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 1-14 are directed to gas sensing device, which is considered to be an apparatus. Claims 15-17 are directed to a method for sensing a target gas, which is considered to be a method. Claims 18-20 are directed to a gas sensing device comprising a processor having access to memory media storing instructions executable by the processor, which is considered to be an apparatus or manufacture. Therefore claims 1-20 fall into one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 is directed to a gas sensing device, comprising:
a measurement module configured for obtaining a sampled measurement signal, the sampled measurement signal being responsive to a concentration of the target gas in the gas mixture;
a compensation module configured for compensating the sampled measurement signal using an offset information to obtain a compensated measurement signal; and
a processing module configured for
detecting a sample of the sampled measurement signal, which sample fulfils a set of one or more criteria, wherein a first criterion of the set of criteria is fulfilled if, according to an evaluation of the sampled measurement signal, the sample is associated with a concentration of the target gas below a threshold, and
updating the offset information based on a sample which fulfills the set of criteria.
With respect to Step 2A Prong 1, claim 1 recites limitations that are judicial exception of abstract idea of mathematical concepts and/or mental processes under the broadest reasonable interpretation that encompasses mental processes that can be performed mentally and/or with pen or paper, but for the recitation of generic modules. The disclosed invention teaches the sampled measurement signal to be use in mathematical processes (see also paragraphs [0061-0063] on the mathematical processes) and gives no indication that it is not performed on a general purpose computer. The method as claimed could be carried out as purely mental processes or are equivalent to human work. Additionally, the mere nominal recitation of a generic “module” does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. Thus, these limitations recite concepts that fall into the mathematical concept and/or mental process groups of abstract ideas.
With respect to Step 2A Prong 2, claim 1 further recites the additional elements of “a measurement module”, “a compensation module”, and “a processing module”. The modules are recited at such a high level of generality that they represent no more than merely means to receive/process data to apply the judicial exceptions to a gas sensing device. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a gas sensing device. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claim as a whole is not considered to integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
With respect to Step 2B, the additional elements of “a gas sensing device” and “a target gas” do not provide an inventive concept. The “gas sensing device” and “a target gas” are recited at such a high level of generality that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer using generic measurement signals. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a sensing device. These limitations therefore remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Thus, these limitations do not amount to significantly more than the above indicated abstract ideas. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements represent merely generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, claim 1 is not eligible.
Claims 2-3 merely extend the abstract idea identified above for claim 1 and do not add any further additional elements. Therefore, claim 2 is considered to be directed to the abstract idea analogously to claim 1 above.
Claim 4 adds an additional element of “a chemo-resistive gas sensing unit”. However, the additional element is recited at such a high level of generality that it amounts to generally a technological environment in providing data to the use of the judicial exception. Therefore claim 4 is considered to be directed to the abstract idea analogously to claim 1 above.
Claim 5 adds an additional element of “means for heating the chemo-resistive gas sensing unit”. However, the additional element is recited at such a high level of generality that it amounts to generally a technological environment in providing data to the use of the judicial exception. Therefore claim 5 is considered to be directed to the abstract idea analogously to claim 1 above.
Claims 6-12 merely extend the abstract idea identified above for claim 1 and do not add any further additional elements. Therefore, claims 6-12 is considered to be directed to the abstract idea analogously to claim 1 above.
Claim 13 adds an additional element of “at least one chemo-resistive gas sensing unit”. However, the additional element is recited at such a high level of generality that it amounts to generally a technological environment in providing data to the use of the judicial exception. Therefore claim 13 are considered to be directed to the abstract idea analogously to claim 1 above.
Claim 14 merely extends the abstract idea identified above for claim 1 and do not add any further additional elements. Therefore, claim 14 is considered to be directed to the abstract idea analogously to claim 1 above.
Claim 15 is directed to a method, which recites:
obtaining a sampled measurement signal, the sampled measurement signal being responsive to a concentration of the target gas in the gas mixture;
compensating the sampled measurement signal using an offset information to obtain a compensated measurement signal;
detecting, a sample of the sampled measurement signal, which sample fulfils a set of one or more criteria, wherein a first criterion of the set of criteria is fulfilled if, according to an evaluation of the sampled measurement signal, the sample is associated with a concentration of the target gas below a threshold; and
updating the offset information based on a sample which fulfills the set of criteria.
With respect to Step 2A Prong 1, claim 12 recites limitations that are judicial exception of abstract idea of mathematical concepts and/or mental processes under the broadest reasonable interpretation that encompasses mental processes that can be performed mentally and/or with pen or paper. The disclosed invention teaches the sampled measurement signal to be use in mathematical processes (see also paragraphs [0061-0063] on the mathematical processes). The method as claimed could be carried out as purely mental processes or are equivalent to human work. Additionally, the mere nominal recitation of a generic “measurement signal” does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. Thus, these limitations recite concepts that fall into the mathematical concept and/or mental process groups of abstract ideas.
With respect to Step 2A Prong 2, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 15 does not recite additional structural elements to integrate the method into a practical application. The signal and the concentration are recited at such a high level of generality that they represent no more than merely the received data to apply the judicial exceptions. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a sensing device (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claim as a whole is not considered to integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
With respect to Step 2B, claim 15 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As mentioned above, the signal and the concentration are recited at such a high level of generality that they represent no more than merely the received data to apply the judicial exceptions. These limitations therefore remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Thus, these limitations do not amount to significantly more than the above indicated abstract ideas. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements represent merely generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, claim 15 is not eligible.
Claims 16-17 merely extend the abstract idea identified above for claim 15 and do not add any further additional elements. Therefore, claims 16-17 are considered to be directed to the abstract idea analogously to claim 15 above.
Claim 18 is directed to a gas sensing device comprising a processor having access to memory media storing instructions executable by the processor, which recites:
obtaining a sampled measurement signal, the sampled measurement signal being responsive to a concentration of the target gas in the gas mixture; compensating the sampled measurement signal using an offset information to obtain a compensated measurement signal; detecting, a sample of the sampled measurement signal, which sample fulfils a set of one or more criteria, wherein a first criterion of the set of criteria is fulfilled if, according to an evaluation of the sampled measurement signal, the sample is associated with a concentration of the target gas below a threshold; updating the offset information based on a sample which fulfills the set of criteria; and performing the evaluation of the sampled measurement signal with respect to a characteristic of the compensated measurement signal, and wherein the first criterion is fulfilled if the characteristic indicates that the sample is associated with a concentration of the target gas below the threshold.
With respect to Step 2A Prong 1, claim 17 recites limitations that are judicial exception of abstract idea of mathematical concepts and/or mental processes under the broadest reasonable interpretation that encompasses mental processes that can be performed mentally and/or with pen or paper, but for the recitation of a generic processor. The disclosed invention, teaches the sampled measurement signal to be use in mathematical processes (see also paragraphs [0061-0063] on the mathematical processes) and gives no indication that it is not performed on a general purpose computer. The method as claimed could be carried out as purely mental processes or are equivalent to human work. Additionally, the mere nominal recitation of a generic “processor” does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. Thus, these limitations recite concepts that fall into the mathematical concept and/or mental process groups of abstract ideas.
With respect to Step 2A Prong 2, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 15 does not recite additional structural elements to integrate the method into a practical application. The signal and the concentration are recited at such a high level of generality that they represent no more than merely the received data to apply the judicial exceptions. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a sensing device (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claim as a whole is not considered to integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
With respect to Step 2B, claim 18 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As mentioned above, the signal and the concentration are recited at such a high level of generality that they represent no more than merely the received data to apply the judicial exceptions. These limitations therefore remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Thus, these limitations do not amount to significantly more than the above indicated abstract ideas. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements represent merely generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, claim 18 is not eligible.
Claim 19 adds an additional element of “a chemo-resistive gas sensing unit”. However, the additional element is recited at such a high level of generality that it amounts to generally a technological environment in providing data to the use of the judicial exception. Therefore claim 19 is considered to be directed to the abstract idea analogously to claim 18 above.
Claim 20 merely extends the abstract idea identified above for claim 18 and do not add any further additional elements. Therefore, claim 20 is considered to be directed to the abstract idea analogously to claim 18 above.
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.
Claims 1-3, 7, 9, 11-12, 14-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu et al. (US Publication 2022/0011266; hereinafter Liu).
With regards to claims 1, 15, and 18, Liu discloses a gas sensing device (its method, and comprising a processor having access to memory media storing instructions executable by the processor) for sensing a target gas in a gas mixture ([0004]), the gas sensing device comprising:
a measurement module (312, 315) configured for obtaining a sampled measurement signal, the sampled measurement signal being responsive to a concentration of the target gas in the gas mixture ([0078-0080]);
a compensation module (314) configured for compensating the sampled measurement signal using an offset information to obtain a compensated measurement signal ([0081]); and
a processing module (316) configured for
detecting a sample of the sampled measurement signal, which sample fulfils a set of one or more criteria, wherein a first criterion of the set of criteria is fulfilled if, according to an evaluation of the sampled measurement signal, the sample is associated with a concentration of the target gas below a threshold ([0081]), and
updating the offset information (deviation) based on a sample which fulfills the set of criteria ([0094, 0100, 0104]).
With regards to claims 2 and 16, Liu discloses the gas sensing device according to claims 1 and 15, respectively, wherein the processing module is configured for performing the evaluation of the sampled measurement signal with respect to a characteristic of the compensated measurement signal, and wherein the first criterion is fulfilled if the characteristic indicates that the sample is associated with a concentration of the target gas below the threshold ([0100]).
With regards to claims 3 and 17, Liu discloses the gas sensing device according to claims 2 and 16, respectively, wherein the processing module is configured for
determining, for a sample of the compensated measurement signal, a set of features, the features representing respective characteristics of the compensated measurement signal, and
determining a sensing result based on the set of features using an algorithm ([0076]),
wherein the characteristics represented by the features comprise the characteristic ([0077]).
With regards to claims 7 and 20, Liu discloses the gas sensing device according to claims 1 and 18, respectively, wherein the processing module is configured for determining a temporal model for the offset information based on a plurality of detected samples (from multiple input including 312, 315; FIG. 3B) which fulfil the set of criterions; and updating the offset information based on the temporal model ([0094, 0100, 0104]).
With regards to claim 9, Liu discloses the gas sensing device according to claim 1, wherein the processing module is configured for performing the evaluation of the sampled measurement signal by using an algorithm to determine a sensing result ([0076]), and wherein the first criterion is fulfilled if the sensing result indicates that the concentration of the target gas is below the threshold ([0077]).
With regards to claim 11, Liu discloses the gas sensing device according to claim 1, wherein the compensation module is configured for compensating the sampled measurement signal based on a difference between a value of the sampled measurement signal and an offset value indicated by the offset information ([0094]) .
With regards to claim 12, Liu discloses the gas sensing device according to claim 1, wherein the processing module is configured for using an algorithm to determine a sensing result based on the compensated measurement signal ([0076-0077]).
With regards to claim 14, Liu discloses the gas sensing device according to claim 1, wherein the sampled measurement signal comprises a sequence of samples (from 400A-N), and wherein the processing module is configured for checking, for a subset of samples of the sequence, or for all samples of the sequence, whether the set of one or more criteria is fulfilled ([0080-0081]).
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.
Claims 4-6, 10, 13, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US Publication 2022/0011266; hereinafter Liu) in view of Makaram et al. (US Publication 2021/0285907; hereinafter Makaram).
With regards to claims 4, 13, and 19, Liu teaches the gas sensing device according to claims 2, 1, and 18, respectively, wherein the characteristic is a sign and/or a magnitude of the compensated measurement signal ([0041]).
However, Liu is silent regarding wherein the sampled measurement signal is indicative of a resistance of a chemo-resistive gas sensing unit.
Makaram teaches a gas sensing device and method (abstract) similar to Liu. Makaram further teaches the sampled measurement signal is indicative of a resistance ([0043]) of a chemo-resistive gas sensing unit ([0090-0093, 0114-0117]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace one known type of sensing unit as taught by Liu with another known type of sensing unit as taught by Makaram with reasonable expectation of analyzing complicated gas mixtures with one sensor array ([0012]; Marakam).
With regards to claim 5, Liu teaches the gas sensing device according to claim 2. However, Liu is silent regarding wherein the measurement module comprises at least one chemo-resistive gas sensing unit for sensing the target gas, wherein the measurement module is configured for obtaining the sampled measurement signal using the chemo-resistive gas sensing unit, wherein the measurement module comprises means for heating the chemo-resistive gas sensing unit according to a periodic temperature profile, and wherein the characteristic is a frequency domain characteristic, and wherein the processing module is configured for performing the evaluation of the sampled measurement signal on a sequence of samples of the compensated measurement signal with respect to the frequency domain characteristic.
Makaram teaches a gas sensing device and method (abstract) similar to Liu. Makaram further teaches wherein the measurement module comprises at least one chemo-resistive gas sensing unit for sensing the target gas ([0090-0093, 0114-0117]), wherein the measurement module is configured for obtaining the sampled measurement signal using the chemo-resistive gas sensing unit ([0090-0093, 0114-0117]), wherein the measurement module comprises means for heating the chemo-resistive gas sensing unit according to a periodic temperature profile ([0014]), and wherein the characteristic is a frequency domain characteristic, and wherein the processing module is configured for performing the evaluation of the sampled measurement signal on a sequence of samples of the compensated measurement signal with respect to the frequency domain characteristic ([0020]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace one known type of sensing unit as taught by Liu with another known type of sensing unit as taught by Makaram with reasonable expectation of analyzing complicated gas mixtures with one sensor array ([0012]; Marakam).
With regards to claim 6, Liu, as modified by Makaram, teaches (citations to Liu unless specified otherwise) the gas sensing device according to claim 4, wherein a second criterion of the set of criteria is fulfilled if the sample represents an extremum (alarm) of the compensated measurement signal with respect to the characteristic ([0081]).
With regards to claim 10, Liu teaches the gas sensing device according to claim 9. However, Liu is silent regarding wherein the sampled measurement signal is indicative of a resistance of a chemo-resistive gas sensing unit, and wherein a second criterion of the set of criteria is fulfilled if a value of the sample of the sampled measurement signal indicates that the resistance of the chemo-resistive gas sensing unit is above a further threshold.
Makaram teaches a gas sensing device and method (abstract) similar to Liu. Makaram further teaches wherein the sampled measurement signal is indicative of a resistance of a chemo-resistive gas sensing unit ([0090-0093, 0114-0117]), and wherein a second criterion of the set of criteria is fulfilled if a value of the sample of the sampled measurement signal indicates that the resistance of the chemo-resistive gas sensing unit is above a further threshold (baseline; [0043]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace one known type of sensing unit as taught by Liu with another known type of sensing unit as taught by Makaram with reasonable expectation of analyzing complicated gas mixtures with one sensor array ([0012]; Marakam).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US Publication 2022/0011266; hereinafter Liu) in view of Tumpold et al. (US Patent 10,551,356; hereinafter Tumpold).
With regards to claim 8, Liu teaches the gas sensing device according to claim 7. However, Liu is silent regarding wherein the temporal model is based on a polynomial function, and wherein the processing module is configured to determine parameters of the polynomial function based on the plurality of detected samples which fulfil the set of criteria.
Tumpold teaches a gas sensing device and method (abstract) similar to Liu. Tumpold further teaches the temporal model is based on a polynomial function (col. 11, lines 33-50), and wherein the processing module is configured to determine parameters of the polynomial function based on the plurality of detected samples which fulfil the set of criteria (col. 11, lines 33-50).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Tumpold utilizing the measurement of Liu to determine the curve of the gas concentration using two or more measurements (col. 11, lines 33-50; Tumpold).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUANG X.L NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1585. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
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, STEPHEN D. MEIER can be reached at (571) 272-2149. 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.
/QXN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/STEPHEN D MEIER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853