shigetaka to include the sensing circuit is configured to enter a sleep state after issuing the first signal, the sensing circuit is configured to exit the sleep state after a particular time elapses from when it entered the sleep state as taught by Bachrany in order to advantageously maintain battery life (Paragraph [0057]) while also eliminating the need for power cables that can limit the range of movement of the robot.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shigetaka (US 2021/0178605) in view of Gifford et al. (Gifford) (US 2004/0178924).
As to Claim 10,
Shigetaka does not disclose a housing in which the sensing circuit is stored and having a side surface from which the electrode extends toward a first direction.
Gifford discloses a housing in which the sensing circuit (sensor processor) is stored and having a side surface from which the electrode (102) extends toward a first direction (an extending direction away from 114) (Figure 1), (Paragraphs [0020],[0021],[0022] / note the sensor processor is reasonably in a housing which is attached to the unitary dielectric body including the electrode).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Shigetaka to include a housing in which the sensing circuit is stored and having a side surface from which the electrode extends toward a first direction as taught by Gifford in order to advantageously protect the sensing circuit from damage from the external environment while also forming a unitary device that contains all necessary components for capacitive presence detection in a single a compact configuration.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2014/0368222 to Curtis which discloses a comparison of changes in capacitance values of a capacitive sensor when an object is in proximity thereto.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 DAVID M. SCHINDLER whose telephone number is (571)272-2112. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-4:30pm.
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, Lee Rodak can be reached at 571-270-5628. 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.
DAVID M. SCHINDLER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2858
/DAVID M SCHINDLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858