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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on 8/18/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Claims 1-23 are pending. Claims 2-19 and 22 are amended. Claim 24 is a new claim.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 07/24/2026, with respect to specification objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections of the specification are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 07/24/2026, with respect to claim rejections under 35 U.S.C 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive for Claim 6. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection for Claim 6 is withdrawn. However, the 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejection for Claim 17 stands as the Applicant has not addressed the antecedent issue of “the drive circuitry”. In addition, a new 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection is issued for Claims 1 and 23 in light of Applicant’s amendments.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 07/24/2026, with respect to claim rejections under 35 U.S.C 101 of Claim 23 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection for Claim 23 is withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 07/24/2026, with respect to claim rejections under 35 U.S.C 103 of Claims 1-3 and 7-23 have been fully considered and not persuasive. A new rejection under 35 U.S.C 103 is applied for Claim 24.
With regards to Claim 2, applicant argues that Lee does not disclose a dynamic selection of the number of samples as there is no recitation of selecting/adjusting the number of amplitudes during processing of the signal. Furthermore, Applicant argues that the selection of the number of samples should be done to minimize sample variance, which is only suggested by Lee via collecting multiple samples to form an average.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Lee does teach “the first number of samples is dynamically adjusted to minimize the first variance in the first number of samples” as in Para[0044] “Specifically, since sampling error is unavoidable, the amplitude d1 to the amplitude d5 may not be identical. For minimizing sample variance, the processor 10 can average the amplitude d1 to the amplitude d5 for generating an average amplitude a=Σt=15 d1/5” explicitly mentions the sample variance is minimized when the amplitudes are averaged. Later in Para[0044] Lee recites “However, the present invention is not limited to consider five amplitudes. For example, when Q is equal to 100, 8~10 full-waved sinusoidal waveforms can be obtained.”. Therefore, as Lee is able to adjust the number of sinusoidal waveforms based on Q, the number of samples is dynamically adjusted, and this adjustment directly reduces the sample variance in the averaging step in Lee.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 23 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 lines 11 and 16 and Claim 23 lines 9 and 14 recite “second number”, which should be “second numbers”
Claim 1 line 19, Claim 23 line 17, and Claim 24 line 10 recite “minimise”, which should be “minimize”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-3 and 7-23 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.
Claim 1 line 16 and Claim 23 line 14 recite “the first variance”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 17 line 2 recites “the drive circuitry”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims that depend on the above rejected claims under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(b).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Egorov ("Angular Molecular–Electronic Sensor with Negative Magnetohydrodynamic Feedback") in view of Oberlin (US 20060219575 A1) and Lee (US 20180088610 A1).
With respect to Claim 24, Egorov teaches:
Circuitry (see Fig. 1) for processing a response (See Introduction Para[0002] “Variations of the electrical current are the output of the transducer.”) from an electrochemical cell (see Fig. 1 components 2, 3, 4, and 5) to a stimulus (See Introduction Para[0002] “external mechanical signal”), the circuitry comprising: sense circuitry (See Introduction Para[0002] “signal conditioning electronics”) configured to measure the response of the electrochemical cell to the stimulus;
sample the measured response to obtain a plurality of samples (See equation 3, where the plurality of samples is interpreted as the samples within the sum over k); and
determine a first average signal (See Para[0008] of Part 3, where it recites “Ω(T) denotes the averaged value of the recorded sensor signal on the k-th part of the partition” where Ω(T) is interpreted as a first average signal, and k can include all the samples in the plurality of samples ) based on a first number of samples (See Para[0008] of Part 3, where it recites “k-th part of the partition, n denotes the number of parts of the partition”, and an interpretation of “a first number of samples” can be construed such that n is the entire sample size of the “recorded sensor signal”) of the plurality of samples; and
output the first average signal (See Equation 3, where Ω(T) serves as an input to calculate the Allan variance, thereby making it being outputted from elsewhere). However, Egorov is silent to the language of:
a processing circuitry and
wherein the first number of samples in the first average signal is selected to minimize a first variance in the first number of samples, and wherein the first number of samples is dynamically adjusted to minimize the first variance in the first number of samples Nevertheless Egorov teaches wherein the first number of samples in the first average signal is selected to minimize a first variance in the first number of samples (See Page 7 Para[0002]-[0003] “To calculate the Allan function, the signal recording is divided into a different number of parts characterized by the same averaging time T. The variation for each particular averaging time is determined by the formula:
σ
2
(
T
)
=
1
2
(
n
-
1
)
∑
Ω
k
+
1
T
-
Ω
k
T
,
Ω(T) denotes the averaged value of the recorded sensor signal on the k-th part of the partition, n denotes the number of parts of the partition. Also, the Allan variance based on the received recording has been constructed in Figure 11. The minimum of the Allan function is at the averaging time of 150s and equals 7 x 10-7 rad/s2.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Egorov wherein the first number of samples in the first average signal is selected to minimize a first variance in the first number of samples.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Egorov because Egorov minimizes with respect to the sampling time T. Egorov further teaches that T is related to n in Equation 3. Therefore, determining a first number of samples that minimizes a first variance would be no more than inverting Equation 3 and solve for n while inserting the value for the minimized sampling time T.
Furthermore, minimizing the variance in the number of samples would allow for straightforward determination of the optimal power consumption for the electrochemical cell.
In addition, Egorov is silent to the language of
a processing circuitry.
However, Oberlin teaches
a processing circuitry (See Figure 1 Controller 6 and Para[0036] “a computer-assisted control- and processing unit”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Egorov wherein a processing circuitry is used like in Oberlin in order to provide a structured device that can be configured to calculate the Allan variance (Examiner notes that Egorov does output the Allan variance in Figure 11, however Egorov is silent to the language of outputting that result using a processing circuitry. Nevertheless, a processing circuitry, which is taught in Oberlin via the controller 6, would be necessary for the calculation of the result of the Allan variance in Figure 11.)
Egorov and Oberlin are silent to the language of:
wherein the first number of samples is dynamically adjusted to minimize the first variance in the first number of samples.
Nevertheless, Lee teaches:
wherein the first number of samples is dynamically adjusted (See Para[0044] “Specifically, since sampling error is unavoidable, the amplitude d1 to the amplitude d5 may not be identical. For minimizing sample variance, the processor 10 can average the amplitude d1 to the amplitude d5 for generating an average amplitude a=Σt=15 d1/5.”) to minimize the first variance in the first number of samples.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Egorov and Oberlin wherein the first number of samples is dynamically adjusted to minimize the first variance in the first number of samples such as that of Lee.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Egorov and Oberlin, because Lee teaches a method to average the amplitudes of the sampling data to minimize sample variance, which in turn would allow for efficient determination of the optimal power consumption for the electrochemical cell.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 17, and 23 are rejected as containing 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejections for antecedent basis. Claims 2-3 and 7-22 are objected to as being based on a rejected based claim, but Claims 1-3 and 7-23 would be allowable by overcoming the 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejections for Claims 1, 17, and 23.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With regards to Claim 1 and 23, the prior art or any combination of prior art searched fails to teach the limitation of “in parallel to determining the first average signal, determine one or more second average signals based on one or more second numbers of samples of the plurality of samples, the first number of samples and the one or more second number of samples being different; and determine a respective second variance in each of the one or more second numbers of samples; wherein the first number of samples is selected from the first number of samples and the one or more second number of samples, the first variance being lower than each respective second variance.”
The prior art reference Egorov fails to disclose the above limitation because it recites one signal recording from which it determines the variance using the Allan function. The Allan function is obtained from consecutive averages of samples within a single signal recording, and Egorov uses the sampling time of these averages to determine the minimum of the Allan function. Nowhere in the prior art does it recite the need for a plurality of variances. Thus, this limitation is not anticipated by nor obvious in view of the prior art of record and to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 2-3 and 7-22 are indicated as having allowable subject matter due to their dependency of Claim 1.
Conclusion
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 MOSTOFA AHMED HISHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-8773. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:00 a.m. - 4 p.m. ET.
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, Catherine Rastovski can be reached at (571) 270-0349. 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.
/MOSTOFA AHMED HISHAM/Examiner, Art Unit 2857 /YOSHIHISA ISHIZUKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights