Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is responsive to the application filed on 08/06/2024.
Claims 1-9 are presented for examination.
References in applicant's IDS form 1449 received on 08/06/2024 have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein the Al microcontroller is further configured to apply the AI algorithm to the measured values of the first series of measurements and to output a via the operating system module over the backplane bus and is further configured, after evaluation of the first series of measurements, to evaluate a further series of measurements from the array with the AI algorithm” is vague and indefinite. It is unclear whether this limitation refers to “the phrase contains the indefinites article “a” without a following noun or object. It is entirely unclear and physical payload or logical data structure is being broadcast, and the output action cannot be determined” or other usage. The phrase "other" renders the claim vague and indefinite. Thus, the limitation is not positively recited.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 4. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, claims 1-9 are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One of the framework, claim 1 recites an abstract idea. Claim 1 includes elements for “
The limitations above recite an abstract idea. More particularly, the elements above recite store the retrieved first series of measurements in an array; and wherein AI microcontroller is further … . Further, the elements above directed to an abstract mathematical concept and data-shuffling algorithm are fundamental mental and mathematical procedures. As a result, claim 1 recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
Claims 2-9 further describe the process for selecting and viewing organizational information and further recite certain methods of organizing human activity and/ mental processes for the same reasons as stated above. As a result, claims2-9 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The order combination of these elements does not add “significantly more” to transform the abstract concept into a patent eligible physical application. As a result, claim 1 does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
Claims 2-9 do not include any additional elements beyond those included with respect to the claims from which claims 2-9 depend. As a result, claims 2-9 do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two for the same reasons as stated above.
With respect to Step 2B of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. As noted above, claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements include a computing device and a step for gathering information. The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because the additional elements the computing device amounts to no more than a general computing component that is used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea in view of MPEP 2105.06(d)(II). Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, claim 1 does not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B.
Claims 2-9 do not include any additional elements beyond those included with respect to the claims from which claims 2-9 depend. As a result, claims 2-9 do not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B for the same reasons as stated above.
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 –
Claims 1, 2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Daxer et al. “US 11, 281, 195 B2” (Daxer).
Regarding Claim 1: A hardware module for sequentially acquiring data with integrated AI evaluation, the hardware module comprising:
a measuring unit configured to acquire measured values from a test object via a sensor (at least see Daxer Abstract; Fig. 1; 4:12-20);
an AI microcontroller configured to acquire and process an AI algorithm (at least see Daxer Abstract; Fig. 1; 4:12-20);
a data memory; an operating system module (5:30-35); wherein the hardware module is configured for a modular structure in an automation system to forward data to a higher-level unit via a backplane bus (at least see Daxer Abstract; Figs. 4-5; 3:60-67);
wherein the measuring unit is further configured to accept a measuring instruction containing at least the following measurement parameters (i) a type of measurement and (ii) a number of desired measurements (at least see Daxer Abstract; Fig. 5; 7:11-20);
wherein the hardware module is further configured in accordance with a specified type of measurement to perform a number of the measurements one after another and to acquire a series of measurements (at least see Daxer Abstract; 8:5-12);
wherein the AI microcontroller is further configured to, starting with a first series of measurements, cyclically retrieve the first series of measurements from the measuring unit and to store the retrieved first series of measurements in an array (at least see Daxer Abstract; Fig. 5; 9:22-35); and
wherein the Al microcontroller is further configured to apply the AI algorithm to the measured values of the first series of measurements and to output a via the operating system module over the backplane bus and is further configured, after evaluation of the first series of measurements, to evaluate a further series of measurements from the array with the AI algorithm (at least see Daxer Abstract; 9:48-60).
Regarding Claim 2: The module as claimed in claim 1, wherein the measuring unit and the AI microcontroller are further configured to be parameterized via an engineering station for the respective type of measurement and are parameterized for a structure-borne sound measurement, a vibration measurement or an impedance measurement (at least see Daxer Abstract; Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 9: The module as claimed in claim 1, wherein the operating system module is configured such that the AI microcontroller and the measuring unit are parameterizable or programmable via the backplane bus (at least see Daxer 7:51-67).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daxer et al. “US 11, 281, 195 B2” (Daxer) in view of Contet et al. “US 10,746,786 B2” (Contet).
Regarding Claim 3: The module as claimed in claim 1, wherein in a parameterization for an impedance measurement the measuring unit is configured as an impedance measurement unit which utilizes an electrical test signal to acquire a series of measurements or an impedance spectrum dependent on at least one of a frequency and an amplitude of the test signal from the test object via the sensor, the impedance measurement unit being further configured to start, via the measuring instruction, with a start frequency and to stop with a stop frequency such that a number the desired measurements is acquired (at least see Contet Abstract; 5:14-30).
Regarding Claim 4: The module as claimed in claim 1, wherein in a parameterization for an impedance measurement the measuring unit is configured as an impedance measurement unit which utilizes an electrical test signal to acquire a series of measurements or an impedance spectrum dependent on at least one of a frequency and an amplitude of the test signal from the test object via the sensor, the impedance measurement unit being further configured to start, via the measuring instruction, with a start frequency and to stop with a stop frequency such that a number the desired measurements is acquired (at least see Contet Abstract; 5:14-30).
Regarding Claim 5: The module as claimed in claim 3, further comprising: a multiplexer; wherein the impedance measurement unit or the AI microcontroller is further configured to, starting with a value of a calibration resistance, perform the measurement and to evaluate the measured data, and to compare whether the measured impedance is less than 80% of the calibration resistance; and wherein the multiplexer switches in the next smallest calibration resistance if the measured impedance is less than 80% of the calibration resistance (at least see Contet Abstract; 5:21-29).
Regarding Claim 6: The module as claimed in claim 3, wherein the AI microcontroller is further configured to apply the AI algorithm to an imaginary part of the measured values of the series of measurements (at least see Contet Fig. 7).
Regarding Claim 7: The module as claimed in claim 5, wherein the AI microcontroller is further configured to apply the AI algorithm to an imaginary part of the measured values of the series of measurements (at least see Contet Fig. 8).
Regarding Claim 8: The module as claimed in claim 1, wherein the AI microcontroller is further configured to utilize a residual neural network to evaluate the AI algorithm (at least see Contet 4:35-46).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made (Pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA FITF) to use Contet’s teachings in Daxer’s enabled, for the advantage of modify the modular edge-AI processing architectures for automated calibration.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon, which is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, are cited in the Notice of Reference Cited form (PT0-892).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FATEH M OBAID whose telephone number is (571)270-7121. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 A.M to 4:30 P.M.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ryan Zeender can be reached at (571) 272-6790. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/FATEH M OBAID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights