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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 3, the word, “the” should be inserted before the word, “controlling”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In lines 3-4, the words, “to 40° C” should be deleted. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 4, the word “a” should be removed.
In line 17, the word, “operation” is repeated.
In line 22, “the sum” should be “the sum of the exhaust temperature and the compensation temperature” for continuity of the claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 1, the word, “the” should be inserted before the word, “controlling”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-8, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. There are two criteria for subject matter eligibility. The first is that the claimed invention must be to one of the four statutory categories, i.e., a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. See MPEP 2106(I). 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. See MPEP 2106(I). Here, claims 1-8 are directed towards a process (STEP 1). Therefore, the analysis proceeds to determine whether the claims are directed towards a judicial exception (STEP 2A).
With respect to claim 1, the claim as a whole is directed towards the abstract idea of detecting various parameters of an air conditioning system, which can be considered a mental process. Claim 1 also recites the steps of stopping the outdoor fan while maintaining the operation of the indoor unit, however this step is contingent on the condition of the operating duration (of the outdoor fan) being greater than a first preset duration. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the conditions precedent are not met, see MPEP 2111.04 (II). Since this condition of the operating duration (of the outdoor fan) being greater than a first preset duration may never occur, the claimed method does not include the step of stopping the outdoor fan while maintaining the operation of the indoor unit. Similarly, the step of generating a fault indication is contingent on the step of determining by the controller whether the sum of the exhaust temperature and the compensation temperature exceeds the second preset temperature for a second duration. Since the step of determining by the controller whether the sum of the exhaust temperature and the compensation temperature exceeds the second preset temperature for a second duration may never occur, this additional step of stopping the outdoor fan while maintaining the operation of the indoor unit may also never occur. Accordingly, the steps of determining the sum of the exhaust temperature and a compensation temperature, controlling the outdoor fan to stop operating, determining whether the sum of the exhaust temperature and the compensation temperature exceeds as second preset temperature of a second duration and controlling the compressor to stop and generating a fault indication may never occur. Since the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed, the only step in claim 1 that is required is detecting by the controller an outdoor ambient temperature, and exhaust temperature, fan current and operation duration of the outdoor fan. Since the determination step could be performed entirely in the mind of a human operator or by using pen and paper and is equivalent to simply collecting information according to MPEP2106.04(III)(A), the claim is considered to be directed towards a judicial exception of an abstract idea under the principles of broadest reasonable interpretation., (STEP 2A). Further, the determining step does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(d)(1,2) since the claim does not require limitations that improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field. Since the claim does not include the steps which are contingent, the claim is not considered to improve another technology or technical field since the step of detecting in and of itself without more would not improve any technology, and therefore cannot be considered a practical application of the judicial exception.
Because the claim recites abstract ideas without a practical application, the analysis proceeds to determine whether the claim recites additional elements that amounts to significantly more than the abstract ideas (STEP 2B). According to MPEP 2106.05(I)(A), additional elements that recite an instruction to apply the abstract ideas using a computer, that recite insignificant extra-solution activities, or that generally link the use of the abstract ideas to a particular technological environment or field of use are not indicative of a practical application. Here, the additional elements do no more than link the abstract idea to the particular technological environment of an air conditioning system. Further, the step is not applied with or by use of a particular machine in accordance with MPEP2106.05(b). Further, without any of the other steps in claim 1 being required, there is no particular transformation in accordance with MPEP2106.05(c). Further, mere instructions to apply an exception do not recite significantly more than a judicial exception in accordance with MPEP2106.05(f). When determining whether a claim integrates a 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 a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. The amended recitation of the method of determining if the sum of the exhaust temperature and compensation temperature exceeds a first preset temperature to be determined by a controller is not enough to recite significantly more since it is merely instructions to implement the abstract of idea of determining on a computer. As such, there are no other meaningful limitations present in claim 1 that would transform the claims into significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 1 is rejected as being directed towards patent ineligible subject matter.
With respect to claim 2, the claim is directed towards generally linking the particular technology environment to a fixed frequency air conditioning system without indoor unit and outdoor unit communication but fails to recite any additional elements not already discussed above in connection with claim 1 and therefore fails to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claim 2 is rejected as being directed towards patent ineligible subject matter.
With respect to claim 3, the claimed step further requires determining the compensation temperature as a function of the outdoor ambient temperature. This limitation is merely an additional abstract idea that does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 3 is rejected as being directed towards patent ineligible subject matter.
With respect to claim 4, the claimed step requires the second preset temperature selected to indicate an abnormal compressor operating condition. This limitation is merely an additional abstract idea that does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 4 is rejected as being directed towards patent ineligible subject matter.
With respect to claim 5, the claimed step requires operation of the outdoor fan based on a post-protection operating condition. However, the fan operation of the fan is contingent upon a post-protection operation condition which may never occur. There is no step of protection or post-protection which is required by the method, and as such, the limitations of claim 5 may also never occur. Since post-protection is not required to occur, the limitations of claim 5 are not required and fails to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claim 5 is rejected as being directed towards patent ineligible subject matter.
With respect to claim 6, the claimed step further requires the post-protection operating condition to comprise a time-based condition. Since the step of post protection is not required and may never occur, the limitations of claim 6 are not required and fails to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claim 6 is rejected as being directed towards patent ineligible subject matter.
With respect to claim 7, the claimed step further requires the post-protection operating condition to comprise a temperature-based condition. Since the step of post protection is not required and may never occur, the limitations of claim 7are not required and fails to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claim 7 is rejected as being directed towards patent ineligible subject matter.
With respect to claim 8, the claimed step further requires the post-protection operating condition to comprise a temperature differential associated with heat exchange performance. Since the step of post protection is not required and may never occur, the limitations of claim 8 are not required and fails to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claim 8 is rejected as being directed towards patent ineligible subject matter.
With respect to claim 13, the claimed step further requires the compensation temperature to vary based on a plurality of ambient temperature ranges. Since the step of determining the compensation temperature may never occur if the operation duration never exceeds the first preset duration, the limitations of claim 13 are not required and as such fails to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claim 13 is rejected as being directed towards patent ineligible subject matter.
With respect to claim 14, the claimed step further requires the controlling of the outdoor fan to stop operating unloads a refrigeration cycle. Since the step of controlling the fan to stop operating may never occur if the operation duration never exceeds the first preset duration, the limitations of claim 14 are not required and as such fails to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claim 14 is rejected as being directed towards patent ineligible subject matter.
With respect to claim 15, the claimed step further requires the fault indication to be output to a user interface or transmitted to an external device. Since the step of fault indication may never occur if the operation duration never exceeds the first preset duration, the limitations of claim 15 are not required and as such fails to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claim 15 is rejected as being directed towards patent ineligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 8, 11, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 8 requires post-protection operating condition comprises a temperature differential associated with heat exchange performance. There is no recitation of post-protection operating condition comprises a temperature differential associated with heat exchange performance in Applicant’s originally filed specification and therefore new matter.
Claim 11 requires the compensation temperature is correlated with the outdoor ambient temperature to represent an indoor heat exchanger temperature. There is no recitation of the compensation temperature is correlated with the outdoor ambient temperature to represent an indoor heat exchanger temperature in Applicant’s originally filed specification and therefore new matter.
Claim 14 requires controlling the outdoor fan to stop operating unloads a refrigeration cycle while the indoor unit continues to supply heating. There is no recitation of controlling the outdoor fan to stop operating unloads a refrigeration cycle while the indoor unit continues to supply heating in Applicant’s originally filed specification and therefore new matter.
Claim 15 requires the fault indication output to a user interface or transmitted to an external device. There is no recitation of a user interface or transmittal to an external device in Applicant’s originally filed specification and therefore new matter.
Claim 16 requires storing the fault signal as diagnostic information in a non-volatile memory. There is no recitation of storing the fault signal as diagnostic information in a non-volatile memory in Applicant’s originally filed specification and therefore new matter.
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, 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN110345603 to Wu et al., hereinafter referred to as Wu (see English language translation provided herewith), in view of CN111189104 to Liu, hereinafter referred to as Liu (see English language translation provided herewith).
In reference to claim 1, Wu and Liu disclose the claimed invention.
Wu discloses a method for protecting an air conditioning system during a heating operation, the air conditioning system comprising an indoor unit and an outdoor unit (see background) and the outdoor unit at least comprises a compressor and an outdoor fan (compressor and fan of the outdoor machine, see background), the method being performed by a controller (see abstract) comprising the following steps (see page 3):
in a heating mode (system operating mode is refrigerating mode and heating mode, see page 3, which implies that this operation method occurs during all three modes of operation including the heating mode), starting the outdoor fan (disclosure of operating parameters of the fan implies operating it which requires starting the fan), and detecting an outdoor ambient temperature (the current operating conditions including environmental temperature, see underlined portion of page 3), an exhaust temperature of the compressor (see page 3), a fan current of the outdoor fan (the operating parameters of the comprises at least one of the following :speed, current, windshield, see page 3).
Wu fails to disclose detecting an operating duration of the outdoor fan in real time.
Liu teaches that in the art of high-temperature protection control of an air conditioner, that it is a known method to control an outdoor fan by detecting an operating duration of the outdoor fan in real time and controlling the outdoor fan to stop (see underlined portion of page 6 the English language translation where stopping the outdoor fan when the running time of the fan reaches a certain value). This is strong evidence that modifying Wu as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. protect the unit during high temperatures). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, to modify Wu by Liu such that, the method included detecting an operating duration of the outdoor fan in real time since all claimed elements were known in the art, and one having ordinary skill in the art could have combined the teachings of the prior art as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded a predictable result of shutting down the outdoor fan under high temperature operation and improve the experience of the user.
Wu and Liu as combined supra further fail to disclose the steps of determining the sum of the exhaust temperature and a compensation temperature, controlling the outdoor fan to stop operating, determining whether the sum of the exhaust temperature and the compensation temperature exceeds as second preset temperature of a second duration and controlling the compressor to stop and generating a fault indication. However, these steps are considered contingent claim limitations since they are contingent on the condition of the operating duration (of the outdoor fan) being greater than a first preset duration. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the conditions precedent are not met, see MPEP 2111.04 (II). Since this condition of the operating duration (of the outdoor fan) being greater than a first preset duration may never occur, the claimed method does not include the step of determining the sum of the exhaust temperature and a compensation temperature, the steps of determining the sum of the exhaust temperature and a compensation temperature, controlling the outdoor fan to stop operating, determining whether the sum of the exhaust temperature and the compensation temperature exceeds as second preset temperature of a second duration and controlling the compressor to stop and generating a fault indication. Similarly, the step of determining controlling the outdoor fan to stop operating, is contingent on the step of determining the sum of the exhaust temperature and compensation temperature. Since the step of determining the sum of the exhaust temperature and compensation temperature may never occur, this additional step may also never occur. Similarly, the step of determining whether the sum of the exhaust temperature and the compensation temperature exceeds as second preset temperature of a second duration and controlling the compressor to stop and generating a fault indication may never occur. Accordingly, the steps of determining the sum of the exhaust temperature and a compensation temperature, controlling the outdoor fan to stop operating, determining whether the sum of the exhaust temperature and the compensation temperature exceeds as second preset temperature of a second duration and controlling the compressor to stop and generating a fault indication may never occur. Since the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed, the only step in claim 1 that is required is the determination step and does not include the steps of determining the sum of the exhaust temperature and a compensation temperature, controlling the outdoor fan to stop operating, determining whether the sum of the exhaust temperature and the compensation temperature exceeds as second preset temperature of a second duration and controlling the compressor to stop and generating a fault indication. Since this step has been shown to be obvious in light of the prior art, the conditions of claim 1 are considered to be met by the prior art even though the prior art themselves do not disclose the contingent steps.
In reference to claim 13, Wu and Liu disclose the claimed invention.
Wu as modified supra fails to disclose the compensation temperature varies based on a plurality of outdoor ambient temperature ranges. However, determining the compensation temperature may never occur as it is not a required step in the method, since the outdoor fan operating duration may never exceed the first preset duration, and as such, the limitations of claim 13 may also never occur. Since the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed, this contingent step is not required. Accordingly, the conditions of claim 13 are considered to be met by the prior art even though the prior art themselves do not disclose the contingent steps.
In reference to claim 14, Wu and Liu disclose the claimed invention.
Wu as modified supra fails to disclose the controlling the outdoor fan to stop operating unloads a refrigeration cycle while the indoor unit continues to supply heating. However, the controlling the outdoor fan to stop operating may never occur since the outdoor fan operating duration may never exceed the first preset duration, and as such, the limitations of claim 14 may also never occur. Since the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed, this contingent step is not required. Accordingly, the conditions of claim 14 are considered to be met by the prior art even though the prior art themselves do not disclose the contingent steps.
In reference to claim 15, Wu and Liu disclose the claimed invention.
Wu as modified supra fails to disclose the fault indication is output to a user interface or transmitted to an external device. However, the fault indication occur since the outdoor fan operating duration may never exceed the first preset duration, and as such, the limitations of claim 14 may also never occur. Since the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed, this contingent step is not required. Accordingly, the conditions of claim 14 are considered to be met by the prior art even though the prior art themselves do not disclose the contingent steps.
Claims 2-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Wu and Liu as applied to claim 1 supra, and in further view of US 2021/0164668 to Zhou et al., hereinafter referred to as Zhou, and in further view of CN111578460 to Xu et al., hereinafter referred to as Xu (see English language translation provided herewith).
In reference to claim 2, Wu, Liu, Zhou, and Xu disclose the claimed invention.
Wu as modified supra fails to disclose the air conditioning system is a fixed-frequency air conditioning system without indoor unit and outdoor unit communication. Zhou teaches that variable frequency systems such as the system disclosed by Wu and fixed-frequency systems are equivalents known to be suitable for the same purpose of compressing refrigerant within a refrigeration system [0128]. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, to modify Wu such that the air conditioning system is a fixed-frequency air conditioning system since it has been held that it is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art, see MPEP 2144.06(I). Further, Xu teaches that in the art of air conditioners, that having an indoor and outdoor unit without communication therebetween is advantageous because it can increase the compatibility of different brands of indoor and outdoor machines, see abstract. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, to modify Wu by Xu such that, the air conditioning system is without indoor unit and outdoor unit communication in order to advantageously increase the compatibility of different brands of indoor and outdoor machines, see abstract.
In reference to claim 3, Wu, Liu, Zhou, and Xu disclose the claimed invention.
Wu as modified supra further fail to disclose the compensation temperature is determined as a function of the outdoor ambient temperature. However, the controller may never determine the compensation temperature if the condition of the outdoor fan operating duration may never exceed the first preset duration (refer to the rejection of claim 1 supra) and as such, the limitations of claim 3 may also never occur. Since the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed, this contingent step is not required. Accordingly, the conditions of claim 3 are considered to be met by the prior art even though the prior art themselves do not disclose the contingent steps.
In reference to claim 4, Wu, Liu, Zhou, and Xu disclose the claimed invention.
Wu as modified supra further fail to disclose the second preset temperature is selected to indicate an abnormal compressor operating condition associated with refrigerant shortage. However, the controller may never select a second preset temperature if the condition of the outdoor fan operating duration may never exceed the first preset duration (refer to the rejection of claim 1 supra) and as such, the limitations of claim 4 may also never occur. Since the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed, this contingent step is not required. Accordingly, the conditions of claim 4 are considered to be met by the prior art even though the prior art themselves do not disclose the contingent steps.
In reference to claim 5, Wu, Liu, Zhou, and Xu disclose the claimed invention.
Wu as modified supra fails to disclose the limitations of controlling operation of the outdoor fan based on a post-protection operating condition. However, post-protection operation may never occur as it is not a required step in the method, and as such, the limitations of claim 5 may also never occur. Since the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed, this contingent step is not required. Accordingly, the conditions of claim 5 are considered to be met by the prior art even though the prior art themselves do not disclose the contingent steps.
In reference to claim 6, Wu, Liu, Zhou, and Xu disclose the claimed invention.
Wu as modified supra further fail to disclose the limitations of post-protection operating condition comprises a time-based condition. However, post-protection operation may never occur as it is not a required step in the method, and as such, the limitations of claim 6 may also never occur. Since the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed, this contingent step is not required. Accordingly, the conditions of claim 6 are considered to be met by the prior art even though the prior art themselves do not disclose the contingent steps.
In reference to claim 7, Wu, Liu, Zhou, and Xu disclose the claimed invention.
Wu as modified supra further fail to disclose the limitations of post-protection operating condition comprises a temperature-based condition. However, post-protection operation may never occur as it is not a required step in the method, and as such, the limitations of claim 7 may also never occur. Since the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed, this contingent step is not required. Accordingly, the conditions of claim 7 are considered to be met by the prior art even though the prior art themselves do not disclose the contingent steps.
In reference to claim 8, Wu, Liu, Zhou, and Xu disclose the claimed invention.
Wu as modified supra further fail to disclose the limitations of post-protection operating condition comprises a temperature differential associated with heat exchange performance8. However, post-protection operation may never occur as it is not a required step in the method, and as such, the limitations of claim 8 may also never occur. Since the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed, this contingent step is not required. Accordingly, the conditions of claim 8 are considered to be met by the prior art even though the prior art themselves do not disclose the contingent steps.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9, 10, 12, and 17 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 20, 2026 have been fully considered but they respectfully are not found persuasive.
Specifically, applicant argues on page 7 of the response that the steps of stopping the outdoor fan and generating a fault indication cannot be performed mentally. This is not found persuasive. The steps of stopping the outdoor fan and generating a fault indication are conditional, and may never be performed in the operating duration of the outdoor fan does not exceed the first preset duration. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the conditions precedent is not met, see MPEP 2111.04 (II). Thus, the steps of stopping the outdoor fan, stopping the compressor and generating a fault indication are not required. With respect to the limitation of starting the outdoor fan and detecting with a controller, here, the additional elements do no more than link the abstract idea to the particular technological environment of an air conditioning system. Further, when determining whether a claim integrates a 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 a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. The amended recitation of the method of determining if the sum of the exhaust temperature and compensation temperature exceeds a first preset temperature to be determined by a controller is not enough to recite significantly more since it is merely instructions to implement the abstract of idea of determining which could be performed in the mind of a person, on a computer. As such, there are no other meaningful limitations present in claim 1 that would transform the claims into significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 101 as being directed towards patent ineligible subject matter is considered proper and remains.
Applicant argues on page 8 that claim 1 reads over the prior art of record since it has been amended to include the allowable subject matter of claim 9. However, since claim 9 is an apparatus claims, and apparatus claims must contain structure to perform contingent steps and method claims do not, claim 1 does not include all of the limitations of claim 9 and is much broader. Claim 1 does not require any of the subject matter which was indicated as allowable in the previous Office action mailed January 12, 2026. Accordingly, the rejection of the claims under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Wu, in view of Liu, and/or Zhou, and Xu are deemed proper and remain.
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 CASSEY D BAUER whose telephone number is (571)270-7113. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs: 10AM-8PM (ET).
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, Frantz Jules can be reached at 571-272-6681. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CASSEY D BAUER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights