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 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 and 3-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Per step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test (See MPEP 2106), claim 1 is directed to method, which is a process and falls within a statutory category (See MPEP 2106.03).
Per step 2A, prong 1, claim 1 recites a step S1: reading a predetermined sampling range, taking a minimum value of the predetermined sampling range as a minimum value of an actual sampling range, and taking a maximum value of the predetermined sampling range as a maximum value of the actual sampling range; a step S3: outputting an actual sampling value according to a comparison result between the analog sampling value and the actual sampling range; wherein the step S3 comprises comparing the analog sampling value with the maximum value and the minimum value of the actual sampling range respectively; if the analog sampling value is within the actual sampling range, taking the analog sampling value as a sampling output value; if the analog sampling value is less than the minimum value of the actual sampling range, taking the minimum value of the actual sampling range as the sampling output value; and if the analog sampling value is greater than the maximum value of the actual sampling range, taking the maximum value of the actual sampling range as the sampling output value; a step S4: adjusting the actual sampling range according to the comparison result between the analog sampling value and the actual sampling range; and a step S5: returning to execute the step S2. The claims requiring comparing a sampled value to a predetermined range to determine a sampling value for output and to adjust the actual sampling range. The comparison of values to a range is activity that can be performed in the human mind and describe mathematical relationships and therefore, the claims fall into the mental processes grouping and the mathematical concepts grouping (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsections I, III).
The additional elements are a processor and a step S2: sampling an output of the analog sensor to obtain an analog sampling value.
Per step 2A, prong 2, The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because sampling an output is insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The recitation of a processor amounts to instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). When considered in combination, the additional elements do not provide anything further.
Per step 2B, claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reason. Further, sampling a sensor or collecting data for use in a abstract idea in various ways has been recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine and conventional (See MPEP 2106.05(d)).
Claims 3-5 and 8 depend from claim 1 and do not recite any further additional elements. Claims 3-5 and 8 only recite further details of the abstract idea and therefore, claims 3-5 and 8 are rejected for the same reason.
Claims 6 and 7 specify further details of the analog sensor. As discussed above, the collecting data in various ways has been recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine and conventional (See MPEP 2106.05(d)).
Claims 9 recites a processor, a memory and an analog sensor sampling device. The analog sensor sampling device is used to collect data which is insignificant extra-solution activity as discussed above. The recitation of the processor and memory amount to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer, which amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). When considered in combination, the processor, memory and data collection limitations provide a generic computer that can collect data and neither individually nor in combination integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 10 recites a computer readable medium. The computer readable medium, similar to the processor and memory in claim 9, amounts to instructions to apply the abstract idea. Claim 10 is rejected for the same reason.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent Application Publication 2017/0242539 to Mani (Mani).
Claim 1
With regard to a step S1: reading a predetermined sampling range, taking a minimum value of the predetermined sampling range as a minimum value of an actual sampling range, and taking a maximum value of the predetermined sampling range as a maximum value of the actual sampling range; Mani teaches comparing to initial or default upper and lower thresholds, which corresponds to a range (par. 54).
With regard to a step S2: sampling an output of the analog sensor to obtain an analog sampling value; Mani teaches sampling a force sensor (Fig. 2, force sensor layer 230; pars. 43, 44; Fig. 3, steps 300, 310; pars. 47-53).
With regard to a step S3: outputting an actual sampling value according to a comparison result between the analog sampling value and the actual sampling range; Mani teaches assigning a force status based on comparing the measured force to a threshold (Fig. 3, steps 330-350; pars. 55, 56).
With regard to wherein the step S3 comprises comparing the analog sampling value with the maximum value and the minimum value of the actual sampling range respectively; if the analog sampling value is within the actual sampling range, taking the analog sampling value as a sampling output value; if the analog sampling value is less than the minimum value of the actual sampling range, taking the minimum value of the actual sampling range as the sampling output value; and if the analog sampling value is greater than the maximum value of the actual sampling range, taking the maximum value of the actual sampling range as the sampling output value; Mani teaches assigning a force status to an input detected by touching the input device based on a comparison of the measured force to the thresholds (pars. 55, 56). The thresholds may include a press threshold and maximum pressure threshold and allow for continuous mapping of force to actions for forces measured between the two thresholds (pars. 58, 73, 74).
With regard to a step S4: adjusting the actual sampling range according to the comparison result between the analog sampling value and the actual sampling range; Mani teaches updating the force threshold based on comparing the force signal to the force thresholds (Fig. 3, step 320; par. 54).
With regard to a step S5: returning to execute the step S2; Mani teaches continuously updating the thresholds (Fig. 3, steps 320, 330; Fig. 4; pars. 57-59).
Claim 3
Mani teaches that the step S4 comprises comparing the analog sampling value with the maximum value and the minimum value of the actual sampling range respectively; if the analog sampling value is within the actual sampling range, not adjusting the actual sampling range; if the analog sampling value is less than the minimum value of the actual sampling range, updating the minimum value of the actual sampling range with the analog sampling value; and if the analog sampling value is greater than the maximum value of the actual sampling range, updating the maximum value of the actual sampling range with the analog sampling value (pars. 54, 65-67, changed to reflect a new maximum when maximum is exceeded).
Claim 4
Mani teaches that the step S3 further comprises determining an actual output value according to the sampling output value, the actual sampling range, and the actual output range (pars. 55, 56).
Claim 5
Mani teaches that a difference between the maximum value of the actual sampling range minus the minimum value of the actual sampling range is defined as an actual sampling range amplitude; a difference between a maximum value of the actual output range minus a minimum value of the actual output range is defines as an actual output range amplitude; a ratio of the sampling output value to the actual sampling range amplitude is equal to a ratio of the actual output value to the actual output range amplitude (par. 71, normalized force value in the context of adjusting the thresholds).
Claim 6
Mani teaches that the analog sensor is configured to collect a joystick status signal of a remote controller (par. 17).
Claim 7
Mani teaches that the analog sensor is a Hall sensor, a sliding rheostat, a pressure sensor, or a capacitive position sensor (par. 22, capacitive; par. 25, current for position; par. 61, force (pressure) sensor).
Claim 8
Mani teaches that the analog sampling value is a voltage value or a current value (par. 26, voltage and current sensing
Claim 9
Mani teaches a processor (pars. 31, 32, 42),
a memory (pars. 31, 32, 42, and
an analog sensor sampling device (Figs. 2 force sensor layer 230);
wherein the processor is configured to execute a computer program stored in the memory to implement the dynamic sampling method for the analog sensor according to claim 1 (pars. 31, 32, 42).
Claim 10
Mani teaches a computer program stored in the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (pars. 31, 32, 42);
wherein when the computer program is executed by a processor, the dynamic sampling method for the analog sensor according to claim 1 is implemented (pars. 31, 32, 42).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 20 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 of claims 1-10 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, Applicant states that the claims have been amended to be specifically directed to a dynamic sampling method for an analog sensor performed by a processor executing a computer program stored in memory. However, the recitation of a processor is not more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
With regard to the rejection of claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), Applicant states that the cited paragraphs of Mani merely disclose comparing a detected force value with a force threshold in order to determine a force state such as a “force press.” However, Mani discloses that the comparing the detected force to multiple thresholds including a press threshold and a maximum pressure (par. 58). Mani further discloses mapping force values between a minimum value and a maximum value to an application force value for applications that require a continuous application force value (par. 74).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MANUEL L BARBEE whose telephone number is (571)272-2212. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-5:30..
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, Shelby A Turner can be reached at 571-272-6334. 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.
/MANUEL L BARBEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights