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
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.
Claims 7-9 are 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. Claim 7 recites, “An aircraft comprising the device for current measurement according to claim 4” in lines 1-2, similarly recited in Claims 8 and 9. However, the specification is silent as to how an aircraft could comprise the device of claims 7, 8, or 9. While the specification does recite that the, “present disclosure also relates to an aircraft equipped with a measurement device such as defined above” in paragraph [0012], the specification fails to set forth any additional details, technical or otherwise, as to what is entailed in the composition of an aircraft that comprised the device. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 4-6 set forth claim element “calculation means” is a means (or step) plus function limitation that invokes 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for the claimed function.
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 what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant is required to clarify the record by either:
Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing 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
Stating 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. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-9 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 process Claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent device Claim 4, and aircraft Claims 7-9. Claim 1 recites the limitations of a process for current measurement, comprising a digital recombination of a low frequency current signal ILF coming from a low frequency current sensor and at least one high-frequency current signal IHF coming from a high-frequency sensor measured on a single electrical line, where a parasitic continuous offset is added to said high-frequency current, the process comprising the steps of: a. digitally amplifying said high-frequency signal with an amplifier having gain G which produces an amplified high-frequency signal: G-IHF+G-offset; b. first filtering of said high-frequency signal by means of a digital low-pass filter with a cutoff frequency fc to get a filtered amplified high-frequency signal Ihf+G-offset: c. second filtering of said low-frequency current signal ILF with a digital low- pass filter provided with said cutoff frequency fc in order to get a filtered low-frequency signal: Ilf; d. first summing of the filtered amplified high-frequency signal Ihf+G-offset with the filtered low-frequency current Ilf and filtering of the sum of said signals at frequency fc resulting in a signal: Ilf+Ihf+G-offset; e. third filtering of said signal Ilf+Ihf+G offset resulting in a signal Ilf+G offset from which the Ihf component is deleted; f. multiplying the signal Ilf by two resulting in a signal: 2 Ilf;and g. adding/subtracting signals: 2 Ilf+(Ihf+G-offset)-(Ilf+G-offset).
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as mathematical concepts. A process for current measurement recites mathematical calculations. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The low and high frequency sensors in Claim 1 are not positively set forth in the body of the claim, Claim 4 fails to set forth any particular hardware of the claimed device, and Claims 7-9 fail to set forth any particular structure of an aircraft therefore the limitations are just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. Claims 4 and 7-9 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 low and high frequency sensors in Claim 1 are not positively set forth in the body of the claim, Claim 4 fails to set forth any particular hardware of the claimed device, and Claims 7-9 fail to set forth any particular structure of an aircraft. 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, 4, and 7-9 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 specification para. [0011, 0035, 0036] 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, 4, and 7-9 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims 2, 3, 5, and 6 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 1, 4, and 7-9 and thus correspond to Mathematical Concepts and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. Claims 2 and 5 further recite the step of analog-digital conversion without reciting significantly more; Claim 3 defines the cutoff frequency, Claim 5 further includes a processor 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, 3, 5, and 6 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1-9 are not patent-eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. References A and B on PTO-892 disclose known processes for current measurement at the time of filing.
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
7/31/26
/LINDSAY M MAGUIRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights