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 .
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/11/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Oath/Declaration
Oath/Declaration as file 03/01/2023 is noted by the Examiner.
Title Objection
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5, 7, 14, 16, 17 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the limitation “…determine the variable resistance of the conductive portion of the resistance-based sensing device based at least in part on the time interval .” in lines 12-13 of Claim 1. The underlined limitation in question appears to refer to the same “time interval associated with the voltage drop in the energy storage device” disclosed earlier in Claim 1. If this is the case, then please change the limitation in question to “the time interval associated with the voltage drop in the energy storage device”.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “…wherein the physical characteristic indicated by the resistance-based sensing device…” in lines 1-2 of Claim 5. The underlined limitation in question appears to refer to the same “physical characteristic of the environment” disclosed earlier in Claim 1. If this is the case, then please change the limitation in question to “the physical characteristic of the environment”.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “…wherein the time interval is determined based on the count value.” in lines 1-2 of Claim 7. The underlined limitation in question appears to refer to the same “time interval associated with the voltage drop in the energy storage device” disclosed earlier in Claim 1. If this is the case, then please change the limitation in question to “the time interval associated with the voltage drop in the energy storage device”.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “…wherein the time interval representing the variable resistance of the conductive portion of the resistance-based sensing device…” in lines 1-2 of Claim 14. The underlined limitation in question appears to refer to the same “time interval associated with the voltage drop in the energy storage device” disclosed earlier in Claim 1. If this is the case, then please change the limitation in question to “the time interval associated with the voltage drop in the energy storage device”.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “…determining the variable resistance of the conductive portion of the resistance-based sensing device based at least in part on the time interval .” in lines 7-8 of Claim 16. The underlined limitation in question appears to refer to the same “time interval associated with the voltage drop in the energy storage device” disclosed earlier in Claim 16. If this is the case, then please change the limitation in question to “the time interval associated with the voltage drop in the energy storage device”.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “…wherein the time interval is determined based on the count value .” in lines 3-4 of Claim 17. The underlined limitation in question appears to refer to the same “time interval associated with the voltage drop in the energy storage device” disclosed earlier in Claim 16. If this is the case, then please change the limitation in question to “the time interval associated with the voltage drop in the energy storage device”.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “…determine the variable resistance of the conductive portion of the resistance-based sensing device based at least in part on the time interval .” in lines 12-13 of Claim 20. The underlined limitation in question appears to refer to the same “time interval associated with the voltage drop in the energy storage device” disclosed earlier in Claim 20 or if it refers to a different “time interval”. If this is the case, then please change the limitation in question to “the time interval associated with the voltage drop in the energy storage device”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 8, 13-16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Song et al. US 2014/0343701 (Hereinafter Song).
Regarding claim 1, Song teaches an apparatus (Figs. 1-5) comprising:
a resistance-based sensing device (Figs. 1-5; impedance-based impact measuring sporting equipment; 104, 204, 304, 404, 504) comprising a conductive portion (Figs. 1-5; [0044, 0089]; conductive material) configured to indicate a physical characteristic of an environment based on a variable resistance (Figs. 1-5; Abstract; [0044-0053; 0058-0064; 0089-0092]; impedance changes) of the conductive portion (Figs. 1-5; [0044, 0089]; conductive material); and
a controller (Figs. 1-5; computer-readable medium; 102, 202, 302, 402, 502) electrically coupled to the resistance-based sensing device (Figs. 1-5; computer-readable medium; 102, 202, 302, 402, 502), comprising one or more processors (Figs. 1-5; computer-readable medium; 102, 202, 302, 402, 502; [0031]; “A typical computer system will usually include at least a processor, memory, and a device (e.g., a bus) coupling the memory to the processor. The processor can be, for example, a general-purpose central processing unit (CPU), such as a microprocessor, or a special-purpose processor, such as a microcontroller.”) and one or more storage devices (Figs. 1-5; computer-readable medium; 102, 202, 302, 402, 502; [0031-0034]; memory; “A typical computer system will usually include at least a processor, memory, and a device (e.g., a bus) coupling the memory to the processor.”) storing instructions that are operable (Figs. 1-5; computer-readable medium; 102, 202, 302, 402, 502; [0031-0034]; memory), when executed by the one or more processors (Figs. 1-5; computer-readable medium; 102, 202, 302, 402, 502), to cause the one or more processors to:
transmit stored energy from an energy storage device (Figs. 1-5; computer-readable medium; [0031-0034, 0036, 0040]; memory) to the conductive portion (Figs. 1-5; [0044, 0089]; conductive material) of the resistance-based sensing device (Figs. 1-5; impedance-based impact measuring sporting equipment; 104, 204, 304, 404, 504);
determine a time interval (Figs. 1-5; [0062, 0063]) associated with a voltage drop (Figs. 1-5; [0062, 0063]) in the energy storage device (Figs. 1-5; computer-readable medium; [0031-0034, 0036, 0040]; memory); and
determine the variable resistance (Figs. 1-5; Abstract; [0044-0053; 0058-0064; 0089-0092]; impedance changes) of the conductive portion (Figs. 1-5; [0044, 0089]; conductive material) of the resistance-based sensing device (Figs. 1-5; impedance-based impact measuring sporting equipment; 104, 204, 304, 404, 504) based at least in part on the time interval (Figs. 1-5; [0062, 0063]).
Regarding claim 5, Song further teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein Song further teaches wherein the physical characteristic indicated by the resistance-based sensing device is at least one of pressure, stress, temperature, and light (Figs. 1-5; impedance-based impact measuring sporting equipment; 104, 204, 304, 404, 504).
Regarding claim 8, Song further teaches the apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a power voltage detector ([0062]) electrically coupled to the controller (Figs. 1-5; computer-readable medium; 102, 202, 302, 402, 502) and configured to determine a voltage value in the energy storage device (Figs. 1-5; computer-readable medium; 102, 202, 302, 402, 502; [0031-0034]; memory).
Regarding claim 13, Song further teaches the apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a transceiver radio electrically coupled to the controller (Figs. 17A, 17B; [0123, 0124]).
Regarding claim 14, Song further teaches the apparatus of claim 13, wherein the time interval representing the variable resistance of the conductive portion of the resistance-based sensing device is transmitted by the transceiver radio (Figs. 17A, 17B; [0123, 0124]).
Regarding claim 15, Song further teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the variable resistance of the conductive portion of the resistance-based sensing device is determined without the use of an analog-to-digital converter (Figs. 1-5; Abstract; [0044-0053; 0058-0064; 0089-0092]; impedance changes).
Regarding claim 16, Song teaches a computer-implemented method (Figs. 1-5) for determining a variable resistance (Figs. 1-5; Abstract; [0044-0053; 0058-0064; 0089-0092]; impedance changes) of a conductive portion (Figs. 1-5; [0044, 0089]; conductive material) of a resistance-based sensing device (Figs. 1-5; impedance-based impact measuring sporting equipment; 104, 204, 304, 404, 504), the computer-implemented method comprising:
transmitting, by a controller (Figs. 1-5; computer-readable medium; 102, 202, 302, 402, 502), stored energy from an energy storage device (Figs. 1-5; computer-readable medium; 102, 202, 302, 402, 502; [0031-0034]; memory; “A typical computer system will usually include at least a processor, memory, and a device (e.g., a bus) coupling the memory to the processor.”) to the conductive portion (Figs. 1-5; [0044, 0089]; conductive material) of the resistance-based sensing device (Figs. 1-5; impedance-based impact measuring sporting equipment; 104, 204, 304, 404, 504);
determining a time interval (Figs. 1-5; [0062, 0063]) associated with a voltage drop (Figs. 1-5; [0062, 0063]) in the energy storage device (Figs. 1-5; computer-readable medium; [0031-0034, 0036, 0040]; memory); and
determining the variable resistance (Figs. 1-5; Abstract; [0044-0053; 0058-0064; 0089-0092]; impedance changes) of the conductive portion (Figs. 1-5; [0044, 0089]; conductive material) of the resistance-based sensing device (Figs. 1-5; impedance-based impact measuring sporting equipment; 104, 204, 304, 404, 504) based at least in part on the time interval (Figs. 1-5; [0062, 0063]).
Regarding claim 18, Song further teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 16, further comprising a power voltage detector ([0062]) electrically coupled to the controller (Figs. 1-5; computer-readable medium; 102, 202, 302, 402, 502) and configured to determine a voltage value in the energy storage device (Figs. 1-5; computer-readable medium; 102, 202, 302, 402, 502; [0031-0034]; memory).
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.
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) 2-4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song in view of La Rosa US 2023/0027724 (Hereinafter La Rosa).
Regarding claim 2, Song teaches the apparatus of claim 1, but not specifically further comprising an energy harvester configured to generate harvested energy and transmit the harvested energy to the energy storage device.
However, La Rosa does teach an energy harvester configured to generate harvested energy and transmit the harvested energy to the energy storage device (Figs. 1, 2; energy harvester; 1022).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the impedance-based impact determination and scoring device of Song by implementing the teachings of La Rosa regarding an energy harvester configured to generate harvested energy and transmit the harvested energy to the energy storage device; in order to “alternately harvest energy and release energy for supplying the wireless device” (See La Rosa2; Abstract).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Song and La Rosa teaches the apparatus of claim 2, wherein La Rosa further teaches wherein the energy harvester generates the harvested energy from a natural power source (Figs. 1, 2; [0036]; energy harvester; 1022; solar energy, thermal energy).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Song and La Rosa teaches the apparatus of claim 3, wherein La Rosa further teaches wherein the natural power source is at least one of solar power, thermal energy, wind energy, and vibration energy (Figs. 1, 2; [0036]; energy harvester; 1022; solar energy, thermal energy).
Regarding claim 11, Song teaches the apparatus of claim 1 but not specifically, further comprising a reference resistor having a known resistance value.
However, La Rosa does teach further comprising a reference resistor having a known resistance value ([0062]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the impedance-based impact determination and scoring device of Song by implementing the teachings of La Rosa regarding further comprising a reference resistor having a known resistance value; in order to “alternately harvest energy and release energy for supplying the wireless device” (See La Rosa; Abstract).
Claim(s) 6, 7, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song in view of Moeneclaey et al. US 2022/0321140 (Hereinafter Moeneclaey).
Regarding claim 6, Song teaches apparatus of claim 1, but not specifically further comprising a low power timer electrically coupled to the controller and configured to generate a count value based on a clock frequency of the controller.
However, Moeneclaey does teach a low power timer electrically coupled to the controller and configured to generate a count value based on a clock frequency of the controller ([0039-0047]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the impedance-based impact determination and scoring device of Song by implementing the teachings of Moeneclaey regarding a low power timer electrically coupled to the controller and configured to generate a count value based on a clock frequency of the controller; in order to “receive a digital signal” (See Moeneclaey; Abstract).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Song and Moeneclaey teaches the apparatus of claim 6, wherein Moeneclaey further teaches wherein the time interval is determined based on the count value ([0039-0047]).
Regarding claim 17, Song teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 16, but not specifically further comprising: determining a count value based on a low power timer electrically coupled to the controller and configured to increment the count value based on a clock frequency of the controller, wherein the time interval is determined based on the count value.
However, Moeneclaey does teach determining a count value based on a low power timer electrically coupled to the controller and configured to increment the count value based on a clock frequency of the controller ([0039-0047]), wherein the time interval is determined based on the count value ([0039-0047]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the impedance-based impact determination and scoring device of Song by implementing the teachings of Moeneclaey regarding determining a count value based on a low power timer electrically coupled to the controller and configured to increment the count value based on a clock frequency of the controller, wherein the time interval is determined based on the count value; in order to “receive a digital signal” (See Moeneclaey; Abstract).
Regarding claim 20, Song teaches a computer program product (Figs. 1-5) for determining a variable resistance (Figs. 1-5; Abstract; [0044-0053; 0058-0064; 0089-0092]; impedance changes) of a conductive portion (Figs. 1-5; [0044, 0089]; conductive material) of a resistance-based sensing device (Figs. 1-5; impedance-based impact measuring sporting equipment; 104, 204, 304, 404, 504), the computer program product comprising at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (Figs. 1-5; computer-readable medium; 102, 202, 302, 402, 502) having computer-readable program code portions stored therein (Figs. 1-5; computer-readable medium; 102, 202, 302, 402, 502; [0031-0034]; memory; “A typical computer system will usually include at least a processor, memory, and a device (e.g., a bus) coupling the memory to the processor.”), the computer-readable program code portions (Figs. 1-5; computer-readable medium; 102, 202, 302, 402, 502) comprising an executable portion configured to:
transmit, by a controller (Figs. 1-5; computer-readable medium; 102, 202, 302, 402, 502; [0031]; “A typical computer system will usually include at least a processor, memory, and a device (e.g., a bus) coupling the memory to the processor. The processor can be, for example, a general-purpose central processing unit (CPU), such as a microprocessor, or a special-purpose processor, such as a microcontroller.”), stored energy from an energy storage device (Figs. 1-5; computer-readable medium; [0031-0034, 0036, 0040]; memory) to the conductive portion of the resistance-based sensing device (Figs. 1-5; impedance-based impact measuring sporting equipment; 104, 204, 304, 404, 504);
determine a time interval (Figs. 1-5; [0062, 0063]) associated with a voltage drop (Figs. 1-5; [0062, 0063]) in the energy storage device (Figs. 1-5; computer-readable medium; [0031-0034, 0036, 0040]; memory); and
determine the variable resistance (Figs. 1-5; Abstract; [0044-0053; 0058-0064; 0089-0092]; impedance changes) of the conductive portion (Figs. 1-5; [0044, 0089]; conductive material) of the resistance-based sensing device (Figs. 1-5; impedance-based impact measuring sporting equipment; 104, 204, 304, 404, 504) based at least in part on the time interval (Figs. 1-5; [0062, 0063]).
Song does not specifically teach determine a count value based on a low power timer electrically coupled to the controller and configured to increment the count value based on a clock frequency of the controller and determine a time interval based at least in part on the count value.
However, Moeneclaey does teach determine a count value based on a low power timer ([0039-0047]) electrically coupled to the controller and configured to increment the count value based on a clock frequency of the controller ([0039-0047]) and determine a time interval based at least in part on the count value ([0039-0047]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the impedance-based impact determination and scoring device of Song by implementing the teachings of Moeneclaey regarding determine a count value based on a low power timer electrically coupled to the controller and configured to increment the count value based on a clock frequency of the controller and determine a time interval based at least in part on the count value; in order to “receive a digital signal” (See Moeneclaey; Abstract).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9, 12 and 19 are 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:
Regarding claim 9, the prior art does not teach or suggest, in combination with the rest of the limitations of claims 1 and 8,
“…wherein the voltage drop corresponds to a difference between a first voltage value determined by the power voltage detector and a second voltage value.”
Claim 10 is also allowed as it further limits objected claim 9.
Regarding claim 12, the prior art does not teach or suggest, in combination with the rest of the limitations of claims 1 and 11,
“…wherein the variable resistance of the conductive portion of the resistance-based sensing device is determined based at least in part on a reference time interval associated with a reference voltage drop in the energy storage device in an instance in which the stored energy from the energy storage device is transmitted to the reference resistor.”
Regarding claim 19, the prior art does not teach or suggest, in combination with the rest of the limitations of claims 16 and 18,
“…determining, by the power voltage detector, a first voltage value and a second voltage value, wherein the voltage drop corresponds to a difference between the first voltage value and the second voltage value, and wherein the second voltage value is associated with a minimum operating voltage of the controller.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hong et al. US 2017/0183034 - A sensing device includes: an encoder rotating with a rotation shaft and having an external surface with an alternating structure made of magnetic material; at least one magnet facing the external surface and arranged to be fixed outside the encoder.
Lewis US 2003/0020466 - An electromechanical rotation sensing device includes a mechanical sensing system for sensing a physical parameter; a rotational member rotated by the mechanical sensing system in response to the parameter sensed.
Ives et al. US 2020/0049482 - A position sensor device includes a sensor head with a sensor coil, and an analog-to-digital (A/D) converter for digitizing output from the sensor coil, and sending the digital input to electronics of the device for further processing.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAUL J RIOS RUSSO whose telephone number is (571)270-3459. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 10am-6pm, EST.
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, Huy Phan can be reached at 571-272-7924. 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.
/RAUL J RIOS RUSSO/Examiner, Art Unit 2858