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 08/24/2026.
Response to Arguments
I. Status of the Claims
2. Claims 1-24 are still pending.
3. Claims 21-24 are new.
II. Objections
4. 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 Therefore, the objection(s) have been withdrawn.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. 101
5. Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and found persuasive regarding claim 1-8. Therefore, the rejection(s) have been withdrawn.
However, the arguments with respect to claims 9 and 16 are not persuasive because they lack structure and/or configurations of claim 1, therefore, the rejections are maintained.
6. Page(s) 8, the Applicant(s) argues that “Contrary to the Office's characterization, claim 1 is not diiected to an abstract idea of mental step. None of the elements of claim 1, such as enabling a switch, detennining a transition time for a voltage across a resistor, and providing an indication of whether a liquid is detected at an electronic ... port based on the transition, etc., can be reasonably characterized as a mental step. Therefore, claim 1 is directed to patent eligible subject matter 1mder Step 2A Prong 1., ...”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees because the claim(s) 9 and 16 are not patent eligible pursuant to the MPEP 2106.04 Eligibility Step 2A: Whether a Claim is Directed to a Judicial Exception, and MPEP 2106.04(d) Integration of a Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application.
6.1. Argument in support to response to number 6 above.
2106 Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, I. TWO CRITERIA FOR SUBJECT MATTER ELIGIBILITY, First, the claimed invention must be to one of the four statutory categories. 35 U.S.C. 101 ... See 35 U.S.C. 100(b) ("The term ‘process’ means process, art, or method, and includes a new use of a known process, machine, manufacture, composition of matter, or material."). See MPEP §2106.03 for detailed information on the four categories … Second, the claimed invention also must qualify as patent-eligible subject matter, i.e., the claim must not be directed to a judicial exception unless the claim as a whole includes additional limitations amounting to significantly more than the exception.
2106.04 Eligibility Step 2A: Whether a Claim is Directed to a Judicial Exception, I. JUDICIAL EXCEPTIONS, Determining that a claim falls within one of the four enumerated categories of patentable subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) in Step 1 does not end the eligibility analysis, because claims directed to nothing more than abstract ideas (such as a mathematical formula or equation), natural phenomena, and laws of nature are not eligible for patent protection … In addition to the terms "laws of nature," "natural phenomena," and "abstract ideas," judicially recognized exceptions have been described using various other terms, including "physical phenomena," "products of nature," "scientific principles," "systems that depend on human intelligence alone," "disembodied concepts," "mental processes," and "disembodied mathematical algorithms and formulas." It should be noted that there are no bright lines between the types of exceptions, and that many of the concepts identified by the courts as exceptions can fall under several exceptions. For example, mathematical formulas are considered to be a judicial exception as they express a scientific truth, but have been labelled by the courts as both abstract ideas and laws of nature.
2106.04(a)(2) Abstract Idea Groupings,
I. MATHEMATICAL CONCEPTS
The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. The Supreme Court has identified a number of concepts falling within this grouping as abstract ideas … C. Mathematical calculations, A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recite a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word "calculating" in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of "determining" a variable or number using mathematical methods or "performing" a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation …
III. MENTAL PROCESSES
The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea … Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions … C. A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process. Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer … 2. Performing a mental process in a computer environment. An example of a case identifying a mental process performed in a computer environment as an abstract idea is Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d at 1316-18, 120 USPQ2d at 1360 … Another example is Fair Warning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 120 USPQ2d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The patentee in Fair Warning claimed a system and method of detecting fraud and/or misuse in a computer environment, in which information regarding accesses of a patient’s personal health information was analyzed according to one of several rules (i.e., related to accesses in excess of a specific volume, accesses during a pre-determined time interval, or accesses by a specific user) to determine if the activity indicates improper access. 839 F.3d. at 1092, 120 USPQ2d at 1294. The court determined that these claims were directed to a mental process of detecting misuse, and that the claimed rules here were "the same questions (though perhaps phrased with different words) that humans in analogous situations detecting fraud have asked for decades, if not centuries." 839 F.3d. at 1094-95, 120 USPQ2d at 1296.
2106.04(d) Integration of a Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application, The Supreme Court has long distinguished between principles themselves (which are not patent eligible) and the integration of those principles into practical applications (which are patent eligible). See, e.g., Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 80, 84, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1968-69 … but the Court in Gottschalk v. Benson ‘‘held that simply implementing a mathematical principle on a physical machine, namely a computer, was not a patentable application of that principle’’) … A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception … Limitations the courts have found indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the exception into a practical application include: … • Implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b); … The courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application: • Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f); • Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g); and • Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Step 2A Prong Two is similar to Step 2B in that both analyses involve evaluating a set of judicial considerations to determine if the claim is eligible. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) through (h) for the list of considerations that are evaluated at Step 2B. Although most of these considerations.
In a summary, according to the above sections of the MPEP and the court, the claim must not be directed to a judicial exception unless the claim as a whole includes additional limitations amounting to significantly more than the exception. A judicial exception includes but is not limited to “mental process” (thinking perform with the help of pen and paper despite that is performed by computer in the claim), which that could be performed with the help of pen and paper despite claiming that such a process is performed by a computer, and “mathematical concepts” defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations that include but not limited to arithmetic operation, mathematical methods and/or performing mathematical operations regardless the claim use the word “calculating” or not when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation.
Regarding step 2A, Prong One, In the instant case the limitations relative to “determine whether the current is being shared between the electronic port pin and the resistor” as recited in claim 9 and “determining ... a rise in a transition time voltage across the resistor” as recited in claim 16 could be easily perform mentally with the help of pen and paper if necessary after gathering the pertinent information. In addition, “determining” is clearly mental-processes.
Regarding step 2A, Prong Two, the other elements of the claims do not involve a particular machines and/or article transformation in which the Abstract-Idea is integrated but simply routine structure and previously known to the liquid detection industry, which are used for the routine data gathering of the necessary information/measurements in order to execute the abstract-ideas/judicial-exceptions, which are well-understood, routine, conventional activities, which do not add more than insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception/Abstract-Idea. In addition, the step relative to “providing an indication of whether a liquid is detected at the electronic port pin based on whether the transition time exceeds a threshold” is simply the application (“apply it” or equivalent according to MPEP 2106.05(f)) of the abstract-ideas/judicial-exceptions. Therefore, at step 2A Prong Two, it is determined that the Abstract-Idea is not implemented into a practical application.
In light of the foregoing, the claims are not patent eligible because the Abstract-Idea involves mental processes, mathematical algorithms, equations and/or formulas and is not implemented into a practical application.
7. Page(s) 8, the Applicant(s) argues that “Further, contra1y to the Office's characterization, claim 1 recites a particular machine, recites a transfonnation of a particular article to a different state, and is clearly directed to a practical application. Specifically, claim 1 recites a structure including a particular arrangement of a resistor, a current source, a switch, a pin, and control logic, and clearly recites a machine. Applicant disagrees, with the Office that these are "insignificant extra-solution activity" ... clearly recites a transformation of a particular article - from allowing a current to flow through a resistor, to determining a transition time for a voltage across the resistor, to providing an indication of whether a liquid is detected at an electronic port based on the transition time - there is clearly a transfom1ation of article. Lastly, the recitation of"provid[ing] an indication of whether a liquid is detected at an electronic port" clearly shows that claim 1 is integrated into a practical application - to provide an indication of liquid detection at an electronic port, to avoid electrical short and corrosion. Accordingly, claim l is directed to patent eligible subject matters under Step 2A Prong 2...”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees because the claim(s) do not recite a particular machine/device, the additional elements/limitations is/are simply well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry despite the fact that include concrete components and not mathematical calculations or mental steps. Therefore, do not amount to significantly more and fall in the concept of extra-solution activities and a field of use pursuant to the MPEP 2106.05(b) I. THE PARTICULARITY OR GENERALITY OF THE ELEMENTS OF THE MACHINE OR APPARATUS; MPEP 2106.05(d) Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity; and MPEP 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity; and 2106.05(h) Field of Use and Technological Environment.
7.1. FIRST Argument in support to response to number 7 above.
2106.05(b) Particular Machine, … III. WHETHER ITS INVOLVEMENT IS EXTRA-SOLUTION ACTIVITY OR A FIELD-OF-USE, Whether its involvement is extra-solution activity or a field-of-use, i.e., the extent to which (or how) the machine or apparatus imposes meaningful limits on the claim. Use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not integrate a judicial exception or provide significantly more ... Examiners may find it helpful to evaluate other considerations such as the mere instructions to apply an exception consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)), and the field of use and technological environment consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)), when making a determination of whether an element (or combination of elements) is a particular machine …
When determining whether a machine recited in a claim provides significantly more, the following factors are relevant.
I. THE PARTICULARITY OR GENERALITY OF THE ELEMENTS OF THE MACHINE OR APPARATUS
The particularity or generality of the elements of the machine or apparatus, i.e., the degree to which the machine in the claim can be specifically identified (not any and all machines). One example of applying a judicial exception with a particular machine is Mackay Radio & Tel. Co. v. Radio Corp. of America, 306 U.S. 86, 40 USPQ 199 (1939). In this case, a mathematical formula was employed to use standing wave phenomena in an antenna system. The claim recited the particular type of antenna and included details as to the shape of the antenna and the conductors, particularly the length and angle at which they were arranged. 306 U.S. at 95-96; 40 USPQ at 203. Another example is Eibel Process, in which gravity (a law of nature or natural phenomenon) was applied by a Fourdrinier machine (which was understood in the art to have a specific structure comprising a headbox, a paper-making wire, and a series of rolls) arranged in a particular way to optimize the speed of the machine while maintaining quality of the formed paper web. Eibel Process Co. v. Minn. & Ont. Paper Co., 261 U.S. 45, 64-65 (1923).
2106.05(d) Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity, Another consideration when determining whether a claim recites significantly more than a judicial exception is whether the additional element(s) are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry. This consideration is only evaluated in Step 2B of the eligibility analysis. If the additional element (or combination of elements) is a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, for instance because it is an unconventional step that confines the claim to a particular useful application of the judicial exception, then this consideration favors eligibility. If, however, the additional element (or combination of elements) is no more than well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, which is recited at a high
level of generality, then this consideration does not favor eligibility …
III. WHETHER ITS INVOLVEMENT IS EXTRA-SOLUTION ACTIVITY OR A FIELD-OF-USE, Another consideration when determining whether a claim recites significantly more than a judicial exception is whether the additional element(s) are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry. This consideration is only evaluated in Step 2B of the eligibility analysis. If the additional element (or combination of elements) is a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, for instance because it is an unconventional step that confines the claim to a particular useful application of the judicial exception, then this consideration favors eligibility. If, however, the additional element (or combination of elements) is no more than well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, which is recited at a high level of generality, then this consideration does not favor eligibility ...
2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more in Step 2B is whether the additional elements add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process ... An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent … As explained by the Supreme Court, the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional …
In a summary, according to the above sections of the MPEP and the court, the analysis and test to determine if the additional elements add to significantly more than the abstract-idea by determining whether the additional elements are claiming a specifically identified particular device with sufficient particular structure (i.e. dimensions, shape, length, angles of arrangements, etc.) and not the general and basic structure of any and all machines, and/or, whether said additional elements fall into the concept of insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception either pre-solution or post-solution activities, which includes that such additional elements to be recited at a high level of generality that are no more than well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry; and whether said additional elements is amount to more than generally linked to a field of use and technological environment consideration.
With regards to the particularity of a machine under 2106.05(b), the instant application does not claim a particular machine, it simply claims an electronic device, resistor coupled to the electronic port pin, current source coupled to the resistor and control logic with a high degree of generality that could not be considered a particular devices because they all lack particular description that includes but are not limited their dimensions, shapes, lengths, angles of arrangements, structure forming them, etc. See the anticipation rejection below by Tyrrell.
With regards to the Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity that includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity under MPEP § 2106.05(g), the instant application, the independent claims simply recites the additional claim elements/limitations (hereinafter together mentioned as the “Routine-Devices-Activities-Of-The-Industry”), which are insignificant extra-solution activities that fall into the category of well-understood, routine, conventional activity and using well-understood, routine, conventional structure previously known to the systems and methods for detecting liquid in the electronic port pin.
The prior art in the rejection below is evidence in support that additional elements are extra solution activities (Pre-solution and Post-solution). See the anticipation rejection below by Tyrrell.
Furthermore, the claims at issue as a whole are simply directed to gathering and analyzing collected information about a signal with conventional techniques, which have similarities in a general way 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.
Therefore, the independent claim(s) 9 and 16 simply recite the insignificant extra-solution activity related to detecting liquid in the electronic port pin, which is a well-understood, routine, conventional activity to the liquid detection industry that is performed using well-understood and routine structure to said industry such as sensors, processors/microprocessors, data collection, etc., which do not amount to an inventive concept.
In light of the foregoing, the claims are not patent eligible because in summary the additional element individually and/or in combination of elements as whole fall into the concept(s) of “Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity” to the judicial-exception/Abstract-idea and “well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry”, which do not amount to an inventive concept.
7.2 SECOND Argument in support to response to number 7 above.
2106.05(h) Field of Use and Technological Environment, Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. The courts often cite to Parker v. Flook as providing a classic example of a field of use limitation. See, e.g., Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 612, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010) ("Flook established that limiting an abstract idea to one field of use or adding token post solution components did not make the concept patentable") (citing Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 198 USPQ 193 (1978)). In Flook, the claim recited steps of calculating an updated value for an alarm limit (a numerical limit on a process variable such as temperature, pressure or flow rate) according to a mathematical formula "in a process comprising the catalytic chemical conversion of hydrocarbons." … Although the applicant argued that limiting the use of the formula to the petrochemical and oil-refining fields should make the claim eligible because this limitation ensured that the claim did not preempt all uses of the formula, the Supreme Court disagreed. 437 U.S. at 588-90, 198 USPQ at 197-98 … Examples of limitations that the courts have described as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception include: … vi. Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016) …
In summary, the MPEP and the courts have found that simply linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use is not sufficient for the claims to be eligible.
In the instant application, the aforesaid claim(s) are simply linking the Judicial-Exception/Abstract-Idea to the “Technological Environment” relative to the systems and methods for detecting liquid in the electronic port pin as determined by the courts. Therefore, the limitations amount to merely indicating a field use, which in a general way is similar to Parker v. Flook where the claim recited steps of calculating an updated value for an alarm is linked to the field/industry related to chemical conversion of hydrocarbons in which the court found the claims ineligible under 101.
Furthermore, the claims as a whole do not amount to more than estimating the result of an endurance test using conditions that are algorithms/equations themselves, using a general-purpose processor that performs machine learning tasks such as executing said abstract-idea/judicial exception.
In light of the foregoing, the claims are not patent eligible because the abstract-idea/judicial-exception involves mathematical algorithms and formulas, therefore, are not implemented into a practical application but simply linking it to a particular technological environment or field of use.
IV. Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 102
8. Applicant's arguments with respect to the anticipation claim rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection(s) has been withdrawn.
However, the arguments with respect to claims 9 and 16 are not persuasive because they lack structure and/or configurations of claim 1, therefore, the rejections are maintained.
9. Page-8, the Applicant(s) argues that “Claims 1, 2, 4, 9, 10, 12-14, 16, 17, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(I) as being allegedly anticipated by U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2020/0259298 (Tyrrell). Office Action at 17. Amended claim 1 recites, inter alia, "control logic coupled to the switch, the control logic configurable to: enable the switch to allow a current to flow from the current source through the resistor to a ground terminal ... Tyrrell fails to disclose at least these claim elements ...”.
The Examiner states that it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “enable the switch to allow a current to flow from the current source through the resistor to a ground terminal” hereinafter mentioned as Unclaimed-Limitation) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Furthermore, the Examiner’s interpretation is proper pursuant to the MPEP 2111.01 Plain Meaning, II. IT IS IMPROPER TO IMPORT CLAIM LIMITATIONS FROM THE SPECIFICATION and MPEP 2111.01 Plain Meaning (I).
9.1 FIRST Argument in support to response number 9 above.
MPEP 2111.01 Plain Meaning, II. IT IS IMPROPER TO IMPORT CLAIM LIMITATIONS FROM THE SPECIFICATION, “Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment." Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See also Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 906, 69 USPQ2d 1801, 1807 (Fed. Cir. 2004).” … “The problem is to interpret claims ‘in view of the specification’ without unnecessarily importing limitations from the specification into the claims."); Altiris Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1371, 65 USPQ2d 1865, 1869-70 (Fed. Cir. 2003)” … “In In re Zletz, supra, the examiner and the Board had interpreted claims … The court ruled that limitations, not present in the claims, were improperly imported from the specification. See also In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 799, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ("Claims are not to be read in a vacuum, and limitations therein are to be interpreted in light of the specification in giving them their ‘broadest reasonable interpretation’." 710 F.2d at 802, 218 USPQ at 292 (quoting In re Okuzawa, 537 F.2d 545, 548, 190 USPQ 464, 466 (CCPA 1976)) (emphasis in original)”.
In summary, according to the above sections of the MPEP and the case law, the claims are interpreted in view of the specifications but without improperly importing limitations not present in the claim.
In the instant case, the Examiner’s interpretation is reasonable and proper because the language of claim 1 is broader than any embodiment of the invention, thus, said language of claims 9 and 16 do not include the Unclaimed-Limitation.
Furthermore, it would have been improper for the Examiner to import the aforesaid Unclaimed-Limitations because the language of claim 1 is broader, ambiguous and does not include the aforesaid Unclaimed-Limitations. Therefore, one ordinary skilled in the art would have not imported the aforesaid Unclaimed-Limitation. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In light of the foregoing, Tyrrell properly anticipates and discloses all the limitations of claims 9 and 16.
9.2 SECOND Argument in support to response to number 9 above.
2111.01 Plain Meaning, I. THE WORDS OF A CLAIM MUST BE GIVEN THEIR "PLAIN MEANING" UNLESS SUCH MEANING IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE SPECIFICATION
“Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention … the greatest clarity is obtained when the specification serves as a glossary for the claim terms. The presumption that a term is given its ordinary and customary meaning may be rebutted by the applicant by clearly setting forth a different definition of the term in the specification … During examination, the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow … This means that the words of the claim must be given their plain meaning unless the plain meaning is inconsistent with the specification.” … “In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (discussed below); Chef America, Inc. v. Lamb-Weston, Inc., 358 F.3d 1371, 1372, 69 USPQ2d 1857 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (Ordinary, simple English words whose meaning is clear and unquestionable, absent any indication that their use in a particular context changes their meaning, are construed to mean exactly what they say””.
In a summary, according to the above sections of the MPEP and the case law, ordinary English words/terms must be given their plain meaning, unless the specification provide definitions for said words/terms in the form of glossary.
In the instant case, the claim limitation at issue broadly and ambiguously recites “determine a transition time for a voltage across the resistor when the switch is enabled” but does not explain how the “transition” and “time” behaves with respect to the “voltage”.
Furthermore, the terms “transition” and “time” are ordinary English words and could be reasonably interpreted by one ordinary skill in the art using any of their ordinary English meanings because the specifications do not provide any special definition for the aforesaid terms, which makes said terms consistent with the specifications of the Applicant(s).
Furthermore, the terms “transition” and “time” are so broad and ambiguous that have many different definitions (see, https://www.thefreedictionary.com/draw; https://www.thefreedictionary.com/transition) and/or synonyms (see, https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/drawn; https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/about), thus, could be reasonably used and/or interpreted to describe many different relationships between the elements of the claim such as the interpretation provided in the rejection below. In addition, neither the term “transition time” used together has an specific English definition inconsistent with the meaning of the context in the claims (see, https://www.thefreedictionary.com/draw; https://www.thefreedictionary.com/transition+time). Moreover, the claim terms “transition time” have very little patentable weight. Consequently, the Examiner’s interpretation of said limitation is reasonable and consistent with the specifications by the Applicant(s).
Furthermore, the claim language is so broad and ambiguous that it do not exclude Tyrrell’s teachings.
In light of the foregoing, the Tyrrell properly anticipates and teaches all the limitations of claim 16.
V. Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 103
10. Applicant's arguments with respect to the obviousness claim rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and found not persuasive.
11. Page-9, the Applicant(s) argues that “Claims 3, 5, 6, 8, 11, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being allegedly unpatentable over Tyrrell. Office Action at 23. These claims depend from claims 1, 9, or 16. As explained above, Tyrell fails to teach or suggest, at least, "enable the switch to allow a current to flow from the current source through the resistor to a ground terminal; [ and] detem1ine a transition time for a voltage across the resistor when the switch is enabled." Accordingly, claims 1, 9, and 16 are allowable over Tyrrell. The dependent claims are also allowable at least due to their dependence from claims 1, 9, or 16. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests the Office withdraw the § 103 rejections and allow the claims...”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees regarding claims because of the same reasons above provided.
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.
12. Claim(s) 1-8 and 16-20 are/is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), 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. The aforesaid claim implements a new subject matter that is not described in the specifications.
12.1. Specifically, the claims 1 and 16 recite the limitation(s) “... determine a transition time for a voltage ...” and “... determining a transition time of a voltage ...”, respectively. This specific limitation is not disclosed in the applicant’s specification and, therefore, said claim(s) is/are rejected for no written description in the specification.
12.2. Claims 2-8 and 17-20 further limit and depend on claims 1 and 16, respectively, therefore, they are rejected as well.
Specification Objections
13. The amendment filed on June 23, 2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: “... determine a transition time for a voltage ...” and “... determining a transition time of a voltage ...”.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
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.
14. Claim 9-20 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.
15. Claim 9 is directed to “determine whether the current is being shared between the electronic port pin and the resistor”, which are mathematical-calculations/mental-steps that could also be performed by a general purpose processor. The additional elements “An electronic device, comprising: an electronic port pin; a resistor coupled to the electronic port pin; a current source coupled to the resistor and to the electronic port pin, the current source configurable to provide a current to the resistor; and control logic configurable ...” 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 and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea.
Independent claim 9 is Ineligible due to the following analysis:
15.1. Step 1 (Statutory Category): claim 9 is directed to an electronic device, 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 9 recites: “determine whether the current is being shared between the electronic port pin and the resistor”, which are mathematical-calculations/mental-steps that could also be performed with the help of a pen and paper. 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 9 does not claim a particular machine because the electronic device, resistor coupled to the electronic port pin and current source coupled to the resistor are not claimed with sufficient specificity and the control logic is simply a general purpose computer processor, and does not claim any transformation of a particular article to a different state. Furthermore, the liquid detection context, is simply linking the claim to a technological environment, industry or field of use but does not explain with sufficient details so one ordinary skilled in the art could determine an improvement in the liquid detection technology. 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 the systems and methods for detecting liquid in the electronic port pin, and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea (Step 2A, Prong-2: NO. There is no integration of said judicial-exception/abstract-idea into a practical application. The claim is just linking said judicial-exception/abstract-idea to the technological field relative to systems and methods for detecting liquid in the electronic port pin).
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 9 recites the additional element(s) “An electronic device, comprising: an electronic port pin; a resistor coupled to the electronic port pin; a current source coupled to the resistor and to the electronic port pin, the current source configurable to provide a current to the resistor; and control logic configurable ...” of which when evaluated individually and as a whole, it is concluded that are/is simply mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea and/or routine and/or 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 references used in the rejections below, and prior art made of record below, and on the IDS). Therefore, the claim limitations individually and as whole do 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).
16. Claim 10 depends on claim 9, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 10 further recites the element(s), which are/is simply more mathematical-calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 10 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 involve 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 and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea.
17. Claim 11 depends on claim 10 that depends on claim 9, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 11 further recites the element(s), which are/is simply more mathematical-calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 11 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 involve 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 and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea.
18. Claim 12 depends on claim 10 that depends on claim 9, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 12 further recites the element(s), which are/is simply more mathematical-calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 12 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 involve 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 and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea.
19. Claim 13 depends on claim 9, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 13 further recites the element(s), which are/is simply more mathematical-calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 13 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 involve 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 and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea.
20. Claim 14 depends on claim 13 that depends on claim 9, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 14 further recites the element(s), which are/is simply more mathematical-calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 14 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 involve 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 and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea.
21. Claim 15 depends on claim 14 that depends on claim 13 that depends on claim 9, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 15 further recites the element(s), which are/is simply more mathematical-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 involve 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 and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea.
22. Claim 16 is directed to “determining ... a rise in a transition time voltage across the resistor”, which are mathematical-calculations/mental-steps that could also be performed by a general purpose processor. The additional elements “A method, comprising: providing, by a control logic circuit via a current source, a current to a resistor and an electronic port pin ... by the control logic circuit ... providing an indication of whether a liquid is detected at the electronic port pin based on whether the transition time exceeds a threshold” 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 and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea.
Independent claim 16 is Ineligible due to the following analysis:
22.1. Step 1 (Statutory Category): claim 16 is directed to an electronic device, therefore, it is directed to a statutory category, i.e., a process (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 16 recites: “determining ... a rise in a transition time voltage across the resistor”, which are mathematical-calculations/mental-steps that could also be performed with the help of a pen and paper. 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 16 does not claim a particular machine because the electronic device, resistor coupled to the electronic port pin and current source coupled to the resistor are not claimed with sufficient specificity and the control logic is simply a general purpose computer processor, and does not claim any transformation of a particular article to a different state. Furthermore, the liquid detection context, is simply linking the claim to a technological environment, industry or field of use but does not explain with sufficient details so one ordinary skilled in the art could determine an improvement in the liquid detection technology. 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 the systems and methods for detecting liquid in the electronic port pin, and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea (Step 2A, Prong-2: NO. There is no integration of said judicial-exception/abstract-idea into a practical application. The claim is just linking said judicial-exception/abstract-idea to the technological field relative to systems and methods for detecting liquid in the electronic port pin).
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 9 recites the additional element(s) “A method, comprising: providing, by a control logic circuit via a current source, a current to a resistor and an electronic port pin ... by the control logic circuit ... providing an indication of whether a liquid is detected at the electronic port pin based on whether the transition time exceeds a threshold” of which when evaluated individually and as a whole, it is concluded that are/is simply mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea and/or routine and/or 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 references used in the rejections below, and prior art made of record below, and on the IDS). Therefore, the claim limitations individually and as whole do 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. Claim 17 depends on claim 16, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 17 further recites the element(s), which are/is simply more mathematical-calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 17 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 involve 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 and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea.
24. Claim 18 depends on claim 17 that depends on claim 16, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 18 further recites the element(s), which are/is simply more mathematical-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 involve 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 and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea.
25. Claim 19 depends on claim 16, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 19 further recites the element(s), which are/is simply more mathematical-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 involve 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 and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea.
26. Claim 20 depends on claim 19 depends on claim 16, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 20 further recites the element(s), which are/is simply more mathematical-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 involve 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 and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea.
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 –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
27. Claim(s) 9, 10, 12-14, and 16 are/is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tyrrell et al. (Pub. No.: US 2020/0259298 hereinafter mentioned “Tyrrell”).
As per claim 9, Tyrrell, in the embodiment of Figs. 11A-11D that includes Fig. 4, discloses:
An electronic device (See MPEP 2111.02, Effect of Preamble, and II. Preamble Statements Reciting Purpose or Intended Use. However, see Figs. 4), comprising:
an electronic port pin (Fig. 4A, see the communication-connection CC1 pin of the connector cable arrangement 205a. Also see [0043]-[0045], [0058] and/or claims 1-3);
a resistor coupled to the electronic port pin (Fig. 4A, see any of the resistor Rpa and/or Rda with the communication-connection CC1 pin. Also see [0043]-[0045], [0058] and/or claims 1-3);
a current source coupled to the resistor and to the electronic port pin, the current source configurable to provide a current to the resistor (Fig. 4A, see any of the current sources I1a and/or I2a with the communication-connection CC1 pin of the connector cable arrangement 205a, the resistor Rpa and/or Rda and the switches SW1a, SW2a and/or SW3a. Also see [0043]-[0045], [0058] and/or claims 1-3); and
control logic configurable (Fig. 4A, the control logic of the water-detect-controller 240 that generates the clocking signals with any of the switches SW1a, SW2a and/or SW3a. Furthermore, the control logic is configurable to activate and/or deactivate switches; in addition, before the control logic being configured, it was at a configurable state. Also see [0056]-[0057] and/or claims 1-3) to determine whether the current is being shared between the electronic port pin and the resistor (see [0045], [0056], and/or [0058]) and to provide an indication of whether a liquid is present in the electronic port pin responsive to the determination (see [0056], and/or [0058]. The water-detect signal 245).
As per claim 10, Tyrrell discloses the electronic device of claim 9 as described above.
Tyrrell further discloses:
a first switch coupled between the current source and a conductive member (Fig. 4A, see any of the switches SW1a, and/or SW2a with their respective current sources I1a and/or I2a and conductive-member/line/wiring connecting the communication-connection CC1 pin . Also see [0056]-[0057] and/or claims 1-3) and a second switch coupled between the resistor and the conductive member (Fig. 4A, see the switch SW3a and resistor 3a with the conductive-member/line/wiring connecting the communication-connection CC1 pin. Also see [0056]-[0057] and/or claims 1-3).
Furthermore, pursuant to MPEP 2144.04 Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale, VI. REVERSAL, DUPLICATION, OR REARRANGEMENT OF PARTS, the Rearranging/shifting the position of the components such as resistors, switches, control logics with respect to each other does not modify the operation of the electronic device in a novel manner, therefore, components’ positions and/or rearrangement has no patentable weight (see “In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)). Additionally, rearranging the component positions is an obvious design choice (see “In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975)). Furthermore, if the aforesaid arrangements modify the sensor in an unpredictable manner, it should be added language claiming the aforesaid unpredictable manner in order to add patentability weight to the claim.
As per claim 12, Tyrrell discloses the electronic device of claim 10 as described above.
Tyrrell further discloses:
wherein the electronic port pin is a CC pin of a Universal Serial Bus USB port (see [0043] and/or [0086]), and wherein the control logic is configured to discard results of the determination based on a comparison of a voltage on the CC pin to a CC pin voltage range (Figs. 5 and 7-9, the implicit unit that compares the inputs to the thresholds-voltage/reference-voltage of the water-detect-controller 240 of Fig. 4A, which is connected to the communication-connection CC1 pin, the resistor Rpa and/or Rda and the switches SW1a, SW2a and/or SW3a. Also see [0060] and/or [0086]).
As per claim 13, Tyrrell discloses the electronic device of claim 9 as described above.
Tyrrell further discloses:
a comparator having a comparator output and first and second comparator inputs, the comparator output coupled to the control logic, the first comparator input coupled to the resistor, and the second comparator input configured to receive a threshold voltage (Figs. 5 and 7-9, the implicit unit that compares the inputs to the thresholds-voltage/reference-voltage of the water-detect-controller 240 of Fig. 4A, which is connected to the communication-connection CC1 pin, the resistor Rpa and/or Rda and the switches SW1a, SW2a and/or SW3a. Also see [0060] and/or [0086]).
As per claim 14, Tyrrell discloses the electronic device of claim 13 as described above.
Tyrrell further discloses:
wherein the control logic (Fig. 4A, the control logic of the water-detect-controller 240 that generates the clocking signals with any of the switches SW1a, SW2a and/or SW3a. Also see [0056]-[0057] and/or claims 1-3) is configurable to make the determination based on a time in which a voltage across the resistor rises (Figs. 5-8, see the voltage plots of the waveforms. Also see [0056], [0058] and/or claims 1-3) to the threshold voltage after the current is applied to the resistor (Figs. 5-8, see Vcc1 and/or Vcc2 measurements over time while switches are actuated until reaching or being greater than threshold-voltage VWD_THRESH. Also see [0063]-[0064]).
As per claim 16, Tyrrell, in the embodiment of Figs. 11A-11D that includes Fig. 4, discloses:
A method (See MPEP 2111.02, Effect of Preamble, and II. Preamble Statements Reciting Purpose or Intended Use. However, see Figs. 11), comprising:
providing, by a control logic circuit (Fig. 4A, the control logic of the water-detect-controller 240 that generates the clocking signals with any of the switches SW1a, SW2a and/or SW3a. Also see [0056]-[0057] and/or claims 1-3) via a current source (Fig. 4A, see any of the switches SW1a, SW2a and/or SW3a that modify the current pathway of any of the current sources I1a or I2a. Also see [0043]-[0045] and/or claims 1-3), a current to a resistor, and an electronic port pin (Fig. 4A, see any of the current sources I1a and/or I2a with the communication-connection CC1 pin of the connector cable arrangement 205a. Also see [0043]-[0045], [0058] and/or claims 1-3);
determining, by the control logic circuit (Fig. 4A, the control logic of the water-detect-controller 240 that generates the clocking signals with any of the switches SW1a, SW2a and/or SW3a. Also see [0056]-[0057] and/or claims 1-3), a rise in a transition time voltage across the resistor, in which the voltage transitions in response to at least part of the current flowing through the resistor (Figs. 5-8, see the voltage plots of the waveforms at transitions times T=0 to T=20 of the voltages. Also see [0063]-[0064], [0056], [0058] and/or claims 1-3); and
providing an indication of whether a liquid is detected at the electronic port pin (see [0056], and/or [0058]. The water-detect signal 245) based on whether the transition time exceeds a threshold (Figs. 5-8, see the voltage plots of the waveforms at transitions times T=0 to T=20 of the voltages and thresholds. Also see [0063]-[0064], [0056], [0058] and/or claims 1-3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
28. Claim(s) 11 and 21-24 are/is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tyrrell.
As per claim 11, Tyrrell discloses the electronic device of claim 10 as described above.
Tyrrell discloses a third switch coupled to the first and second switches, and to the electronic port pin the third switch being coupled to a ground terminal as described above but does not explicitly disclose that said third switch is directly to the ground terminal.
However, a switch directly connected to a ground terminal has no patentable weight and could be an obvious design choice.
As per claim 21, Tyrrell, in the embodiment of Figs. 11A-11D that includes Fig. 4, discloses:
A circuit (See MPEP 2111.02, Effect of Preamble, and II. Preamble Statements Reciting Purpose or Intended Use. However, see Figs. 4), comprising:
a current source coupled to a pin (Fig. 4A, see any of the current sources I1a and/or I2a with the communication-connection CC1 pin of the connector cable arrangement 205a, the resistor Rpa and/or Rda and the switches SW1a, SW2a and/or SW3a. Also see [0043]-[0045], [0058] and/or claims 1-3);
a switch having a first current terminal of the switch coupled to the pin and a second current terminal coupled to a ground terminal pin (Fig. 4A, see any of the terminals of switches SW1a, and/or SW2a with their respective current sources I1a and/or I2a and conductive-member/line/wiring connecting the communication-connection CC1 pin, which the other terminals are connected to ground terminal via SW3 and R3a. Also see [0056]-[0057] and/or claims 1-3); and
control logic coupled to the switch (Fig. 4A, the control logic of the water-detect-controller 240 that generates the clocking signals with any of the switches SW1a, SW2a and/or SW3a. Furthermore, the control logic is configurable to activate and/or deactivate switches; in addition, before the control logic being configured, it was at a configurable state. Also see [0056]-[0057] and/or claims 1-3), the control logic configurable to:
enable the switch at a first time (see [0056], and/or [0058]. Activating the switch);
disable the switch at a second time (see [0056], and/or [0058]. Deactivating the switch);
provide an indication of whether a liquid is detected at an electronic port pin based on a voltage at the pin (see [0056], and/or [0058]. The water-detect signal 245).
Tyrrell said switch is directly to the pin and ground terminal.
However, a switch directly connected to a ground terminal has no patentable weight and could be an obvious design choice.
Furthermore, pursuant to MPEP 2144.04 Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale, VI. REVERSAL, DUPLICATION, OR REARRANGEMENT OF PARTS, the Rearranging/shifting the position of the components such as resistors, switches, control logics with respect to each other does not modify the operation of the electronic device in a novel manner, therefore, components’ positions and/or rearrangement has no patentable weight (see “In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)). Additionally, rearranging the component positions is an obvious design choice (see “In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975)). Furthermore, if the aforesaid arrangements modify the sensor in an unpredictable manner, it should be added language claiming the aforesaid unpredictable manner in order to add patentability weight to the claim.
As per claim 22, Tyrrell discloses the circuit of claim 21 as described above.
Tyrrell further discloses:
wherein the control logic (Fig. 4A, the control logic of the water-detect-controller 240 that generates the clocking signals with any of the switches SW1a, SW2a and/or SW3a. Furthermore, the control logic is configurable to activate and/or deactivate switches; in addition, before the control logic being configured, it was at a configurable state. Also see [0056]-[0057] and/or claims 1-3) is determined to measure a time from the second time to when the voltage exceeds a reference voltage, and provide the indication responsive to whether the time exceeds a threshold (Figs. 5 and 7-9, see Vcc1 at T=10ms exceeding Vwd_Threshold. Also see [0060] and/or [0086]).
As per claim 23, Tyrrell discloses the circuit of claim 21 as described above.
Tyrrell further discloses:
wherein the switch is a first switch, and the circuit (Fig. 4A, see any of the switches SW1a, and/or SW2a with their respective current sources I1a and/or I2a and conductive-member/line/wiring connecting the communication-connection CC1 pin. Also see [0056]-[0057] and/or claims 1-3) further comprises a second switch (Fig. 4A, see the switch SW3a and resistor 3a with the conductive-member/line/wiring connecting the communication-connection CC1 pin. Also see [0056]-[0057] and/or claims 1-3) and a resistor coupled between the pin (Fig. 4A, see any of the resistor Rpa and/or Rda with the communication-connection CC1 pin of the connector cable arrangement 205a. Also see [0043]-[0045], [0058] and/or claims 1-3) and the ground terminal (Fig. 4A, see any of the terminals of switches SW1a, and/or SW2a with their respective current sources I1a and/or I2a and conductive-member/line/wiring connecting the communication-connection CC1 pin, which the other terminals are connected to ground terminal via SW3 and R3a. Also see [0056]-[0057] and/or claims 1-3), and the control logic (Fig. 4A, the control logic of the water-detect-controller 240 that generates the clocking signals with any of the switches SW1a, SW2a and/or SW3a. Also see [0056]-[0057] and/or claims 1-3) is configurable to enable the second switch (see [0056], and/or [0058]. Activating the switches) after the disabling the first switch at the second time (see [0056], and/or [0058]. Deactivating the switches).
As per claim 24, Tyrrell discloses the circuit of claim 21 as described above.
Tyrrell further discloses:
wherein the electronic port is a Universal Serial Bus USB port (see [0043] and/or [0086]).
Allowable Subject Matter
29. Claim(s) 1-8 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
30. Claims 2-8 would be allowed if overcoming the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action above due to the fact that they are further limiting and depending on claim 1.
31. The prior art of record, alone or in combination, does not anticipate, disclose and/or suggest the allowable subject matter of the independent claims. See the arguments by the Applicant(s) filed on 08/24/2026 and the application prosecution for specific novelty of the feature(s) claimed.
Furthermore, there is not any obvious motivation for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine some and/or all of the features of the prior art of record to achieve the features of the independent claim(s). In addition, it will further require substantial structural modification of the components that will also require substantial modification of the measurements, signal processing and configurations to achieve the features of the allowable subject matter.
32. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
a) Gupta (Pub. No.: US 2018/0088067, which was provided in the prior office action) teaches “Methods, structures, and apparatus that are able to detect the presence of a connection to a contact of an electronic device and are also able to detect the presence of contamination at the contact” (Abstract).
b) Bacon (Pub. No.: US 2017/0358922, which was provided in the prior office action) teaches “A voltage of a first pin that is one of several pins of an external connector of a system is measured, while the first pin is un-driven except for being pulled to ground through a first resistance, and a second pin of the external connector is being used as a power supply rail of the system. The measured voltage is compared to a short circuit threshold and in response to that threshold being exceeded, the power supply voltage on the second pin is reduced” (Abstract).
c) Mullins (Pub. No.: US 2014/0162496, which was provided in the prior office action) teaches “An electronic device may include a connector port that accommodates reversible connector plugs. The connector port may include protection circuitry that protects other components in the electronic device from undesired power supply voltages. The protection circuitry may form a first branch and a second branch opposite to the first branch” (Abstract).
d) Oomura (Pub. No.: US 2005/0237353, which was provided in the prior office action) teaches “a liquid discharge head capable of improving the durability and stability of a heating resistor and a liquid discharge head in its turn without making the shape of the region of the heating resistor complex. The liquid discharge head has a heater resistor RH for heating the liquid in a liquid route (not illustrated) communicating with a discharge port (not illustrated) and generating bubbles and a switch circuit SW for switching on/off of the current to be supplied to a heater resistor RH. One end of the heater resistor RH is connected to a power-supply potential VH, one end of the switch circuit SW is connected to a ground potential GNDH and the other end of the heater resistor RH and the other end of the switch circuit SW are mutually connected” (Abstract).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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