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 Status
Claims 1-11 are pending and examined.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) received on 11/21/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, Lns. 14-16 recite, “a storage device configured to store reference pressure data and predetermined threshold that are used for the determination”. However, the phrase “and predetermined threshold” is grammatically incorrect. The above limitation needs to be amended to recite, “a storage device configured to store reference pressure data and a predetermined threshold that are used for the determination” to be grammatically correct.
Claim 11 similarly recites “reference pressure data and predetermined threshold”, and is similarly objected to. The above limitation needs to be amended to recite, “reference pressure data and a predetermined threshold” to be grammatically correct.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The limitation “predetermined threshold” appearing in at least independent claims 1 and 11 has been examined as a predetermined threshold for a statistical distance between recorded pressure data and reference pressure data, in accordance with the corresponding limitations in claim 1: “calculate a statistical distance between the pressure data to be the target of the determination and the reference pressure data, determine to be abnormal when the statistical distance is larger than the predetermined threshold, and determine to be normal when the statistical distance is equal to or smaller than the predetermined threshold”, and claim 11: “calculating a statistical distance between the pressure data to be the target of the determination and the reference pressure data, determining to be abnormal when the statistical distance is larger than the predetermined threshold, and determining to be normal when the statistical distance is equal to or smaller than the predetermined threshold”.
Examiner’s Note: The Examiner suggests amending the independent claims to clarify that the predetermined threshold is a predetermined threshold for a statistical distance between recorded pressure data and reference pressure data, in order to add further clarity to the claims.
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The subject matter eligibility test for the claims is shown below:
Step 1: Claim 1 is directed toward a device. Claim 11 is directed to a method.
Step 2A, Prong One: Identify the law of nature/natural phenomenon/abstract idea.
Claim 1 recites the abstract idea, “calculate a statistical distance between the pressure data to be the target of the determination and the reference pressure data, determine to be abnormal when the statistical distance is larger than the predetermined threshold, and determine to be normal when the statistical distance is equal to or smaller than the predetermined threshold”. The act of calculating the statistical distance is a mathematical calculation-type abstract idea that could be performed by a human person by pen and paper or by a black box computer. The act of determining whether or not the statistical distance is normal is an evaluation/determination-type mental process abstract idea.
Claim 11 similarly recites the abstract idea, “calculating a statistical distance between the pressure data to be the target of the determination and the reference pressure data, determining to be abnormal when the statistical distance is larger than the predetermined threshold, and determining to be normal when the statistical distance is equal to or smaller than the predetermined threshold”. The act of calculating the statistical distance is a mathematical equation-type abstract idea that could be performed by a human person by pen and paper or by a black box computer. The act of determining whether or not the statistical distance is normal is an evaluation/determination-type mental process abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Has the abstract idea been integrated into a particular practical application?
No. In both claims 1 and 11, after the determination is made as to whether the pressure data is normal or abnormal, no further action is taken, and therefore there is not a particular practical application.
Claims 1 and 11 both further recite acquiring pressure data, storing reference pressure data, and a processor configured to acquire pressure data, where the acquired pressure data is compared to a piece of the reference pressure data in order to determine the normality/abnormality of the acquired pressure data. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering and outputting, and are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Further, the processor is just a general-purpose computer, and performing an abstract idea on a general purpose computer is not enough to integrate the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I), 2106.04(a)(2)(III), and 2106.05(b)(I)).
The independent claims also recite a dispensing nozzle, a pressure source, a sensor, a processor (as previously stated), and a storage device. However, the processor and storage device are generically recited. Employing generic computer functions to execute the abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, does not add significantly more. Further, the recited dispensing nozzle, pressure source, and sensor generally link the use of the abstract idea to the field of dispensing. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite any elements which are significantly more than the judicial exception?
As previously stated, the independent claims recite the additional elements of a dispensing nozzle, a pressure source, a sensor, a processor, and a storage device. However, these additional elements do not effectively transform or reduce the system to a different state or thing beyond such that the claims recite significantly more than well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry (See MPEP § 2106.05(c), Particular Transformation and MPEP § 2106.05(d), Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity) as evidenced by Yamazaki (US Pub. No. 2013/0121880) teaching a dispensing nozzle, pressure source, and sensor in ([0032], Fig. 1), Tamezane et al. (US Pub. No. 2015/0362514; hereinafter Tamezane) teaches a dispensing nozzle, pressure source, and sensor in ([0037], see Fig. 2), and a processor and storage device in ([0063], [0080]), Sarwar et al. (WO Pub. No. 2019/188599; hereinafter Sarwar, US Pub. No. 2020/0264206 to Sarwar et al. used as an English translation) teaches a dispensing nozzle, pressure source, and sensor in ([0048], see Fig. 1), and a processor and storage device in ([0021], [0054]).
Claims 2-4 and 6-8 provide further details about what the reference pressure data is constituted of, and fall under mere data gathering, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Regarding claim 5, the clause beginning with “the storage device stores…” further defines what the reference pressure data is constituted of, and falls under mere data gathering, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Regarding the clause beginning with “the processor selects”, selecting a particular data set from a number of data sets is an evaluation/determination-type mental process abstract idea judicial exception, and the recitation of the processor amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Regarding claim 9, the claim recites further details about how the statistical distance is calculated, and merely further defines the mathematical calculation-type abstract idea. The claim is still drawn to a judicial exception.
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites an automatic analysis device comprising the claimed dispensing device. This additional limitation does nothing more than generally link the judicial exception to an automatic analysis field. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Further, with regards to an automatic analysis device being well understood, routine, and conventional, Yamazaki teaches an automatic analysis device in ([0009]), Tamezane teaches an automatic analysis device in ([0009]), and Sarwar teaches an automatic analysis device in ([0019]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John McGuirk whose telephone number is (571)272-1949. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-530pm.
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, Charles Capozzi can be reached at (571) 270-3638. 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.
/JOHN MCGUIRK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights