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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 8-12, filed September 18, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-8, 14 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are discussed below.
Applicant argues on pg. 9, regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections presented in the previous office action, that:
“Without necessarily agreeing with the rejection, claims 3 and 7 have been amended to recite, in part, “a group consisting of,” which Applicant submits resolves the alleged issue.”
In response, the examiner agrees and finds the argument persuasive. Therefore the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections presented in the previous office action are withdrawn.
Applicant argues on pg. 10, regarding the indicated Allowable Subject Matter presented in the previous office action, that:
“Claim 3 incorporates all limitations of its base claims and any intervening claims, which have been canceled. Also, claims 2, 14, and 19 have been amended to depend from claim 3. Similarly, claim 7 incorporates all limitations of its base claims and any intervening claims, which have been canceled. Further, new claims 20 and 21 depend from claim 7, and are also considered allowable at least by virtue of their dependence. In light of the foregoing Amendment, withdrawal of all objections and rejections to claims 2-8, 14, and 19 is respectfully requested.”
In response, the Examiner finds the argument not persuasive and respectfully disagrees. Upon further consideration of the indicated allowable subject matter, the present application is not within compliance with 35 U.S.C. 101. Therefore a new ground(s) of rejection is made, as discussed below.
Applicant argues on pg. 10-11, regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection presented in the previous office action, that:
“While not necessarily agreeing with this rejection, as noted above, Applicant has rewritten claim 3 to include all of the limitations of claim 1, which has been cancelled. Therefore, the rejections of claims 1, 2, 14, and 19 are rendered moot and should be withdrawn.”
In response, the examiner finds the argument persuasive and agrees insofar as Sakai et al. (US 2019/0290174 A1) in view of Numajiri et al. (US 6,454,722 B1) may not be relied upon as disclosing each and every limitation of amended independent claims 3 and 7. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections presented in the previous office action is withdrawn.
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 2-8, 14, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims are evaluated for patent subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 using the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) as follows:
Step 1:
Claims 2-6, 14 and 19 are directed to an apparatus and therefore falls within the four statutory categories of subject matter.
Step 2A:
This step asks if the claim is directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea. Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry: in prong 1 it is determined whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then in prong 2 it is determined if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception.
Analyzing claim 3 under prong 1 of step 2A, the language:
A measurement device, comprising:
calculate a first frequency spectrum of signal strength for each frequency with respect to a temporal strength change
to calculate a calculation value on a flow state of the fluid with a computation including division using a first value of a frequency based on the first frequency spectrum and a second value of a strength based on the first frequency spectrum,
wherein the first value includes a value of at least one frequency selected from a group consisting of
a frequency in the first frequency spectrum or a second frequency spectrum calculated by performing a computation on the first frequency spectrum at a boundary at which a first integrated value and a second integrated value have a predetermined ratio, the first integrated value is obtained by integration on strength of a lower frequency, and the second integrated value is obtained by integration on strength of a higher frequency,
a frequency with first strength in a first frequency range including a first frequency having strength indicating a maximum value in the first frequency spectrum or the second frequency spectrum,
a frequency with first inclination in a second frequency range including a second frequency having an absolute value of inclination of a strength change indicating a minimum value in the first frequency spectrum or the second frequency spectrum, and
a frequency shift amount
has a scope that encompasses mathematical concepts and/or mental steps, e.g., mathematical relationships and/or mathematical calculations, and/or concepts that may be performed in the human mind; e.g., human observation/performable with pen and paper/mere data gathering. Claim 3 discloses A measurement device, comprising; construed as a preamble setting forth intended use; calculate a first frequency spectrum of signal strength for each frequency with respect to a temporal strength change; construed as a mathematical concept; e.g., a mathematical calculation; to calculate a calculation value on a flow state of the fluid with a computation including division using a first value of a frequency based on the first frequency spectrum and a second value of a strength based on the first frequency spectrum; construed as a mathematical concept; e.g., a mathematical calculation; wherein the first value includes a value of at least one frequency selected from a group consisting of a frequency in the first frequency spectrum or a second frequency spectrum calculated by performing a computation on the first frequency spectrum at a boundary at which a first integrated value and a second integrated value have a predetermined ratio, the first integrated value is obtained by integration on strength of a lower frequency, and the second integrated value is obtained by integration on strength of a higher frequency; construed as a mathematical concept; e.g., a mathematical calculation; a frequency with first strength in a first frequency range including a first frequency having strength indicating a maximum value in the first frequency spectrum or the second frequency spectrum; construed by the examiner as a mental step; e.g., observation; a frequency with first inclination in a second frequency range including a second frequency having an absolute value of inclination of a strength change indicating a minimum value in the first frequency spectrum or the second frequency spectrum, and; construed as a mental step; e.g., observation; a frequency shift amount; construed by the examiner as a mental step; e.g., observation. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the abovementioned steps in light of the specification has a scope that encompasses a mathematical relationship between variables or numbers and/or steps that may be performed in the human mind. It is therefore concluded under prong 1 of step 2A that claim 3 recites a judicial exception in the form of an abstract idea, i.e., mathematical concepts and/or mental steps. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(A-C) and MPEP 2106.05(f).
In prong 2 of step 2A it is determined whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
Analyzing claim 3 under prong 2 of step 2A, in addition to the abstract ideas described above, claim 3 further recites:
a light emitter configured to irradiate, with light, an irradiation target having an internal space through which a fluid flows;
a light receiver configured to receive coherent light including light scattered by the irradiation target and to output a signal corresponding to intensity of the coherent light;
an amplifier configured to amplify the signal output from the light receiver; and
in the signal amplified by the amplifier, and
between a frequency of light with which the light emitter irradiates the irradiation target and a frequency of the coherent light.
Regarding the additional elements 1-5 , although these elements appear to represent physical structures, mere physicality or tangibility is not a relevant consideration in Step 2A, prong 2. See MPEP 2106.04(d).I. Although the way in which the additional elements use or interact with the exception may integrate it into a practical application (see, e.g., MPEP 2106.04(d).III.), claim 3 does not appear to recite any meaningful interaction between elements 1-5 and the abstract ideas applied by the computation processor beyond merely providing data necessary to implement the abstract ideas.
Although additional elements 1-5 are recited with sufficient specificity such that they might be regarded as a particular machine, the machine does not implement the abstract ideas and its involvement appears to be only extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering. Use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) does not integrate a judicial exception or provide significantly more. See, e.g., MPEP 2106.05(b)(III).
a computation processor configured to
Analyzing these additional elements of claim 3 under prong 2 of step 2A, these additional elements appear to merely recite the use of a generic processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or to perform functions in its ordinary capacity, e.g., receive, store, or transmit data. However, use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer component after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
For these reasons, additional elements 1-5 as well as a computation processor configured to, considered alone or in combination with the abstract ideas, do not appear sufficient to integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application under step 2A, prong 2.
Step 2B:
In step 2B it is determined whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements discussed above in connection with prong 2 of step 2A merely represents implementation of the abstract idea using a generic processor/computer and use of a generic processor/computer. However, use of a computer or other machine in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Considered individually and in combination, additional elements 1-5 do not appear to provide significantly more than the abstract ideas for reasons analogous to those discussed above at step 2A, prong 2. Additionally, with respect to additional elements 1-5, use of a light emitter configured to irradiate, with light, an irradiation target having an internal space through which a fluid flows; a light receiver configured to receive coherent light including light scattered by the irradiation target and to output a signal corresponding to intensity of the coherent light; an amplifier configured to amplify the signal output from the light receiver was well-known, routine and conventional before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains; e.g., see Sakai, e.g., [0052]-[0054], [0107]-[0108] and Fig. 3). See also US 2019/0246922 A1 to Atsushi et al.; e.g., see fig. 4, paras. [0006], [0054], [0071]-[0074], [0077]-[0084]. See also US 2019/0175033 A1 to Shimuta; e.g., see figs. 1 and 7, as well as paras. [0047]-[0050], [0063], and [0065]-[0066]. The additional elements are used for necessary data gathering which is considered extra solution activity. As recited in MPEP section 2106.05(g), necessary data gathering (i.e. receiving data) is considered extra solution activity in light of Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
It is therefore concluded under step 2B that claim 3 does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 2, 4-6, 14, and 19 merely recite further details of the abstract idea of claim 3 and therefore do not represent any additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or represent significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Step 1:
Claims 7-8 and 20-21 are directed to an apparatus and therefore falls within the four statutory categories of subject matter.
Step 2A:
This step asks if the claim is directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea. Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry: in prong 1 it is determined whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then in prong 2 it is determined if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception.
Analyzing claim 7 under prong 1 of step 2A, the language:
A measurement device comprising:
calculate a first frequency spectrum of signal strength for each frequency with respect to a temporal strength change
to calculate a calculation value on a flow state of the fluid with a computation including division using a first value of a frequency based on the first frequency spectrum and a second value of strength based on the first frequency spectrum,
wherein the second value includes a value of at least one strength selected from a group consisting of
a third integrated value obtained by integration on the first frequency spectrum or a second frequency spectrum calculated by performing a computation on the first frequency spectrum, and
second strength in a third frequency range including a first frequency having strength indicating a maximum value in the first frequency spectrum or the second frequency spectrum.
has a scope that encompasses mathematical concepts and/or mental steps, e.g., mathematical relationships and/or mathematical calculations and/or concepts that may be performed in the human mind; e.g., human observation/performable with pen and paper/mere data gathering. Claim 7 discloses A measurement device comprising; construed as a preamble setting forth intended use; calculate a first frequency spectrum of signal strength for each frequency with respect to a temporal strength change; construed as a mathematical concept; e.g., a mathematical calculation; to calculate a calculation value on a flow state of the fluid with a computation including division using a first value of a frequency based on the first frequency spectrum and a second value of strength based on the first frequency spectrum, wherein the second value includes a value of at least one strength selected from a group consisting of; construed by the examiner as a mathematical concept; e.g., a mathematical calculation; a third integrated value obtained by integration on the first frequency spectrum or a second frequency spectrum calculated by performing a computation on the first frequency spectrum, and; construed by the examiner as a mathematical concept; e.g., a mathematical calculation; second strength in a third frequency range including a first frequency having strength indicating a maximum value in the first frequency spectrum or the second frequency spectrum; construed as a mental step; e.g., observation; . The broadest reasonable interpretation of the abovementioned steps in light of the specification has a scope that encompasses a mathematical relationship between variables or numbers and/or steps that may be performed in the human mind. It is therefore concluded under prong 1 of step 2A that claim 7 recites a judicial exception in the form of an abstract idea, i.e., mathematical concepts and/or mental steps. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(A-C) and MPEP 2106.05(f).
In prong 2 of step 2A it is determined whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
Analyzing claim 7 under prong 2 of step 2A, in addition to the abstract ideas described above, claim 7 further recites:
a light emitter configured to irradiate, with light, an irradiation target having an internal space through which a fluid flows;
a light receiver configured to receive coherent light including light scattered by the irradiation target and to output a signal corresponding to intensity of the coherent light;
an amplifier configured to amplify the signal output from the light receiver; and
in the signal amplified by the amplifier, and
Regarding the additional elements 1-4 , although these elements appear to represent physical structures, mere physicality or tangibility is not a relevant consideration in Step 2A, prong 2. See MPEP 2106.04(d).I. Although the way in which the additional elements use or interact with the exception may integrate it into a practical application (see, e.g., MPEP 2106.04(d).III.), claim 3 does not appear to recite any meaningful interaction between elements 1-5 and the abstract ideas applied by the computation processor beyond merely providing data necessary to implement the abstract ideas.
Although additional elements 1-4 are recited with sufficient specificity such that they might be regarded as a particular machine, the machine does not implement the abstract ideas and its involvement appears to be only extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering. Use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) does not integrate a judicial exception or provide significantly more. See, e.g., MPEP 2106.05(b)(III).
a computation processor configured to
Analyzing these additional elements of claim 7 under prong 2 of step 2A, these additional elements appear to merely recite the use of a generic processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or to perform functions in its ordinary capacity, e.g., receive, store, or transmit data. However, use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer component after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
For these reasons, additional elements 1-4 as well as a computation processor configured to, considered alone or in combination with the abstract ideas, do not appear sufficient to integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application under step 2A, prong 2.
Step 2B:
In step 2B it is determined whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements discussed above in connection with prong 2 of step 2A merely represents implementation of the abstract idea using a generic processor/computer and use of a generic processor/computer. However, use of a computer or other machine in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Considered individually and in combination, additional elements 1-4 do not appear to provide significantly more than the abstract ideas for reasons analogous to those discussed above at step 2A, prong 2. Additionally, with respect to additional elements 1-4, use of a light emitter configured to irradiate, with light, an irradiation target having an internal space through which a fluid flows; a light receiver configured to receive coherent light including light scattered by the irradiation target and to output a signal corresponding to intensity of the coherent light; an amplifier configured to amplify the signal output from the light receiver was well-known, routine and conventional before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains; e.g., see Sakai, e.g., [0052]-[0054], [0107]-[0108] and Fig. 3). The additional elements are used for necessary data gathering which is considered extra solution activity. See also US 2019/0246922 A1 to Atsushi et al.; e.g., see fig. 4, paras. [0006], [0054], [0071]-[0074], [0077]-[0084]. See also US 2019/0175033 A1 to Shimuta; e.g., see figs. 1 and 7, as well as paras. [0047]-[0050], [0063], and [0065]-[0066]. As recited in MPEP section 2106.05(g), necessary data gathering (i.e. receiving data) is considered extra solution activity in light of Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
It is therefore concluded under step 2B that claim 7 does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 8 and 20-21 merely recite further details of the abstract idea of claim 7 and therefore do not represent any additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or represent significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
US 5,717,210 A to Bexelius et al. relates to a measuring device.
US 2004/0046122 A1 to Klaas relates to a method and device for determining any fluid mixture composition and for measuring material quantity.
US 2002/0120203 A1 to Higurashi et al. relates to a blood flowmeter and sensor part of the blood flowmeter.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC S. VON WALD whose telephone number is (571)272-7116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 - 5:30.
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, Catherine Rastovski can be reached at (571) 270-0349. 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.
/E.S.V./Examiner, Art Unit 2863 /Catherine T. Rastovski/ Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2863