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
Claims 1 and 21 are examined and claims 2-20 and 22-25 have been canceled.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1 and 21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims recite mathematical concepts, including calculating a filtration efficiency using a first output particle load and a second output particle load, and an evaluation of whether the calculated filtration efficiency satisfies a threshold efficiency value. The recited mathematical calculation and evaluation constitute abstract ideas within the mathematical concepts and mental processes groupings of abstract ideas.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements, considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not impose a meaningful limitation that integrates the identified mathematical concepts and evaluation into a practical application. Claim 1 recites a particle sensor, one or more processors, memory storing instructions, measurements of a first output particle load with the fan turned off and a second output particle load with the fan turned on, and generation of an alert when the filtration efficiency does not satisfy the threshold efficiency value. These additional elements obtain and process information and report the result of the calculation, but the claim does not recite that the calculated filtration efficiency or threshold determination controls, modifies, or otherwise changes operation of the air purifier. In particular, the claim does not recite adjustment of the fan, modification of a filter or airflow condition, or another operation of the air purifier performed in response to the calculated filtration efficiency. Accordingly, the additional elements, considered individually and in combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claim 21 additionally recites that the particle sensor is directly coupled to an output of the air purifier. This limitation specifies a physical relationship for obtaining the particle-load measurements but, based solely on the claim language, does not recite that the direct coupling produces an improvement in the functioning of the sensor or air purifier, or otherwise applies the mathematical calculation in a manner that changes operation of the air purifier. Accordingly, claim 21 likewise does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, considered individually and in combination, the additional elements recite the acquisition of particle-load information, processing of that information to calculate filtration efficiency and compare the calculated value with a threshold, and generation of an alert based on the comparison, without reciting a further technological operation that transforms, controls, or improves the air purifier or other claimed technology. The processor and memory are recited as components for executing the instructions that perform the identified mathematical calculation and evaluation, and the sensor and associated measurements provide the data used by the calculation. The alert reports the result of the evaluation but does not, as claimed, cause a change in operation of the air purifier. The additional limitation of claim 21 concerning direct coupling of the particle sensor to the air-purifier output likewise does not, from the claim language alone, add a limitation that amounts to significantly more than the identified judicial exception. Accordingly, the additional elements, viewed both individually and in combination, do not transform the claim into a patent-eligible application of the abstract idea.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 21 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOI C LAU whose telephone number is (571)272-8547. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5:00Pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Davetta Goins can be reached on (571)272-2957. 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.
/HOI C LAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689
