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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5-31-2024 is being considered by the examiner.
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 signal generation unit and evaluation unit must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Examiner notes that a method is claimed but no flowchart for method operation is provided. 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 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 13-18 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.
An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a “new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas” are not patentable. E.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Banklnt’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216(2014).
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we are guided by the Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo and Alice. Id. at 217—18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75—77 (2012)).
Step 1 – Statutory Category
Claim 13 is directed towards a series of mathematical steps and is therefore a process.
Step 2A, Prong One — Recitation of Judicial Exception
Step 2A of the 2019 Guidance is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, we evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception. For abstract ideas, Prong One represents a change as compared to prior guidance because we here determine whether the claim recites mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, or mental processes.
Claim 13 is directed to a method of, and computer system for, detecting mist that is accomplished through a series of mathematical operations performed by a computer. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because all claim elements, both individually and in combination, are directed to the mathematical manipulation of data by a general purpose computer.
Step 2A, Prong Two — Practical Application
If a claim recites a judicial exception, in Prong Two we next determine whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception by: (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
Claims 14-18 discloses the additional mathematic steps on signals. These additional steps are all extraneous pre-solution activity. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Step 2B — Inventive Concept
For Step 2B of the analysis, we determine whether the claim adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field. See Memorandum.
The method recited in claim 13 merely uses a computer system including generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea. The application of the abstract idea using generic computer components does not transform the claim into a patent-eligible application of the abstract idea and does not result in an improvement in the functioning of the computer or another technology.
Examiner’s Note: For applicant’s benefit portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 13-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Day, et. al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2021/0190563, published June 24, 2021 in view of Welle, et. al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2012/0324994, published December 27, 2012.
As per claims 13 and 19, Day discloses a method for detecting spray mist in a container via a high-frequency measuring device, the method comprising:
transmitting a high-frequency signal into the container; receiving a reception signal after the transmitted high-frequency signal is reflected in the container (Day, ¶82 where radar is suggested); determining a defined characteristic variable on the basis of the reception signal; and detecting the spray mist when the determined characteristic variable corresponds to a predefined reference value (Day, ¶56 and 60 comparing to a threshold).
Day suggests the use of radar but fails to explicitly disclose transmitting a high frequency signal and receiving the reflection.
Welle teaches high frequency transmission and reception (¶61-62).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use radar transmission and reflection as it is suggested by Day.
As per claim 14, Day as modified by Welle discloses the method according to claim 13, wherein the reception signal is used to determine a noise, an amplitude, or a signal maximum as the characteristic variable (Welle, Fig. 2 measuring radar return amplitude).
As per claim 15, Day as modified by Welle further discloses the method according to claim 14, further comprising: determining an amplitude of the signal maximum that can be assigned to the reflection of the high-frequency signal on an inner wall of the container or on a filling material (Day, Fig. 5B showing the inner wall and Welle, Fig. 1).
As per claim 16, Day as modified by Welle further discloses the method according to claim 14, further comprising: determining an amplitude of the signal maximum that can be assigned to the reflection of the high-frequency signal on any spray mist (Welle, Fig. 2 tracking amplitude with respect to position in the tank).
As per claim 17, Day as modified by Welle further discloses the method according to claim 13, further comprising: determining a spray quantity of the spray mist on the basis of the characteristic variable (Day, ¶54 and 82 looking at volume of spray).
As per claim 18, Day as modified by Welle further discloses the method according to claim 13, wherein the method is repeated over a plurality of measurement cycles, the method further comprising: determining a periodicity with which the characteristic variable changes periodically within the measurement cycles (Day, ¶71 using trend analysis).
As per claim 20, Day as modified by Welle further discloses the high-frequency measuring device according to claim 19 wherein the high-frequency measuring device is designed as a radar-based measuring device, wherein the signal generation unit is designed to transmit the high-frequency signal via a pulse transit time method or via a frequency-modulated continuous wave method, and wherein the evaluation unit is designed to receive or process the reception signal accordingly (Welle, ¶61-62).
As per claim 21, Day as modified by Welle further discloses the measuring system for checking a functionality of a spray head that is arranged in a container and that is designed to spray a spray mist inside the container with a defined spray pattern, the measuring system comprising: a high-frequency measuring device, including: a signal generation unit which is designed to generate a high-frequency signal to be transmitted, including: an antenna arrangement via which the high-frequency signal can be transmitted towards the spray mist, and via which a reception signal can be received *Welle, ¶61-62); and an evaluation unit which is designed: to use the reception signal to determine a characteristic variable; and to detect the spray mist when the determined characteristic variable corresponds to a predefined reference value, wherein the antenna arrangement is oriented in a direction of the spray pattern; and a higher-level unit, which is designed: to control or detect the activation and deactivation of the spray head; to query the detection of spray mist by the high-frequency measuring device; and to classify the spray head as functional if it is switched on and the high-frequency measuring device detects spray mist (Day, Fig. 8 and ¶57-64).
As per claim 22, Day as modified by Welle further discloses the measuring system according to claim 21, wherein the higher-level unit is designed to classify a rotation of the spray head as functional if the spray head is switched on and a periodicity with which the characteristic variable changes periodically within the measurement cycles is determined (Day, ¶60 and 63).
As per claim 23, Day as modified by Welle further discloses the measuring system according to claim 22, wherein the high-frequency measuring device is arranged to transmit a radar signal orthogonally to the spray patter (Welle, Fig. 1).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is provided on form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCUS E WINDRICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6417. The examiner can normally be reached M-F ~7-3:30.
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, Jack Keith can be reached at 5712726878. 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.
/MARCUS E WINDRICH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights