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
This communication is responsive to the Amendment filed on 03/22/2022.
Claim 1 is presented for examination.
The examiner has considered references in applicant’s IDS form 1449 received on 05/25/2022.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 5-10 and 12-17 of copending Application No. 16/641,070 and over claims 1-14 of copending Application No. 17/701,050. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims in each application are directed to integrated sensing modalities comprising printed electronics.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 are directed to a system, which are statutory classes of invention.
Nevertheless, independent claim 1 is directed in part to an abstract idea. The claims are drawn to commercial or legal interactions (under certain methods of organizing human activity), or integrated sensing modalities , in this case. The independent claims recite the A composition comprising integrated sensing modalities comprising printed electronics, MEMS/NEMS sensor modalities, wireless power and communication, software interfaces to domain-specific applications, verbal interaction with technology platforms to automatically identify, measure and report on consumption and/or transfer of foodstutts, provisions and the like.. If the claim limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations as a commercial or legal interaction but for the recitation of generic computer elements, then it falls within the “Commercial Legal Interactions” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims as a whole merely describes the concept of A composition comprising integrated sensing modalities comprising printed electronics, MEMS/NEMS sensor modalities, wireless power and communication, software interfaces to domain-specific applications, verbal interaction with technology platforms to automatically identify, measure and report on consumption and/or transfer of foodstutts, provisions and the like.. These additional elements in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, there are no additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of sensor to perform these steps 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Morse et al. “US 2014/0252091 A1” (Morse).
Regarding Claim 1: A composition comprising integrated sensing modalities comprising printed electronics, MEMS/NEMS sensor modalities, wireless power and communication, software interfaces to domain-specific applications, verbal interaction with technology platforms to automatically identify, measure and report on consumption and/or transfer of foodstutts, provisions and the like (at least see Morse Abstract; Figs. 3-6; “[0031] In one embodiment of FIG. 5, the nanochip label 502 includes a microchip or similar identification tag within the nanochip 501. In one aspect, the microchip alone is also capable of being utilized with the current system. In FIG. 5, the nanochip 501 is a MEMS-based advanced memory device readable by way of an RFID scanner. Electric power for the MEMS-based device can be obtained from the environment by extracting energy from mechanical motion and vibration by using piezoelectric materials; air/liquid flow by using a miniature air turbine generator; temperature gradients by using thermopiles; pH gradient by using chemical electrodes; and particle radiation by using p-n junction or other converters. [0032] The nanochip provides a more efficient scanning system such that the nanochip can be affixed on the backside of a barcode label that uses an adhesive to adhere to the product surface. The use of nanochips allows placement of the identifier/tracking device at any location of a product as well as anywhere internal or external to product packaging. The invention works well in integrating currently used labeling and tracking techniques as well. For exemplary purposes, and not limitation, the nanochip or microchip includes a global positioning system (GPS). The invention aims to provide a cost effective means for providing features that can be implemented easily into conventional systems.”).
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon, which is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, are cited in the Notice of Reference Cited form (PT0-892).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FATEH M OBAID whose telephone number is (571)270-7121. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00 A.M to 4:30 P.M.
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, Ryan Zeender can be reached on (571) 272-6790. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/FATEH M OBAID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627