DETAILED ACTION
Non-Final Rejection
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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim limitation “input interface, derivation unit, determinator” (as cited in claims 11-20) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed functions (such units) and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function based on current application discloser, see [0083-84] of current discloser.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Each of claims 1-20 falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP § 2106.03. For example, each of claims 1-10 fall within category process. For example, each of claims 11-20 fall within category of machine, i.e., a “concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices.” Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1348–49, 111 USPQ2d at 1719 (quoting Burr v. Duryee, 68 U.S. 531, 570, 17 L. Ed. 650, 657 (1863)).
Regarding Claims 1-10
Step 2A – Prong 1
Exemplary claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea of analyzing a signal.
The abstract idea is set forth or described by the following italicized limitations:
1. A method for analyzing a signal, the method comprising:
receiving an incoming square-wave-like signal that comprises a predetermined frequency and a variable duty cycle;
continuously forming the first derivative of the incoming square-wave-like signal; and
determining at least one of the frequency, and the duty cycle of the received signal based on the first derivative.
The italicized limitations above represent a combination of mathematical concept (i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships or rules or idea) and mental step (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper or a mental judgment) . Therefore, the italicized limitations fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
For example, the limitations “continuously forming the first derivative [..]; determining at least one of the frequency, and the duty cycle [..]” are a combination of mathematical concept (i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships or rules or idea), and/or mental step (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper or a mental judgment), see 2106.04(a)(2). Limitations are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (discussing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)).
Step 2A – Prong 2
Claims 1 does not include additional elements (when considered individually, as an ordered combination, and/or within the claim as a whole) that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
For example, only additional element is “receiving an incoming square-wave-like signal that comprises a predetermined frequency and a variable duty cycle” to be performed, at least in-part, these additional elements appear to only add insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., field of use and /or data gathering) and only generally link the abstract idea to a particular field. Therefore, this element individually or as a whole does not provide a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
In view of the above, the “additional elements” individually do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. Furthermore, the “additional elements” in combination amount to a generic computer components with computer software, where such computers and software amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer(s) and/or mere use of a generic computer component(s) as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, these elements in combination do not provide a practical application. The combination of additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, and for this additional reason, the combination of additional elements does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea..
Step 2B
Claims1 does not include additional elements, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. For brevity only, those reasons are not repeated in this section. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(g) and MPEP §§2106.05(II).
Dependent Claims 2-10
Dependent claims 2-10 fail to cure this deficiency of independent claim 1 (set forth above) and are rejected accordingly. Particularly, claims 2-8 recite limitations that represent (in addition to the limitations already noted above) either the abstract idea or an additional element that is merely extra-solution activity, mere use of instructions and/or generic computer component(s) as a tool to implement the abstract idea, and/or merely limits the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
For example, the limitations of Claims 2-6 are a combination of mental step and mathematical concept (i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships or rules or idea) and mental step (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper or a mental judgment).
For example, the limitations of Claims 7-10 are to be performed, at least in-part, these additional elements appear to only add insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., field of use and /or data gathering) and only generally link the abstract idea to a particular field. Therefore, this element individually or as a whole does not provide a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claims 11-20
Claims 11-20 contains language similar to claims 1-10 as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, and for reasons similar to those discussed above, claims 11-20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101(abstract idea). Furthermore , the claim recite the 2nd additional element is “measurement application device”. This element amounts to mere use of a generic sensor system with computer component, which is well understood routine and conventional (see background of current discloser and IDS and PTO 892) and this element individually does not provide a practical application. In view of the above, the “additional element” individually or combine does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. see MPEP 2106.05(d). In view of the above, the “additional elements” individually do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. Furthermore, the “additional elements” in combination amount to a generic computer components with computer software, where such computers and software amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer(s) and/or mere use of a generic computer component(s) as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, these elements in combination do not provide a practical application. The combination of additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, and for this additional reason, the combination of additional elements does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea.
Step 2B
Claims11 does not include additional elements, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. For examples, “measurement application device” , which are well understood, routine and convention (see background of current discloser, IDS and PTO892) and MPEP 2106.05(d)) The reasons for reaching this conclusion are substantially the same as the reasons given above in § Step 2A – Prong 2. For brevity only, those reasons are not repeated in this section. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(g) and MPEP §§2106.05(II).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
a) US20100289546: disclose A digital signal converter (CNV) converts a digital input signal (PCM) into a pulse width modulated signal (PWM), which is a binary signal that comprises pulses of varying width. The digital signal converter can operate in a signal mode and a transition mode. In the transition mode, the digital converter provides the pulse width modulated signal (PWM) by applying an anti-transient noise shaping function (NSH2) to a direct current modification signal (SC). In the signal mode, the digital signal converter provides the pulse width modulated signal by applying a signal noise shaping function (NSH1) to the digital input signal.
b) US 2015/0221490: disclose A method for extracting shape information for particles with similar shape and corresponding system of a tandem differential mobility analyzer (DMA) and pulse field differential mobility analyzer (PFDMA) system, that executes at least generating a steady state aerosol concentration; passing aerosol flow from the aerosol concentration thru a bipolar charger to produce a known charge distribution; passing aerosol thru a DMA with set sheath and aerosol flows and a set voltage to generate a mono-mobility aerosol; passing mono-mobility aerosol thru a PFDMA system; and measuring mobility as a function of electric field by varying the duty cycle of the pulse in the PFDMA system. Alternatively, the method and system relate to separating particles with different shapes by adjusting the duty cycle of the pulse to reach a higher or lower electric field than in the DMA in which the mono-mobility aerosol was generated; and separating particles based on shape.
c) US 2010/0290258: disclose o adjust the waveform required to correct the error between the output and an ideal sine wave, the program product 608 uses a novel form of the standard PID algorithm. As is known in the art, a PID (or "proportional", "integral", "derivative") algorithm has as inputs a setpoint (SP) specifying the desired output of the system and a measured value or variable (PV), which is the actual output of the system. The output of the PID algorithm is the manipulated variable (MV) and this value controls whatever means is producing the output of the system to form a feedback loop. The PID algorithm internally computes an error value and an integral and derivative of this error value with respect to time. To compute the PID algorithm, each of these three values is multiplied by a respective constant (called tuning parameters), and the products are summed to obtain the value for the manipulated variable. Thus, for the PID algorithm:
Examiner Notes
Although there are no prior art rejections for Claims 1-20, specifically claims 1 and 11 the Examiner cannot comment on their allowability until all the rejections under 35 U.S.C 101 is satisfactorily addressed. However, closest prior art fail to teach the limitation of claim 3,11 and 17, e.g. ” continuously forming the first derivative of the incoming square-wave-like signal; and determining at least one of the frequency, and the duty cycle of the received signal based on the first derivative”
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD K ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)270-0328. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m..
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, Shelby A Turner can be reached at 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 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.
/MOHAMMAD K ISLAM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights