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
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “if the detected position of the container does not correspond to the target position or if the acquired container parameter does not correspond to the predetermine container parameter” should be replaced with the limitation --… if the detected position of the container does not correspond to the target position or if the acquired container parameter does not correspond to the predetermined container parameter..—(emphasis added).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Specifically, representative Claim 1 recites:
A measurement data validation system configured to validate measurement data of a field device, comprising:
a field device configured to acquire fill level measurement data of liquid within a container and to transmit the acquired fill level measurement data to a server;
a position detection device configured to detect a position of the container and to transmit the detected position to the server;
a measurement station detection device comprising at least one of an NFC system, a RFID system, or an optical camera system, configured to acquire a container parameter which comprises at least one of a container geometry, a container content, or a container specification and to transmit the acquired container parameter to the server; and
a server, on which a validation list is stored, and the server configured to:
receive the acquired fill level measurement data, the detected position of the container, and the acquired container parameter,
compare the detected position of the container and the acquired container parameter with the validation list,
validate the fill level measurement data, if the detected position of the container corresponds to a target position in the validation list and if the acquired container parameter corresponds to a predetermined container parameter in the validation list, and
instruct the field device to not acquire the fill level measurement data if the detected position of the container does not correspond to the target position or if the acquired container parameter does not correspond to the predetermined container parameter.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (process).
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the groupings of subject matter that covers mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion.
These mental steps represent a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “compare the detected position of the container and the acquired container parameter with the validation list, validate the measurement data, if the detected position of the measurement station corresponds to a predetermined position in the validation list and if the acquired measurement station parameter corresponds to a predetermined measurement station parameter in the validation list”, in the context of this claim, encompasses a user manually making an evaluation/observation/judgement based on observed detected data in comparison with corresponding predetermined characteristics in the evaluation list.
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claims 16 and 19.
Next, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
Claim 1 comprises the following additional elements:
a field device configured to acquire fill level measurement data of liquid within a container and to transmit the acquired fill level measurement data to a server; a position detection device configured to detect a position of the container and to transmit the detected position to the server; a measurement station detection device comprising at least one of an NFC system, a RFID system, or an optical camera system, configured to acquire a container parameter which comprises at least one of a container geometry, a container content, or a container specification and to transmit the acquired container parameter to the server; and a server, on which a validation list is stored, and the server configured to: receive the acquired fill level measurement data, the detected position of the container, and the acquired container parameter.
Similar additional elements are recited in Claims 16 and 19.
Claim 19 additionally recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium on which is stored a program element which, when executed on a measurement data validation system, instructs the measurement data validation system to perform the following steps …
The additional elements in the preambles are recited in generality and represent insignificant extra-solution activity (field-of-use limitations) that is not meaningful to indicate a practical application.
The additional elements in the claims such as a server, on which a validation list is stored and the server configured to receive the acquired measurement data (all claims) and a non-transitory computer-readable medium on which is stored a program element which, when executed on a measurement data validation system, instructs the measurement data validation system to perform … steps (Claim 19) are examples of generic computer equipment (components) that are generally recited and, therefore, are not qualified as particular machines.
In all claims, the limitations that recite a field device configured to acquire fill level measurement data of liquid within a container and to transmit the acquired fill level measurement data to a server; a position detection device configured to detect a position of the container and to transmit the detected position to the server, different types of detection devices of the measurement station acquiring container parameters and transmitting them to the server are recited in generality and not meaningful. These limitations represent insignificant extra-solution activity only tangentially related to the judicial exception.
According to the October update on 2019 SME Guidance such steps are “performed in order to gather data for the mental analysis step, and is a necessary precursor for all uses of the recited exception. It is thus extra-solution activity, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application”.
Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
However, the above claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B analysis) because these additional elements/steps are well-understood and conventional in the relevant art based on the prior art of record.
The independent claims, therefore, are not patent eligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2-9, 15, and 17-18 provide additional features/steps which are part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims (additionally comprising mental process steps) and, therefore, these claims are not eligible either without additional elements that reflect a practical application and qualified for significantly more for substantially similar reasons as discussed with regards to Claim 1.
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 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 1-3, 9, 15, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fridolin Faist (US 20090288482 A1), hereinafter ‘Faist’ in view of Ann Irene Ryan et al. (US 20100238002), hereinafter ‘Ryan’.
A measurement data validation system configured to validate measurement data of a field device (the fill-level measuring system [0012]; The fill level data is acquired using a fill level sensor. On the basis of the measured data of the position sensor it is possible to detect whether or not the fill level measuring is valid, Abstract), comprising:
a field device configured to acquire fill level measurement data of liquid within a container (a container which is used to store a filling good [0009]; According to an exemplary embodiment of the invention a fill-level measuring device for determining a fill level in a mobile container or in a transport silo is stated, which container or transport silo comprises a fill level sensor for the acquisition of first measured data that corresponds to the fill level in the container [0006]; FIG. 8 shows a fill-level measuring device according to a further exemplary embodiment of the invention, in which device the fill level sensor 5 comprises a bar-shaped probe 14 that is immersed in the product 13 [0096]) and to transmit the acquired fill level measurement data to a server (the fill level sensor comprises an interface for connection to the position sensor, wherein the fill level sensor is designed for receiving the second measured data from the position sensor, and for transmitting the measuring signals in digitalised form to the communication unit of the receiver [0026]; the receiver is a central server [0033]; The communication device 2 is connected to an antenna 3, by way of which it can communicate with the central server 10 via a wireless communication connection [0058]; both the fill level information from fill level measuring and the inclination information (angle of inclination in the form of a current signal or digitalised value) are directly forwarded to the server [0100]);
a position detection device configured to detect a position of the container (the position sensor is designed for the acquisition of an angle of inclination of the container [0013]) and
to transmit the detected position to the server (the fill level sensor comprises an interface for connection to the position sensor, wherein the fill level sensor is designed for receiving the second measured data from the position sensor, and for transmitting the measuring signals in digitalised form to the communication unit of the receiver [0026]; the receiver is a central server [0033]; The communication device 2 is connected to an antenna 3, by way of which it can communicate with the central server 10 via a wireless communication connection [0058]);
and
a server, on which a validation list is stored, and the server configured to receive the acquired fill level measurement data, the detected position of the measurement station and,
based on the detected position to validate the fill level measurement data, if the detected position of the measurement station corresponds to a predetermined position in the validation list (The fill level is, for example, shown as being valid only if the container or the silo is in an predetermined definable operating position [0011]; the fill-level measuring device or the fill-level measuring system is able to detect a defined angular range, which can be predetermined by a user [0015]; the receiver is designed for storing fill level information and the determined suitability of the operating position of the container based on the received measuring signals together with a time stamp so that a user at a later point in time can access all the fill level information received in the receiver [0036]; a method for determining a fill level in a mobile container or in a transport silo is stated, in which method first measured data that corresponds to the fill level in the container is acquired. Furthermore, second measured data that corresponds to an operating position of the container is acquired. Thereafter, by means of the first and the second measured data it is determined whether the operating position of the container is suitable for fill level determination using the fill level sensor [0038]; Thus the validity of the fill level information that is transmitted to the server can in a simple way be labelled and rendered useable for subsequent evaluation [0064]).
Faist also discloses using non-contact detection devices [0070].
However, Faist does not specifically disclose
a measurement station detection device comprising at least one of an NFC system, a RFID system, or an optical camera system, configured to acquire a measurement station parameter which comprises at least one of a container geometry, a container content, or a container specification,
server configured to receive the acquired measurement station parameter to transmit the acquired measurement station parameter to the server, and,
based on the acquired measurement station parameter, to validate the fill level measurement data, if the acquired measurement station parameter corresponds to a predetermined measurement station parameter in the validation list and instruct the field device to not acquire the fill level measurement data if the detected position of the container does not correspond to the target position or if the acquired container parameter does not correspond to the predetermine container parameter.
Ryan discloses a measurement station detection device comprising at least one of an NFC system, a RFID system, or an optical camera system, configured to acquire a measurement station parameter which comprises at least one of a container geometry, a container content, or a container specification (Active RFID tags may be detected at one-hundred feet or more and may be broadcasting signals that provide information regarding the location of the active RFID tag, contents of the container to which the tag is affixed [0005]; Also [0016]) and to transmit the acquired container parameter to the server (network 420, Fig. 4; [0038]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Faist in view of Ryan to use in a measurement station detection device at least one of an NFC system, a RFID system, or an optical camera system known in the art (Ryan) similar to using other non-contact detection devices such as ultrasound sensors or radar sensors (Faist) to obtain additional (parameter) information about the measurement station such as a content information and use/transmit this information along with the fill level and detected position of the container to the server to validate data in the validation list because this parameter information such as content of the container, in addition to the fill level measurement data and position data in validation (Thus the validity of the fill level information that is transmitted to the server can in a simple way be labelled and rendered useable for subsequent evaluation, Faist [0064]) is equally important to a user in validation/suitability of the container carrying particular amount/physical quantity of transported product/goods (data reflecting the contents of the container associated with the transponder 100 or the shipping history of the transponder 100, Ryan [0025]).
It would have been also obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Faist in view of Ryan to correspondingly instruct the field device to not acquire the fill level measurement data if the detected position of the container does not correspond to the target position or if the acquired container parameter does not correspond to the predetermined container parameter because the validation conditions defined by the fill level and the parameter may not be satisfactory in terms of measurement accuracy ("Operating position of the container is invalid" [0064], Faist) or wrong content of liquid (Ruan, above) and, predictably, unusable.
With regards to Claim 2, Faist additionally discloses that the field device is further configured to wirelessly transmit the acquired fill level measurement data to the server (the fill-level measuring device is designed for the transmission of the measuring signals to the receiver by way of a wireless connection via the internet [0034]).
With regards to Claim 3, Faist additionally discloses sending messages to the server (the acquired fill level information can then be accompanied by a status message either "Operating position of the container is valid" or "Operating position of the container is invalid". Thus the validity of the fill level information that is transmitted to the server can in a simple way be labelled and rendered useable for subsequent evaluation. [0064])
Faist does not specifically discloses that the server is further configured to send a message based on the verification and/or validation of the measurement data.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Faist in view of Ryan that the server similarly uses messaging technology to sends a message based on the verification and/or validation of the fill level measurement data to inform about the validation results in real time.
With regards to Claim 9, Faist additionally discloses the measurement station detection device and the position detection device are implemented as a single device (FIG. 10 shows a housing 18 in which both the inclinometer 4 and the fill level sensor 5, including a battery 17 and an antenna 3, are integrated).
With regards to Claim 15, Faist additionally discloses the field device is a level sensor ([0006], Sensor 5, Fig.5)
With regards to Claims 16 and 19, Faist in view of Ryan discloses the claimed limitations a discussed in Claim 1.
With regards to Claim 19, Faist discloses programming steps [0080] and so does Ryan (The article of manufacture may include a non-volatile computer readable storage medium, the storage medium containing instructions, which when executed, cause a microprocessor… to operate [0010]).
Claims 4-6 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faist in view of Ryan, in further view of Tughrul Sati Arslan (US 20180003507), hereinafter ‘Arslan’.
Regarding Claim 4, Faist in view of Ryan teaches the limitations of claim 1. However, Faist does not explicitly teach the server is configured to provide the fill level measurement data with a status signal based on the verification and/or validation of the measurement data.
Arslan teaches the server is configured to provide the measurement data with a status signal based on the verification and/or validation of the measurement data (validating the measurement data prior to the step of processing the measurement data. The validating may include the step of excluding and/or revising data which fails a particular criterion or criteria [0012]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the fill level measurement data validation system of Faist in view of Ryan to take another iteration of measurement data based on the position as taught by Arslan to accurately validate measurement data.
Regarding Claim 5, Faist in view of Ryan teaches the limitations of claim 1 but does not explicitly teach the server is further configured to generate validation results based on the verification of the fill level measurement data.
Arslan teaches the server is further configured to generate validation results based on the verification of the measurement data (“performing a validation procedure on the said stored measurements prior to the step of processing the said stored measurements to calculate revised estimates of the (previous) positions of the mobile user device. It may be that the step of processing the said stored measurements to calculate revised estimates of the (previous) positions of the mobile user device comprises using (or using with a greater weighting than said stored measurements which do not meet the one or more validation criteria—see below) a portion of the said stored measurements which meets one or more validation criteria to calculate revised estimates of the (previous) positions of the mobile user device” [0013]).
Regarding Claim 6, Faist in view of Ryan teaches the limitations of claim 1 but does not explicitly teach the server is further configured to generate validation results based on the validation of the fill level measurement data.
Arslan teaches the server is further configured to generate validation results based on the validation of the measurement data (“determining that a portion of the said stored measurements does not meet one or more said validation criteria, and not using (or using with a lesser weighting than said stored measurements which meet the said one or more validation criteria) said portion of stored measurements in the step of processing the said stored measurements to calculate revised estimates of the (previous) positions of the mobile user device” [0013]).
Regarding Claim 17, Faist in view of Ryan generally discloses the method above but does not explicitly disclose directing the field device to acquire further measurement data of the measurement station based on the detected position.
However, Arslan teaches: “In step S410 it is determined whether or not another iteration should be carried out. The test in S410 may be of any appropriate type, for example to determine whether or not a predetermined number of iterations have occurred (for example testing whether ri is greater than a predetermined number of iterations), or whether the quality of the position estimate and/or positioning data is above a certain threshold, for example corresponding to an estimated error less than a predetermined amount, as explained above” [0074].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the measurement data validation system of Faist in view of Ryan to take another iteration of measurement data based on the position as taught by Arslan to accurately validate measurement data.
Regarding Claim 18, Faist in view of Ryan generally discloses the method above but does not explicitly disclose directing the field device to acquire further measurement data of the measurement station based on the acquired measurement station parameter.
However, Arslan teaches: “In step S410 it is determined whether or not another iteration should be carried out. The test in S410 may be of any appropriate type, for example to determine whether or not a predetermined number of iterations have occurred (for example testing whether i is greater than a predetermined number of iterations), or whether the quality of the position estimate and/or positioning data is above a certain threshold, for example corresponding to an estimated error less than a predetermined amount, as explained above’ [0074].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the measurement data validation system of Faist in view of Ryan to take another iteration of measurement data based on a parameter as taught by Arslan to accurately validate measurement data.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faist in view of Ryan, Arslan, and further in view of Roland Welle et al. (US 20200132533), hereinafter ‘Welle’.
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Faist in view of Ryan, and Arslan generally discloses the limitations of claim 6.
However, the combination does not explicitly disclose the server is further configured to transmit the validation results to the field device and/or to a higher-level system.
Welle discloses the server is further configured to transmit the validation results to the field device and/or to a higher-level system (“/n step S8, the measurement value is made known via a communication device 218, preferably in wireless form, to a higher-level controller, a control station, a receiver, and/or a server’ [0108]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Faist in view of Ryan and Arslan, in view of Welle to transmit the validation results to the field device and/or to a higher-level system to enable measurement condition update at the field device and/or reporting validation status to a central control/management authority (Welle [0028]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faist in view of Ryan, and further in view of Welle.
Regarding Claim 8, Faist in view of Ryan teaches the limitations of claim 1.
However, the combination is silent on the position detection device is configured to detect the position of the measurement station based on one or more of the following listed methods: Inductive proximity method, capacitive proximity method, NFC method, optical method, and/or magnetic method.
Welle discloses measurement data validation system wherein the position detection device is configured to detect the position of the measurement station based on one or more of the following listed methods: Inductive proximity method, capacitive proximity method, NFC method, optical method, and/or magnetic method (“the detector comprises at least one sensor for determining the movement signal and/or the position signal, wherein the at least one sensor is selected from the group consisting of Doppler sensor, acceleration sensor, gyro sensor, vibration sensor, geomagnetic field sensor, and position sensor. Any other sensors, such as optical sensors and/or a camera, can also be used to determine the movement signal and/or the position signal [0034] “The first position signal may approximately represent and/or include a first position of the fill level measuring device and the second position signal may represent and/or include a second position of the fill level measuring device” [0035)]).
Arslan also discloses measurements based on optical methods [0032].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Faist in view of Ryan, in view of Welle to detect the position of the measurement station based on one or more of the claimed methods as known in the art.
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. 101
Applicant's arguments filed 1/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues (p.10-11): First, the amended independent claims are not directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong One. Instead, amended independent claims are directed to a measurement data validation system comprising physical structures of a field device, a position detection device, a measurement station comprising an at least one of NFC system, a RFID system, or an optical camera system, and a server on which a validation list is stored. The field device is further configured to acquire fill level measurement data of liquid within a container.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Measurement tools only tangentially related to the identified abstract idea and represent insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception. No particular argument related to the abstract idea that was allegedly inappropriately identified are presented.
The Applicant argues (p.11): Second, under Step 2A, Prong Two, the amended independent claims integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application of acquiring a fill level of liquid within a container by providing an improved, automated validation system to validate the acquired fill level of the liquid within the container that includes the recited physical structures. Specification, [0013]. The Specification explains that in automation technology, a field device may be individually configured or parametrized for a specific vessel and a specific measurement environment, and every time the vessel or the measurement environment changes, the traditional techniques requires re- parametrization of the field device. Specification, [0003]-[0004]. With the improved, automated measurement data validation system recited in claim 1, the field device can be adapted to different vessels or measurement environment does not need to be re-parametrized every time the vessel or the measurement environment changes.
The Examiner submits that the claims present only general linking of the use of the judicial exception (abstract idea) to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed above. No specific enough process similar to the process of the 101-eligible claim (“rubber molding process” of the Diamond v. Diehr case, Alice Corp.) is present in the current claims. According to the October 2019 Update on 2019 PEG: “it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the judicial exception itself (e.g., a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. Further, in Synopsys: “a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a § 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating § 102 novelty”.
35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection necessitated by the amendments.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Søren CHRISTENSEN et al. (US 20200191580) discloses a sensor in the container in data communication with a server system including determining a fill level of the contents in one of the containers and proper positioning of the container.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER SATANOVSKY whose telephone number is (571)270-5819. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9 am-5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Catherine Rastovski can be reached on (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 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.
/ALEXANDER SATANOVSKY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2863