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 filing on 9/21/2023. Since the initial filing, no claims have been added, amended or cancelled. Thus, claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
[STEP 1]
In regards to claim 1, the claim is a system with components to do a method consisting of abstract ideas and is one of the four statutory categories.
[STEP 2A, Prong One]
The claim recites the following limitations that recite an abstract idea: identifying a grip technique being applied by a user to a face mask for sealingly engaging a face along a mask periphery around the nose and mouth, the system comprising: accessing pressure data indicative of a pressure distribution applied along the mask periphery, the pressure distribution being applied by the user for sealing the face mask on the face; comparing the pressure data with pressure distribution pattern data distinctive of different grip techniques; detecting which of the different grip techniques is being applied on the basis of an outcome of the comparing; and providing an indication of the grip technique detected to a user interface (judgment of evaluation which is grouped as a mental process under 2019 PEG). The above limitations are limited to a mental process that can be done by a person simply collection data regarding user actions, evaluating that data and making a determination based upon that evaluation.
[STEP 2A, Prong Two]
The claim recites the additional elements of a facemask, a user interface, processor and a non-transitory computer-readable medium. These additional elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because of the following: they are generic devices. The generic devices do not improve the function of the system of any other technology or technical field. The elements do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because there are no distinguishing elements of the device. Thus, for these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in the independent claim 1 is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
[STEP 2B]
The claim does not cite any additional structure that would make it significantly more than the judicial exception. The devices are described with a high degree of generality without any features or elements to distinguish over the conventional and well known device of the art as shown by Haas (US 2012/0240933: paragraph 13 and 25-26 and 35).
In regards to claims 2-18, these claims merely include limitations that either further defines the abstract idea or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they are merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter of affect how the process steps are performed.
While claims 13-15, 17 and 18 further recite additional elements (claim 13: pressure transducers; claim 14: a printed circuit board; claim 15: position sensor; claim 17: barometric and/or temperature sensor; claim 18: airflow sensor), these elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as they are generic devices that do not improve the function of the system of any other technology or technical field. The elements are described with a high degree of generality without any features or elements to distinguish over the conventional and well known device of the art as shown by Haas (US 2012/0240933: paragraph 32 and 33) and Duquette (US 2015/0007815: paragraph 183) and Miller (US 2015/0101600: paragraph 18 and 29) and Niklewski (US 2006/0042638: paragraph 130).
[STEP 1]
In regards to claim 19, the claim is a method consisting of abstract ideas and is one of the four statutory categories.
[STEP 2A, Prong One]
Claim 19 recites the following limitations that recite an abstract idea: identifying a grip technique being applied to a face mask by a user for sealingly engaging a face along a periphery around the nose and mouth, the method comprising: comparing pressure data indicative of a pressure distribution applied by the user along the periphery for sealing the face mask on the face, with distribution patterns distinctive of different grip techniques; detecting which of the grip techniques is being applied on the basis of an outcome of the comparing; and providing an indication of the detected grip technique to a user interface (judgment of evaluation which is grouped as a mental process under 2019 PEG). The above limitations are limited to a mental process that can be done by a person simply collection data regarding user actions, evaluating that data and making a determination based upon that evaluation.
[STEP 2A, Prong Two]
The claim recites the additional elements of a of a facemask and a user interface. These additional elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because of the following: they are generic devices. The generic devices do not improve the function of the system of any other technology or technical field. The elements do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because there are no distinguishing elements of the device. Thus, for these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in the independent claim 1 is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
[STEP 2B]
The claim does not cite any additional structure that would make it significantly more than the judicial exception. The devices are described with a high degree of generality without any features or elements to distinguish over the conventional and well known device of the art as shown by Haas (US 2012/0240933; paragraph 13 and 26).
[STEP 1]
In regards to claim 20, the claim is a device with components to do a method consisting of abstract ideas and is one of the four statutory categories.
[STEP 2A, Prong One]
Claim 20 recites the following limitations that recite an abstract idea: identifying a grip technique being applied to a face mask by a user for sealingly engaging a face along a perimeter around the nose and mouth, causing one or more processors to: compare pressure data indicative of a pressure distribution applied by the user along the periphery with distribution patterns distinctive of different grip techniques; detecting which of the grip techniques is being applied on the basis of an outcome of the comparing; and provide an indication of the detected grip technique to a user interface.
[STEP 2A, Prong Two]
The claim recites the additional element of a facemask, a user interface and at least one processor. These additional elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because of the following: they are generic devices. The generic devices do not improve the function of the system of any other technology or technical field. The elements do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because there are no distinguishing elements of the device. Thus, for these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in the independent claim 1 is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
[STEP 2B]
The claim does not cite any additional structure that would make it significantly more than the judicial exception. The devices are described with a high degree of generality without any features or elements to distinguish over the conventional and well known device of the art as shown by Haas (US 2012/0240933; paragraph 13 and 26 and 35).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Arielle Wolff whose telephone number is (571)272-8727. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-4:00.
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, Kendra Carter can be reached at (571) 272-9034. 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.
/ARIELLE WOLFF/ Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/KENDRA D CARTER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights