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 .
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 1-3 are directed to a fluid measurement system, which is considered to be a machine. Claims 4 is directed to a fluid measurement method, which is considered to be a process. Therefore claims 1-4 each fall into one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Claims 1-4 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.
Claim 1 is directed to a fluid measurement system comprising “a measurement controller configured to calculate a flow velocity of the two-phase fluid flowing through the pipe based on first output that is output from the first load sensor and second output that is output from the second load sensor,
wherein the measurement controller performs a process including
(a) comparing the first output and the second output in a first period of time so as to repeatedly calculate a first time difference between the first output and the second output while shifting the first period of time,
(b) calculating a second time difference based on a frequency of occurrence of a plurality of first time differences, each of the first time differences being calculated in the first period of time included in a second period of time that is greater than the first period of time, and
(c) calculating the flow velocity of the two-phase fluid based on the second time difference” which are considered to be mathematical concepts and mental processes. The disclosed invention, in at least paragraphs [0016]-[0049] of the instant application, teach the comparing and calculating steps to be mathematical processes and give no indication that it is not performed on a general purpose computer. In addition, the comparing could be carried out as purely mental processes or are equivalent to human work. Thus, these limitations recite concepts that fall into the “mathematical concept” group and the “mental process” group of abstract ideas.
With respect to Step 2A Prong 2, claim 1 further recites the additional elements “a first load sensor and a second load sensor that are disposed on a same pipe carrying a two-phase fluid including a liquid phase and a vapor phase, the first and second load sensor being spaced apart by a predetermined distance; and a measurement controller”. The additional elements of the first load sensor, the second load sensor, the pipe, and the measurement controller are recited at such a high level of generality that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions in a particular field of use, for instance in a two-phase fluid system. The additional element of the first load sensor and the second load sensor are considered to represent mere data gathering that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception and are recited at a high level of generality. The sensor system limitation in the claim is thus insignificant extra-solution activity. The measurement controller is recited at such a high level of generality that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a computer. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claim as a whole is not considered to integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
With respect to Step 2B, the additional elements of “a first load sensor and a second load sensor that are disposed on a same pipe carrying a two-phase fluid including a liquid phase and a vapor phase, the first and second load sensor being spaced apart by a predetermined distance; and a measurement controller” do not provide an inventive concept. The additional elements of the first load sensor, the second load sensor, the pipe, and the measurement controller are recited at a high level of generality that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions in a particular field of use. The additional element of the first load sensor and second load sensor are considered to represent mere data gathering (collecting data) that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception (the data is used in the using limitations’ mathematical concept) and is recited at a high level of generality. The sensor system limitations in the claim are thus insignificant extra-solution activity. The measurement controller is recited at such a high level of generality that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a computer. These limitations therefore remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Thus, these limitations do not amount to significantly more than the above indicated abstract ideas. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements represent merely generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, claim 1 is not eligible.
Claims 2-3 merely extend the abstract idea identified above for claim 1 and do not add any further additional elements. Therefore, the claims are considered to be directed to the abstract idea analogously to claim 1 above.
Claim 4 is directed to a fluid measurement method comprising “(a) comparing first output that is output from a first load sensor and second output that is output from a second load sensor in a first period of time so as to repeatedly calculate a first time difference between the first output and the second output while shifting the first period of time, the first load sensor and the second load sensor being disposed on a same pipe carrying a two-phase fluid including a liquid phase and a vapor phase, the first and second load sensors being spaced apart by a predetermined distance;
(b) calculating a second time difference based on a frequency of occurrence of a plurality of first time differences, each of the first time differences being calculated in the first period of time included in a second period of time that is greater than the first period of time; and
(c) calculating a flow velocity of the two-phase fluid based on the second time difference”
which are considered to be mathematical concepts and mental processes. The disclosed invention, in at least paragraphs [0016]-[0049] of the instant application, teach the comparing and calculating steps to be mathematical processes and give no indication that it is not performed on a general purpose computer. In addition, the comparing could be carried out as purely mental processes or are equivalent to human work. Thus, these limitations recite concepts that fall into the “mathematical concept” group and the “mental process” group of abstract ideas.
With respect to Step 2A Prong 2, claim 4 further recites the additional elements “a first load sensor”, “a second load sensor”, and “a same pipe”. The additional elements of the first load sensor, the second load sensor, the pipe, and the measurement controller are recited at such a high level of generality that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions in a particular field of use. The additional element of the first load sensor and the second load sensor are considered to represent mere data gathering that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception and are recited at a high level of generality. The sensor system limitation in the claim is thus insignificant extra-solution activity. The measurement controller is recited at such a high level of generality that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a computer. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claim as a whole is not considered to integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
With respect to Step 2B, the additional elements of “a first load sensor”, “a second load sensor”, and “a same pipe” do not provide an inventive concept. The additional elements of the first load sensor, the second load sensor, the pipe, and the measurement controller are recited at a high level of generality that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions in a particular field of use. The additional element of the first load sensor and second load sensor are considered to represent mere data gathering (collecting data) that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception (the data is used in the using limitations’ mathematical concept) and is recited at a high level of generality. The sensor system limitations in the claim is thus insignificant extra-solution activity. The measurement controller is recited at such a high level of generality that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a computer. These limitations therefore remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Thus, these limitations do not amount to significantly more than the above indicated abstract ideas. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements represent merely generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, claim 4 is not eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/08/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the argument that the claimed abstract idea is integrated into a practical application because it is expressly directed to measurement of a two-phase fluid as argued on pages 5-6, the two-phase fluid system is recited at such a high level of generality that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions in a particular field of use. The first and second load sensors are considered to represent mere data gathering (collecting data) that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception (the data is used in the using limitations’ mathematical concept) and is recited at a high level of generality. Therefore, without further specificity in the claimed system or method, the above identified additional elements are not sufficient to integrate the above identified abstract ideas into a practical application or render the claims significantly more that the above identified abstract ideas.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JENNIFER E S BAHLS whose telephone number is (571)270-7807. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am-3:30 pm.
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, Stephen Meier can be reached at (571) 272-2149. 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.
/JENNIFER BAHLS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853