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 .
Priority
Current application, US Application No. 18/592,656 filed on 03/01/2024, claims foreign priority to IN 202311018137 filed on 03/17/2023.
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to the application filed on 03/01/2024. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to nonstatutory subject matter. 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.
Specifically, representative claim 1 recites:
“A method for detecting reuse of a sensing component by a controller component, (1.A) comprising:
reading device information of the sensing component; (1.B)
determining if the sensing component is reused based on the device information; (1.C)
in an instance in which the sensing component is reused, generating a reuse alert; (1.D1.)
and in an instance in which the sensing component is not reused, determining a life expectancy of the sensing component. (1.D.2)”.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (Process - Method).
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exception. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter when recited as such in a claim limitation, that covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations), and mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion).
For example, highlighted limitations/steps (1.A) and (1.C)-(1.D.2) are treated by the Examiner as belonging to Mathematical Concept grouping or Mental Processing groupings as the limitations show Mathematical (logical) calculation or Mental evaluation/judgement.
Next, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
The above claims comprise the following additional elements: (Side Note: duplicated elements are not repeated)
In Claim 1: “A method for detecting reuse of a sensing component by a controller component”, “reading device information of the sensing component” and “generating a reuse alert”;
In Claim 2: “uploading the device information to the server”, “querying a database of the server with the device information”;
In Claim 7: “the sensing component is a flow sensing component configured to measure a flow rate of a flowing media”;
In Claim 8: “connecting the sensing component with the controller component, wherein: the sensing component is attachable to the controller component” and “the sensing component is configured to be in an electrical communication with the controller component when attached”;
In Claim 10: “the signal conditioner is an amplifier or an analog-to-digital converter (ADC)”;
In Claim 11: “storing the life expectancy of the sensing component”;
In Claim 12: “updating the life expectancy of the sensing component on a server”;
In Claim 13: “the controller component is further configured to send the reuse alert to a user in rea-time”;
In Claim 14: “a sensor”, “a sensing component, and a controller component, wherein the sensing component is attachable to the controller component”;
As per claim 1, the additional element in the preamble “A method for detecting reuse of a sensing component by a controller component” is not a meaningful limitation because the limitation simply links a method with an abstract idea, i.e. detecting reuse of a sensing component, as an intended purpose. A use of a controller component is not particular in the art.
The limitation/step “reading device information of the sensing component” represents a standard data collection step in the art and only adds insignificant extra solution to the judicial exception.
The limitation/step “generating a reuse alert” represents a standard output step in the art and only adds insignificant extra solution to the judicial exception.
As per claim 2, the limitations/steps “uploading the device information to the server” and “querying a database of the server with the device information” represent standard communication steps in the art and only adds insignificant extra solution to the judicial exception.
As per claim 7, the limitation “the sensing component is a flow sensing component configured to measure a flow rate of a flowing media” can be interpreted as a mental observation about the sensing component. Even if the limitation is not interpreted as an abstract idea, the flow sensing component is not particular in the art and measuring the flow rate of a flowing media only adds insignificant extra solution to the judicial exception.
As per claim 8, the limitations/steps “connecting the sensing component with the controller component, wherein: the sensing component is attachable to the controller component” and “the sensing component is configured to be in an electrical communication with the controller component when attached” are not particular in the art and only add insignificant extra solution to the judicial exception.
As per claim 10, the limitation “the signal conditioner is an amplifier or an analog-to-digital converter (ADC)” can be interpreted as a mental observation about the signal conditioner. Even if the limitation is not interpreted as an abstract idea, the elements “an amplifier or an analog-to-digital converter (ADC)” are not particular in the art.
As per claim 11, the limitation/step “storing the life expectancy of the sensing component” represents a standard data saving step in the art and only adds insignificant extra solution to the judicial exception.
As per claim 12, the limitation/step “updating the life expectancy of the sensing component on a server” represents a standard data update step in the computing environment and only adds insignificant extra solution to the judicial exception.
As per claim 13, the limitation/step “the controller component is further configured to send the reuse alert to a user in rea-time” represents a standard computer operation step in the art and only adds insignificant extra solution to the judicial exception.
As per claim 14, the additional element in the preamble “A sensor” is not qualified as a meaningful limitation because the preamble even fails to link the sensor with a particular operation or field of use.
The elements “a sensing component, and a controller component, wherein the sensing component is attachable to the controller component” are not particular in the art.
In conclusion, the above additional elements considered individually and in combination with the other claim elements as a whole do not reflect an improvement to the computer technology or other technology or technical field, and, therefore, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. No particular machine or real-world transformation are claimed. Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
Under Step 2B analysis, the above claims fail to include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as shown in the prior art of record.
The limitations/elements listed as additional elements above are well understood, routine and conventional steps/elements in the art according to the prior art of record. (See Sponh, Kevin, Yan, Kim and others in the list of prior art of record)
Claims 1-20, therefore, are not patent eligible.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spohn (US 20180240548 A1) in view of Kevin (JP 2019013794 A).
As per claim 1, Spohn discloses
A method for detecting reuse of a sensing component by a controller component, (method of monitoring a replaceable components of a system, collected use data associated with each previous use of the component [abs], associated with a controller, computing unit, or remote computer device that tracks the lifecycle of disposable and/or replaceable … components [0008] can include sensing … device [0014]) comprising:
reading device information of the sensing component; (collected use data associated with each previous use of the component [abs], collect the … parameter data [0014], component sensor … reads the barcode and extracts information [0073])
Spohn further discloses determining if the sensing component is reused and issues an alert if one of the replaceable components reaches the end of its anticipated useful life (monitoring a replaceable components of a system, collected use data associated with each previous use of the component [abs], issues an alert if one of the replaceable components reaches the end of its anticipated useful life [0048]), but is not explicit regarding determining if the sensing component is reused based on the device information and in an instance in which the sensing component is reused, generating a reuse alert.
Kevin explicitly recites a sensing component, determining if the sensing component is reused based on the device information, and in an instance in which the sensing component is reused, generating a reuse alert. (a sensing component [pg. 46 line 39, pg. 47 line 4- pg. 48 line 18, Figs. 136-13 ], indicate a code for communicating information to the system such as a lot number, a unique identification indicator, recognize whether the connector … has been reused … alerts / alarms [pg. 230 line 13-31]).
Kevin is in the same art of delivering fluid and concerned about reuse of the components like Spohn.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when invention is filed before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of Spohn in view of Kevin to determine if the sensing component is reused based on the device information and in an instance in which the sensing component is reused, generate a reuse alert with a rationale to track the lifecycle of sensing components and provide an appropriate feedback to a system operator regarding reuse status and/or life expectancy (Spohn – tracks the lifecycle … components, feedback, tracking remaining viable life for … components [0008]).
Spohn further discloses
in an instance in which the sensing component is not reused, determining a life expectancy of the sensing component. (includes a visual and/or audio feedback device configured to provide to an operator of the apparatus an indication of at least one of the unused and used portions of the viable life of the replaceable component [0015]).
As per claim 14, Spohn discloses
A sensor, (sensors positioned throughout the injector [0008]) comprising:
a sensing component, and a controller component, wherein the sensing component is attachable to the controller component, (associated with a controller, computing unit, or remote computer device that tracks the lifecycle of disposable and/or replaceable … components [0008] fluid delivery system can include sensing … device [0014]).
Spohn in view of Kevin discloses the remaining limitations ash shown in claim 1 above.
Notes with regard to Prior Art
The prior arts made of record are provided as additional references relevant to the current claims including remaining dependent claims.
Yan (Yan, Zhaoteng, and et al. "Internet-scale fingerprinting the reusing and rebranding IoT devices in the cyberspace." IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing 20, no. 5 (2022): 3890-3909) discloses identifying reuse of IoT device components and uploading device information to the server to track reuse status of the component (improves the work efficiently of information collection about
accelerating the relations between reusing/rebranding devices with the corresponding manufacturers [abs], fingerprinting Internet-Scale IoT Devices [pg. 3891 right col par. 4 – 5]).
Kim (Kim, Jinho, Hyungseok Cho, Song-I. Han, Arum Han, and Ki-Ho Han. "A disposable microfluidic flow sensor with a reusable sensing substrate." Sensors and Actuators B: Chemical 288 (2019): 147-154) discloses a disposable microfluidic flow sensor (disposable-μFSensor) consisting of a disposable microchannel superstrate and reusable sensing substrate, which can be assembled and disassembled simply by vacuum pressure. Because the disposable microchannel superstrate is fabricated easily and cheaply using a silicone-coated release polymer thin film, it can be replaced after a single use, while the sensing substrate can be reused continuously. One of the key advantages of the disposable-μFSensor is that the measurable flow rate range can be adjusted very broadly, from 10 to 650 μL/min, by simply replacing only the disposable microchannel that has different bypass channel design, without having to change the sensing substrate [abs].
Kotchavi (US 20060259604 A1) discloses systems and methods of managing a network of intelligent devices in communication with a server. For each intelligent device that is part of a network a client process associated with the device issues a query to the device causing the issuance of a query to the server for instructions. In a controllable response to the query as a result of the client process the server causes at least one of: (i) downloading, for storage local to the device, at least one of data and instructions, for use in association with the device and (ii) uploading of data pertinent to the device. (see – [abs]).
Ondemir (Ondemir, Onder, and Surendra M. Gupta. "Quality assurance in remanufacturing with sensor embedded products." In Quality Management in Reverse Logistics: A Broad Look on Quality Issues and Their Interaction with Closed-Loop Supply Chains, pp. 95-112. London: Springer London, 2012) discloses using the information collected by sensors, existence, types, conditions, and remaining lives of components in an end-of-life product (EOLP) can be determined (see – [abs]).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS KAY, whose telephone number is (408) 918-7569. The examiner can normally be reached on M, Th & F 8-5, T 2-7, and W 8-1.
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, Arleen M Vazquez can be reached on 571-272-2619. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DOUGLAS KAY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights