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 .
The amendment filed on December 5, 2025 have been considered.
Claim Objections
Claims 5 and 6 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim should refer to other claims in the alternative only. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claims 5 and 6 are not been further treated on the merits.
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, 2, 4, 7, 9, and 10 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.
Claims 1 and 10, “when the value (V) of the increment is eventually at least equal to the threshold value (N)” is indefinite because the claims do not recite that the value V is incremented after V is determined to be lower than the threshold. Examiner interprets that the value V is incremented, then checked to determine if it is lower or at least equal to the threshold. Thus, the value V is alternatively lower or at least equal to the threshold.
Claim 9, limitation of “the communicating meter being configured for acquiring measurements of consumption of the fluid at a parameterisable frequency” (lines 5-6) is indefinite because it appears to be redundant since it has already been recited in claim 1, lines 2-3.
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, 2, 4, 7, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Pursuant to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (MPEP 2106), the following analysis is made:
Under step 1 of the Guidance, the claims fall within a statutory category.
Under step 2A, prong 1, claims 1 and 10 recite an abstract idea of “incrementing a value V of a number of acquisitions of values of the flow rate acquired at the active parameterisable frequency fact” (mathematical concept), “comparing the value V with a threshold value N” (mathematical concept), “as long as the value V is lower than the threshold value N” (evaluation, mental process), “when the value V is eventually at least equal to the threshold value N, updating the active parameterisable frequency fact at least according to the value of the flow rate acquired, according to at least one other flow rate value previously acquired and according to a frequency f3 determined from a non-zero probability p(t) of a variation in consumption flow rate of the fluid higher than a flow rate variation threshold” (mathematical concept), and “reimplementation of the method with the updated active parameterisable frequency” (mathematical concept/mental process, see above).
The mere nominal recitation of a generic processor (e.g., electronic circuitry) does not take the claim limitation out of the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) (III).
Under step 2A, prong 2, the claim limitations are not integrated into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)(I)).
Acquiring at least one value of the consumption flow rate of the fluid at an active parameterisable frequency fact, maintaining the active parameterisable frequency fact to acquire at least one new measurement at the active parameterisable frequency are directed to insignificant extra solution activities of data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Under step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(A)).
The remaining dependent claims do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea.
Claims 2, 4, and 7 are directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 9, the mere nominal recitation of a generic processor (e.g., non-transient storage medium, processor) does not take the claim limitation out of the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) (III).
Accordingly, claims 1 and its respective dependent claims 2, 4, 7, 9 and claim 10 are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pearman et al. (US 4,918,995).
Regarding claims 1, 9, and 10, Pearman et al. discloses a method (Abstract) for managing a communicating meter (gas meter, Abstract, line 1), for measuring consumption of a fluid (method of measuring consumption of gas, column 1, lines 5-8), the meter comprising a measurement unit (flow sensor, Abstract, line 2) for acquiring measurements of consumption of the fluid at a parameterisable frequency (frequency of sampling, column 10, lines 44-46, via sensor, Abstract, lines 2-3), wherein the method is implemented by the communicating meter (Abstract) and in that the method comprises the following steps:
(a) acquiring at least one value of the consumption flow rate (d(t)) of the fluid at an active parameterisable frequency fact (sensing gas flow rate, Abstract, at sampling frequency, column 10, lines 44-46),
(b) incrementing the value V of a number of acquisitions of values (increment sample counter, column 12, line 53) of the flow rate acquired (the sample is the flow rate, column 2, lines 61-65) at the active parameterisable frequency fact (at the sampling frequency, column 10, lines 44-46),
(c) comparing the value V with a threshold value N (comparing flow rate count with 110 cubic feet, column 12, lines 60-62),
(d) as long as the value V is lower than the threshold value N, maintaining the active parameterisable frequency fact to acquire at least one new measurement at the active parameterisable frequency (if not, loops back to the beginning, remaining in low power mode for remainder of sample period, column 12, lines 62-64, where during remainder of sample period, sample frequency is maintained/has not changed).
It is noted that (e) when the value (V) is eventually at least equal to the threshold value N, updating the active parameterisable frequency fact at least according to the value of the flow rate acquired, according to at least one other flow rate value previously acquired and according to a frequency f3 determined from a non-zero probability p(t) of a variation in consumption flow rate of the fluid higher than a flow rate variation threshold, and reimplementation of the method with the updated active parameterizable frequency, the condition and corresponding limitations in (e) are alternative condition and corresponding limitations. Examiner interprets the condition and corresponding limitations in either (d) and (e) are required but not both (d) and (e).
As discussed above, Examiner interprets that the value V is incremented, then checked to determine if it is lower or at least equal to the threshold. Thus, the value V is alternatively lower or at least equal to the threshold.
Regarding claim 9, Pearman et al. further discloses a non-transient storage medium on which a computer program product is stored (Eprom memory, column 9, lines 51-53), comprising program code instructions for executing the method, when the instructions are read from a non-transient storage medium and executed by a processor (64, column 7, lines 7-10).
Regarding claim 10, Pearman et al. further discloses the communicating meter comprises electronic circuitry (Abstract, lines 2-4; Fig. 6).
Claim 2 recites the active parameterisable frequency (fact) is updated, which is tied to the updating the active parameterisable frequency (fact) in claim 1(e). Accordingly, claim 2 is tied to the alternative condition/limitations in claim 1(e).
Claim 4 recites the frequency determined from the non-zero probability (p(t)) of a variation in consumption flow rate higher than the flow rate variation threshold (which updating the active parameterisable frequency (fact) is based on), which is tied to updating the frequency determined from a non-zero probability (p(t)) in claim 1(e). Thus, claim 4 is tied to the alternative condition/limitations in claim 1(e).
Prior Art Note
Claim 7 has no prior art rejection.
The combination as claimed wherein a method for managing a communicating meter, for measuring consumption of a fluid comprising if the active parameterisable frequency is higher than or equal to the predetermined frequency threshold, then the threshold value N is defined by another predetermined threshold value (claim 7) is not disclosed, suggested, or made obvious by the prior art of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on December 5, 2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments with respect to the objections to the specification have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections to the specification have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments with respect to the objections to the drawing have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections to the drawing have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments and amendment with respect to the objection to claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to claim 1 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments and amendment with respect to the claim interpretation under 35 USC 112(f) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim interpretation under 35 USC 112(f) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 112(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection under 35 USC 112(a) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments with respect to the rejections under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections under 35 USC 112(b) have been withdrawn.
With regard to the rejections under 35 USC 101, Applicants argue “[a]lthough the claims involve calculations. they are not directed to an abstract idea per se. On the contrary, they are directed to a specific technical solution to a technical problem inherent to the field of communication meters, and they provide much more than a mere abstract idea.”
Examiner’s position is that Applicants appear to be arguing that the claims are directed to a technological improvement. Pursuant to MPEP 2106.05(a), “[a]n indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art.”
Applicants further argue “[t]he invention provides a specific technical improvement to the technology of communication meters. The technical problem that the invention solves is clearly set forth in the specification (see, for example, page 2, lines 16-31 of the application). Communicating meters, particularly battery-powered ones face a fundamental dilemma: a high measurement frequency ensures accuracy
but quickly depletes the battery whereas a low frequency preserves the battery but
compromises measurement accuracy. This trade-off 'between measurement accuracy and energy consumption is a purely technical problem, rooted in the physical operation or these devices.”
Examiner’s position is that while the specification attempts to explain a technical solution to the technical problem, i.e., “[t]hus it is desirable to provide a method for managing a communicating object making it possible to reduce the electrical consumption of the communicating meter while guaranteeing optimum precision in the measurement of a fluid consumption” (specification, page 2, lines 29-31), the details of the unconventional technical solution are missing.
Applicants further argue “Claims 1 and 10 do not merely perform calculations in a vacuum. They describe a method where the result of these calculations is used to directly control and improve the physical operation of the meter. The step of "updating the active parameterisable frequency (fact)" is not a mere mathematical result; it is a control instruction that physically alters the behavior of the meter's measurement circuitry. By dynamically adjusting the frequency at which the sensor is activated, the claimed method directly optimizes a physical parameter (energy consumption) while improving an essential function of the device (data collection accuracy). This constitutes a tangible improvement to the operation of the meter itself.”
Examiner’s position is that Applicants remarks above are not disclosed as the details of the unconventional technical solution to the technical problem identified on page 2 of the specification. Further, Applicants remarks above are not expressed in the claims as details of a technical solution to the technical problem. The technical
improvements (identified on page 2 of the specification, lines 29-31) are not realized by the claim over the prior art. Accordingly, the claims are not directed to a technological improvement pursuant to MPEP 2106.05(a).
Applicants further argue “[c]ontrary to the Examiner's assertion, the claimed steps are not mere insignificant data gathering activities." The acquisition of the flow rate value d(t) and the context of a "communicating meter for measuring consumption of a fluid'' are central to the invention.”
Examiner’s position is that “acquiring at least one value of the consumption flow rate (d(t)) of the fluid at an active parameterisable frequency fact” is insignificant extra solution because the step merely gathers data for use in a claimed process (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Applicants further argue “[d]ependent claims 2 and 4-7 add further limitations that further refine this technical solution, for example by specifying how the frequency is calculated or how the thresholds ore adjusted. These limitations strengthen the technical and concrete nature of the invention and are therefore, also patent eligible.
Examiner’s position is that claim 2 and 4-7, e.g., recites determining/updating parameterisable frequency fact according to a first/second frequency, where the frequencies are determined based on a math. The claims are not identified in the specification as a technical solution to a technical problem. Accordingly, the claims are abstract. It is noted that claims 5 and 6 are not treated on the merits, as discussed above.
Applicants further argue “the claims, taken as a whole do not seek to preempt an abstract idea but rather to protect a specific control method that improves the operation of a communicating meter. They provide a technical solution to a technical problem and therefore satisfy the requirements of 35 USC. § 101.
Examiner’s position is that the claims do not recite a technical solution to a technical problem, as discussed above. Accordingly, the claims are not directed to a technological improvement pursuant to MPEP 2106.05(a).
With regard to the rejections under 35 USC 102, Applicants argue “Applicant has replaced "if"' with "as long as" and in step {e), Applicant has replaced “if' with "when (...) eventually”, in order to show that steps (d) and (e) are both performed, sequentially over time.
Examiner’s position as discussed above is that the claims do not recite that the value V is incremented after V is determined to be lower than the threshold. Examiner interprets that the value V is incremented, then checked to determine if it is lower or at least equal to the threshold. Thus, the value V is alternatively lower or at least equal to the threshold.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mehendale et al. (US 20090064796) discloses a Coriolis type flow measuring system for measuring the mass flow rate of a flowing medium, and elements for selecting a predefined sampling frequency in dependence on the rate of change thus measured (Abstract). However, Mehendale et al. does not disclose if the active parameterisable frequency is higher than or equal to a predetermined frequency threshold, then the threshold value N is defined by another predetermined threshold value.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Nghiem whose telephone number is (571) 272-2277. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F.
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 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).
/MICHAEL P NGHIEM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857 January 10, 2026