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 § 112
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claims 1-12 is being interpretated as 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
In claim 1, “condition storage unit”, is mapped to processing unit 10 that can receive the measured value from sensing unit 30, paragraph 0073.
In claim 1, “determination unit configured to” is mapped to determination unit 112 determines if condition is satisfied from some event to verify, paragraph 0088.
In claim 1, “situation value calculation unit configured to” is mapped to situation value calculation unit 113 can calculate situation value by giving measured values to the logic stored, paragraph 0090.
In claim 1, “output unit configured to” is mapped to information processing device can output the calculated value to the outside via the sensing unit 30, paragraph 0075.
In regards to claim 2-12, it reuse the same “unit” limitation and therefore, is also interpreted as 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph similar to claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim(s) 1, 13-14 is directed to the abstract idea of comparing new and stored information and using rules to identify options. The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements do not add meaningful limitations to practicing the abstract idea.
Claims 1, 13-14 recite, in part, acquiring a measured value, storing and evaluation a condition, calculating a situation value and outputting the situation value. These steps correspond to concepts identified as abstract ideas by the courts, such as collecting and comparing known information, comparing data to determine a risk level, and comparing new and stored information and using rules to identify options. The concept described in claims 1-14 are not meaningfully different than the abstract ideas determined by the courts. As such, the concepts of claims 1-14 are an abstract idea.
Although the claims recites that the measured value is a voltage generated in a coil, the claim does not recite any improvement to the sensing of the voltage itself or the operation of the coil. Rather, the focus of the claim is on processing and conditionally outputting information derived from the measured value.
Additionally, the claims do not add additional elements that are sufficiently to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, claims 1-13-14 are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Dependent claims 2-12 falls under a rejected based claim 1 and therefore are rejected under 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-7, 10 and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saitou et al (US 2006/0077048) in view of Anderson (US 2008/0238413).
Per claim 1, Saitou teaches an information processing device comprising (0026-0032 teaches a semiconductor device used in a tire pressure monitoring system that processes sensor outputs and transmits calculated information to external device):
a processing unit including a memory (0039 teaches processor 9 including memory 81 and CPU 82);
a sensing unit including a coil and configured to acquire, as a measured value (0035 teaches a tire-side module 15 comprising a coil antenna 21b), [a value of a voltage generated in the coil or an amplitude value of the voltage];
a condition storage unit configured to store a condition for outputting a situation value indicating a state according to a situation in which the information processing device is disposed (0042 teaches calculating/determining a pressure value…an alert value 75 indicates a threshold value…when the variation value 74 exceeds the alert value 75, the microcomputer outputs an alert signal. The microcomputer stores the current pressure information as the initial value);
a determination unit configured to determine whether the condition is satisfied (0049 teaches microcomputer compares the calculated variation value with the alert value and judges whether or not the calculated variation exceeds the alert value);
a situation value calculation unit configured to calculate the situation value based on the measured value acquired by the sensing unit (0049 teaches calculates a variation value which indicates a difference between the obtained initial value and the current pressure value); and
an output unit configured to output the situation value to outside of the information processing device via the coil when the condition is satisfied (0049 teaches the variation data is transmitted to the body side module 22. 0050 further teaches microcomputer outputting an alert signal).
But, Saitou does not explicitly teach a value of a voltage generated in the coil or an amplitude value of the voltage.
However, in an analogous art, Anderson teaches an electromagnetic tracking system comprising of sensors (abstract). Anderson further teaches a value of a voltage generated in the coil or an amplitude value of the voltage (0018 the magnetic field generation by a coil may induce a voltage into a coil of each of the at least one receiver…the induced voltage across the coil may be sensed and processed). Therefore, since Saitou already discloses a device that processes sensor outputs, determines whether a condition is satisfied, and conditionally outputs a calculated value. Anderson teaches that a voltage induced in a coil may be sensed and processed. Therefore, before the effective filling date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the induced coil voltage taught by Anderson as the measured value in Saitou’s sensing unit, because both references relate to electromagnetic sensing system and Anderson provides a known technique for obtaining an electrical measurement from a coil suitable for processing by a processor.
Per claim 2, Saitou teaches comprising a condition setting unit configured to receive the condition from the outside of the information processing device via the coil, and to set the condition in the condition storage unit (0035 teaches coil antenna receives radio waves of command signals transmitted from the body side module. The command signals received by the coil antenna are supplied to the semiconductor device. 0045 teaches the semiconductor device determines whether or not the tire side module 15 has received an initialize command as the command signal through he coil antenna. 0045-0046 teaches the CPU accesses the memory and initializes the data stored in the table).
Per claim 3, Saitou teaches comprising a measured value storage unit configured to store a history of the measured value, wherein the situation value calculation unit reads the measured value from the measured value storage unit, and calculates the situation value based on the read measured value (0040 teaches memory 81 stores a table. The table indicates a relationship between temperature and initial tire pressure values. 0042 teaches a latest observed value 73 indicates the latest tire pressure value which is obtained by the tire pressure sensor 2. 0048 teaches when the latest observed value 73 measured at a previous time is stored, the microcomputer 8 updates the latest observed value 73. 0048 teaches the microcomputer reads out the initial value 72 corresponding to the specified temperature range 71 from table 70. 0049 teaches microcomputer calculates a variation value which indicates a difference between the obtained initial value and the current pressure value).
Per claim 5, Saitou teaches wherein the sensing unit measures a first measured value at a first cycle and measures a second measured value at a second cycle shorter than the first cycle, and the situation value calculation unit calculates the situation value based on the first and second measured values (0032 teaches the data signals may be transmitted at a specific time interval (since it’s a specified time, it can be longer cycle) or every time the change in the tire pressure or the time temperature goes over a specified value (event-driven so it’s shorter cycle). 0049 teaches the microcomputer calculates a variation value 74 which indicates a difference between the obtained initial value 72 and the current pressure value. The “variation value” corresponds to the claimed situation value, calculated based on measured value obtained by the sensing unit).
Per claim 6, Saitou teaches comprising: a situation value storage unit configured to store a history of the calculated situation value (0042, 0048-0049 teaches memory stores a table that includes history of sensed data wherein initial reading and updated readings are stored); and a reception unit configured to receive an external request (0035 teaches the antenna receives radio waves of command signals transmitted from the body-side module), wherein the output unit reads the situation value corresponding to a period designated in the request from the situation value storage unit, and outputs the read situation value (0049 teaches the variation data indicative of the current variation value 74 is transmitted to the body-side module. 0040 teaches the table 70 stores various temperature ranges and sets of tire pressure information).
Per claim 7, Saitou teaches wherein the situation value calculation unit calculates a second situation value based on the measured value acquired by the sensing unit and a first situation value stored in the situation value storage unit, and the output unit outputs the second situation value (0042 teaches initial value is stored and used for calculating the variation of the tire pressure. 0033 teaches sensor 2 outputs a signal voltage corresponding to the tire pressure. 0046 teaches the microcomputer receives the pressure data (AD converted value). 0049 teaches calculating a variation value using the stored initial value and the current measure value. 0049 teaches outputting a second situation value….the variation data indicative of the current variation value 74 is transmitted to the body-side module 22. So, the initial value corresponds to the first situation value and the variation value 74 corresponds to the second situation value).
Per claim 10, Saitou teaches wherein the condition storage unit stores specifying information that specifies the measured value to be calculated in association with the condition (0040 teaches storing condition related information such as thresholds and temperature ranges in memory wherein each condition is associated with specific measured values), and the information processing device further comprises: a measured value storage unit configured to store a history of the measured value (0042 teaches latest observed value 73 indicates the latest tire pressure value. 0048 teaches when the latest observed value 73 is measured at a previous time is stored, the microcomputer updates the latest observed value 73); and a situation value calculation unit configured to read the measured value specified by the specifying information corresponding to the satisfied condition from the measured value storage unit (0047-0048 teaches selecting and reading a stored measured value based on a satisfied condition such as identified temperature range), and to calculate the situation value based on the read measured value (0049 teaches microcomputer calculates a variation value 74 which indicates a difference between the obtained initial value and the current pressure value).
Per claim 12, Saitou teaches wherein a signal is received from the outside of the information processing device via the sensing unit (0035 and 0038 teaches receiving an external signal via coil antenna that is part of the devices sensing/communication structure and transmits the signal to microcomputer 8 for processing).
Per claim 13, is a method of claim 1, see rejection of claim 1.
Per claim 14, see rejection of claim 1 and further paragraph 0039 of Saitou that teaches computer program for causing information processing device to perform the function of claim 1/14.
Claim(s) 4 and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saitou et al (US 2006/0077048) in view of Anderson (US 2008/0238413) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Lai et al (US 2019/0327124).
Per claim 4, Saitou teaches wherein the situation value calculation unit calculates the situation value based on a first measured value [corresponding to a first period and a second measured value corresponding to a second period having a length different from a length of the first period] (0042 teaches an initial value is an initial tire pressure value and is used for calculating the variation of the pressure. 0042 further teaches a latest observed value 73 indicates the latest tire pressure value which is obtained by the tire pressure sensor. 0048 teaches when the latest observed value 73 measured at a previous time is stored, the microcomputer updates the latest observed value 73. So, Saitou teaches calculating a situation value based on multiple measured values obtained at different times. But, Saitou does not explicitly teach the measured values corresponding to a first period and a second measured value corresponding to a second period having a length different from a length of the first period.
In an analogous art, Lai teaches objected sensing and tracking (abstract). Lai further teaches in paragraph 0497 multiple time window/periods. 0430 teaches time series format/order/processing, the time quantities may be different from those described above. 0432 timestamps of CI may be irregular and may be corrected. So, these paragraphs explicitly support different temporal extends for windows/period lengths. 0497 teaches calculating a value using both time windows/periods based on measured values). Therefore, before the effective filling date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Saitou’s calculation to use measured values corresponding to different-length periods, as taught by Lai in order to calculate a situation value that reflects both short-term and longer-term behavior of the sensed parameter. Such a modification merely applies a known temporal-windowing technique to Saitou’s existing sensor-data processing framework and represents a predictable use of prior-art elements according to their established functions.
Per claim 8, Saitou in view of Lai teaches comprising: a measured value storage unit configured to store a history of the measured value (0040-0042 teaches storing measured sensor values over time in memory. 0048 teaches updating those stored values with new sensed values); and a reception unit configured to receive a request from the outside of the information processing device via the coil, wherein the situation value calculation unit reads the measured value [corresponding to a period designated in the request from the measured value storage unit] (0035 teaches receiving external command signals via a coil antenna), and calculates the situation value based on the read measured value.
Saitou does not explicitly teach measured value corresponds to a period designated in the request from the measured value storage unit. Lai teaches measured value corresponds to a period designated in the request from the measured value storage unit (Lai teaches sensed data is grouped into time windows/periods and the amount of data and temporal length of the windows can differ and be time varying, paragraph 0497 and 0229. 0497 further teaches calculating a value using both time windows/periods based on measured values. Therefore, before the effective filling date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Saitou such that, in response to an externally received request, the device reads measured values corresponding to a designated period and calculates a situation value based on those values, as taught by Lai, in order to flexibly provide situation information for different time periods. This is a predictable use of known time-window selection techniques applied to Saitou’s existing sensor data processing.
Per claim 9, Saitou in view of Lai teaches wherein the situation value calculation unit extracts the measured value at different cycles depending on a length of the period from the measured value storage unit, and calculates the situation value based on the extracted measured value (Saitou in paragraph 0040-0042, 0049 as mentioned above already teaches storing measured value in memory, calculating a situation value based on measured value. But, Saitou does not explicitly teach extracting measured values at different cycles depending on length of a designated period. However, Lai in paragraph 0029, 0430 and 0497 teaches the measured value/CI/TSCI are stored as time series, grouped into time windows/periods and processed using different temporal granularities depending on window/period. So therefore, teaches different windows/periods are used for calculation, implying extraction of measured values corresponding to those windows. Therefore, before the effective filling date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply Lai’s period-dependent extraction approach to Saitou so that measured values are extracted at different cycles depending on the length of the period, thereby enabling appropriate handling of measured values for shorter and longer periods.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
In regards to claim 11, Saitou in view of Anderson in rejection of claim 1 teaches condition storage unit, measured value storage unit and a situation value calculation unit configured to calculate the situation value.
But, neither, Saitou, Anderson, nor any other prior art of record as a whole teaches a logic storage unit configured to store a logic for calculating the situation value based on the measured value, wherein the condition storage unit stores, in association with the condition, calculation target specifying information that specifies the measured value to be calculated and logic specifying information that specifies the logic, and the information processing device further comprises: a measured value storage unit configured to store a history of the measured value; and a situation value calculation unit configured to calculate the situation value by giving the measured value specified by the calculation target specifying information corresponding to the satisfied condition to the logic specified by the logic specifying information corresponding to the satisfied condition.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gu et al (US 2021/0336775) paragraph 0032-0043
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMEED ALIZADA whose telephone number is (571)270-5907. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:30 am until 5:30 pm.
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, Brian Zimmerman can be reached at 571-272-3059. 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.
/OMEED ALIZADA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686