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 .
Response to Amendment
1. This office action is in response to the amendments/arguments submitted by the Applicant(s) on 03/27/2026.
Response to Arguments
I. Status of the Claims
2. Claims 14-26 are still pending.
3. Claims 1-15 were cancelled via preliminary amendments.
4. Applicant's amendments to claims are accepted because do not introduce new matter pursuant to MPEP 2163.
5. The drawings filed on 06/14/2024 have been accepted.
II. Objections
6. Applicant's arguments with respect to the objection(s) have been fully considered and found persuasive. Therefore, the objection(s) have been withdrawn.
III. Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 112
7. Applicant's arguments with respect to the claim rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/second paragraph (pre-AIA ) have been fully considered and found persuasive. Therefore, the rejection(s) have been withdrawn.
IV. Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 101
8. Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and found not persuasive. Therefore, the rejection(s) has been withdrawn.
9. Pages 7-8, the Applicant(s) argues that “Claim 14 is directed to a specific improved capacitive sensor architecture that integrates a MEMS element comprising a capacitive Wheatstone bridge circuit with an ASIC element configured to perform an internal self-test by individually ascertaining and evaluating reference capacitance values to detect short-circuit resistances. As described in the specification, the invention improves reliability over the entire service life by enabling detection of production related short circuits through excitation of the MEMS bridge and evaluation of distorted reference capacitance measurements, without requiring any additional dedicated detection
component. The claimed configuration implements a concrete technical solution in which actuation signals are applied to specific supply lines of the bridge circuit and the resulting capacitance measurements are analyzed to determine whether at least one short-circuit resistance is present. This approach improves the functioning of the capacitive sensor itself by enabling detection of faults that cannot be identified by conventional full-bridge measurement, thereby reducing measurement errors, offset effects, noise, and prolonged settling time caused by short circuits in the drive path. Accordingly, claim 14 is directed to a specific hardware-based improvement to sensor operation. Similar arguments apply to independent claims 21 and 26. For at least these reasons, the rejection should be withdrawn.”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees because the claim(s) are not patent eligible pursuant to the MPEP 2106.05(a) Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or To Any Other Technology or Technical Field, and MPEP 2106.05(h) Field of Use and Technological Environment.
Argument in support to response to number 9 above.
2106.05(a) Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or To Any Other Technology or Technical Field, In determining patent eligibility, examiners should consider whether the claim "purport(s) to improve the
functioning of the computer itself" or "any other technology or technical field." … Thus, an examiner
should evaluate whether a claim contains an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other
technology or technical field at Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B, as well as when considering whether the
claim has such self-evident eligibility that it qualifies for the streamlined analysis …
If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art. For example, in McRO, the court relied on the specification’s explanation of how the particular rules recited in the claim enabled the automation of specific animation tasks that previously could only be performed subjectively by humans, when determining that the claims were directed to improvements in computer animation instead of an abstract idea. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313-14, 120 USPQ2d at 1100-01.
After the examiner has consulted the specification and determined that the disclosed invention improves technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement in technology. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1316, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1359 (patent owner argued that the claimed email filtering system improved technology by shrinking the protection gap and mooting the volume problem, but the court disagreed because the claims themselves did not have any limitations that addressed these issues). That is, the claim must include the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. However, the claim itself does not need to explicitly recite the improvement described in the specification (e.g., "thereby increasing the bandwidth of the channel"). The full scope of the claim under the BRI should be considered to determine if the claim reflects an improvement in technology (e.g., the improvement described in the specification). In making this determination, it is critical that examiners look at the claim "as a whole," in other words, the claim should be evaluated "as an ordered combination, without ignoring the requirements of the individual steps." When performing this evaluation, examiners should be "careful to avoid oversimplifying the claims" by looking at them generally and failing to account for the specific requirements of the claims. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313, 120 USPQ2d at 1100.
An important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d at 1102-03; DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1259, 113 USPQ2d at 1107. In this respect, the improvement consideration overlaps with other considerations, specifically the particular machine consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)), and the mere instructions to apply an exception consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Thus, evaluation of those other considerations may assist examiners in making a determination of whether a claim satisfies the improvement consideration.
During examination, the examiner should analyze the "improvements" consideration by evaluating the specification and the claims to ensure that a technical explanation of the asserted improvement is present in the specification, and that the claim reflects the asserted improvement. Generally, examiners are not expected to make a qualitative judgement on the merits of the asserted improvement. If the examiner concludes the disclosed invention does not improve technology, the burden shifts to applicant to provide persuasive arguments supported by any necessary evidence to demonstrate that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the disclosed invention improves technology. Any such evidence submitted under 37 CFR 1.132 must establish what the specification would convey to one of ordinary skill in the art and cannot be used to supplement the specification. See, e.g. MPEP § 716.09 on 37 CFR 1.132 practice with respect to rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a). For example, in response to a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, an applicant could submit a declaration under § 1.132 providing testimony on how one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret the disclosed invention as improving technology and the underlying factual basis for that conclusion.
II. IMPROVEMENTS TO ANY OTHER TECHNOLOGY OR TECHNICAL FIELD
The courts have also found that improvements in technology beyond computer functionality may demonstrate patent eligibility. In McRO, the Federal Circuit held claimed methods of automatic lip synchronization and facial expression animation using computer-implemented rules to be patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101, because they were not directed to an abstract idea. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1316, 120 USPQ2d at 1103. The basis for the McRO court's decision was that the claims were directed to an improvement in computer animation and thus did not recite a concept similar to previously identified abstract ideas. Id. The court relied on the specification's explanation of how the claimed rules enabled the automation of specific animation tasks that previously could not be automated. 837 F.3d at 1313, 120 USPQ2d at 1101. The McRO court indicated that it was the incorporation of the particular claimed rules in computer animation that "improved [the] existing technological process", unlike cases such as Alice where a computer was merely used as a tool to perform an existing process. 837 F.3d at 1314, 120 USPQ2d at 1102. The McRO court also noted that the claims at issue described a specific way (use of particular rules to set morph weights and transitions through phonemes) to solve the problem of producing accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters, rather than merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome, and thus were not directed to an abstract idea. 837 F.3d at 1313, 120 USPQ2d at 1101. …
To show that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology, the claims must recite the details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) for more information about mere instructions to apply an exception.
Examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology include:
i. A commonplace business method being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1976; Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334,115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015);
ii. Using well-known standard laboratory techniques to detect enzyme levels in a bodily sample such as blood or plasma, Cleveland Clinic Foundation v. True Health Diagnostics, LLC, 859 F.3d 1352, 1355, 1362, 123 USPQ2d 1081, 1082-83, 1088 (Fed. Cir. 2017);
iii. Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48;
iv. Delivering broadcast content to a portable electronic device such as a cellular telephone, when claimed at a high level of generality, Affinity Labs of Tex. v. Amazon.com, 838 F.3d 1266, 1270, 120 USPQ2d 1210, 1213 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
v. A general method of screening emails on a generic computer, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1315-16, 120 USPQ2d at 1358-59;
vi. An advance in the informational content of a download for streaming, Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1263, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1208 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and
vii. Selecting one type of content (e.g., FM radio content) from within a range of existing broadcast content types, or selecting a particular generic function for computer hardware to perform (e.g., buffering content) from within a range of well-known, routine, conventional functions performed by the hardware, Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1264, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1208 (Fed. Cir. 2016). …
In a summary, according to the above sections of the MPEP and the court, the analysis and test to determine that an invention is actually an improvement to an existing technology requires to meet two steps. The first-step is determining whether or not “a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification” (hereinafter mentioned as the “First-Step”) regardless the word “improvement” is explicitly set forth. The second-step is determining whether or not “the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement in technology” (hereinafter mentioned as the “Second-Step”), which is done by evaluating the full scope of the claim under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) where the claim must include the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification.
Regarding to the First-Step, the specification by the Applicant(s) appears to contain a technical explanation describing with sufficient detail about how to implement the invention such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the improvements. Furthermore, it appears to set forth an indication of improvement that includes a discussion that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional, or identifies technical improvements over the prior art as established by the courts and set forth in the MPEP.
Regarding to the Second-Step, the full scope of the claim does not reflect the disclosed improvement in technology because it’s missing components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. For instance, the details contained in the embodiments of Figs. 4-8. Furthermore, it appears that the claims neither express any unconventional technical solution, nor identifies any realized technical improvements over the prior art, which needs to be included from the discussion of the specification in order for an ordinary skilled in the art would recognize such improvement.
Furthermore, by evaluating the full scope of the claim under BRI as a whole, the Examiner concludes that the claims have not-enough particular details to be considered an improvement to a particular practical application.
Furthermore, in order for an invention to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery, and the claim(s) at issue does not include anything more than just instructions to be performed by the general computer in which a computer software executes the Judicial-Exception/Abstract-idea indicated the rejection below of the instant application (see specification, paragraph [0089]).
Furthermore, the claims at issue as whole are simply directed to gathering and analyzing collected information about a signal with conventional techniques, which has similarities with the case of TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48 where the courts have indicated that “Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result” are not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology.
In light of the foregoing, the claims are not patent eligible because the Examiner has concluded that the disclosed invention does not improve technology.
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.
10. 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.
11. 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 microelectromechanical system (MEMS) element including a capacitive Wheatstone bridge circuit; and an application-specific integrated circuit (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:
11.1. 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).
11.2.1. 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).
11.2.2. 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).
11.3. 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 microelectromechanical system (MEMS) element including a capacitive Wheatstone bridge circuit; and an application-specific integrated circuit (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).
12. 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.
13. Claim 16 depends on claim 15, 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 16 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 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.
15. 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 100 kΩ and 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.
16. 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.
17. 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:
17.1. 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).
17.2.1. 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).
17.2.2. 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).
17.3. 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).
18. 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.
19. 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.
20. 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.
21. 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 25 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 25 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.
22. 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:
22.1. 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).
22.2.1. 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).
22.2.2. 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).
22.3. 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, which was provided in the previous office action) 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 and provided in the previous office action) teaches a pressure sensor in the form of a capacitive Wheatstone bridge (Fig. 3 and [0028]).
c) Chiou (Pub. No.: US 2018/0313709, which was provided in the previous office action) teaches MEMS pressure sensor, wherein the MEMS pressure sensing element, ASIC and bond wires (Abstract).
d) HIRAYAMA (Pub. No.: US 2016/0209287, which was provided in the previous office action) 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, which was provided in the previous office action) 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, which was provided in the previous office action) teaches a pressure sensor (abstract) with a 6-sigma distribution ([0111]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
Prosecution Insights