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
This application filed 0/03/2023 Claims Priority from Provisional Application 63413039 , filed 10/04/2022. The claims are therefore examined as filed on 10/04/2022, the effective filing date. In future actions, the effective filing date of one or more claims may change, due to amendments to the claims, or further review of the priority application(s).
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1-20 are examined.
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it does not include sufficient information describing the invention, as explained above. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Drawings
Color photographs and color drawings are not accepted in utility applications unless a petition filed under 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2) is granted. Any such petition must be accompanied by the appropriate fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h), one set of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system or three sets of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if not submitted via the via USPTO patent electronic filing system, and, unless already present, an amendment to include the following language as the first paragraph of the brief description of the drawings section of the specification:
The patent or application file contains at least one drawing executed in color (Fig 2B). Copies of this patent or patent application publication with color drawing(s) will be provided by the Office upon request and payment of the necessary fee.
Color photographs will be accepted if the conditions for accepting color drawings and black and white photographs have been satisfied. See 37 CFR 1.84(b)(2).
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 9 and 16 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 9 recites the limitation " wherein the one or more unknown analytes comprise a substance that is reactive with O2- in the ionic liquid (IL), a substance that has a different O2 diffusion coefficient relative to the ionic liquid (IL), or both.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as claim 1, from which this claim depends, does not mention “the ionic liquid.”
Claim 16 also recites the same limitation as claim 9 referring to “the ionic liquid”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as claim 10, from which this claim depends, also does not mention “the ionic liquid.”
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 of mental processes and mathematical concepts, without significantly more.
The MPEP at MPEP 2106 sets forth steps for identifying eligible subject matter:
(1) Are the claims directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
(2A)(1) Do the claims recite a judicially recognized exception, i.e. a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea?
(2A)(2) Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
(2B) If the claims recite a judicial exception and do not integrate the judicial exception, do the claims recite additional elements that provide an inventive concept and amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
With regard to step (1) (Are the claims directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?): Yes. The claims are directed to one of the statutory classes. Claims 1-9 are directed to a process (a method), claims 10-16 are directed to a machine product (an apparatus comprising processors and memory), and claims 17-20 are also directed to a product (a system comprising a sensor device and a computing device).
With regard to step (2A)(1) (Do the claims recite a judicially recognized exception?): Yes. The claims recite the abstract ideas of processing data using mental steps and mathematical concepts. Claims that recite nothing more than abstract ideas, natural phenomena, or laws of nature are not eligible for patent protection (see MPEP 2106.04).
Abstract ideas include mathematical concepts, (mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical relationships and mathematical calculations), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes (including procedures for collecting, observing, evaluating, and organizing information (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). In particular, these abstract ideas include but are not limited to:
Determining, based on the sensing data, a plurality of features associated with voltammograms, wherein the plurality of features are indicative of shapes or redox peaks associated with the one or more voltammograms (mental process; the human mind is capable of determining/selecting features representative of voltammogram data; claims 1, 9, 17)
Determining, based on the plurality of features, one or more linear discriminants associated with the one or more unknown analytes (mental process/mathematical concept; the human mind is capable of determining linear discriminants associated with analytes using linear discriminant analysis as described in the specification [0057] and doing so is equivalent to performing a calculation; claims 1, 9, 17)
Classifying, based on the one or more linear discriminants and one or more reference linear discriminants, the one or more unknown analytes, using a model configured to determine the one or more reference discriminants based on one or more known analytes (mental process/mathematical concept; the human mind is capable of classifying data using a mathematical model, and doing so is equivalent to performing a calculation; the specification describes the model as one of several algorithms including logistic regression or linear regression algorithms; claims 1, 9, 17)
Determining a linear diagram comprising the linear discriminants and reference linear discriminants (mental process/mathematical concept; the human mind is capable of determining/plotting a linear diagram, and representing mathematical relationships in a diagram is a mathematical process; claims 6-7, 13-14)
Determining one or more projected means of the one or more reference linear discriminants associated with the one or more known analytes (mental process/mathematical concept; the human mind is capable of determining a projected mean from data, and doing so is equivalent to performing a calculation; claim 8, 15, 19)
Determining, based on the one or more linear discriminants and the one or more projected means of the one or more reference linear discriminants, one or more projected distances indicative of how close the one or more unknown analytes are to the one or more known analytes; and determining, based on the one or more projected distances, the classification of the one or more unknown analytes (mental process/mathematical concept; the human mind is capable of determining a projected distance from data and classifying data based on the result, and doing so is equivalent to performing a calculation; claim 8, 15, 19)
Dependent claims 2-5, 9, 11-12, 16, 18, and 20 further limit the abstract ideas recited in the independent claims, and do not change their characterization as abstract ideas.
Therefore, the claims recite elements that constitute one or more judicial exceptions.
With regard to step (2A)(2) (Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?): No. Claims 1-9 recite the additional element of receiving data by a computing device, claims 10-16 recite the additional element of an apparatus comprising processors and memory for receiving data and performing the analysis steps, and claims 17-20 recite the additional elements of a system comprising a sensor device to acquire data and a computing device to receive the data and perform the analysis steps. The claims also recite the additional element of using a machine learning model for classifying the data in the analysis.
While the claims recite the additional element of receiving data and gathering data using a sensor, such steps that only amount to necessary data gathering , without any technical details of how the data is obtained that integrate the judicial exception, are insignificant extrasolution activities that do not add a meaningful limitation to the claims (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) and/or merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). As a result, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In addition, while the claims recite additional elements related to the use of computers, they do not provide any specific details by which the computing device, processor, memory, or apparatus/system performs or carries out the judicial exception listed in step (2A)(1), nor do they provide any details of how specific structures of the computer are used to implement these functions. The judicial exception is therefore not integrated into a practical application because the generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea, as they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). This also applies to the use of a machine learning model to process data, as a non-specific machine learning model, without recited physical structure outside of general computer components, is also analogous to implementing an abstract idea of data analysis on a computer. Because the claims do not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claims as a whole are directed to an abstract idea.
With regard to step (2B) (Do the claims recite additional elements that provide an inventive concept and amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?): No. The claims recite an abstract idea with additional elements; however, these additional elements are general computer elements added to abstract ideas, and non-particular instructions to apply the abstract idea by linking it to a field of use or extrasolution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(f-h)). General computer elements used to perform an abstract idea do not provide an inventive concept, and similarly, non-particular instructions to gather or produce data do not provide an inventive concept. Non-particular instructions to gather or output data are also considered well-understood, routine and conventional activities (see MPEP 2106.05(d), which indicates that limitations such as “Receiving or transmitting data over a network” from Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362, and “Storing and retrieving information in memory” from Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93, and are recognized as conventional activities). Further, the use of a sensor device in acquiring sensing data based on voltammetry as described in claim 17 is a well-known, routine and conventional (see REHMAN 2015, cited on the 892 form). The claims therefore do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As a result, the claims as a whole do not provide an inventive concept.
Claims Without an Art Rejection
No art rejection is applied to claims 1-20. Close art, for example VITO 2022, XUE 2021, and HOAR 2022 (as cited on the 892 form), while teaching machine learning/deep learning methods for analyzing voltammogram data, do not teach does not teach the limitations of determining one or more linear discriminants associated with the one or more unknown analytes based on redox peak or shapes features from a voltammogram; and using a machine learning model to classify the unknown analytes, based on the one or more linear discriminants and one or more reference linear discriminants. No combinable art before the effective filing date could be found to render the claims as obvious.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
VITO 2022 (GB 2601604 A) teaches VOC classification using a set of data features associated with known VOCs using a machine learning model
XUE 2021 “Deep Learning for Voltammetric Sensing in a Living Animal Brain” teaches a deep learning-based voltammetric sensing platform in which an autoencoder is used to predict the concentration of analytes
HOAR 2022 “Electrochemical Mechanistic Analysis from Cyclic Voltammograms Based on Deep Learning” teaches a deep-learning-based algorithm that automatically analyzes cyclic voltammograms and designates a probable electrochemical mechanism
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARY C LEVERETT whose telephone number is (571)272-5494. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am - 5:00pm M-Th.
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, Karlheinz R. Skowronek can be reached at (571) 272-9047. 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.
/MARY C LEVERETT/ Examiner, Art Unit 1687
