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.
Claim 1 – 3, 7, 9 – 13, 15, 17 – 20, 23, 27 – 28, 30, 33 & 35 – 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an Abstract idea without significantly more.
[Step 1]
Regarding claim 1, the claim is a method/process and is one of the four statutory categories.
[Step 2A, Prong one]
The claim recites the following limitations that recite an abstract idea: receive an input that represents a set flow rate at which the apparatus is to generate the flow of gases for a desired therapy session; predict if a steady-state temperature of the apparatus will exceed a high- temperature-condition threshold, based at least partly on a motor speed required to generate the set flow rate; and generate a predicted-high-temperature-condition signal if the high-temperature-condition threshold is exceeded based on the prediction. (judgement or evaluation, which is grouped as mental process under the 2019 PEG). The above limitations are directed to mental processes that can be done by a person simply receiving an input of a set flow rate, predicting if a steady-state temperature of the apparatus and generate a signal id the high-temperature-condition exceeds the prediction.
[Step 2A, Prong Two]
Claim 1 recites the additional elements of: a flow generator and a controller
The flow generator is described as a device, system, component, or configuration that is configured to generate a pressurized flow of gases including, but not limited to, a blower having an impeller driven by a motor, compressor, or other pressurized source of gases. It is essentially acting as a blower that delivers a flow of gases according to the set input flow rates. The recited abstract process does not improve the functioning of the flow generator, or any other technology or technical field. Nor does the above-identified additional element serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond the general function.
The controller merely receives input form the flow generator, predicts and generates a signal. The controller collects data to predict and thus merely alert. Furthermore, the above identified additional element. The controller, does not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because it amounts to simply performing basic calculations and outputting said results is considered a well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution.
Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claim 1 (and its respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
[Step 2B]
The claims do not cine any additional structures that would make it significantly more than judicial exception. The flow generator consists of a controller. This element is conventional and well-known in the art as shown by Burgess et al. (US 2020/0179629 A1 Paragraph 0103 discloses the well-known controller for managing flow rate of the gas flowing through the flow therapy apparatus as it is delivered to a patient and controlling the motor speed). The use of a generic processor, memory and/or any other general computer components to store information and perform basic calculations and outputting said results is considered well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions. See MPEP 2106.05(d). The alarm is merely extra solution activity in that it provides an indication of the result of the abstract determination process. It is well-known analysis technique involving an act of evaluating information to a predefined threshold can be practically performed in the human mind. Therefore, in addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is-well-understood or conventional. See MPEP 2106.05((g). The components found in the claim is-well-known to be conventional in the art.
Further, dependent claims 2- 3, 7, 9, 11- 13, 15, 17 – 20, 23, 27, 28, 30, 33 & 35 includes limitations that amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a use of a heat model or high-temperature-condition threshold as they are token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect the process steps are performed.
Claim 33 is rejected as the limitation firstly discloses alternatives “or” of the actions of the controller in regards to the motor and secondly the options disclosed are conditional “if” the alarm is generated. Therefore, the limitation indicates nothing happens if the alarm is not generated.
[Step 1]
Regarding claim 36, the claim is a method/process and is one of the four statutory categories.
[Step 2A, Prong One]
The claim recites the following limitations that recite abstract idea: receiving an input that represents a set flow rate at which the apparatus is to generate the flow of gases for a desired therapy session; predicting if a steady-state temperature of the apparatus will exceed a high- temperature-condition threshold, based at least partly on a motor speed required to generate the set flow rate; and generating a predicted-high-temperature-condition signal if the high- temperature-condition threshold is exceeded based on the prediction. (judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as mental process under the 2019 PEG) The above limitations are directed to mental process that can be done by a person simply by receiving an input of the desired therapy session, predicting if the temperature will exceed the threshold and generating a signal if the temperature exceeds the threshold based on the prediction.
[Step 2A, Prong Two]
Claim 36 recites the additional elements of: a flow generator and a controller
The flow generator is described as a device, system, component, or configuration that is configured to generate a pressurized flow of gases including, but not limited to, a blower having an impeller driven by a motor, compressor, or other pressurized source of gases. It is essentially acting as a blower that delivers a flow of gases according to the set input flow rates. The recited abstract process does not improve the functioning of the flow generator, or any other technology or technical field. Nor does the above-identified additional element serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond the general function.
The controller merely receives input form the flow generator, predicts and generates a signal. The controller collects data to predict and thus merely alert. Furthermore, the above identified additional element. The controller, does not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because it amounts to simply performing basic calculations and outputting said results is considered a well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution.
Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claim 36 (and its respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
[Step 2B]
The claims do not cine any additional structures that would make it significantly more than judicial exception. The flow generator consists of a controller. This element is conventional and well-known in the art as shown by Burgess et al. (US 2020/0179629 A1 Paragraph 0103 discloses the well-known controller for managing flow rate of the gas flowing through the flow therapy apparatus as it is delivered to a patient and controlling the motor speed). The use of a generic processor, memory and/or any other general computer components to store information and perform basic calculations and outputting said results is considered well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions. See MPEP 2106.05(d). The alarm is merely extra solution activity in that it provides an indication of the result of the abstract determination process. It is well-known analysis technique involving an act of evaluating information to a predefined threshold can be practically performed in the human mind. Therefore, in addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is-well-understood or conventional. See MPEP 2106.05((g). The components found in the claim is-well-known to be conventional in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GRACIELA NATALIA LEBRON DE JESUS whose telephone number is (571)270-3892. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-5:00 CST.
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, Kendra Carter can be reached at 571-272-9034. 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.
/GRACIELA NATALIA LEBRON DE JESUS/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/KENDRA D CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights