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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on 02/18/2026 have been fully considered and are made of record.
Claims 13 and 16 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Regarding 101 rejection, applicant argued that “Claim 13 has been amended to further require a processor, and a processor performing steps c, d, e, g, h, i and j, which are steps that cannot performed in the human mind. Claim 13 as amended achieves a tangible result as Applicant respectfully asserts that, even if claim 13 recites an abstract idea, claim 13 recites patent eligible subject matter at least under Prong Two of Step 2A for integrating the alleged abstract idea into a practical application and under Step 2B for providing "significantly more" than any abstract idea. Claim 13 as amended now requires performance of multiple steps by a processor and claim 13 as a whole achieves significantly more than an abstract idea”. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The limitations in claim 13 correspond to mathematical calculations and therefore an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.04(a)). Examiner relied upon mathematical calculation performed by processor but not by human mind. Also the processor is a generic element recited simply to implement the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Mathematical calculation performed by processor is well known in the art. Pub NO. us 2010/0031753 A1 discloses the processor performing mathematical calculation.
Therefore the rejection stands.
Regarding 101 rejection, applicant argued that “Under the updated Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility of August 4, 2025, the USPTO stated that the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper," to be an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.) The Guidance of August 4, 2025 stated that USPTO subject matter eligibility analysis follows this precedent and instructs examiners to determine that a claim recites a mental process when it contains limitation(s) that can practically be performed in the human mind, including, for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Conversely, Guidance of August 4, 2025 explained that a claim does not recite a mental process when it contains limitation(s) that cannot practically be performed in the human mind, for instance when the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitation(s). The Guidance of August 4, 2025, further stated the mental process grouping is not without limits and instructed Examiners not to expand this grouping in a manner that encompasses claim limitations that cannot practically be performed in the human mind”. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner relied upon mathematical calculation but not mental process. Also a processor performing mathematical calculations is well known in the art. Pub NO. us 2010/0031753 A1 discloses the processor performing mathematical calculation.
Therefore the rejection stands.
Regarding 103 rejection, applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and the rejection has been reinterpreted based on the arguments. See the rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
11. 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.
12. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because:
STEP 1: claim 13 is directed to method which is a method and one of the 4 statutory categories.
STEP 2A: claim 13 is directed to the abstract idea and/or mental steps as follows:
First Prong:
the processor transforming a spectrum of data expressed in the a temporal domain into a frequency domain via a Fourier transform to fit a first Gaussian curve; the processor determining global measured velocity and global velocity distribution via the first Gaussian curve; the processor measuring mechanical vibrations of the drone during the steps (a) and (b) of generating and the processor receiving signals, to determine a sequence of vibration data being measured by the vibration sensor; generating, from the vibration data, a plurality of discrete data expressed in amplitude as a function of time; the processor transforming a spectrum of vibration data expressed in the temporal domain into a frequency domain via a Fourier transform to fit a second Gaussian curve; the processor determining measured vibration induced velocity and vibration induced velocity distribution via the second Gaussian curve; the processor applying a correction to the global measured velocity and the global velocity distribution obtained in step (e) by subtracting the measured vibration induced velocity and the vibration induced velocity distribution obtained in step (i) to eliminate vibrations of the drone in calculation of real velocity measurement and real velocity distribution of the fluid (hereinafter mentioned as “Mathematical Calculations”).
(These limitations can be performed by mental steps using mathematical formulas that can also be performed using a general processor)
Second Prong:
The claimed Mathematical Calculations above is neither implemented into any practical application (device or thing), nor effect any transformation/reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing.
STEP 2B: The Additional elements “processor; and generating microwave signals by using a patch antenna or horn antenna; receiving reflected microwave signals from a flowing fluid surface; the processor generating a plurality of discrete data expressed in amplitude as a function of time from the generated microwave signals and the reflected microwave signals with Doppler frequency shifts;” in the independent claim 13 could be consider as not significantly more than the abstract idea because “the processor generating microwave signals by using a patch antenna or horn antenna; receiving reflected microwave signals from a flowing fluid surface; generating a plurality of discrete data expressed in amplitude as a function of time from the generated microwave signals and the reflected microwave signals with Doppler frequency shifts” appears to be post-solution activity and data gathering required to implement the abstract idea of preprocessing and data gathering. These additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Furthermore “the processor generating microwave signals by using a patch antenna or horn antenna; receiving reflected microwave signals from a flowing fluid surface; generating a plurality of discrete data expressed in amplitude as a function of time from the generated microwave signals and the reflected microwave signals with Doppler frequency shifts” is insignificant extra solution activity and is routine, conventional and well known in the art. Pub NO. us 2010/0031753 A1 discloses the processor generating microwave signals by using a patch antenna or horn antenna; receiving reflected microwave signals from a flowing fluid surface; generating a plurality of discrete data expressed in amplitude as a function of time from the generated microwave signals and the reflected microwave signals with Doppler frequency shifts.
13. Claim 14 is 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. Claim 14 depends on claim 13, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 14 is further recites the element(s) “wherein fluid surface velocity is determined from the generated microwave signals and the reflected microwave signals with Doppler frequency shifts and is compensated for Pitch, Roll and Yaw from the drone by taking into account data measured by one or more angle sensors”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, insignificant extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 14 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-7, 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayer et al. (Pub NO. us 2010/0031753 A1; hereinafter Mayer) in view of in view of Akbar et al. (Pub NO. US 2017/0023394 A1; hereinafter Akbar).
Regarding Claim 1, Mayer teaches a non-invasive microwave measuring device for calculating the flow rate of a fluid (system in Fig.1-Fig. 2 and Fig. below; See [0025]-[0035]), the device comprising:
a non-invasive microwave fluid velocity measuring device (device in Fig. 1-Fig. 2 and Fig. below) comprising a patch antenna or horn antenna (10 is horn antenna in Fig. 2 and Fig. below; See [0029]) to generate a microwave signal (signal 6 is microwave signal in Fig. 2 and fig. below; See [0029]) that is transmitted at a specific elevation angle towards a fluid surface (signal 6 is transmitted from specific elevation angle towards fluid surface 13 in Fig. 2 and Fig. below; See [0035]) and to receive the microwave signal reflected from the fluid surface (See [0029]-[0035]) with a doppler shift frequency (See [0035]-[0036]);
to which is suspended the non-invasive microwave fluid velocity measuring device via a suspension system (measuring device 8, 6,7 10 and11 are suspended via suspension system in Fig. 2 and Fig. below),
determine a final angle from the non-invasive microwave fluid velocity measuring device towards the fluid surface (See [0035]-[0036]).
PNG
media_image1.png
806
900
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Mayer teaches measuring device is suspended (measuring device 8, 6,7 10 and11 are suspended), However Mayer does not teach a drone to which measuring device is suspended; and one or more angle sensors to compensate for pitch and roll from the measuring device that influence fluid surface velocity measurement.
Akbar teaches a drone to which measuring device is suspended (drone 1 to which measuring device is suspended in Fig. 2; See [0035]); and one or more angle sensors (GPS sensor in drone; See [0031]) to compensate for pitch and roll from the drone that influence fluid surface velocity measurement (See [0031]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was made to modify he system of Mayer by using drone to which measuring device is suspended; and one or more angle sensors to compensate for pitch and roll from the drone that influence fluid surface velocity measurement, as taught by Akbar in order to measure position and distance (Akbar; abstract).
Regarding Claim 2, Mayer in view of Akbar teaches the device according to claim 1. Akbar further teaches wherein the non-invasive microwave fluid velocity measuring device comprises a 3D control system (as all dimensions height and area are taken, therefore three dimension; See [0035]) with three motors (each craft has each motor, therefore three motors; See [0028]) adapted to automatically reposition the non-invasive microwave measuring device to compensate for the Pitch, Roll and Yaw of the drone (See [0028]-[0035]).
Regarding Claim 3, Mayer in view of Akbar teaches the device according to claim 1. Akbar further teaches wherein the non-invasive microwave fluid velocity measuring device is associated to a measuring device comprising GPS (See [0034]) and altimeter sensors (height is altimeter sensor; See [0034]-[0035]).
Regarding Claim 4, Mayer in view of Akbar teaches the device according to claim 3. Akbar further teaches wherein the non-invasive microwave fluid velocity measuring device is associated to an interface to capture global position system (GPS) data and altimeter data from the drone (See [0034]-[0035]).
Regarding Claim 6, Mayer in view of Akbar teaches the device according to claim 4. Akbar further teaches wherein the non-invasive microwave fluid velocity measuring device comprises a recording device to record pictures or videos, together with fluid velocity measurements and/or GPS and altimeter data (See [0034]-[0035]).
Regarding Claim 7, Mayer in view of Akbar teaches the device according to claim 1. Mayer further teaches wherein the non-invasive microwave fluid velocity measuring device comprises one or more of. a level or distance measuring device (See [0029]-[0031]), or a wind speed and direction measurement device.
Regarding Claim 12, Mayer in view of Akbar teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein the suspension device comprises a rigid upper plate (upper plate 8 in Fig. 2) and a rigid lower plate connected to the non-invasive microwave fluid velocity measuring device (lower plate 11 connected to measuring device 8 in Fig. 2), both plates are connected with silent block dampers (See silent block dampers between 11 and 8 in Fig. 2).
Mayer is silent about upper plate connected to the drone.
Akbar teaches upper plate connected to the drone.
Akbar teaches upper plate connected to the drone (drone 1 to upper plate is connected in Fig. 2; See [0035]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was made to modify he system of Mayer by using upper plate connected to the drone, as taught by Akbar in order to measure position and distance (Akbar; abstract).
Regarding Claim 15, Mayer in view of Akbar teaches the device according to claim 1. Akbar further teaches said suspension system eliminating vibration noise generated by the drone (noise filtering is eliminate noise; See [0034]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayer in view of in view of Akbar further in view of Rick et al. (Pub NO. US 2019/0086247 A1; hereinafter Rick).
Regarding Claim 5, Mayer in view of Akbar teaches the device according to claim 1. Akbar further teaches comprising a camera and light to (See [0006]-[0007], [0025]) facilitate pilotage (See [0007, [0028]).
Mayer in view of Akbar is silent about in underground pipes and channels.
Rick teaches measurement in underground pipes and channels (See [0016]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was made to modify he system of Mayer and Akbar by using measurement in underground pipes and channels, as taught by Rick in order to achieve lower maintenance cost (Rick; [0016]).
Claim(s) 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayer in view of in view of Akbar further in view of Dolata et al. (Pub NO. US 2020/0369408 A1; hereinafter Dolata).
Regarding Claim 16, Mayer in view of Akbar teaches the device according to claim 1. Mayer in view of Akbar is silent about further comprising one or more vibration sensors to identify and eliminate false velocity readings induced by the drone.
Dolata teaches further comprising one or more vibration sensors to identify and eliminate false velocity readings induced by the drone (See [0028]-[0029]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was made to modify he system of Mayer and Akbar by using one or more vibration sensors to identify and eliminate false velocity readings induced by the drone, as taught by Dolata in order to determine anomaly (Dolata; [0028]).
Regarding Claim 17, Mayer in view of Akbar teaches the device according to claim 1. Akbar further teaches further comprising and said suspension system eliminating vibration noise generated by the drone (noise filtering is eliminate noise; See [0034]).
Mayer in view of Akbar is silent about one or more vibration sensors to identify and eliminate false velocity readings induced by the drone.
Dolata teaches one or more vibration sensors to identify and eliminate false velocity readings induced by the drone (See [0028]-[0029]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was made to modify he system of Mayer and Akbar by using one or more vibration sensors to identify and eliminate false velocity readings induced by the drone, as taught by Dolata in order to determine anomaly (Dolata; [0028]).
Allowable Subject Matter
11. Claims 8-11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
12. Regarding Claim 8, none of the prior art fairly teaches or suggests the device according to claim 1, wherein the suspension system comprises three or more tubes connected to each other by ropes, the tubes connecting the velocity measuring device to the drone, the non-invasive microwave fluid velocity measuring device being attached to a first end of the tubes and the drone being attached to a second end of the tubes.
Claims 9-11 depend on claim 8, therefore claims 9-11 also have allowable subject matter.
12. Claims 13-14 are not rejected by any prior art but should overcome 35 U.S.C 101 rejection.
Conclusion
13. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
a. Bogdanov et al. (Pub NO. US 2020/0072647 A1) discloses Non-Invasive Sensor for Flowmeter.
b. Trescott et al. (Pub NO. US 2016/0090717 A1) discloses Non-Invasive Leak Detection.
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZANNATUL FERDOUS whose telephone number is (571)270-0399. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8am to 5pm (PST).
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, Rodak Lee can be reached at 571-270-5628. 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.
/ZANNATUL FERDOUS/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/LEE E RODAK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858