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 Interpretation
Content of Specification
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS: See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP § 608.01(m). The claim or claims must commence on a separate sheet or electronic page (37 CFR 1.52(b)(3)). Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation. There may be plural indentations to further segregate subcombinations or related steps. See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP 608.01(i)-(p).
The claimed invention is defined by the positively claimed elements, the structural elements listed on separate indented lines listed in the body of the claim after the transitional phrase, “comprising”.
A claim is only limited by positively claimed elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims”. MPEP 2115 Material or Article Worked Upon by Apparatus.
It is noted that the invention of claims 1-11 is directed to an electronic monitoring system (an apparatus). Although the claims mention a finger, hand, pipette, glove, machine learning model, liquid, moisture, touch objects, and volume. However, none of the prior are positively claimed as structural elements of the claimed invention. All of such are considered as materials and/or articles that are intended to be, can be used with, and/or worked upon by the invention. Furthermore, although not positively claimed as an element of the invention, it is noted that all fingers and hands (skin) and gloves are not the same (have the same properties). Skin/flesh (of individual subjects, persons, animals, etc.) can be different and gloves can be manufactured from different materials. It is noted that the capacitive sense array will not only respond to, sense a finger or hand, but will respond to any object/materials that contacts such and changes a capacitance of such sense array.
As noted above, the claims are directed to an apparatus defined by the positively claimed structural elements. There is no requirement for the apparatus to be used with any of the unclaimed materials and articles in any method of all to perform any process steps, including, but not limited to: sensing, obtaining any signals, generating images, processing, controlling any functions, enabling/disabling liquid pumping, touching, applying a digital signal/image method and machine learning model; monitoring; assisting, overriding, clearing, resetting, detecting, nor any other actions/process steps.
It is noted that the term “or” provides for alternatives, not requirements.
It is noted that the term plurality and nouns ending in “s” only requires two.
It is noted that the various “configured to…”; “to…”; “by…”; “so that…” and other similar clauses do not provide for any further structural elements of the invention, but are directed to intended use.
It is noted that the electronic system of claim 1 is minimally structurally defined as comprising a capacitive sense array, and a processing device (not defined as being any specific structure) coupled to the capacitive sense array; wherein the capacitive sense array comprises a plurality of electrodes (2 electrodes).
It is noted that the term “if” such as in claim 2 is directed to conditions that are never required to occur. No bare skinned hand nor hand in a glove is ever required to touch the unclaimed pipette (not an element of the invention, the electronic system).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the electronic switch (as recited in claim 11) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-12 are objected to because of the following informalities: the e claims are not drafted in accordance to US practices, such that each of the claimed elements are listed in the body of the claims after the transitional phrase on separate intended lines. Furthermore, claim 10 includes excessive spacing in line 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: There is no description of “a plurality of sense electrodes that are configured to obtain a plurality of capacitive sense signals by scanning the capacitive sense array, and generate a single or a plurality of images of the capacitive sense array” because the sense electrodes are (define) the capacitive sense array. Therefore, the electrodes do not have the ability to scan themselves nor generate any images of themselves. The claim is not consistent with the specification.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: because the reference numeral “200” designates both the electronic system and the pipette. See for example, paragraph 0031 of the specification.
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 1-12 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.
As to claim 1, it is unclear what is the nexus of “a capacitive sense array” in line 3 to the previously recited “a single or a plurality of capacitive sense arrays” because it is unclear if the “a capacitive sense array” is the same as the single capacitive sense array, one of the plurality of capacitive sense arrays, or different from both of such because the claim does not clearly provide for such. Furthermore, it is unclear which/what capacitive sense array is being referenced by the phrase, “the capacitive sense array” because the claim previously recites “a single or a plurality of capacitive sense arrays”.
It is unclear what is structurally required by the phrase “a plurality of sense electrodes that are configured to obtain a plurality of capacitive sense signals by scanning the capacitive sense array, and generate a single or a plurality of images of the capacitive sense array” because the sense electrodes (only requires 2 electrodes) are (define) the capacitive sense array. Therefore, the electrodes do not have the ability to scan themselves nor generate any images of themselves. The claim is not consistent with the specification. There is no description of any electrodes being structurally capable of that as recited in the phrase. Furthermore, it is noted that the examiner fails to locate any description of any device/structure that can provide for any “scanning” (optical; that can generate any images).
Although not structural elements, it is unclear what/which capacitive signals are being referenced by “the capacitive sense signals” and what/which images are being referenced by “the….images” in claims 1 and because claim 1 previously recites “a plurality of capacitive sense signals” and “a single or a plurality of images of the capacitive sense array”.
As to claims 1, 6-7, and 11, it is unclear what/which “processing device” is being referenced by “the processing device” because claim 1 previously recites a single or a plurality of processing devices.
Claim 1 recites the limitations "the functions of the pipette" and “the information obtained from the capacitive sense signals and images” in the last 2 lines. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. The pipette is not an element of the invention and does not structurally define the electronic system. However, there is no prior mention of an any functions (also not structure) of the pipette. Information is also not structure and there is no prior mention of any information being obtained by anyone/nor anything from any capacitive sense signals and images of anything. Reference to any of the prior does not structurally define the system.
Claims 2-12 are rejected via dependency upon a rejected claim.
It is unclear what is further structurally required by claims 2-5 and 7-8 because the claims do not provide for any further structural elements of the electronic system nor any further structure of any positively claimed element of claim 1. The claims are directed intended, possible use of the entire invention relative to the unclaimed pipette and a hand, glove, and performing process, process steps related to prior and further broad undefined digital signal/image method, machine learning model, digital signal/image processing method (also undefined). Although the claims are directed to an apparatus there is no indication as to what steps define such methods and machine learning model and who and/or what performs such because the claims do not recite such.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the pumping functions of the pipette" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Furthermore, it is unclear what/which pumping function is being referenced by “the pumping function of the pipette” in the last 2 lines (also applicable to claims 3 and 11) because claim 1 previously recites “liquid pumping function” and claim 2 previously recites "the pumping functions of the pipette". Although no functions of the unclaimed pipette are structural elements of the invention, it is unclear what is nexus of the various functions recited in the claims. If such are the same, then consistent terminology should be employed throughout the claims to clearly indicate such.
As to claims 3-4 and 8, although not structure, it is unclear which/what capacitive sense signal is being referenced by “the capacitive sense signal” because claim 1 previously recites “a plurality of capacitive sense signals”.
As to claims 4-5, in addition to the above applicable rejections, it is noted that “a touch state parameter of the pipette” (motion parameter, nor any other parameters), a digital signal/image method, and machine learning model are not structures and are not structural elements of the electronic system.
Claim 5 recites the limitations "the touch state parameters"; “the touch”; “the positions of the touch”; “the touched objects”; “the operation settings of the pipette”; and “the volume”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Furthermore, it is unclear what is further structurally required by the last “wherein” clause because motion parameters are not structures, no required to be “interpreted” and “recognized as gestures” by anyone nor anything. As noted above the claims are directed to an apparatus defined by positively claimed structural elements, not a process that requires interpreting and recognizing any “gestures”, configuring of any “operation settings” of an unclaimed pipette, nor any other process steps. However, the phrase “decreasing the volume by certain amount” appears to be grammatically incorrect.
As to claim 6, it is unclear what/which machine learning module is being referenced by “the machine learning module” because the claim previously recites “a single or multiple machine learning models”.
Claim 6 contains the trademark/trade name Support Vector. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe computer software, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
As to claim 7, in addition to the above applicable rejections, it is unclear how the electronic system can be defined as comprising “a calibration process” and what such process (and digital signal/image processing” and “a machine learning model”) is “applied” to because a process and process steps are not structures. However, it is unclear what steps define such calibration process because the claim does not provide for such. It is further unclear what defines “digital signal/image processing” and “a machine learning model” because such are defined in the claim. Also applicable to claim 8.
Furthermore, it is unclear what is required of a processing device to be considered “another separate” processing device and what is the structural nexus of “another separate processing device” to the electronic system and the previously recited “single or plurality of processing devices” because the claim does not provide for such.
As to claim 8, a signal is not structures. Furthermore, it is unclear how a signal can comprise a plurality of subsequent images. However it is unclear what images of what is being referenced and what is required of images to be considered as “subsequent” because the claim does not provide for such. Furthermore, it is unclear what images of what is being referenced by “some of the images that precede before others” because claim 1 also recites “a single or a plurality of images….”. It is further unclear what is meant/required by “precede before others” because it is unclear what how any images precede before any “others” (unclear what others of what is being referenced” of anything because the claim does not clearly recite such.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the results" in the next-to-last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. No results of anything are required to be obtained nor used to improve any touch monitoring process that is not defined nor required to be performed. The term “improve” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “improve” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. There is no relative basis provided for in the claim as what is considered as an “improvement” of an undefined touch monitoring process.
As to claim 9, it is unclear what is the structure a nexus of the hardware, firmware, and software to prior positively claimed structural elements of claim 1 because the claim does not provide for such. Furthermore, although no unspecified, undefined operation of any unclaimed pipette is required to be performed, it is unclear what is required to be done to be considered as “assisting” such an operation because the claim does not provide for such. Furthermore, it is noted that software encompasses firmware.
As to claim 10, it is unclear how the electronic system can comprise a button of an unclaimed pipette, but the electronic system does not comprise the pipette.
The term “normal uses” in claim 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “normal uses” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Although no pipette (not claimed as an element of the electronic system) is ever required to be used to do anything, it is unclear what is required of a “use” of a pipette to be considered as “normal”. Uses that may be considered as “normal” to one person may be considered as such to another and vice versa.
Although claim 12 depends upon claim 1, it is unclear how the claim further structurally limits the invention of claim 1 because the claim does not provide for any further structure of the electronic system. Instead, the claim renames the electronic system defined by the positively claimed elements of claim 1 as a pipette. It is unclear how the electronic system alone can define a pipette. A pipette cannot be defined only by the electronic system. There are no structures provided for in the claim that would provide for what is conventionally known in the art to be considered as a “pipette”. There is no structural difference between that positively claimed elements of claim 1 and that of claim 12.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-9 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1),(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chen, US 2018/0364837.
Chen discloses an electrical touch-sensing system comprising a capacitive sense array 125 that includes rows and columns of electrodes can be configured as TX or RX electrodes by the capacitance sensing circuit 101 (a plurality of electrodes). When a touch object, such as a finger or stylus, approaches the capacitive sense array 125, the object causes a decrease in mutual capacitance between some of the TX/RX electrodes;
and processing device 110 electrically coupled to the sense electrodes. The processing device 110 can detect conductive objects, such as touch objects 140 (fingers or passive styluses, an active stylus 130, or any combination thereof). The capacitance sensing circuit 101 can measure touch data created by a touch using the capacitive sense array 125. The processing device 110 is a microcontroller that obtains a capacitance touch signal data set from an application processor 150, such as from the capacitive sense array 125, and finger detection firmware (claim 9). (Abstract, paragraphs 0026, 07, 18-37+; Figuresn1-7; and claims).
Capacitive sense elements may be used to replace mechanical buttons, knobs, and other similar mechanical user interface controls. The use of a capacitive sense element allows for the elimination of complicated mechanical switches and buttons, providing reliable operation under harsh conditions. (paragraphs 0003, 26, 33).
As to the claims 2-8 and 12 that do not provide for any further structural elements of the electronic system, see claim interpretations and 112 rejections above.
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.
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(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, US 2018/0364837 as applied to claims 1-9 and 12 above, and further in view of McLoughlin; Martin John et al. US 2017/0000955.
Chen does not specify that the electronic system of claim 1 comprises a button/electronic switch of a pipette.
The Applicant is advised that the Supreme Court recently clarified that a claim can be proved obvious merely by showing that the combination of known elements was obvious to try. In this regard, the Supreme Court explained that, “[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill in the art has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.” An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of the case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. Furthermore, the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 Sup. Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143).
Common sense, predictability, knowledge, and skill of one of ordinary skill in the art may suffice to establish obviousness.
McLoughlin discloses an autoinjector comprising syringe 10 (pipette) capacitive touch sense controller (e.g. skin sensor) including electrodes and an ‘inject’ button (electric switch) such initiation of the injection may be configured to occur automatically. (paragraph 0444).
It would have been obvious to and with the common sense, knowledge, and skill of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to recognize that an electronic touch system maybe incorporated within a pipette including a button (an electronic switch) to provide for operation of the pipette by touching as taught by McLoughlin as such would yield predictable results.
Conclusion wit
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN R GORDON whose telephone number is (571)272-1258. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8-5:30pm; off every other Friday..
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, Charles Capozzi can be reached at 571-270-3638. 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.
/BRIAN R GORDON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights