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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Final office action is in response to the application filed on March 22, 2024 and the amendments to the claims filed on August 20, 2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “mechanical means to reseal the cold enclosure” in line 5 of claim 10 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim element “mechanical means” is a means (or step) plus function limitation that invokes 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The written description only implicitly or inherently sets forth the corresponding structure, material, or acts that perform the claimed function.
Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181, applicant is required to:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be a means (or step) plus function limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; or
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts that perform the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) State on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The recitation, “automatically, mechanically resealing the cold enclosure based on determining that the temperature change has occurred” in lines 17-18 of claim 18 is not supported by the specification. Specifically, while there is support for, “a mechanical means may be provided to reseal the enclosure” in paragraph [0029] the specification is silent as to any function being performed automatically. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-19 are directed to a system, method, or product which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The Examiner has identified independent method Claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent system Claim 11 and method 18. Claim 1 recites the limitations of acquiring, via a circuit breaker of the compressor, power data associated with the compressor, wherein the power data relates to temperature states of the compressor; pre-processing the acquired power data to determine values of power and/or energy and values of a derivative of the power and/or energy; constructing a feature space from the determined values of the power and/or energy and of the derivative of the power and/or energy, wherein for each acquired data value, a computed data point is added to the feature space; determining feature vectors within the feature space; classifying, via a classifier, the temperature states based on the feature vectors of the feature space, wherein regions of the feature space are classified with a particular temperature state; determining a temperature change based on the classified temperature states; and notifying a user of a detected temperature change.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity/mathematical concepts. Notifying a user of a detected temperature change recites managing personal behavior/mathematical relationships. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as managing personal behavior/mathematical relationships, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”/ “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The compressor and circuit breaker of the compressor in Claims 1, 11, and 18 and acquisition component and external computing component in Claim 11 is just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The classifier in Claims 1, 11, and 18 appears to be just software. Claims 11 and 18 are also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite compressor and circuit breaker of the compressor in Claims 1, 11, and 18 and acquisition component and external computing component in Claim 11 and the classifier in Claims 1, 11, and 18. The computer hardware is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, claims 1, 11, and 18 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. See Applicant’s published specification para. [0029, 0030] about implementation using general purpose or special purpose computing devices and MPEP 2106.05(f) where applying a computer as a tool is not indicative of significantly more. Even assuming there was a technical problem, the claims, as written, fail to recite the details of how a technical solution to the technical problem was accomplished. If there was a technical problem (e.g., existing technology was incapable of performing the claimed functions) then the claims should recite the details of the technical solution (e.g., how existing technology was improved to overcome this inability). However, the claims, as written, provide no such details and merely recite that the claimed functions (i.e., the outcome) are being performed. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus claims 1 and 11 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims 2-10, 12-17, and 19 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 1, 11, and 18 and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity/Mathematical Concepts and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. Claims 2 and 3 further define the compressor as being part of a refrigerator, cold enclosure; Claims 4, 5, and 12 further details the power data; Claim 6 further sets forth that the classifier is online without adding significantly more; Claim 7 adds detail to what a temperature change could be; Claims 8-10 and 19 add further detail to the notification; Claim 13 adds a communication component without adding significantly more; Claims 14 and 15 further define the external computing component; Claims 16 and 17 further define the classified temperature state without adding significantly more. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the claims 2-10, 12-17, and 19 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1-19 are not patent-eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 USC 101 rejection of record (Remarks, pages 7-10) are acknowledged, however they are not persuasive. Specifically, applicant argues that the claims are not abstract as they are, “directed to improving the operation of compressor-based refrigeration systems” (Remarks, pages 7-8), however this argument is not commensurate with the scope of the specification. The specification sets forth that the object of the invention is, “to provide an integrated temperature detection solution to all closed cooling environments, new and old, to easily and quickly detect if a door to the closed environment has been left open or a seal of an enclosure has malfunctioned” (paragraph [0005]). The specification is silent as to any improvements to the compressor. Therefore, in the claimed invention, the compressor has not been improved. The non-technological process that the software is performing may have been improved but, according to Alice, improving the process without any technological innovation is not statutory. The compressor still operates according to its known and standard capabilities.
Applicant's arguments try to establish eligibility through Office Examples (Remarks, page 8), are not persuasive. Specifically, the Office Examples are meant to be for training purposes and do not have the force of legal precedent. Further, Example 39 is directed towards a method for training a neural network for facial recognition. “Prior methods suffer from the inability to robustly detect human faces in images where there are shifts, distortions, and variations in scale and rotation of the face pattern in the image. Applicant’s invention addresses this issue by using a combination of features to more robustly detect human faces. The first feature is the use of an expanded training set of facial images to train the neural network. This expanded training set is developed by applying mathematical transformation functions on an acquired set of facial images. These transformations can include affine transformations, for example, rotating, shifting, or mirroring or filtering transformations, for example, smoothing or contrast reduction. The neural networks are then trained with this expanded training set using stochastic learning with backpropagation which is a type of machine learning algorithm that uses the gradient of a mathematical loss function to adjust the weights of the network. Unfortunately, the introduction of an expanded training set increases false positives when classifying non-facial images. Accordingly, the second feature of applicant’s invention is the minimization of these false positives by performing an iterative training algorithm, in which the system is retrained with an updated training set containing the false positives produced after face detection has been performed on a set of non-facial images. This combination of features provides a robust face detection model that can detect faces in distorted images while limiting the number of false positives.” The claim was not found to recite any of the judicial exceptions enumerate in the 2019 PEG because, “the claim does not recite any mathematical relationships, formulas, or calculations. While some of the limitations may be based on mathematical concepts, the mathematical concepts are not recited in the claims. Further, the claim does not recite a mental process because the steps are not practically performed in the human mind. Finally, the claim does not recite any method of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic concept or managing interactions between people. Thus, the claim is eligible because it does not recite a judicial exception.” However the present case is different, notifying a user of a detected temperature change is in and of itself an abstract idea and in the claimed invention, the computer has not been improved. The non-technological process that the software is performing may have been improved but, according to Alice, improving the process without any technological innovation is not statutory. The computer still operates according to its known and standard capabilities. Therefore, the focus of the claims is not on such an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools.
Applicant’s arguments that the claims do not recite certain methods of organizing human activity (Remarks, pages 8-9) are acknowledged, however they are not persuasive. The claims recite steps of notifying a user of a detected temperature change. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitations recite managing personal behavior. Therefore, it falls within the certain methods of organizing human activity and recites an abstract idea.
Applicant’s arguments that the claims recite a practical application of, “a more efficient and less complex processor-based refrigeration system” (Remarks, pages 9-10) are acknowledged. However, applicant’s arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the specification. The specification sets forth that the invention is directed, “to provide an integrated temperature detection solution to all closed cooling environments, new and old, to easily and quickly detect if a door to the closed environment has been left open or a seal of an enclosure has malfunctioned” (paragraph [0005]). The specification fails to contemplate a “less complex processor-based refrigeration system”.
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 LINDSAY M MAGUIRE whose telephone number is (571)272-6039. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:30 to 5:00.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at (571) 270-3614. 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.
Lindsay Maguire
9/3/26
/LINDSAY M MAGUIRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights