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 .
Summary
Claims 1-13 are pending. Claims 1-13 are rejected herein. This is a First Action on the Merits.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 7 and 8 is/are objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 7: In line 4, insert a comma after “evaluation variable.”
Regarding claim 8: In line 4, change “evaluation parameter” to --evaluation variable--.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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) 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1-13: These claims use the term "and/or." This term is indefinite and the Examiner recommends using "or" which avoids ambiguity and has the same patentable scope as that sought to be covered by "and/or." The Applicant may also consider using phrasing such as "at least one of." Furthermore, the repeated use of “and/or” in the same claim (e.g. 8 times in claim 1) compounds this indefiniteness as it is unclear what possible combinations are within the scope of the claim.
Regarding claims 1, 10, 12, and 13: These claims recite that the mass is “adjustably connected” to the holder. This is an incorrect statement because no adjustment mechanism is set forth in the Applicant’s disclosure. The language that comes after “adjustably connected,” namely “in such a way that the sensor mass can be moved using a physical force external to the sensor…” seems to indicate that all that is meant by “adjustably connected” is that the mass can move. This is how the claim has been interpreted, and the Examiner recommends using language such as “movably connected” or even just delete “adjustably” because the “in such a way…” language makes it clear that the mass is movable and how it moves.
Regarding claims 1, 10, 12, and 13: The language in section (b) is unclear because it is unclear if the phrase “from an initial position or initial oscillation of the sensor mass” is meant to be within option (b). It appears that there should be some kind of separation after “sensor mass” in section (b). The Examiner recommends using language such as “…and the sensor mass, wherein the non-zero voltage is applied when the sensor mass is in an initial position or oscillating with an initial oscillation.” This language also appears in claims 10, 12, and 13.
Regarding claims 1, 2, 10, 12, and 13: Section (i) in lines 5-10 state that the “respective capacitance” can be between the first electrode and the sensor mass or between the second electrode and the second mass. Lines 22-24 then recites “a first capacitance between the first electrode and the sensor mass.” There appears to be antecedent basis for “a first capacitance” in line 23 unless a different quantity is meant. Furthermore, for lines 22-24 to be in agreement with lines 5-10, it appears that lines 22-24 should recite that the capacitance can alternatively be between the second electrode and the sensor mass. These sections are further indefinite because claim 2 recites a second measured variable which is a “second capacitance between the second electrode and the sensor mass.” Measuring this variable is explicitly included within the scope of claim 1. Therefore claim 2 should be canceled or claim 1 should be amended to only recite the capacitance between the first electrode and the sensor mass. This conflicting language also appears in claims 10, 12, and 13.
Regarding claims 1, 10, 12, and 13: “Can be used” (line 3) and “can bed defined” (lines 24-25) are indefinite. Definite language should be used which states what the invention actually does. Furthermore, defining a variable is already vague because it is just assigning meaning to something, then reciting this as the concluding step of a computer implemented method is even more unclear. This language also appears in claims 10 and 12.
Regarding claims 1, 10, 12, and 13: The scope of claim 1 is unclear because it is attempting to recite a computing device that implements an algorithm, but the only steps are “taking into account…[a] variable” (which can just be a provided value according to lines 4-5) and then defining a variable (which is not even positively recited as discussed in the previous rejection). This indefinite language also appears in claims 10, 12, and 13.
Regarding claims 3, 4, 6, and 7: The claims recite that a value is defined “at the at least one evaluation variable.” It is unclear what it means to define a value at a variable. Claims 5 and 8 use the phrase “as the at least one evaluation variable.” For the purposes of this action, the Examiner assumes that “at” was meant to be “as.”
Regarding claim 4: It is unclear what it means “to define…at least one spring component.” The Examiner assumes that inserting (iii) was a typo and that the evaluation variable can be etching strength, a degree of etching of the sensor mass, or a degree of etching of the at least one spring component. Alternatively, the Applicant can insert “a degree of etching of” before “the at least one spring component” in step (iii).
Regarding claims 10: The algorithm recited in claim 10 includes the possibility of using a second electrode, therefore the positively recited structures of the sensor should include a second electrode. Furthermore, “a holder” and “a spring component” are recited in the “computer device” part of the claim and therefore should also be positively recited as part of the structure of the sensor.
Regarding claim 12: Claim 12 is directed toward a measuring cabinet including a computer device, but the only structure that is positively recited is the computer device. The cabinet itself or the components thereof need to be positively recited outside of the preamble.
Regarding claim 13: Claim 13 recites “a method for examining a capacitive sensor” however no examination takes place. The only steps in the method are “defining information” and “taking into account…[a] variable.” Therefore there is no clear examination of a capacitive sensor nor is there any nexus between the listed values and the state of the sensor. A method for examining a capacitive sensor would normally include at least one measurement performed on the sensor and the processing of the measurement data to generate useful information about the sensor.
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.
Regarding claims 1, 12, and 13: Claim 1, 12, and 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a general-purpose computer with an algorithm that consists only of an algorithm for defining information and then defining a variable. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there is no recited structure or connection to structure or process or results. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the input data is said to be a “measured variable” that can be merely “provided to the computer.” This gives a complete disconnect between the algorithm executed by the computer device and some integration into a practical application. Furthermore, the algorithm is so vague (merely defining information and variables) that the entire process could be done mentally with no computer device involved. The Examiner recommends positively reciting that the data is received by the computer device from a sensor that is performing some measurement or test on the capacitive sensor. This will provide an unambiguous practical application for the algorithm the computer device is executing. Claim 12 is rejected herein because even though the preamble recites a cabinet, the scope of the body of the claim is the same as that of claim 1. Claim 13 is even more vague than claim 1 because it does not even recite the computer device, just defining information and a variable, which is clearly an abstract idea.
Regarding claims 2-9: These claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 due to their dependence from claim 1 and the fact that they do not add any limitations that amount to a practical application of the subject matter of claim 1. They only further specify what the variables could be.
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 –
(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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a2) as being anticipated by RIZZINI et al. (US 20240426868). Please note that due to the numerous 112 issues discussed above the scope of the claims is very unclear and the following is a good faith attempt to apply prior art to the claims as best understood.
Regarding claim 1: As best understood, RIZZINI discloses: A computer device for a capacitive sensor (50 in FIG. 3), comprising: an electronic device (102 in FIG. 4) configured in such a way that the electronic device can be used to define evaluation information taking into account at least one measured variable (displacement detected during calibration in para. 97-99), which is determined by the computer device or is provided to the computer device and relates to a respective capacitance between: (i) at least one first electrode and/or second electrode of the capacitive sensor fastened to and/or in a holder of the capacitive sensor and (ii) a sensor mass of the capacitive sensor which is adjustably connected to and/or in the holder by at least one spring component of the capacitive sensor in such a way that the sensor mass can be moved using a physical force external to the sensor and/or using a non-zero voltage applied: (a) between the first electrode and the sensor mass and/or (b) between the second electrode and the sensor mass from an initial position or initial oscillation of the sensor mass (The displacement of the mass is measured as discussed in para. 97-99); wherein the electronic device is configured in such a way that, using the electronic device and taking into account the at least one first measured variable which is determined or provided when the sensor mass is in its initial position or initial oscillation and relates to a first capacitance between the first electrode and the sensor mass, at least one evaluation variable can be defined as at least part of the evaluation information: (i) relating to a spacing of the sensor mass to the first electrode and/or the second electrode and/or (ii) relating to a property of the sensor mass and/or the at least one spring component (calibration curve is generated to compensate for zero offset as discussed in para. 128-138).
Regarding claim 2: As best understood, RIZZINI discloses: the electronic device is further configured in such a way that the electronic device can be used to define the at least one evaluation variable additionally taking into account at least one second measured variable which is determined or provided when the sensor mass is in its initial position or initial oscillation, and relates to a second capacitance between the second electrode and the sensor mass (The displacement of the mass is measured as discussed in para. 97-99 using the output of the two capacitors as discussed in para. 106).
Regarding claim 3: As best understood, RIZZINI discloses: the electronic device is further configured in such a way that the electronic device can be used to define, at the at least one evaluation variable: (i) at least a first actual distance between the sensor mass and the first electrode, and/or (ii) a second actual distance between the sensor mass and the second electrode, and/or (iii) a first actual deviation of the first actual distance between the sensor mass and the first electrode from a first target distance between the sensor mass and the first electrode, and/or (iv) a second actual deviation of the second actual distance between the sensor mass and the second electrode from a second target distance between the sensor mass and the second electrode, and/or (v) a mean value of the first actual distance and the second actual distance, and/or (vi) a deflection of the sensor mass from a centered spacing of the first electrode to the second electrode (para. 77).
Regarding claim 10: Claim 10 is rejected for the same reasoning as claim 1.
Regarding claim 11: As best understood, RIZZINI discloses: the capacitive sensor is an acceleration sensor (abstract) or a capacitive pressure sensor or a rotation rate sensor.
Regarding claim 12: Claim 12 is rejected for the same reasoning as claim 1.
Regarding claim 13: Claim 13 is rejected for the same reasoning as claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANIEL J KOLB whose telephone number is (571)270-7601. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 EST.
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, Laura M Sweeney can be reached at 571-272-2160. 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.
/NATHANIEL J KOLB/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights