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 .
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 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.
Specification Objections
1. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
1.1. the abbreviation/acronym/term/symbol/variable “MEMS” and the abbreviation/acronym/term/symbol/variable “ASIC” on page-2, line(s) 14 should be spelled out on its first appearance.
Appropriate correction is required. The examiner appreciates the assistance of the Applicant(s).
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.
2. Claim(s) 14-25 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Specifically:
2.1. Claim 14 recites the abbreviation/acronym/term/symbol/variable “MEMS” and the abbreviation/acronym/term/symbol/variable “ASIC”, they are neither defined by the claims nor defined by the specifications, which makes unclear to determine its meaning. Said abbreviation(s)/acronym(s)/term(s)/symbol(s)/variable(s) need to be defined within parenthesis immediately after the same.
2.2. Furthermore, claims 15-25 are also rejected because they further limit and depend on claim 14.
2.3. Claim 16 recites the limitations “the first supply line” in line(s) 2 and “the second supply line” in line(s) 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
2.4. Claim 19 recites the limitations “the at least one short-circuit resistance is ascertainable in a range between approximately 100 kΩ and approximately 1 MΩ” (line 1-2) that is indefinite because the specification lacks some standard or reference for determining the degree of proximity of the claim word “approximately”. Therefore, making it indefinite to determine a degree of proximity of the terms “approximately 100 kΩ” and “approximately 1 MΩ”.
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.
3. Claim 14-26 is 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.
4. Claim 14 is directed to “… ascertain measured values of at least one reference capacitance of the capacitive Wheatstone bridge circuit … read and evaluate the measured values of the at least one reference capacitance, wherein a resistance value of at least one short-circuit resistance of the capacitive sensor is ascertainable from the measured values of the at least one reference capacitance”, which are mathematical-calculations/mental-steps that could also be performed by a processor. The additional elements “A capacitive sensor, comprising: a MEMS element including a capacitive Wheatstone bridge circuit; and an ASIC element, wherein the ASIC element is configured to … wherein actuation signals for ascertaining the at least one reference capacitance are appliable to a respective supply line of the capacitive Wheatstone bridge circuit, wherein the ASIC element is configured to …” are merely insignificant extra-solution activity that include but is not limited to data acquisition and/or that is simply the result of the mathematical-calculations, which both simply include routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Dependent claim 14 is Ineligible due to the following analysis:
4.1. Step 1 (Statutory Category): claim 14 is directed to a capacitive sensor, therefore, it is directed to a statutory category, i.e., a machine (Step 1: YES).
4.2.1. Step 2A, Prong-1 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea): claim 14 recites: “… ascertain measured values of at least one reference capacitance of the capacitive Wheatstone bridge circuit … read and evaluate the measured values of the at least one reference capacitance, wherein a resistance value of at least one short-circuit resistance of the capacitive sensor is ascertainable from the measured values of the at least one reference capacitance”, which are mathematical-calculations/mental-steps. Therefore, it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea (Step 2A, Prong-1: YES).
4.2.2. Step 2A, Prong-2 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether the judicial-exception/abstract-idea is integrated into a Practical Application): claim 14 does not claim a particular machine, and do not claim any transformation of a particular article to a different state. Furthermore, it does not provide any particular context, thus, do not belong to a particular technological environment, industry or field of use. Consequently, the claimed judicial-exception/abstract-idea above are/is not integrated into a practical application and/or apply, rely on, or use to an additional element or elements in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the mathematical-calculations/mental-steps, thus, monopolizing the mathematical-calculations/mental-steps in a variety of technologies including but not limited to operating of capacitive sensors, moisture sensors, pressure sensors, automobile, medical devices, all different industries related to detecting the position of an object, etc. (Step 2A, Prong-2: NO. There is no integration of said judicial-exception/abstract-idea into a practical application).
4.3. Step 2B (the claim is evaluated to determine whether recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept, or also, the additional elements are significantly more than the recited the judicial-exception/abstract-idea): claim 14 recites the additional element(s) “A capacitive sensor, comprising: a MEMS element including a capacitive Wheatstone bridge circuit; and an ASIC element, wherein the ASIC element is configured to … wherein actuation signals for ascertaining the at least one reference capacitance are appliable to a respective supply line of the capacitive Wheatstone bridge circuit, wherein the ASIC element is configured to …”, which are/is simply routine and conventional activities that falls into a well-understood, routine, conventional activity and using well-understood, routine, conventional structure previously known, which includes but not limited to a microprocessor(s), sensors, and/or acquiring data that are insignificant extra solution activity (see the prior art made of record below and on the IDS and the prior art references used in the International Written Opinion dated 06 April 2023 for application PCT/EP2023/052182, which was submitted via IDS). Therefore, the claim does not include additional element(s) significantly more, or, does not amount to more than the judicial-exception/abstract-idea itself and the claim is not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
5. Claim 15 depends on claim 14, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 15 is further recites the element(s) “wherein a first short-circuit resistance between a first supply line of the capacitive Wheatstone bridge circuit and ground potential, a second short-circuit resistance between a second supply line of the capacitive Wheatstone bridge circuit and ground potential, and a third short-circuit resistance between the first supply line and the second supply line of the capacitive Wheatstone bridge circuit are ascertainable”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 15 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
6. Claim 16 depends on claim 14, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 16 is further recites the element(s) “wherein a serial resistance is ascertainable in the first supply line and/or the second supply line”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 15 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
7. Claim 18 depends on claim 14, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 18 is further recites the element(s) “wherein the at least one reference capacitance includes a plurality of reference capacitances, and wherein a defined reference value of a relation between the ascertained reference capacitances is used to ascertain the at least one short-circuit resistance”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 18 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
8. Claim 19 depends on claim 14, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 19 is further recites the element(s) “wherein the at least one short-circuit resistance is ascertainable in a range between approximately 100 kΩ and approximately 1 MΩ”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 19 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
9. Claim 20 depends on claim 15 that depends on claim 14, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 20 is further recites the element(s) “wherein, for ascertaining a second reference capacitance, a second actuation signal is appliable to the second supply line and a measurement signal of the second reference capacitance is readable at a first terminal, wherein a second terminal is disconnected from an evaluation element as a result of an open switch element and the first supply line is connectable to ground potential during a measurement operation; and wherein, for ascertaining a first reference capacitance, the second actuation signal is appliable to the first supply line and a measurement signal of the first reference capacitance is readable at the second terminal, wherein a first terminal is disconnected from the evaluation element as a result of an open switch element and the second supply line is connectable to ground potential during the measurement operation”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 20 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, the claim above is basically how most whetstone bridge function for measurements.
10. Claim 21 is directed to “… ascertaining capacitance values of reference capacitances of the capacitive Wheatstone bridge circuit; evaluating the ascertained capacitance values of reference capacitances of the capacitive Wheatstone bridge circuit; and ascertaining at least one short-circuit resistance from the evaluated capacitance values of the reference capacitances based on a comparison to a defined reference value”, which are mathematical-calculations/mental-steps that could also be performed by a processor. The additional elements “A method for operating a capacitive sensor, comprising the following steps: applying an actuation signal to a supply line of a capacitive Wheatstone bridge circuit …” are merely insignificant extra-solution activity that include but is not limited to data acquisition and/or that is simply the result of the mathematical-calculations, which both simply include routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Dependent claim 21 is Ineligible due to the following analysis:
10.1. Step 1 (Statutory Category): claim 21 is directed to a method for operating a capacitive sensor, therefore, it is directed to a statutory category, i.e., a process (Step 1: YES).
10.2.1. Step 2A, Prong-1 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea): claim 21 recites: “… ascertaining capacitance values of reference capacitances of the capacitive Wheatstone bridge circuit; evaluating the ascertained capacitance values of reference capacitances of the capacitive Wheatstone bridge circuit; and ascertaining at least one short-circuit resistance from the evaluated capacitance values of the reference capacitances based on a comparison to a defined reference value”, which are mathematical-calculations/mental-steps. Therefore, it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea (Step 2A, Prong-1: YES).
10.2.2. Step 2A, Prong-2 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether the judicial-exception/abstract-idea is integrated into a Practical Application): claim 21 does not claim a particular machine, and do not claim any transformation of a particular article to a different state. Furthermore, it does not provide any particular context, thus, do not belong to a particular technological environment, industry or field of use. Consequently, the claimed judicial-exception/abstract-idea above are/is not integrated into a practical application and/or apply, rely on, or use to an additional element or elements in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the mathematical-calculations/mental-steps, thus, monopolizing the mathematical-calculations/mental-steps in a variety of technologies including but not limited to operating of capacitive sensors, moisture sensors, pressure sensors, automobile, medical devices, all different industries related to detecting the position of an object, etc. (Step 2A, Prong-2: NO. There is no integration of said judicial-exception/abstract-idea into a practical application).
10.3. Step 2B (the claim is evaluated to determine whether recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept, or also, the additional elements are significantly more than the recited the judicial-exception/abstract-idea): claim 21 recites the additional element(s) “A method for operating a capacitive sensor, comprising the following steps: applying an actuation signal to a supply line of a capacitive Wheatstone bridge circuit …”, which are/is simply routine and conventional activities that falls into a well-understood, routine, conventional activity and using well-understood, routine, conventional structure previously known, which includes but not limited to a microprocessor(s), sensors, and/or acquiring data that are insignificant extra solution activity (see the prior art made of record below and on the IDS and the prior art references used in the International Written Opinion dated 06 April 2023 for application PCT/EP2023/052182, which was submitted via IDS). Therefore, the claim does not include additional element(s) significantly more, or, does not amount to more than the judicial-exception/abstract-idea itself and the claim is not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
11. Claim 22 depends on claim 21, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 22 is further recites the element(s) “wherein a value of a first short-circuit resistance between a first supply line of the capacitive Wheatstone bridge and ground potential and/or a value of a second short-circuit resistance between a second supply line of the capacitive Wheatstone bridge and ground potential and/or a value of a third short-circuit resistance between the first and the second supply line is ascertained”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 22 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
12. Claim 23 depends on claim 22 depends on claim 21, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 23 is further recites the element(s) “wherein a value of a series resistance in the first supply line and/or the second supply line is ascertained”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 23 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
13. Claim 24 depends on claim 21, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 24 is further recites the element(s) “wherein a 6 sigma distribution is used to decide whether the capacitive sensor is good or bad”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 24 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
14. Claim 25 depends on claim 21, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 24 is further recites the element(s) “wherein the method is carried out at defined time points or cyclically”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 24 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
15. Claim 26 is directed to “… ascertaining capacitance values of reference capacitances of the capacitive Wheatstone bridge circuit; evaluating the ascertained capacitance values of reference capacitances of the capacitive Wheatstone bridge circuit; and ascertaining at least one short-circuit resistance from the evaluated capacitance values of the reference capacitances based on a comparison to a defined reference value”, which are mathematical-calculations/mental-steps that could also be performed by a processor. The additional elements “A non-transitory computer-readable data carrier on which is stored a computer program with program code for operating a capacitive sensor, the program code, when executed by a computer, causing the computer to perform the following steps: applying an actuation signal to a supply line of a capacitive Wheatstone bridge circuit…” are merely insignificant extra-solution activity that include but is not limited to data acquisition and/or that is simply the result of the mathematical-calculations, which both simply include routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Dependent claim 26 is Ineligible due to the following analysis:
15.1. Step 1 (Statutory Category): claim 26 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable data carrier, therefore, it is directed to a statutory category, i.e., a machine (Step 1: YES).
15.2.1. Step 2A, Prong-1 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea): claim 26 recites: “… ascertaining capacitance values of reference capacitances of the capacitive Wheatstone bridge circuit; evaluating the ascertained capacitance values of reference capacitances of the capacitive Wheatstone bridge circuit; and ascertaining at least one short-circuit resistance from the evaluated capacitance values of the reference capacitances based on a comparison to a defined reference value”, which are mathematical-calculations/mental-steps. Therefore, it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea (Step 2A, Prong-1: YES).
15.2.2. Step 2A, Prong-2 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether the judicial-exception/abstract-idea is integrated into a Practical Application): claim 26 does not claim a particular machine, and do not claim any transformation of a particular article to a different state. Furthermore, it does not provide any particular context, thus, do not belong to a particular technological environment, industry or field of use. Consequently, the claimed judicial-exception/abstract-idea above are/is not integrated into a practical application and/or apply, rely on, or use to an additional element or elements in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the mathematical-calculations/mental-steps, thus, monopolizing the mathematical-calculations/mental-steps in a variety of technologies including but not limited to operating of capacitive sensors, moisture sensors, pressure sensors, automobile, medical devices, all different industries related to detecting the position of an object, etc. (Step 2A, Prong-2: NO. There is no integration of said judicial-exception/abstract-idea into a practical application).
15.3. Step 2B (the claim is evaluated to determine whether recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept, or also, the additional elements are significantly more than the recited the judicial-exception/abstract-idea): claim 26 recites the additional element(s) “A non-transitory computer-readable data carrier on which is stored a computer program with program code for operating a capacitive sensor, the program code, when executed by a computer, causing the computer to perform the following steps: applying an actuation signal to a supply line of a capacitive Wheatstone bridge circuit…”, which are/is simply routine and conventional activities that falls into a well-understood, routine, conventional activity and using well-understood, routine, conventional structure previously known, which includes but not limited to a microprocessor(s), sensors, and/or acquiring data that are insignificant extra solution activity (see the prior art made of record below and on the IDS and the prior art references used in the International Written Opinion dated 06 April 2023 for application PCT/EP2023/052182, which was submitted via IDS). Therefore, the claim does not include additional element(s) significantly more, or, does not amount to more than the judicial-exception/abstract-idea itself and the claim is not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
23. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
a) DUQI (Pub. No.: US 2018/0148316) teaches a packaged pressure sensor, comprising: a MEMS pressure sensor chip (Abstract) that includes the application specific integrated circuit ASOC (see [0049]) that use either a capacitive sensor, which could also be a Wheatstone bridge (see [0004]).
b) Hammerschmidt (Pub. No.: US 2010/0180687, which was submitted via IDS) teaches a pressure sensor in the form of a capacitive Wheatstone bridge (Fig. 3 and [0028]).
c) Chiou (Pub. No.: US 2018/0313709) teaches MEMS pressure sensor, wherein the MEMS pressure sensing element, ASIC and bond wires (Abstract).
d) HIRAYAMA (Pub. No.: US 2016/0209287) teaches a pressure sensor 1, which is a resistance Wheatstone bridge, comprising a detector circuit 2 with a FET switch 1 for switching resistor 3 to a short-circuit (Fig. 1 and [0027]-[0028]).
e) Hirota (Pub. No.: US 2003/0041670) teaches a pressure sensor, which is a resistance Wheatstone bridge, comprising a adjusting resistance R5 to be short-circuited by wiring from the power supply Vcc (Figs. 3 and 5 and [0040], [0070] and [0105]-[0028]).
f) Horner (Pub. No.: US 2019/0276154) teaches a pressure sensor (abstract) with a 6-sigma distribution ([0111]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALVARO E. FORTICH whose telephone number is (571) 272-0944. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Friday from 8:30am to 5:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Huy Phan, can be reached on (571)272-7924. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALVARO E FORTICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858