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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, the sub-steps in lines 14- 23 should be further indented. See MPEP 608.01(m) and 37 CFR 1.75(i) (“Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation”).
In claim 1, line 22, “repeating construction of a next consecutive function” should be --repeating fitting a next consecutive function-- for better clarity by referring to the fitting step.
In claim 1, line 26, “the measurement data” should be --measurement data-- to avoid the issue of lack of antecedent basis.
In claim 11, the sub-steps in lines 8-30 should be further indented. See MPEP 608.01(m) and 37 CFR 1.75(i) (“Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation”).
In claim 11, the sub-sub-steps in lines 18- 27 should be further indented from its parent sub-step. See MPEP 608.01(m) and 37 CFR 1.75(i) (“Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation”).
In claim 11, line 26, “repeating construction of a next consecutive function” should be --repeating fitting a next consecutive function-- for better clarity by referring to the fitting step.
In claim 11, line 30, “the measurement data” should be --measurement data-- to avoid the issue of lack of antecedent basis.
The other claim(s) not discussed above are objected to for inheriting the issue(s) from their linking claim(s).
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.
MPEP 2106 outlines a two-part analysis for Subject Matter Eligibility as shown in the chart below.
PNG
media_image1.png
930
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Step 1, the claimed invention must be to one of the four statutory categories. 35 U.S.C. 101 defines the four categories of invention that Congress deemed to be the appropriate subject matter of a patent: processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter.
Step 2, the claimed invention also must qualify as patent-eligible subject matter, i.e., the claim must not be directed to a judicial exception unless the claim as a whole includes additional limitations amounting to significantly more than the exception.
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry, as shown in the chart below.
PNG
media_image2.png
681
881
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Prong One asks does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? In Prong One examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e. whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. If the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea enumerated in MPEP § 2106.04(a), a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon), the claim requires further analysis in Prong Two. If the claim does not recite a judicial exception (a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea), then the claim cannot be directed to a judicial exception (Step 2A: NO), and thus the claim is eligible at Pathway B without further analysis. Abstract ideas can be grouped as, e.g., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes.
Prong Two asks does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? If the additional elements in the claim integrate the recited exception into a practical application of the exception, then the claim is not directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A: NO) and thus is eligible at Pathway B. This concludes the eligibility analysis. If, however, the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception (Step 2A: YES), and requires further analysis under Step 2B.
Claims 1-10 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.
Regarding claim 1, Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? Yes.
Step 2A: Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea (judicially recognized exceptions)? Yes (see analysis below).
Prong one: Whether the claim recites a judicial exception? (Yes). The claim recites:
1. A method for calibrating a measuring device configured to provide an oscillating electromagnetic field to a liquid and to measure complex impedance of the liquid in response to the oscillating electromagnetic field, comprising:
receiving a first series of measurement data comprising permittivity of the liquid based on the measured complex impedance;
receiving a second series of measurement data comprising ion viscosity of the liquid based on the measured complex impedance;
receiving a third series of measurement data comprising temperature of the liquid;
receiving a fourth series of measurement data in a selected quantity of the liquid;
wherein data points in each of the first, second, third, and fourth series of measurement data are synchronized based on measurements performed simultaneously or within a predetermined time frame;
constructing a group of functions, wherein constructing the group of functions comprises:
selecting a selected series of measurement data from the group consisting of the first series of measurement data, the second series of measurement data, and the fourth series of measurement data;
fitting a first function, using the third series of measurement data and the selected series of measurement data;
fitting a consecutive function, using another combination of the third series of measurement data and another series of measurement data selected from the group of the first series of measurement data, the second series of measurement data and the fourth series of measurement data; and
repeating construction of a next consecutive function, using another combination of series of measurement data;
from the constructed group of functions, selecting the function having a best fit to a series of measurement data used in constructing the group of functions; and
applying the selected function to calibrate the measurement data.
The above bold-faced the limitations are directed to mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations; and/or mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (or with a pen and paper).
Prong two: Whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception? (No). The claim recites additional elements as underlined above. However, the receiving steps are recited at a high level of generality to collect the data for the abstract idea, which are insignificant extra-solution activities. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The measuring device is recited in the preamble to merely indicate the data source and/or the field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Accordingly, the additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements (other than the judicial exception) that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No (see analysis below).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to make the claim significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two above, the additional element(s) in the claim are insignificant extra-solution activities and field of use. Considered as a whole, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-10 when analyzed as a whole respectively are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they either extend (or add more details to) the abstract idea or the additional recited limitation(s) (if any) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea, as discussed below: there is no additional element(s) in the dependent claims that sufficiently integrates the abstract idea into a practical application of, or makes the claims significantly more than, the judicial exception (abstract idea). The additional element(s) (if any) are mere instructions to apply an except, field of use, and/or insignificant extra-solution activities (applied to Step 2A_Prong Two and Step 2B; see MPEP 2016.05(f)-(h)) and/or well-understood, routine, or conventional (applied to Step 2B; see MPEP 2106.05(d)) to facilitate the application of the abstract idea.
On the other hand, claims 11-20 are eligible because claim 11 is directed to a measurement device having particular physical elements for liquid measurement. This makes the claim significantly more than using a generic computer for data processing.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-20 would be allowed, subject to resolution of any pending formality issues. See the Notes of Office action dated 02/09/2026 for the reason of allowance.
Notes
Claim 1 distinguishes over the closest prior art of record, as discussed in the Notes of Office action dated 02/09/2026.
Response to Arguments
The objection to the specification has been withdrawn in view of the amendment.
The objection to the claims has been fully reconsidered. However, there are remaining informalities as indicated in the objection above.
The rejection under 35 USC 112(b) has been withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Regarding 35 USC 101, Applicant argued: Applicant does not concede that the claims are directed to an abstract idea. Even assuming, solely for purposes of discussion, that the fitting and selection steps recite mathematical concepts, the amended claims as a whole integrate any such concepts into a practical application. Amended claim 1 is not a claim to mathematical modelling in the abstract… the claimed fitting and selection operations are not an end in themselves; they are part of a technical calibration process for a physical liquid measuring device… The result is improved calibration of measurement data from the measuring device, particularly where temperature and other process variables affect liquid measurements. This is a practical technical application, not merely a mental process or an instruction to apply a mathematical formula. Amended claim 11 is even more concrete because it recites the physical measuring device itself… Each of these [dependent] claims remains tied to the physical calibration of measurement data for the measuring device.
The Examiner respectfully submits that claims 11-20 have been found eligible under 35 USC 101 in view of the amendment. However, claims 1-10 remain ineligible because they are focused on the abstract idea of processing the received measurement data to generate new data (e.g., constructing a group of functions, selecting a function, and applying the selected function). The argued improvement is in the abstract idea. However, even if the claims are distinguishable as compared to prior art techniques, “a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea.” See MPEP 2106.05(I), citing Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corporation, 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The argued measurement device is recited as a data source or field of use, insufficient to make the claims a practical application of the abstract idea.
Conclusion
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 JOHN C KUAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7066. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00AM-5:30PM.
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, Andrew Schechter can be reached at (571) 272-2302. 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.
/JOHN C KUAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights