DETAILED ACTIONNotice 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 Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informality: On line 1, it appears that “filet” should read filter. 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 17 - 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 17 is directed to the abstract idea of receiving a measurement signal from a sensor, amplifying the measurement signal, compensating the measurement signal, generating a filter, attenuating an upset signal, and sending the measurement signal to a scaler. The steps of the claims describe the concept of receiving a measurement signal using a sensor, amplifying the measurement signal using an amplifier, compensating the measurement signal using a compensation electronic circuit, generating a filter using a filtering process configured by a processor, attenuating an upset signal using a filter and sending the measurement signal to a scaler using an active compensation unit which are considered abstract ideas.
The claim limitations are similar to those previously found by the courts to be
abstract such as collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis in Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F. 3d 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016). All of these concepts relate to tracking, organizing or analyzing information. The concepts described in the claims are not meaningfully different than concepts of gathering data found by the courts to be abstract ideas. As such, the descriptions in the claims of the receiving, amplifying, compensating, generating, attenuating, and sending is an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are
generic controller elements claimed to perform their basic functions of receiving and
determining. The recitation of the controller limitations amounts to mere instructions
to implement the abstract idea. Taking the elements both individually and as a
combination, the components at each step of the process perform purely generic
computer functions. The claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than
the abstract idea itself because they would be routine in any computer
implementation.
With respect to Electric Power Group, the courts found that claims drawn to
collecting data, analyzing data, and displaying certain results of the collection and
analysis was an abstract idea. The present invention relates to receiving a measurement signal, amplifying the measurement signal, compensating the measurement signal, generating a filter based on the measurement signal, attenuating an upset signal from the measurement signal, and sending the measuring signal to a scaler. Taking the courts' opinion in Electric Power Group into consideration in view of the claimed subject matter of the instant application, simply outputting the results of an analysis is considered to be abstract. Furthermore, there is no indication that the receiving and determining steps are performed by any specific structure. Thus, generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system (See Guo et al. 2015/0108328, “System and Method for Compensating Dark Current”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4 – 9 and 17 – 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Huynh et al. (2020/0158770, hereinafter Huynh – See IDS dated 5/28/24).
Regarding claim 1, Huynh discloses an apparatus comprising an upset event detector 150 (See Fig. 13) configured to determine if an upset event exists in a measurement signal; and a processor 152 in communication with the upset event detector, wherein the processor is configured to compensate the measurement signal for the upset event if the upset event is determined to exist by the upset event detector (See Pg. 9, Para. 0137).
Regarding claim 2, the upset event detector is configured to determine if the upset event exists in the measurement signal based on a pre-determined threshold (See Pg. 10, Para. 0139). Regarding claim 4, a sensor 30 is configured to generate the measurement signal, wherein the processor is in further communication with the sensor, wherein the generated measurement signal is configured to measure at least one of a pressure, a temperature, and a strain, and wherein the sensor comprises at least one of a silicon-on-oxide sensor, a SOI strain gauge, a Resistance Temperature Detector sensor, and a thin film sensor (See Pg. 4, Para. 0074 and Pg. 9, Para. 0137).
Regarding claim 5, the upset event is a single-event upset (See Pg. 9, Para. 0137).
Regarding claim 6, the upset event is a multiple upset event (See Pg. 10, Para. 0150). Regarding claim 7, the processor 152 is further configured to receive the measurement signal from the sensor; process the received measurement signal to remove errors; amplify the processed measurement signal, wherein the compensated measurement signal is the amplified measurement signal; scale down the amplified measurement signal after the signal has been compensated; and output the scaled measurement signal (See Pg. 10, Para. 0140).
Regarding claim 8, a processor 233 (See Fig. 39) comprises a passive compensation unit 243 that is configured to process the received measurement signal to remove errors (See Pg. 18, Para. 0235).
Regarding claim 9, the processor 233 is further configured to compensate the measurement signal for the upset event using the passive compensation unit (See Pg. 18, Para. 0235).
Regarding claim 17, a measurement signal 158 is received from the sensor 30, the measurement signal is amplified, the measurement signal is compensated for non-radiation errors, a filter is generated based on one or more of a bandwidth limitation, a response time, and a time rate of change of the measurement signal, an upset signal detected by an upset event detector is attenuated from the measurement signal using the generated filter; and the measurement signal is sent to a scaler via the active compensation unit (See Pg. 10, Paras. 0140 – 0142 and Pg. 19, Para. 0237).
Regarding claim 18, the filter comprises a bandwidth limited filtering with significantly lower frequency than a frequency of an upset event signal detected by the upset event detector (See Pg. 19, Paras. 0235 – 0238). Regarding claim 19, the generated filter is based on a pre-determined threshold (See Pg. 19, Paras. 0235 – 0238).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 3 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huynh in view of Chafekar et al. (2020/0115039, hereinafter Chafekar). Regarding claim 3, Huynh discloses an apparatus comprising an upset event detector 150 (See Fig. 13) configured to determine if an upset event exists in a measurement signal; and a processor 152 in communication with the upset event detector, wherein the processor is configured to compensate the measurement signal for the upset event if the upset event is determined to exist by the upset event detector (See Pg. 9, Para. 0137).
Huynh fails to disclose that the processor is further configured to compensate the measurement signal for the upset event using an adaptive filtering algorithm. However, Chafekar discloses a method and apparatus comprising a processor 102 that is further configured to compensate a measurement signal for an upset event using an adaptive filtering algorithm (See Pg. 7, Paras. 0072 – 0076). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Huynh according to the teachings of Chafekar for the purpose of, advantageously providing an improved device since this type of device provides devices for sensing a physical parameter, devices for carrying such devices and methods for measuring physical parameters that allow for precise results (See Chafekar, See Pg. 1, Para. 0004). Regarding claim 20, Huynh fails to disclose that the generated filter is based on an adaptive filtering algorithm. However, in Chafekar, a generated filter is based on an adaptive filtering algorithm (See Pg. 7, Paras. 0072 – 0076). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Huynh according to the teachings of Chafekar for the purpose of, advantageously providing an improved device since this type of device provides devices for sensing a physical parameter, devices for carrying such devices and methods for measuring physical parameters that allow for precise results (See Chafekar, See Pg. 1, Para. 0004).
Claims 10 – 13, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huynh in view of Poulo (4,490,682). Regarding claim 10, Huynh discloses a processor comprising an amplifier 245 (See Fig. 39) configured to amplify the processed measurement signal, the compensated measurement signal being the amplified measurement signal; and the processor further comprises a scaler 233 configured to scale down the amplified measurement signal after the signal has been compensated (See Pg. 18, Para. 0234). Huynh fails to disclose that the processor comprises an instrumentation amplifier. However, Poulo discloses an apparatus comprising a processor including an instrumentation amplifier 10 (See Fig. 1, See Col. 1, lines 65 - 68 and Col. 2, lines 1 – 6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Huynh according to the teachings of Poulo for the purpose of, advantageously providing an improved device since this type of device has automatic offset adjustments which compensate for DC offset errors (See Poulo, See Col. 1, lines 6 – 9).
Regarding claim 11, in Huynh, an output interface circuit is in communication with the processor 233, wherein the output interface circuit is configured to output the scaled measurement signal and simulate an output of an electronic bridge (See Pg. 10, Para. 0140). Regarding claim 12, in Huynh, a passive compensation unit 243 is configured to passively compensate a measurement signal to remove errors; an upset event detector 235 is configured to determine if an upset event exists in the measurement signal; and a scaler 233 is configured to scale down the amplified measurement signal received from the instrumentation amplifier (See Fig. 39, See Pg. 18, Para. 0234). Huynh fails to disclose an instrumentation amplifier configured to amplify the measurement signal received from the passive compensation unit and a bridge simulator configured to output the measurement signal. However, in Poulo, an instrumentation amplifier 10 is configured to amplify a measurement signal received from a circuit and a bridge simulator (See Fig. 2) is configured to output the measurement signal (See Col. 3, lines 44 - 68 and Col. 4, lines 1 – 28).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Huynh according to the teachings of Poulo for the purpose of, advantageously providing an improved device since this type of device has automatic offset adjustments which compensate for DC offset errors (See Poulo, See Col. 1, lines 6 – 9)
Regarding claim 13, in Huynh, the upset event detector is configured to determine if the upset event exists in the measurement signal based on a pre-determined threshold (See Pg. 10, Para. 0139).
Regarding claim 15, in Huynh, the processor is further configured to compensate the measurement signal for the upset event using the passive compensation unit 243 (See Pg. 18, Para. 0235).
Regarding claim 16, in Huynh, a sensor 20 is configured to generate the measurement signal (See Pg. 4, Para. 0074 and Pg. 9, Para. 0137). 12. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huynh and Poulo, as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Chafekar. Regarding claim 14, Huynh and Poulo fail to disclose that the processor is further configured to compensate the measurement signal for the upset event using an adaptive filtering algorithm. However, Chafekar discloses a method and apparatus comprising a processor 102 that is further configured to compensate a measurement signal for an upset event using an adaptive filtering algorithm (See Pg. 7, Paras. 0072 – 0076). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Huynh and Poulo according to the teachings of Chafekar for the purpose of, advantageously providing an improved device since this type of device provides devices for sensing a physical parameter, devices for carrying such devices and methods for measuring physical parameters that allow for precise results (See Chafekar, See Pg. 1, Para. 0004).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant's disclosure.
Yanni et al. (12,158,460) disclose adaptive sensor filtering.
Huynh et al. (10,935,585) disclose a drive sense circuit with transient suppression. Guo et al. (2015/0108328) disclose a system and method for compensating dark current. van den Heuvel (2009/0167432) discloses instrumentation amplification with input offset adjustment. Krechmery et al. (4,765,188) disclose a pressure transducer with integral digital temperature compensation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from
the examiner should be directed to OCTAVIA HOLLINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-2176. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, John Breene can be reached at 5712724107. 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.
/OCTAVIA HOLLINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855 5/29/26
Prosecution Insights