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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In p. 17, lines 10-11, “The voltage v0(t) may refer to the voltage between nodes T0A and T0C” should be --The voltage v0(t) may refer to the voltage between nodes T0A and T0B-- to be consistent with FIG. 3a and 3b.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 24, “the best fit” should be --a best fit-- to avoid the issue of lack of antecedent basis.
In claim 2, line 4, “the fifth series of data” should be --the fifth series of measurement data-- to be consistent.
In claim 3, line 4, “the sixth series of data” should be --the sixth series of measurement data-- to be consistent.
In claim 5, line 3, “the smallest average prediction error-- should be --a smallest average prediction error-- to avoid the issue of lack of antecedent basis.
In claim 6, line 3, “the function for fitting” should be --a function for fitting-- to avoid the issue of lack of antecedent basis.
In claim 7, line 10, “the higher correlation” should be --a higher correlation-- to avoid the issue of lack of antecedent basis.
In claim 8, line 4, “the lower correlation” should be -a lower correlation-- to avoid the issue of lack of antecedent basis.
In claim 11, line 15, “fit a first function” should be --fitting a first function-- to correct a grammatical error.
In claim 11, line 19, “fit a consecutive function” should be --fitting a consecutive function-- to correct a grammatical error.
In claim 11, line 24, “repeat constructing a next consecutive function” should be --repeating constructing a next consecutive function-- to correct a grammatical error.
In claim 11, line 27, “the best fit” should be --a best fit-- to avoid the issue of lack of antecedent basis.
In claim 12, line 5, “the fifth series of data” should be --the fifth series of measurement data-- to be consistent.
In claim 13, line 5, “the sixth series of data” should be --the sixth series of measurement data-- to be consistent.
In claim 15, line 4, “the smallest average prediction error-- should be --a smallest average prediction error-- to avoid the issue of lack of antecedent basis.
In claim 16, line 4, “the function for fitting” should be --a function for fitting-- to avoid the issue of lack of antecedent basis.
In claim 17, line 10, “the higher correlation” should be --a higher correlation-- to avoid the issue of lack of antecedent basis.
In claim 18, line 5, “the lower correlation” should be -a lower correlation-- 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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, it recites “wherein each function is constructed by:” in lines 10-11. The term “each function” is too broad without clear boundaries. Also, the sub-steps (i.e., lines 12-22) of this limitation include fitting more than one functions. It is unclear which function in the sub-steps corresponds to the each function. For examination purpose, “wherein each function is constructed by:” is assumed to be --wherein the constructing comprises:--.
Further regarding claim 1, it recites “selecting the function having the best fit to any series of measurement data” in lines 23-24. The term “any series of measurement data” is too broad without clear boundaries. For examination purpose, “selecting the function having the best fit to any series of measurement data” is assumed to be --selecting the function having [[the]]a best fit to the third series of measurement data--. As a result, “wherein selecting the function having the best fit to any series of measurement data” in claims 4 and 5 is assumed to be --wherein selecting the function having the best fit to the third series of measurement data--.
Regarding claim 4, it recites “according to a smallest maximum prediction error to any series of measurement data” in lines 3-4. The term “any series of measurement data” is too broad without clear boundaries. For examination purpose, --according to a smallest maximum prediction error to the third series of measurement data-- is assumed.
Regarding claim 5, it recites “according to the smallest average prediction error to any series of measurement data” in lines 3-4. The term “any series of measurement data” is too broad without clear boundaries. For examination purpose, --according to [[the]]a smallest maximum prediction error to the third series of measurement data-- is assumed.
Regarding claim 8, it recites “applying the selected series to compensating additional measurement in additional quantity” in lines 6-7. There are two antecedent bases for “the selected series.” It is unclear which is referred to. For examination purpose, --applying the selected series corresponding to the lower correlation to compensating additional measurement in additional quantity-- is assumed.
Regarding claim 11, it recites “wherein each function is constructed by:” in lines 13-14. The term “each function” is too broad without clear boundaries. Also, the sub-steps (i.e., lines 15-25) of this limitation include fitting more than one functions. It is unclear which function in the sub-steps corresponds to the each function. For examination purpose, “wherein each function is constructed by:” is assumed to be --wherein the constructing comprises:--.
Further regarding claim 11, it recites “select the function having the best fit to any series of measurement data” in lines 26-27. The term “any series of measurement data” is too broad without clear boundaries. For examination purpose, “select the function having the best fit to any series of measurement data” is assumed to be --select the function having [[the]]a best fit to the third series of measurement data--. As a result, “wherein selecting the function having the best fit to any series of measurement data” in claims 14 and 15 is assumed to be --wherein, when the device is caused to select the function having the best fit to the third series of measurement data--.
Regarding claim 14, it recites “according to a smallest maximum prediction error to any series of measurement data” in lines 4-5. The term “any series of measurement data” is too broad without clear boundaries. For examination purpose, --according to a smallest maximum prediction error to the third series of measurement data-- is assumed.
Regarding claim 15, it recites “according to the smallest average prediction error to any series of measurement data” in lines 4-5. The term “any series of measurement data” is too broad without clear boundaries. For examination purpose, --according to [[the]]a smallest maximum prediction error to the third series of measurement data-- is assumed.
Regarding claim 18, it recites “apply the selected series to compensating additional measurement in additional quantity” in lines 7-8. There are two antecedent bases for “the selected series.” It is unclear which is referred to. For examination purpose, --apply the selected series corresponding to the lower correlation to compensating additional measurement in additional quantity-- is assumed.
The other claim(s) not discussed above are rejected for inheriting the issue(s) from their linking claim(s).
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 1-20 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, comprising:
receiving a first series of measurement data comprising permittivity of a liquid;
receiving a second series of measurement data comprising ion viscosity of the liquid;
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;
constructing a group of functions, wherein each function is constructed by:
fitting a first function, using the third series of measurement data and a 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;
fitting a consecutive function, using another combination of the third series of measurement data and 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 constructing a next consecutive function, using another combination of series of measurement data;
from the constructed group of functions, selecting the function having the best fit to any series of measurement data; 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, these are recited at a high level of generality to collect the data for the abstract idea, which is an insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). 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 is an insignificant extra-solution activity. Considered as a whole, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 11 is similarly rejected by analogy to claim 1. The transceiver, processor, and memory are conventional computer components, invoked to facilitate the data collection and data processing according to the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). They are not sufficient to make the claim eligible.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 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.
Notes
Claims 1 and 11 distinguish over the closest prior art of record as discussed below.
Regarding claims 1 and 11, the closest prior art of record fails to teach the features of claim 1 (as the representative): “fitting a first function, using the third series of measurement data and a 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; fitting a consecutive function, using another combination of the third series of measurement data and 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 constructing a next consecutive function, using another combination of series of measurement data; from the constructed group of functions, selecting the function having the best fit to any series of measurement data,” in combination with the rest of the claim limitations as claimed and defined by the Applicant.
YLI-HALLILA et al. (US 20170336337 A1; cited in IDS) teaches a method for monitoring at least one property of a heterogeneous mixture, involving measuring complex permittivity of the mixture and fitting a polynomial regression model to a measured gain response data.
Potyrailo et al. (US 20120161787 A1; cited in IDS) teaches a fluid sensor, involving determining calibration coefficients during experimental testing of an RFID sensor, including using the RFID sensor to sense varying vapor concentrations at several temperatures for producing response curves for each of the measured temperatures, determining best-fit curves that best correspond to each of the response curves, determining functions, such as polynomial functions, to represent the best-fit curves mathematically; and using the coefficients of the function as the calibration coefficients.
Potyrailo et al. (US 6449580 B1) teaches a method of analyzing a working fluid of a mechanical system, involving measuring permittivity of the working fluid as the temperature of the working fluid is varied over a range; identifying a special temperature at which the rate of change of the permittivity over temperature is at a maximum; and determining the viscosity, acid content, moisture content and density of the working fluid from the special temperature, rate of change of permittivity at the special temperature, permittivity of the special temperature, and rate of change of permittivity above the special temperature, respectively.
None of the closest prior art of record teaches or suggests the above indicated features as claimed.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gonzalez et al. (US 20170038491 A1) teaches a method for making in situ measurements of density and viscosity of downhole fluid at subterranean wells, involving determining the density and viscosity of the fluid from a frequency and a rate of decay of oscillation.
Rosenbaum et al. ("Correction of Temperature and Electrical Conductivity Effects on Dielectric Permittivity Measurements with ECH2O Sensors" Vadose Zone J. 10:582-593, published online March 30, 2011) teaches a method of correction of temperature and electrical conductivity effects on dielectric permittivity measurements with ECH2O sensors, involving deriving correction functions for the effects of temperature and conductivity by fitting a model equation with measurement data as a function of temperature.
Conclusion
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