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 .
This action is responsive to communication filed on 12/22/2025. Claims 1-11, 14-26 are pending. Claims 12-13 are cancelled. Claims 25-26 are new. Claims 1, 7, 11, 18 and 21-22 have been amended. Entry of this amendment is accepted and made of record.
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 1-11, and 14-26 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to and abstract idea without significantly more. A subject matter eligibility analysis is set forth below. See MPEP 2106.
Under Step 1 of the analysis, claim 1 belongs to a statutory category, namely it is a system claim. Likewise, claim 18 is a method claim and claim 21 is a system claim.
Under Step 2A, prong 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
The claim(s) 1, 7, 18 and 21 recite(s) concepts related to mathematical algorithms/concepts, and mental processes and concepts performed in the human mind e.g. observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion for: determining/providing flow in quantity units per unit time in the conduit using the measurement data obtained from at least one of the first pair, the second pair, or the third pair of the plurality of ultrasonic transducers, determine/providing an uncertainty value for a current time period corresponding to the one of the plurality of chordal planes in the flow conduit in quantity units per unit time using the measurement data from the first pair, the second pair, and the third pair of the plurality of pairs of ultrasonic transducers, determining/providing a totalized uncertainty quantity representing an uncertainty totaled over a time period comprising the current time period and a previous time period of a previous totalized uncertainty quantity, wherein the totalized uncertainty quantity is determined based on the uncertainty value for the current time period corresponding to the one of the plurality of chordal planes in the flow conduit and the previous totalized uncertainty quantity.
The concepts discussed above can be considered to describe mental processes, namely concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper, and/or mathematical concepts, namely a series of calculations leading to one or more numerical results or answers. Although, the claim does not spell out any particular equation or formula being used, the lack of specific equations for individual steps merely points out that the claim would monopolize all possible calculations in performing the steps. These steps recited by the claims, therefore amount to a series of mental or mathematical steps, making these limitations amount to an abstract idea.
Claim 7 is a system, claim 18 is a method, and claim 21 is a system, with substantially similar claim language as the system of claim 1.
Step 2A, prong 2 of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception(s) into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the abstract idea is not performed by using any particular device and because the recited “processor”, amounts to the recitation of a general purpose computer used to apply the abstract idea, and because the “plurality of pairs of ultrasonic transducers…configured to provide measurement data…” is mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality and generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use (i.e. fluid flow in a conduit) and the results are merely output as part of insignificant post-solution activity (i.e. store in memory a totalized uncertainty quantity, claim 1, 7 and 21; “providing a total uncertainty quantity”, claim 18) and are not used in any particular manner as to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. For instance, nothing is done with the result of the determined uncertainty value and totalized uncertainty quantity being stored.
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, merely amount to a general purpose computer (i.e. processor) that attempts to apply the abstract idea in a technological environment, limiting the abstract ide to a particular field of use, mere data gathering/output recited at a high level of generality and/or merely performs insignificant extra-solution activity(ies) that when further analyzed under Step 2B is found to be well understood, routing and conventional activities as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); and because the data for performing the algorithm must necessarily be “obtained” and the use of general purpose computer to implement the abstract idea for performing the algorithm does not amount to significantly more than the recitation of the abstract idea itself.
Therefore, claims 1, 7, 18 and 21 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Dependent claims 2-6, 8-17, 19-20 and 22-26 merely expands on the abstract idea by appending additional method steps of the mathematical algorithm of their respective independent claims 1, 7, 18 and 21 that do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent claims 2-6, 8-11, 14-17, 19-20 and 22-26 merely expands on the abstract idea by reciting additional steps related to mathematical algorithms/concepts, and mental processes and concepts performed in the human mind e.g. observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion to convert each of the first measurements to respective first quantities (claims 5), totalizing the first quantities (claim 6), wherein the uncertainty measurement is related to differences in the axial velocity measurements in each chordal plane (claim 8), converting each of the first measurements to respective first quantities, and totalizing the first quantities (claim 11) determining fluid flow in the conduit from the axial velocity measurements (claim 19), comparing the total uncertainty quantity or the uncertainty quantity to a threshold to determine a fault (claim 20), “wherein two composite velocities are calculated using the axial velocity values from multiple chordal planes sensed by the sensor, with each of the two composite velocities being calculated using different chordal integration schemes, wherein a difference between the two composite velocities is used in the determination of the uncertainty value” (claim 22), “wherein the area uncertainty value is combined with a velocity result to yield an area related uncertainty in units of volume per time, wherein the area uncertainty value is totalized in units of volume” (claim 24) and mere data characterization of the data acquired and applied for performing the abstract idea (claims 2, 4, 8, 11, 24).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application in claims 2-6, 8-17, 19-20 and 22-26 because the abstract idea is not performed by using any particular device and because the “processor” recited in claims 1, 7, 18 and 21, amounts to the recitation of a general purpose computer used to apply the abstract idea; and because the recitation of “pairs of ultrasonic transducers in each of a plurality of chordal measurements planes…whereby a plurality of axial velocity measurements are made in each chordal plane with a minimum of three traverses in each chordal plane…” recited by claim 3, “the three or more transducer pairs located in the chordal measurement plane are positioned to form acoustic transmission paths that traverse at least once from one side and whereby a plurality of axial velocity measurements is made in each chordal plane with a minimum of three traverses in each chordal plane, each chordal plane is in parallel with the conduit axis, and comprising two paths per chordal plane, each path being a reflected path with two traverses of the chordal plane and one reflection in each of the two paths” (claim 9), “multiple transducers pairs located in the chordal measurement planed are positioned to form acoustic transmission paths that traverse at least once from one side and whereby a plurality of axial velocity measurements is made in each chordal plane…” (claim 14), “wherein the multiple transducer pairs located in the chordal measurement plane are positioned to from acoustic transmission paths…” (claim 15), “wherein the multiple transducer pairs located in the chordal measurement plane are positioned to form acoustic transmission paths that traverse at least once from one side…” (claim 16), “the multiple transducer pairs located in chordal measurement plane are positioned to form acoustic transmission paths” (claim 17), “sensor comprises at least one of: ultrasonic, Coriolis, electromagnetic, differential pressure, thermal, vortex shedding, cross-correlation, capacitance, microwave, temperature, pressure, or density sensor” (claim 23), is mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality and generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use (i.e. fluid flow in a conduit) and the results are merely output as part of insignificant post-solution activity (i.e. display uncertainty quantity, or communicate totalized uncertainty quantity to another system, claim 25; display alarm or communicate the alarm to another system, claim 26) and are not used in any particular manner as to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. For instance, nothing is done with the result of the determined uncertainty value and totalized uncertainty quantity being stored; and the limitations merely add further details as to the type of data (claims 9-10, 14-17, 23-24), the limitations merely add further details as to the type of data, and the means of collecting data.
The claim(s) 2-6, 8-17, 19-20 and 22-26 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the only additional elements are general purpose computer “processor” used to apply the abstract idea and mere data gathering/output recited at a high level of generality and insignificant extra-solution activity that when further analyzed under Step 2B is found to be well-understood, routine and conventional activities as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); and because the data of performing the algorithm must necessarily be “obtained” and the use of a general purpose computer to implement the abstract idea for performing the algorithm does not amount to significantly more than the recitation of the abstract idea itself.
Therefore claims 1-11, and 14-26 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see penultimate paragraph of page 12, and last paragraph of page 13 through first paragraph of page 14 of the remarks filed on 12/22/2025, with respect to amended claims 1, 7, 18, and 21 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 103 rejections of claims 1, 7, 18, 21 and their respective dependent claims 2-6, 8-17, 19, 20 and 22-24 has been withdrawn in view of the amendments.
With respect to applicant arguments regarding rejections under 35 USC 101 applicant submits that since the patent eligibility subject matter was addressed in response filed on November 6, 2024 and indicated as persuasive by the Examiner in subsequent office action mailed on December 17, 2024, because similarly to Thales Visionix, Inc v. United States the instant application claims are directed to a particular configuration sensors and a particular method of using the sensors in a non-conventional manner in order to provide measurements of axial velocity in a plurality of chordal planes in order to estimate flow rate and associated uncertainty. Applicant further submits that the claimed invention is not directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and that the claims are patent eligible since amendments made since this office action have not changed to what the claims are directed, but rather have clarified the “particular method of using the sensors in a non-conventional manner in order to provide measurements of axial velocity in a plurality of chordal planes in order to estimate flow rate and associated uncertainty (see last paragraph of page 1 and first and second paragraphs of page 2 of the remarks). Applicant further submits that that claims 1, 7, 18 and 21 do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One and requests withdrawal of 35 USC 101 rejections of claim 1, 7, 18 and 21 (see penultimate paragraph of page 5 of the remarks).
In response the examiner submits that upon further consideration of the claims in view of the change in scope of the amended claims filed on 07/30/2025 and 12/22/2025 the claims were found to be non-patent eligible. The examiner submits that the claimed sensors is a known conventional configuration for gathering data, and that the claimed invention is focused on the mathematical calculation of uncertainty values and totalizing uncertainty values, which is an abstract idea without significantly more.
The examiner further submits that the uncertainty values and totalized uncertainty values are not used in any particular manner as to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. For instance, nothing is done with the result of the determined uncertainty value and totalized uncertainty quantity being stored.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the abstract is not performed by using any particular device and because the recited “processor”, amounts to the recitation of a general purpose computer used to apply the abstract idea, and because the “plurality of pairs of ultrasonic transducers…configured to provide measurement data…” is mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality and generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use (i.e. fluid flow in a conduit) and the results are merely output as part of insignificant post-solution activity and are not used in any particular manner as to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as described above, merely amount to a general purpose computer (i.e. processor) that attempts to apply the abstract idea in a technological environment, limiting the abstract ide to a particular field of use, mere data gathering/output recited at a high level of generality and/or merely performs insignificant extra-solution activity(ies) that when further analyzed under Step 2B is found to be well understood, routing and conventional activities as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); and because the data for performing the algorithm must necessarily be “obtained” and the use of general purpose computer to implement the abstract idea for performing the algorithm does not amount to significantly more than the recitation of the abstract idea itself. Therefore the claims stand rejected under 35 USC 101.
With respect to claims 1-11, and 14-26 rejected under 35 USC 101 applicant argues that the claims do not recite a mathematical concept and that even if assuming for the sake of the argument that claims involve or are based on a mathematical concept it does not follow that the claims fall within the mathematical concept grouping (see last paragraph of page 2 through line 2 of page 3 of the remarks).
In response, the examiner disagrees and submits that as discussed above, the claims discuss concepts related to mathematical algorithms/concepts, and mental processes and concepts performed in the human mind e.g. observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion for: determining/providing flow in quantity units per unit time in the conduit using the measurement data obtained from at least one of the first pair, the second pair, or the third pair of the plurality of ultrasonic transducers, determine/providing an uncertainty value for a current time period corresponding to the one of the plurality of chordal planes in the flow conduit in quantity units per unit time using the measurement data from the first pair, the second pair, and the third pair of the plurality of pairs of ultrasonic transducers, determining/providing a totalized uncertainty quantity representing an uncertainty totaled over a time period comprising the current time period and a previous time period of a previous totalized uncertainty quantity, wherein the totalized uncertainty quantity is determined based on the uncertainty value for the current time period corresponding to the one of the plurality of chordal planes in the flow conduit and the previous totalized uncertainty quantity.
The concepts discussed above can be considered to describe mental processes, namely concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper, and/or mathematical concepts, namely a series of calculations leading to one or more numerical results or answers. Although, the claim does not spell out any particular equation or formula being used, the lack of specific equations for individual steps merely points out that the claim would monopolize all possible calculations in performing the steps. These steps recited by the claims, therefore amount to a series of mental or mathematical steps, making these limitations amount to an abstract idea.
Applicant further argues that similar to the system in Thales claim 1 recites “a plurality of pairs of ultrasonic transducers disposed on the flow conduit, each of pairs of ultrasonic transducers defining a path along a chordal measurement plane of the flow conduit, the plurality of pairs of ultrasonic transducers configured to provide measurement data for a first pair of the plurality of pairs of ultrasonic transducers, a second pair of the plurality of pairs of ultrasonic transducers, and a third pair of the plurality of pairs of ultrasonic transducers," and a "processor."; that claim 7 likewise recites "[a]n ultrasonic flow meter system..." and "three or more transducer pairs positioned to form three or more acoustic transmission paths that are co-located in each chordal measurement plane and configured to obtain a plurality of axial velocity measurements corresponding to each of the three or more acoustic transmission paths."; that claim 18 recites "[a] method for measuring fluid flow in a conduit with a flow meter, the flow meter comprising multiple transducer pairs positioned with respect to conduit acoustic transmission paths," and "obtaining a plurality of axial velocity measurements of each of a plurality of chordal planes in the conduit of the flow meter from at least three acoustic paths in each of the plurality of chordal planes along which the axial velocity measurements are measured."; and that claim 21 recites "[a] flow meter system for measuring fluid flow in a conduit," "a plurality of sensors defining at least three acoustic paths through a chordal plane of the conduit, the plurality of sensors configured to provide measurement data of each of the at least three acoustic paths," and "a processor." (see last paragraph of page 3 and first paragraph of page 4 of the remarks). Applicant submits that Claims 1, 7, 18, and 21 are clearly not directed to a mathematical concept. Like the system in Thales, Claims 1, 7, 18, and 21 are instead directed to a unique approach to positioning sensors and processing raw measurement data in order to more accurately determine, based on the measurement data, flow in the conduit and totalized uncertainty corresponding to the flow. Just as the system in Thales was not directed to a mathematical concept, Claims 1, 7, 18, and 21 are also not directed to a mathematical concept as alleged by the Examiner (see second and third paragraphs of page of the remarks).
In response the examiner disagrees and submits that the claimed invention is focused on the mathematical calculation of uncertainty values and totalizing uncertainty values, which is an abstract idea without significantly more, and that the claimed sensors is a known conventional configuration for gathering data.
The examiner further submits that the uncertainty values and totalized uncertainty values are not used in any particular manner as to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. For instance, nothing is done with the result of the determined uncertainty value and totalized uncertainty quantity being stored.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the abstract is not performed by using any particular device and because the recited “processor”, amounts to the recitation of a general purpose computer used to apply the abstract idea, and because the “plurality of pairs of ultrasonic transducers…configured to provide measurement data…” is mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality and generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use (i.e. fluid flow in a conduit) and the results are merely output as part of insignificant post-solution activity and are not used in any particular manner as to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as described above, merely amount to a general purpose computer (i.e. processor) that attempts to apply the abstract idea in a technological environment, limiting the abstract ide to a particular field of use, mere data gathering/output recited at a high level of generality and/or merely performs insignificant extra-solution activity(ies) that when further analyzed under Step 2B is found to be well understood, routing and conventional activities as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); and because the data for performing the algorithm must necessarily be “obtained” and the use of general purpose computer to implement the abstract idea for performing the algorithm does not amount to significantly more than the recitation of the abstract idea itself.
In addition, the examiner points to the fact that the court found the Thales Visionix case patent eligible under 101 because they claimed a placement of sensors which was unique, novel or unconventional. There was no prior art to show the placement of the sensors in that specific arrangement and therefore patent eligible under 35 USC § 101.
The guidance under 101 specifies that adding well-known or generic devices such as a sensor, a processor, etc. to an abstract idea is not enough to make it patent eligible and does not add anything significant unless is new or unconventional. Having a sensor to provide measurement data and a processor to perform algorithm steps are well understood routine and conventional activities and the prior art of record shows this (see Brown et a. US2019/0234782A1, cited on communication mailed 06/23/2023). Furthermore, merely calculating (i.e. uncertainty quantity, and totalizing the plurality of uncertainty values) or using information, (i.e. flow, uncertainty measurement, uncertainty quantity) for analysis and calculation does nothing significant as the additional claim elements (i.e. sensor, processor) are not used in any particular matter as to integrate the abstract idea in a practical application. Therefore the claims stand rejected under 35 USC 101.
Applicant submits that “even assuming for the sake of argument (which Applicant does not concede) that any of the claimed features could be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, Applicant submits that none of the features could practically be performed in the human mind“ (see penultimate paragraph of page 4 of the remarks). Applicant further submits that “[c]laim 1 recites "determine flow in quantity units per unit time in the conduit using the measurement data obtained from at least one of the first pair, the second pair, or the third pair of the plurality of ultrasonic transducers; determine an uncertainty value for a current time period corresponding to the one of the plurality of chordal planes in the flow conduit in quantity units per unit time using the measurement data from the first pair, the second pair, and the third pair of the plurality of pairs of ultrasonic transducers; and store in memory a totalized uncertainty quantity representing an uncertainty totaled over a time period comprising the current time period and a previous time period of a previous totalized uncertainty quantity, wherein the totalized uncertainty quantity is determined based on the uncertainty value for the current time period corresponding to the one of the plurality of chordal planes in the flow conduit and the previous totalized uncertainty quantity." As described in the specification, flow and uncertainty can be derived from multiple transit time calculations of ultrasonic signals at a number of different chordal planes (See Specification 43). The number of data processed and the number of calculations performed is not amenable to mental processing in the time available. For example, the human mind is not capable of processing measurements at a necessary speed to determine a "flow in quantity units per unit time," "an uncertainty value for a current time period," and "totalized uncertainty quantity ... based on the uncertainty value for the current time period ... and the previous totalized uncertainty quantity." Trying to determine the totalized uncertainty quantity in the human mind would render the sensor system unfit for its purpose. For example, if calculated in the human mind or with pen and paper, flow measurements and the totalized uncertainty would slower than real-time and any measured values would not reflect actual flows or uncertainties. Claims 7, 18, and 21 recite similar features as Claim 1, which likewise cannot be practically performed in the human mind while providing current sensor measurements and uncertainty totalizations.” (see last paragraph of page 4 through first paragraph of page 5 of the remarks).
In response, the examiner disagrees. Although examiner acknowledges that to perform the number of calculations and data processing performed might not be amenable for mental processing and that to perform the calculations would be a complex task to perform in the human mind or by pen and paper and would take more time than by performing complex operations by using a general computer, however said uncertainty quantity and totalization of uncertainty value determinations are still considered abstract ideas directed towards mathematical concepts and processes that can be purely mental. While implementing the abstract idea would be advantageous to reduce the time it would take to implement complex mathematical operations, it have been held that the use of a general purpose computer to implement the abstract idea do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and cannot be considered a practical application of the abstract idea. Therefore, for the reasons discussed above the claims stand rejected under 35 USC 101.
In response, the examiner disagrees for similar reasons discussed above
In last paragraph of page 5 through line 7 of page 6 of the remarks, applicant argues that claim 1 recites “store in memory a totalized uncertainty quantity representing an uncertainty totaled over a time period…” and submits that the human mind cannot store a totalized uncertainty value and that the human mind cannot interact with a processing system to cause a value to be stored, and therefore storing a totalized uncertainty value cannot be reasonably characterized as a mental process. Applicant further submits that claims 7 and 21 recite a similar “store” feature, whereas claim 18, a method claim, already recited providing a total uncertainty quantity…” which cannot be reasonably characterized as a mental process.
In response the examiner submits that the step of “store in memory a totalized uncertainty quantity representing an uncertainty totaled over a time period…” in the instant application claims as currently presented is a post solution activity and well understood routine and conventional activity that does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
With respect to Step 2A prong 2, applicant argues that claim 1 does not recite any alleged abstract idea, and that the additional elements described above integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application for maintaining building equipment (see second paragraph of page 6 of the remarks). Applicant submits that claim 1 recites features which integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application by “[a]pplying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment”, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see penultimate paragraph of page 6 of the remarks); and that “[i]n particular, a system that includes "a plurality of pairs of ultrasonic transducers disposed on the flow conduit, each of pairs of ultrasonic transducers defining a path along a chordal measurement plane of the flow conduit, the plurality of pairs of ultrasonic transducers configured to provide measurement data for a first pair of the plurality of pairs of ultrasonic transducers, a second pair of the plurality of pairs of ultrasonic transducers, and a third pair of the plurality of pairs of ultrasonic transducers" to determine a "flow in quantity units per unit time," "an uncertainty value for a current time period," and to store a "totalized uncertainty quantity ... based on the uncertainty value for the current time period ... and the previous totalized uncertainty quantity," as recited in Claim 1, applies or uses any alleged abstract idea in a meaningful way to totalize, over time, uncertainty of flow measurements derived from a specific sensor configuration., (See last paragraph of page 6 through first paragraph of page 7 of the remarks).
In response the examiner disagrees and submits that as discussed above, the claims is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more as the claim describe a mathematical concept. The additional claim elements i.e. “processor”, “plurality of pairs of ultrasonic transducers” amounts to the recitation of a general purpose computer and to mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality. The examiner points to the fact that the focus of the claim is on determining/calculating uncertainty value and totalizing uncertainty quantity and that the determined values are not used in any particular manner as to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and the claim do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The additional claim elements of the instant application claims i.e. processor amount to a general purpose computer to implement the abstract idea, the sensors amounts to mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality in which the sensors are merely used as a tool to gather the data needed in order to implement the abstract idea and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Applicant argues in last two paragraphs of page 7 of the remarks that the claimed invention recited in claim 1 provides an improvement in the functioning of the computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field of flow measurement. Applicant further submits with respect to step 2B that the claim is patent eligible, that the claim 1 recites a non-conventional, and non-generic arrangement of components which amounts to significantly more than the alleged abstract idea and than the claim elements when considered in combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (see last paragraph of page 11 of the remarks), and submits that the argued features cannot reasonably be considered “generic and well understood” (see first paragraph of page 8 of the remarks).
In response, the examiner disagrees and submits that the claimed language do not reflect the alleged improvement to the operation of the computer and that the alleged improvements mentioned is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h) and as such is not indicative of a practical application of abstract idea. The examiner further submits that as discussed above, the claim is centered on determining/calculating uncertainty value and totalizing uncertainty quantity and that the determined values are not used in any particular manner as to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and the claim do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The additional claim elements of the instant application claims i.e. processor amount to a general purpose computer to implement the abstract idea, the sensors amounts to mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality in which the sensors are merely used as a tool to gather the data needed in order to implement the abstract idea and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore the claim elements when taken as a whole in combination do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea itself.
Regarding claims 7, 18, and 21 applicant have submitted similar arguments as those submitted with respect to independent claim 1.
In response, the examiner disagrees for similar reasons discussed above with respect to independent claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record cited in form PTOL-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Brown et al, September 2006 publication, AN 8-PATH ULTRASONIC MASTER METER FOR OIL CUSTODY TRANSFERS, discloses an 8-path meter design that has been shown to be sufficiently insensitive to the above factors for use in oil custody transfer applications, and further discloses accounting for the uncertainties in the measurements.
Brown US 20170184439 A1 discloses multiple pairs of transducers to infer velocity on a number of discrete chordal planes. The velocity measurements can then be combined, along with information on geometry, to produce a measure of volumetric flowrate (para. 0003).
Brown et al. US 20190234782 A1 discloses a self-checking transit time ultrasonic flow meter for determining fluid flow in a conduit for custody transfer of hydrocarbons and measurement of nuclear feedwater flows. The system comprising a plurality of transducers engaged with the conduit; and
a signal processor in electrical communication with the transducers which causes the transducers to transmit acoustic signals through the flowing fluid or receive flow signals from the transducers based on the transmitted acoustic signals the transducers receive and produces a measurement of flow rate and an associated estimate of uncertainty due to changes that have affected the accuracy of the measured flow rate based on the flow signals.
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 YARITZA H PEREZ BERMUDEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1520. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Shelby A Turner can be reached at (571) 272-6334. 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.
/YARITZA H. PEREZ BERMUDEZ/
Examiner
Art Unit 2857
/SHELBY A TURNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857