DETAILED ACTION
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 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 abstract ideas without significantly more, as set forth below.
The following analysis is performed in accordance with the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (hereinafter 2019 PEG), as set forth in MPEP §2106.
Step 1
Step 1 of the 2019 PEG asks whether the claim is a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Claims 1-12 are directed to a method of measuring physical properties of liquid (i.e. a process).
Claims 13-19 are directed toward a sensor system (i.e. a machine).
Claim 20 is directed toward one or more non-transitory computer-readable media (i.e. a manufacture).
Step 2A Prong One
Step 2A Prong One of the 2019 PEG asks whether the claim recites an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon.
The examiner has identified the following judicial exceptions in the claims:
Claim 1 recites “determining a derivative of the at least one current-voltage characteristic” in line 8. This claim limitation is a judicial exception of a mathematical concept. Claim 1 further recites “determining at least one physical property of the liquid proximate the conductor based at least in part on a local potential of the liquid by selecting a first minimum of the derivative that is higher than a floating potential of the conductor” in lines 9-12. This claim limitation is a judicial exception of a mathematical concept and/or mental process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the mental process limitation in the mind and/or with pen and paper.
Claims 2-12 contain all the limitations of claim 1, and therefore also recite abstract ideas.
Claim 13 recites “control circuitry being configured to … determine a derivative of the at least one current-voltage characteristic.”. This claim limitation is a judicial exception of a mathematical concept. Claim 13 further recites that the control circuitry is configured to “determine at least one physical property of the liquid proximate the conductor based at least in part on a local potential of the liquid by selecting a first minimum of the derivative that is higher than a floating potential of the conductor.” This claim limitation is a judicial exception of a mental process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the mental process limitation in the mind and/or with pen and paper, but for the recitation of a generic computer (i.e. control circuitry). Other than reciting a generic computer that facilitates the mental process steps, nothing in the claim precludes any of the mental process steps from practically being performed in the human mind and/or with pen and paper.
Claims 14-19 contain all the limitations of claim 13, and therefore also recite abstract ideas.
Claim 20 recites “determining a derivative of the at least one current-voltage characteristic.” This claim limitation is a judicial exception of a mathematical concept. Claim 20 further recites “determining at least one physical property of the liquid proximate the conductor based at least in part on a local potential of the liquid by selecting a first minimum of the derivative that is higher than a floating potential of the conductor.” This claim limitation is a judicial exception of a mental process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the mental process limitation in the mind and/or with pen and paper, but for the recitation of a generic computer (i.e. the one or more processors). Other than reciting a generic computer that facilitates the mental process steps, nothing in the claim precludes any of the mental process steps from practically being performed in the human mind and/or with pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong Two
Step 2A Prong Two of the 2019 PEG asks whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 1 recites providing a conductor of a defined geometry in contact with a liquid; biasing the conductor to two or more voltages; determining a collected current to the conductor at the two or more voltages; determining at least one current-voltage characteristic based at least in part on the two or more voltages and the collected current to the conductor at the two or more voltages; and generating at least one output indicative of the at least one physical property of the liquid proximate to the conductor. These limitations describe the structures and steps required for the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering that is necessary for the use of the recited judicial exceptions and the insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting data. Therefore, these additional elements are insignificant extra-solution activity, as set forth in MPEP §2106.05(g). Whether viewed separately or in combination, the additional elements of claim 1 fail to integrate the recited judicial exceptions into a practical application, and claim 1 is therefore directed to the judicial exception of abstract ideas.
Claims 2-4 recite further steps for determining at least one physical property and generating at least one output. These steps describe the insignificant extra-solution activities of data gathering and outputting data. Therefore, these additional elements are insignificant extra-solution activity, as set forth in MPEP §2106.05(g). Whether viewed separately or in combination, the additional elements of claims 2-4 fail to integrate the recited judicial exceptions into a practical application, and claims 2-4 are therefore directed to the judicial exception of abstract ideas.
Claim 5 recites that the liquid is water; the water includes sodium and chloride; and the at least one of the ionic concentration or the ionic composition is based on a concentration of the sodium and the chloride. These limitations generally link the abstract ideas to a particular technological environment or field of use, as set forth in MPEP §2106.05 (h). Whether viewed separately or in combination, the additional elements of claim 5 fail to integrate the recited judicial exceptions into a practical application, and claim 5 is therefore directed to the judicial exception of abstract ideas.
Claims 6-9 recite further steps for biasing the conductor. These steps describe the insignificant extra-solution activities of data gathering. Therefore, these additional elements are insignificant extra-solution activity, as set forth in MPEP §2106.05(g). Whether viewed separately or in combination, the additional elements of claims 6-9 fail to integrate the recited judicial exceptions into a practical application, and claims 6-9 are therefore directed to the judicial exception of abstract ideas.
Claims 10 and 11 recite characteristics of the conductor. These limitations describe the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering. Therefore, these additional elements are insignificant extra-solution activity, as set forth in MPEP §2106.05(g). These limitations also generally link the abstract ideas to a particular technological environment or field of use, as set forth in MPEP §2106.05 (h). Whether viewed separately or in combination, the additional elements of claims 10 and 11 fail to integrate the recited judicial exceptions into a practical application, and claims 10 and 11 are therefore directed to the judicial exception of abstract ideas.
Claim 12 recites collecting charged particles at a surface of the conductor based at least in part on biasing the conductor to two or more voltages. This limitation describes the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering. Therefore, this additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity, as set forth in MPEP §2106.05(g). This limitation also generally links the abstract ideas to a particular technological environment or field of use, as set forth in MPEP §2106.05 (h). Whether viewed separately or in combination, the additional element of claim 12 fails to integrate the recited judicial exceptions into a practical application, and claim 12 is therefore directed to the judicial exception of abstract ideas.
Claim 13 is similar to claim 1 and recites limitations that describe the structures and steps required for the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering that is necessary for the use of the recited judicial exceptions and the insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting data. Therefore, these additional elements are insignificant extra-solution activity, as set forth in MPEP §2106.05(g). Whether viewed separately or in combination, the additional elements of claim 13 fail to integrate the recited judicial exceptions into a practical application, and claim 13 is therefore directed to the judicial exception of abstract ideas.
Claims 14-16 are similar to claims 2-4 and recite steps that describe the insignificant extra-solution activities of data gathering and outputting data. Therefore, these additional elements are insignificant extra-solution activity, as set forth in MPEP §2106.05(g). Whether viewed separately or in combination, the additional elements of claims 14-16 fail to integrate the recited judicial exceptions into a practical application, and claims 14-16 are therefore directed to the judicial exception of abstract ideas.
Claims 17 and 18 are similar to claims 7 and 9 and recite steps that describe the insignificant extra-solution activities of data gathering. Therefore, these additional elements are insignificant extra-solution activity, as set forth in MPEP §2106.05(g). Whether viewed separately or in combination, the additional elements of claims 17 and 18 fail to integrate the recited judicial exceptions into a practical application, and claims 17 and 18 are therefore directed to the judicial exception of abstract ideas.
Claim 19 is similar to claim 11 and recites limitations that describe the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering. Therefore, these additional elements are insignificant extra-solution activity, as set forth in MPEP §2106.05(g). These limitations also generally link the abstract ideas to a particular technological environment or field of use, as set forth in MPEP §2106.05 (h). Whether viewed separately or in combination, the additional elements of claim 19 fail to integrate the recited judicial exceptions into a practical application, and claim and 19 are therefore directed to the judicial exception of abstract ideas.
Claim 20 is similar to claim 1 and recites limitations that describe the structures and steps required for the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering that is necessary for the use of the recited judicial exceptions and the insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting data. Therefore, these additional elements are insignificant extra-solution activity, as set forth in MPEP §2106.05(g). Whether viewed separately or in combination, the additional elements of claim 20 fail to integrate the recited judicial exceptions into a practical application, and claim 20 is therefore directed to the judicial exception of abstract ideas.
Step 2B
Step 2B of the 2019 PEG asks whether the claim provides an inventive concept; i.e., whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim.
Claims 1, 13 and 20 recite additional limitations that describe the structures and steps required for the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering that is necessary for the use of the recited judicial exceptions and the insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting data. Therefore, these additional elements are insignificant extra-solution activity, as set forth in MPEP §2106.05(g). However, insignificant extra-solution activities of data gathering and outputting data cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Whether considered alone or in combination, the additional elements of claims 1, 13 and 20 fail to provide an inventive concept that makes the claim amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas, and claims 1, 13 and 20 are therefore ineligible.
Claims 2-4, 6-12 and 14-19 recite further steps for determining at least one physical property and generating at least one output. These steps describe the insignificant extra-solution activities of data gathering and outputting data. Therefore, these additional elements are insignificant extra-solution activity, as set forth in MPEP §2106.05(g). However, insignificant extra-solution activities of data gathering and outputting data cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Whether considered alone or in combination, the additional elements of claims 2-4, 6-12 and 14-19 fail to provide an inventive concept that makes the claim amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas, and claims 2-4, 6-12 and 14-19 are therefore ineligible.
Claims 5, 12 and 19 recite limitations that generally link the abstract ideas to a particular technological environment or field of use, as set forth in MPEP §2106.05 (h). Whether considered alone or in combination, the additional elements of claims 5 and 12 fail to provide an inventive concept that makes the claim amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas, and claims 5, 12 and 19 are therefore ineligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 13 and 20 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN N OLAMIT whose telephone number is (571)270-1969. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8 am - 5 pm (Pacific).
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, Stephen Meier can be reached at (571) 272-2149. 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.
/JUSTIN N OLAMIT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights