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 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.
DETAILED ACTION
Preliminary Amendment
Preliminary Amendment filed on 04/01/2024 noted by the examiner, claims 1-20 are pending.
Double Patenting
2. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. See In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and, In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent is shown to be commonly owned with this application. See 37 CFR 1.130(b).
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of a related Application No. 11/220,243. Now US Patent 11,971,456. Claims of 1-39 of a related Application No.16/357,865 now US Patent 11,054,481. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of the claims in the current application are encompassed in the previous application. The latter pending application encompasses the same process as the pending application and is a different version of the previous application because of rearrangement of the claims language.
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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1, Step 1 the claim is a process (or machine) (Yes),
Step 2A Prong One, does the claim recite an abstract idea? current claim related to a method of measuring impedance, comprising: capturing a time record of an electrical signal from the device; adjusting the time record based on an estimated response to the load condition; and estimating an impedance of the device based on the adjusted time record appears is an abstract idea of mental process (MPEP 2106.04(a)) or data gathering equivalent to mathematical concept or mathematical manipulation function (MPEP 2106.04 (a) (2) (concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula), (OR Mathematical Concepts and Mental Processes) Step 2A Prong One: Yes.
Step 2A Prong Two, is the claim directed to an abstract idea? In other words, does claim recite additional elements that integrate the Judicial Exception into a practical application? the additional elements of applying a multispectral excitation signal during an excitation time period to a device while the device is under a load condition are recited at a high level of generality and merely amount to a particular field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) and/or insignificant post-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), this does not integrate the Judicial Exception into a practical application,
Step 2A Prong Two: NO.
Step 2B, Does the claim recite additional element that amount to significantly more than the Judicial exception? there are no more additional elements.
Step 2B: No. claim 1 not eligible.
Claim 7, Step 1 the claim is a process (or machine) (Yes),
Step 2A Prong One, does the claim recite an abstract idea? current claim related to a method, comprising: exciting a device with a multispectral excitation signal; capturing a response of the device; estimating an impedance of the device based on the captured response; determining one or more conditions associated with the device based on the estimated impedance; and performing at least one operation based on the one or more conditions appears is an abstract idea of mental process (MPEP 2106.04(a)) or data gathering equivalent to mathematical concept or mathematical manipulation function (MPEP 2106.04 (a) (2) (concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula), (OR Mathematical Concepts and Mental Processes) Step 2A Prong One: Yes.
Step 2A Prong Two, is the claim directed to an abstract idea? In other words, does claim recite additional elements that integrate the Judicial Exception into a practical application? there are no more additional elements.
Step 2A Prong Two: NO.
Step 2B, Does the claim recite additional element that amount to significantly more than the Judicial exception? there are no more additional elements
Step 2B: No. claim 7 not eligible.
Claim 14, Step 1 the claim is a process (or machine) (Yes),
Step 2A Prong One, does the claim recite an abstract idea? current claim related to a system, comprising: capture a time record of an electrical signal from the device; adjust the time record based on an estimated response to the load condition; and estimate an impedance of the device based on the adjusted time record appears is an abstract idea of mental process (MPEP 2106.04(a)) or data gathering equivalent to mathematical concept or mathematical manipulation function (MPEP 2106.04 (a) (2) (concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula), (OR Mathematical Concepts and Mental Processes) Step 2A Prong One: Yes.
Step 2A Prong Two, is the claim directed to an abstract idea? In other words, does claim recite additional elements that integrate the Judicial Exception into a practical application? the additional elements of an impedance measurement device configured to: apply a multispectral excitation signal during an excitation time period to a device while the device is under a load condition are recited at a high level of generality and merely amount to a particular field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) and/or insignificant post-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), this does not integrate the Judicial Exception into a practical application,
Step 2A Prong Two: NO.
Step 2B, Does the claim recite additional element that amount to significantly more than the Judicial exception? there are no more additional elements
Step 2B: No. claim 14 not eligible.
Claim 2 related to wherein capturing the time record comprises measuring the electrical signal from the device during a sampling window, wherein the excitation time period is within the sampling window such that the time record includes in-band samples during the excitation time period, and out-of-band samples outside of the excitation time period, its recites further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 2 not eligible.
Claim 3 related to determining the estimated response to the load condition via a mathematical expression, its recites further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 3 not eligible.
Claim 4 related to capturing the time record including a response to the load condition and a response to the multispectral excitation signal, its recites further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 4 not eligible.
Claim 5 related to adjusting the time record comprises removing the estimated response to the load condition from the time record, its recites further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 5 not eligible.
Claim 6 related to applying the multispectral excitation signal to the device comprises applying a sum-of-sines signal to a battery, its recites further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 6 not eligible.
Claim 8 related to wherein the performing the at least one operation comprises adjusting a power level of the device or shutting down the device, its recites further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 8 not eligible.
Claim 9 related to detecting a safety issue with the device, detecting a stability issue with the device, or both, its recites further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 9 not eligible.
Claim 10 related to the determining the one or more conditions comprises detecting leakage associated with the device, detecting an internal short associated with the device, or both, its recites further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 10 not eligible.
Claim 11 related to wherein the determining the one or more conditions comprises detecting an exponential response indicated by out-of-band samples of the response, detecting corruption indicated by in-band samples of the response, or both, its recites further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 11 not eligible.
Claim 12 related to wherein capturing the response comprises sampling the response of the device over a sample time period, wherein an excitation time period is within the sample time period such that the sample time period includes an in-band interval during the excitation time period, and one or more out-of-band intervals outside of the in-band interval, its recites further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 12 not eligible.
Claim 13 related to performing at least one assessment of the device based on the estimated impedance of the device, its recites further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 13 not eligible.
Claim 15 related to wherein the impedance measurement device is configured to remove the estimated response to the load condition from the time record to adjust the time record, its recites further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 15 not eligible.
Claim 16 related to wherein the impedance measurement device comprises: a signal conditioner to generate and apply the multispectral excitation signal to the device; a data acquisition device to capture the time record; and a computing system to adjust the time record and estimate the impedance of the device, its recites further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 16 not eligible.
Claim 17 related to wherein the device comprises an energy storage device, its recites further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 17 not eligible.
Claim 18 related to wherein the energy storage device comprises at least one of a battery or a fuel cell, its recites further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 18 not eligible.
Claim 19 related to wherein the impedance measurement device is further configured to determine the estimated response to the load condition via a mathematical expression, its recites further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 19 not eligible.
Claim 20 related to wherein the time record includes a response to a combination of the load condition and the excitation signal, its recites further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 20 not eligible.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by . FOKOW, WO 2017012794 A1, DATE PUBLISHED: 2017-01-26, CPC G01N 29/46.
Regarding claim 1:
FOKOW described a method of measuring impedance, comprising (page 4, the acoustic impedance of the test material calculated):
applying a multispectral excitation signal during an excitation time period to a device while the device is under a load condition (page 4, first, second ultrasonic receiving device for receiving the signals);
capturing a time record of an electrical signal from the device (page 4, the transit time);
adjusting the time record based on an estimated response to the load condition (page 4, amplitude of the transmitted ultrasonic); and estimating an impedance of the device based on the adjusted time record (page 4, the acoustic impedance of the test material calculated).
Regarding claim 7:
FOKOW described a method, comprising:
exciting a device with a multispectral excitation signal (page 4, first, second ultrasonic receiving device for receiving the signals);
capturing a response of the device; estimating an impedance of the device based on the captured response (page 4, the acoustic impedance of the test material calculated);
determining one or more conditions associated with the device based on the estimated impedance (page 4, first, second ultrasonic receiving device for receiving the signals); and
performing at least one operation based on the one or more conditions (page 4, the amplitude of the transmitted ultrasound reception signal or the amplitude of the reflected ultrasound reception signal can be measured directly or determined by determining other measurement values, for example the signal attenuation and subsequent derivation of the amplitude values).
Regarding claim 14:
FOKOW described a system, comprising:
an impedance measurement device configured to (page 4, the acoustic impedance of the test material calculated):
apply a multispectral excitation signal during an excitation time period to a device while the device is under a load condition (page 4, first, second ultrasonic receiving device for receiving the signals);
capture a time record of an electrical signal from the device (page 4, first, second ultrasonic receiving device for receiving the signals);
adjust the time record based on an estimated response to the load condition (page 4, first, second ultrasonic receiving device for receiving the signals); and estimate an impedance of the device based on the adjusted time record (page 4, the acoustic impedance of the test material calculated).
Regarding claim 2, FOKOW further described measuring the electrical signal from the device during a sampling window, wherein the excitation time period is within the sampling window such that the time record includes in-band samples during the excitation time period, and out-of-band samples outside of the excitation time period (page 4, measure first and second time transit period).
Regarding claim 3, FOKOW further described determining the estimated response to the load condition via a mathematical expression (fig. 3, page 3, Kramers-Kronig equation).
Regarding claim 4, FOKOW further described wherein capturing the time record comprises capturing the time record including a response to the load condition and a response to the multispectral excitation signal (page 4, signal capture in/out after transit time).
Regarding claim 5, FOKOW further described removing the estimated response to the load condition from the time record (page 4, test material for different frequencies).
Regarding claim 8, FOKOW further described adjusting a power level of the device (page 4, the measurement of attenuation and dispersivity of the examined test material) or shutting down the device.
Regarding claim 9, FOKOW further described determining the one or more conditions comprises detecting a safety issue with the device (page 4, the two receiving devices are suitable for transmitting or receiving ultrasound of different frequencies in order to be able to carry out a ultrasound examination of the material at different transmission or reception frequencies.), detecting a stability issue with the device, or both.
Regarding claim 10, FOKOW further described comprises detecting leakage associated with the device (page 4, subsequently determined in an evaluation device Sound transmission rate), detecting an internal short associated with the device, or both.
Regarding claim 11, FOKOW further described detecting an exponential response indicated by out-of-band samples of the response (fig. 4, exponential 2a RxR ratio equation), detecting corruption indicated by in-band samples of the response, or both.
Regarding claim 12, FOKOW further described sampling the response of the device over a sample time period, wherein an excitation time period is within the sample time period such that the sample time period includes an in-band interval during the excitation time period, and one or more out-of-band intervals outside of the in-band interval (page 4, sample during page 4, first, second ultrasonic receiving device for receiving the signals).
Regarding claim 13, FOKOW further described performing at least one assessment of the device based on the estimated impedance of the device (page 4, the amplitude of the transmitted ultrasound reception signal or the amplitude of the reflected ultrasound reception signal can be measured directly or determined by determining other measurement values, for example the signal attenuation and subsequent derivation of the amplitude values).
Regarding claim 15, FOKOW further described the impedance measurement device is configured to remove the estimated response to the load condition from the time record to adjust the time record (page 4, test material for different frequencies).
Regarding claim 16, FOKOW further described a signal conditioner to generate and apply the multispectral excitation signal to the device; a data acquisition device to capture the time record; and a computing system to adjust the time record and estimate the impedance of the device (page 4, test material for different frequencies , the amplitude of the transmitted ultrasound reception signal or the amplitude of the reflected ultrasound reception signal can be measured directly or determined by determining other measurement values, for example the signal attenuation and subsequent derivation of the amplitude values).
Regarding claim 17, FOKOW further described wherein the device comprises an energy storage device (page 5, 6 store oil or fuel).
Regarding claim 18, FOKOW further described at least one of a battery or a fuel cell (page 5, 6 store oil or fuel).
Regarding claim 19, FOKOW further described configured to determine the estimated response to the load condition via a mathematical expression (fig. 3, page 3, Kramers-Kronig equation).
Regarding claim 20, FOKOW further described wherein the time record includes a response to a combination of the load condition and the excitation signal (page 4-5, different frequency first and second time frame, material can be plastic or glass).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
a. Claim 6 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over FOKOW, WO 2017012794 A1, DATE PUBLISHED: 2017-01-26, G01N 29/46.
Regarding claim 6, FOKOW further described applying a sum-of-sines signal (page 6, ultrasound transmission device are added to a common carrier signal as a superposition and transmitted together.)
FOKOW further does not described a battery.
FOKOW does described the storage can be oil or fuel cell (page 5-6, oil or fuel).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify FOKOW to have battery as battery is a variation of fuel cell for common power storage use.
Contact information
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tung Lau whose telephone number is (571)272-2274, email is Tungs.lau@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on Tuesday-Friday 7:00 AM-5:00 PM 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, TURNER SHELBY, can be reached on 571-272-6334. 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.
/TUNG S LAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Technology Center 2800
July 28, 2026
Prosecution Insights