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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/13/2023 and 03/25/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of invention (I) drawn to claims 1-15 and withdrawn claims 16-20 directed to non-elected invention in the reply filed on 01/05/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “a person” in line 4 should be amended to read –the person--. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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: limitation “computing node” in claim 1, the claim does not recite enough structure that corresponds to the claimed “computing node” to perform the recited functions. However, the specification discloses a computer device with a processor that can be interpreted as the structure that corresponds to the claimed “computing node”.
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 § 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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the unique" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the presence" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the amplitude" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the heating element" in lines1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
STEP 1: claim 1 recite a system for automated identification of a person. Thus, the claims are directed to a process and a product. which are ones of the statutory categories of invention.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE: The claim(s) recite(s) specific limitations/method steps of: determine a timeframe to analyze the biomaterial sample; and extract at least one datum from the biomaterial sample during the timeframe; receive the at least one datum from the sensor; extract a first feature from the at last one datum; compare the first feature to a stored feature associated with the person, thereby identifying the person. This limitation recites a mental process, because the claimed limitation describes a concept performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Thus, the claim is drawn to a Mental Process, which is an Abstract Idea.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim(s) recite the combination of additional elements/method steps of: a biomaterial sample intake port in fluid communication with a sampling reservoir; a proximity sensor, and at least one sensor, the at least one sensor in fluid communication with the sampling reservoir. Accordingly, this additional element/step does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim limitations fail to recite an additional element or a combination of additional elements to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception
STEP 2B: The claim(s) does/do not include additional structural elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims recite additional elements, such as, a biomaterial sample intake port in fluid communication with a sampling reservoir; a proximity sensor, a computing node, and at least one sensor, the at least one sensor in fluid communication with the sampling reservoir, but do(es) not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these structural elements are generically claimed to enable the collection of data by performing the basic functions of: (i) receiving, processing, and providing/displaying data, and (ii) automating mental tasks. The courts have recognized these functions to be well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner. Merely adding hardware that performs “‘well understood, routine, conventional activities’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible (In re TLI Communications LLC). As such, the recitation of these additional limitations in claims 2-15 does not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and represent insignificant extra-solution activity. Furthermore, it is well established that the mere physical or tangible nature of additional elements such as a sensor and use of a processor does not automatically confer eligibility on a claim directed to an abstract idea (see, e.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S.Ct. 2347, 2358-59 (2014)). Thus, the claimed invention does not amount to significantly more than the Abstract Idea.
When viewed alone or in combination, the limitations of claims 1-15 merely instruct the practitioner to implement the concept of collecting data with routine, conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. The inventive concept cannot be furnished by the abstract idea; instead, the application must provide something inventive, beyond mere “well-understood, routine, conventional activity” (Genetic Technologies Limited v. Merial L.L.C.). The additional elements of independent claims when viewed alone or as whole, do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. In other words, this claim merely applies an abstract idea to a computer and does not (i) improve the performance of the computer itself (as in McRO, Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) provide a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR).
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 9-11 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Yang et al (Human body odor-based authentication using machine learning, NPL# 4 in IDS mailed on 12/13/2023) in view of Ware et al (US 2003/0192112).
As to claims 1, 2, 4 and 9, Yang teaches a system for automated identification of a person by the unique chemical composition of a biomaterial (authenticating human through body odor using VOCs, wherein the compounds are considered unique identifier, page 1707, col.1, par.1 and col.2, par.2, page 1714, col.1, par.2), the system comprising:
a biomaterial sample intake device (pump is used to perform sniffing function of body odor from the human, page 1708, col.1, par.2);
at least one sensor (electronic nose (E-nose) sensor, page 1708, col.1, par.3, and/or MQ series gas sensors used to measure VOCs generated from the human, page 1710, col.2, par.2-3):
determine a timeframe to analyze the biomaterial sample (page 1707, col.2, par.3, after collecting body odor samples, the sensors determine the time when the analog signal becomes straight curve without increase, which finally identifies the human from the body odor, page 1710, col.2, par.3, fig.1); and
extract at least one datum from the biomaterial sample during the timeframe (extracting unique features from body odors, page 1707, col.2, par.3-4, page 1710, col.2, par.3, and page 1711, col.2-page 1712, col.1, fig.1);
a computing node (PCA extracts unique features from different body odors, page 1708, col.2, par.2-4 and page 1714, col.1, par.2), the computing node configured to:
receive the at least one datum from the sensor (PCA receives the unique features from the body odors, page 1707, col.2, par.3-4 and page 1710, col.2, par.3, fig.1);
extract a first feature from the at last one datum (determining feature vectors using algorithm in page 1709, col.1-page 1710);
compare the first feature to a stored feature associated with the person, thereby identifying the person (based on comparisons of sampled body odor to data/odors stored in database in PCA, the accuracy of identification is almost 100%, page 1707, col.2, par.3, page 1711, col.2, par.3, and page 1712, col.1, par.2).
Still regarding claims 1, 2, 4 and 9, Yang teaches the invention substantially as claimed above, but failed to explicitly teach a biomaterial sample intake port in fluid communication with a sampling reservoir; a proximity sensor, and at least one sensor in communication of the sample reservoir.
However, Ware teaches a biological sample intake system in the same field of endeavor (abstract, fig.1)(Examiner respectfully notes, that biological sample can be any of feces, urine, exhaled air or VOCs, as claimed in claim 15 of the current application), wherein the system comprises a biomaterial sample intake port in fluid communication with a sampling reservoir (air intake duct connected to toilet bowl 52, par.27, fig.1-2);
a proximity sensor, the proximity sensor configured to detect the presence of a person at the biomaterial sample intake port and to produce a signal indicative thereof (proximity sensor 25 can be used to activate ventilation fan 5 when a person is detected proximal to toilet 100, par.37-40, fig.5); at least one sensor, the at least one sensor in fluid communication with the sampling reservoir and configured to receive the signal from the proximity sensor and in response thereto, wherein the proximity sensor comprises: a motion sensor, a sound sensor, a vibration sensor, a SONAR sensor, a time-of-flight sensor, a light sensor (proximity sensor 25 can emit a light or radio frequency that, when interrupted at a certain distance, causes fan unit 30 to activate, par.37-40, fig.5), and/or a connected device, and
wherein the biomaterial sample intake port is in fluid communication with the sampling reservoir via a transport assembly, wherein the transport assembly comprises a pump (intake duct 10 is connected to a powdered fan unit 30 to help move the air from duct 10, par.27-29, fig.1-2)
It would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a sample intake device in Yang’s invention, having similar features as in the sample intake device taught by Ware’s invention, to facilitate withdrawing sufficient amount of the biological sample, in order to provide more accurate analysis.
As to claim 3, Yang teaches the system, wherein the first feature comprises: a feature vector, at least one coefficient of a polynomial, and/or at least one root of the polynomial (determining feature vectors, page 1709, col.1, par.5).
As to claims 10 and 11, Yang teaches the system, wherein the biomaterial sample is analyzed by the at least one sensor by evaporating a liquid biomaterial sample into a gaseous biomaterial sample, wherein the at least one sensor comprises a heating element configured to vaporize the liquid biomaterial sample (MQ sensor comprises a heater, so that when human odor contacts the heater produce electro-chemical reaction, page 1710, col.2, par.2).
As to claim 14, Yang teaches the system, wherein the at least one sensor comprises an electric nose (eNose) (electronic nose (E-nose) that collects and specifies the human odor, page 1708, col.1, par.3).
As to claim 15, Yang teaches the system, wherein the biomaterial sample comprises one selected from a group of urine, feces, sweat, saliva, exhaled air, and/or volatile organic compounds (VOC) (gas sensors to measure VOCs generated from human body, page 1710, col.2, par.2).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Yang et al and Ware et al, in further view of Dhavaloganathan et al (US 2014/0302893).
As to claim 5, Yang/Ware combination teaches the invention substantially as in claims 1 and 4 above, but failed to explicitly teach the connected device comprises a smartphone.
However, Dhavaloganathan teaches an authentication device in the same field of endeavor, wherein the connected device/proximity sensor comprises a smartphone (additionally includes a proximity sensor 282. The proximity sensor 282 is capable of sensing the presence of objects in proximity to the electronic device 201, abstract and par.21, fig.1).
It would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a smartphone with proximity sensor in Yang’s invention, as taught by Dhavaloganathan’s invention, to be coupled to the sample intake device to determine presence of an object/person for sampling purposes, as taught by Dhavaloganathan’s invention (par.21 and par.46-47).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Yang et al and Ware et al, in further view of Amin et al (US 2014/0096590).
As to claim 6, Yang/Ware combination teaches the invention substantially in claim 1 above, but failed to explicitly teach wherein the sensor is additionally configured to extract the at least one datum from the biomaterial sample in response to manual user input. However, Amin teaches an analogous systems and methods for a mobile electronic system that gathers and analyzes odors, airborne chemicals and/or compounds in the same field of endeavor (abstract, fig.2), wherein the sensor is additionally configured to extract the at least one datum from the biomaterial sample in response to manual user input (input component 226 includes user interface can receive and analyze input 224. Input component 226 can receive input 224 as audio, visual, text and/or other user input. In one aspect, input component 226 includes one or more input interfaces such as a microphone, a camera, a key board, an actuator, a touch screen and/or other user interfaces capable of receiving input 224, par.52-54, fig.2).
It would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a user input interface in Yang’s invention, as input component 226 taught by Amin’s invention, to allow the user to control various functions of the sampling system, such as entering and extracting data from the system, as taught by Amin’s invention (par.52-54).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Yang et al and Ware et al, in further view of carney et al (US 2015/0330958).
As to claim 7, Yang/Ware combination teaches the invention substantially in claim 1 above, but failed to explicitly teach wherein determining the timeframe comprises detecting when there is a predetermined amount of biomaterial sample in the sampling reservoir. However, Carney teaches a method of sampling a biological sample from the subject, such as, urine/feces in the same field of endeavor (abstract, fig.1-2), wherein determining the timeframe comprises detecting when there is a predetermined amount of biomaterial sample in the sampling reservoir (predetermined characteristics 12, 13 corresponding to an expected characteristic resulting from the two gas components indicative of feces, par.48, determining whether the concentration exceeds the threshold value c1 during the first time period t1, par.49 and measurements and comparisons of whether predetermined concentration values exist during predetermined time periods can be used in order to provide an even more accurate method for indicating the presence of feces, par.50).
It would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a gas concentration detection means in Yang/Ware combination, as taught by Carney’s invention, to assure there is enough amount of gas/biological sample in the sampling device for more accurate analyses, as taught by Carney’s invention (par.49-50).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Yang et al and Ware et al, in further view Shu et al (Identification authentication scheme using human body odor, NPL#2 in IDS mailed on 12/13/2023)
As to claim 13, Yang/Ware combination teaches the invention substantially as in claim 1 above, but failed to explicitly teach the at least one sensor comprises a mass spectrometer.
However, Shu teaches an analogous body odor sample for human authentication (Page 171, col.1, par.1), wherein the sensor that collects body odor/VOCs is a mass spectrometer (page 172, col.1, par.1).
It would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include and/or substitute the odor VOCs sensor taught by Yang’s invention, with mass spectrometer taught by Shu’s invention, for the same purpose of collecting body odor.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAY A ABOUELELA whose telephone number is (571)270-7917. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5.
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, JACQUELINE CHENG can be reached at 5712725596. 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.
/MAY A ABOUELELA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791