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 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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a first determination device”, “a second determination device”, “an identification device”, and “an ascertainment device” in claim 19.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 10-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 19 recites “a first determination device”, “a second determination device”, “an identification device”, and “an ascertainment device”, but the specification does not describe what said devices are or how they perform their respective functions. While the specification mentions machine learning as a possible way to define the threshold value, there is no description of hardware or software, nor any description of said devices beyond the function they perform. Thus, they are interpreted as any computer implemented software and/or hardware capable of performing the respective functions.
Claims 10 and similarly 19 recite a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 and similarly 19 recites the broad recitation “ascertaining an actuation of a door or a window”, and the claim also recites “ascertaining an actuation of the door and/or the window” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claims 11 and 19 recite “the ascertained local extremum”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examining this is considered to refer to the “identifying a local extremum”.
Claims 11-18 are rejected based on their inherited deficiencies.
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 10-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under step 1, claim 1 belongs to a statutory category.
Under Step 2A prong 1, the claims as a whole are identified as being directed to a judicial exception as claim 1 and similarly 19 recite(s) “The method for ascertaining an actuation of a door or a window in one or more rooms using a pressure sensor which is disposed in one of the rooms” and “determining a sum of absolute first order rates of change of most recent pressure values at the multiple points in time and determining a sum of the absolute second order rates of change of the most recent pressure values at the multiple points in time; determining global maximum and minimum values of the sums of the absolute first order and absolute second order rates of change within a time window; identifying a local extremum of the sums of the absolute first order rates of change and/or the sums of the absolute second order rates of change based on the global maximum and minimum values of the sums within the time window; and ascertaining an actuation of the door and/or the window based on a comparison of the ascertained local extremum with a threshold value” which are directed to mathematical concepts and/or mental processes per applicant’s specification, for example see page 4 and 5 of applicants specification, which discusses mathematical rates of change and calculating the statistical parameters.
Under Step 2A prong 2, evaluating whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application of that exception, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because “a pressure sensor” and “ the method comprising the following steps: detecting pressure values at multiple points in time using the pressure sensor;” are considered to be data gathering steps required to use the correlation do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity. The elements of “a door or a window in one or more rooms” are considered to be generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Further Claim 19 recites the elements “a first determination device”, “a second determination device”, “an identification device”, and “an ascertainment device” which are considered to be generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer.
Under Step 2B, evaluating additional elements to determine whether they amount to an inventive concept both individually and in combination, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because “a pressure sensor” and “ the method comprising the following steps: detecting pressure values at multiple points in time using the pressure sensor;” are considered to be adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception per MPEP 2106.05(g) (ii) and are well-understood, routine, conventional activities/elements previously known to the industry per MPEP 2106.05(d)(i and see prior art of record). The elements of “a door or a window in one or more rooms” are considered to be merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself per MPEP 2106.05(h) and are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities/elements previously known to the industry per MPEP 2106.05(d) (see prior art of record). Further Claim 19 recites the elements “a first determination device”, “a second determination device”, “an identification device”, and “an ascertainment device” which are well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(see prior art of record).
Claims 11-16 and 18 further describe the abstract ideas cited above.
Claim 17 is not integrated into a practical application and does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because it is considered to be data gathering steps required to use the correlation do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity and adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception per MPEP 2106.05(g) (ii) and are well-understood, routine, conventional activities/elements previously known to the industry per MPEP 2106.05(d)(i and see prior art of record).
Examiner Note with regards to Prior Art of Record
Claims 11-19 are distinguished over the prior art of record based on the reasons below.
In claim 11 and similarly 19, the claim differs from the closest prior arts of record, GB 2451241 A, GB 2302406 A, US 20140266669 A1, in that it fails to anticipate or render obvious “determining a sum of absolute first order rates of change of most recent pressure values at the multiple points in time and determining a sum of the absolute second order rates of change of the most recent pressure values at the multiple points in time; determining global maximum and minimum values of the sums of the absolute first order and absolute second order rates of change within a time window; identifying a local extremum of the sums of the absolute first order rates of change and/or the sums of the absolute second order rates of change based on the global maximum and minimum values of the sums within the time window;” in combination with all the other limitations in the claim as claimed and defined by the applicant.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 20120000292 A1 PRESSURE MEASURING DEVICE AND METHOD FOR ASCERTAINING PRESSURE VALUES; US 20170236405 A1 BAROMETRIC PRESSURE TO REDUCE SECURITY FALSE ALARMS; US 20180365943 A1 Door/Window Magnetic Sensing Device And Method Of Installing; US 10309866 B2 Measuring System With A Pressure Device As Well As Method For Monitoring And/or Checking Such A Pressure Device; US 20200211358 A1 METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR EXCHANGING MESSAGES WITH USERS OF A REAL PROPERTY MONITORING AND CONTROL SYSTEM;
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON J BECKER whose telephone number is (571)431-0689. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-5:30.
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 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.
/B.J.B/ Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/SHELBY A TURNER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights