DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
The response, filed 11/25/2025, has been considered. Claims 138-155 remain pending. Applicant’s arguments regarding the 112b rejections involving “realizing” and the “Pascal” have been fully considered and are persuasive. These arguments are critical to the record, specifically the arguments from the last paragraph of page 2 of the response through most of page 4 of the response (before the beginning of arguments relating to the prior art rejections. However, the remaining 112b rejection regarding “low uncertainty” is maintained. Further the remainder of applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive.
On page 2 of the response, applicant argues that claims 138-155 are not merely directed to mental processes and that the examiner erred in rejecting the claims under 101. Specifically, applicant argues that “the claims include several features that require physical steps” and “[i]n fact, the precision required in the field of metrology makes such determinations impossible purely based on mental processes in the human mind”. Firstly, the examiner notes that, as set forth in the “search notes” of the previous Office action, TQAS Karl Tamai was consulted regarding twice regarding the 101 rejection of the instant claims. Karl Tamai is the TQAS for TC 2800 - measuring and testing. Technology Center Quality Assurance Specialist is a role focused on reviewing patent applications, especially complex ones, to ensure proper procedure, quality, and adherence to patent law (Manual of Patent Examining Procedure - MPEP). The analysis of a TQAS supersedes that of a primary examiner and supervisory examiner. The examiner consulted Mr. Tamai to ensure compliance with current 35 USC 101 practices. Secondly, the rejection does not assert that a human performs the measurements mentally. Rather, under Alice Step 2A Prong Two, the data gather steps (weighting buoyancy artifacts under vacuum and gas conditions) are routing and conventional in the art, as evidenced by Glaser. The claim limitations beyond the abstract mathematical relationship do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they are well-understood, routine, and conventional components and steps for routine data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g). In this case, limitations outside of the abstract idea for the implementation thereof are a pre-solution activity step of gathering data for use in a claimed process (explicitly stated in the aforementioned MPEP section). Many abstract idea rejections involve claims that require laboratory equipment or physical apparatuses. The presence of such does not automatically confer patent eligibility. Also see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III B - “A Claim That Encompasses a Human Performing the Step(s) Mentally With or Without a Physical Aid Recites a Mental Process”. Therefore the examiner finds the aforementioned argument unpersuasive.
On page 4 of the response, applicant argues that “the goal of primary methods is to provide improved ways of realizing units with higher accuracy, which is to say ‘low uncertainty’. As such, the Applicant also submits that the Examiner’s clarity rejection regarding the term “low” uncertainty would not be unclear to one skilled in the art of metrology.” In response, the examiner notes that, while applicant has provided context for the understanding the general goals of primary realization methods, this does not establish an objective boundary for the claim term “low uncertainty”. The question under 112b is whether a person skilled in the art can ascertain the metes and bounds of the claim. One of ordinary skill in the art may have a general idea for what low uncertainty may mean, but applicant provides no objective standard by which to measure whether a particular uncertainty value falls within or outside the scope of the claim (i.e., what numerical threshold defines “low uncertainty”?). Therefore the examiner finds the aforementioned argument unpersuasive.
On pages 4-5 of the response, applicant argues that Glaser does not teach that the artifacts “have substantially the same nominal mass, substantially the same surface area, and different volumes defining a volume difference”. Applicant argues that Glaser uses a three-artifact system. In response, the examiner notes that only two artifacts of Glaser are used in the determination of air density, which is what was relied on by the examiner. These artifacts have substantially the same nominal mass, substantially the same surface area, and different volumes defining a volume difference (e.g., Glaser - bottom left text on page 47 states the same surface area but different volume; the first section under “results” on page 48 states that the masses coincide to within 1 microgram). Therefore the examiner finds the aforementioned argument unpersuasive.
On page 5 of the response, applicant argues that Glaser does not seek to realize any properties, such as the Pascal, but, rather, provides an accurate measurement of air density in a given situation. In this, the examiner agrees, which is why the rejection was made a 103 rejection rather than a 102 rejection. The examiner relies on Glaser as teaching the same experimental setup for measurement as the claimed invention (i.e., the structure and method steps involved in gathering of the data). Glaser teaches: two artifacts with the same nominal mass, same surface area, and different volumes; measuring mass difference in a vacuum; measuring mass difference in gas/air; and using the difference to highly accurately determine gas density. In the previous Office action, the examiner acknowledged that Glaser’s stated purpose was air density determination using the same experimental apparatus as the claimed invention. It was Scheucher and reliance on scientific theory which the examiner relied upon as bridging the gap between Glaser’s apparatus and methodology for determining air density and the claims “realization of the Pascal”, which is merely a pressure measurement methodology that ties pressure, via a mathematical equation, to other variables and constants, using high-school level chemistry equations such as pV = nRT or pV = NkT. Therefore the examiner finds the aforementioned argument unpersuasive. More clarity regarding this is presented in the immediately following argument rebuttal.
On pages 6-7, applicant provides arguments regarding Scheucher and the combination thereof with Glaser. In response, the examiner submits that applicant’s arguments mischaracterize the basis for the rejection. Scheucher was not cited for its “industrial leak detection application”. Scheucher was cited solely for the proposition that the ideal gas law and virial equations are well-known in the art for determining an unknown when the remaining parts of the equation are known. The examiner could have merely taken Official notice or cited a textbook for such the ideal gas law as it has been part of high-school chemistry for decades. Thus, as it relates to Scheucher, the examiner finds applicant’s arguments unpersuasive.
On page 7 of the response, applicant argues that the examiner appears to be impermissibly combining these references through hindsight reconstruction in an attempt to reach the instant claims. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In this case, Glaser provided the full experimental apparatus to practice the claimed invention, but was silent as to how pressure may be measured rather than gas density. Scheucher was relied upon as teaching that it is well-known to use of the ideal gas law (e.g. pV = NkT and it’s well-known variants) for determining an unknown when the remaining parts of the equation are known. The scientific theory relied upon by the examiner was merely basic algebra and re-arranging of well-known equations and the equations set forth in Glaser. It was not hind-sight reconstruction but, rather, showing: 1) the experimental set-up and some equations were taught by Glaser; and 2) mere algebraic rearrangement of known equations yielded the exact claimed formula as applicant (e.g., claim 139). As part of the 2019 revision of the SI (predating applicant’s disclosure), the Boltzmann constant is one of the seven "defining constants" that have been defined so as to have exact finite decimal values in SI units. Applicant’s instant specification (page 15) recites “The present method facilitates direct realization of the pressure unit from the Boltzmann constant, which has the dimension energy divided by temperature and is recognized as one of the seven defining constants of the SI that have been given exact definitions. The Boltzmann constant is defined to be exactly 1.380649x10-23J K-1.” Applicant merely uses the device and equations of Glaser and an algebraic rearrangement of the ideal gas law. Therefore the examiner finds the aforementioned argument unpersuasive.
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 138-155 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea. Specifically, the claims recite mental processes. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the processes and calculations are merely combined with routine data gathering steps required to use the correlation that do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the elements are either 1) are well-understood, routine, conventional components required for mere data gathering and are insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)); or 2) are well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d). As set forth below, the elements of: a pair of buoyancy artifacts; a chamber; a pump; a mass balance; and a gas supply system are the basic, well-understood, routine, conventional components for balance scale gravimetric measurements to compensate for buoyancy in measurements. In regards to claims 147-153 being apparatus claims, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III D which states that product claims may also recite a mental process and gives examples.
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 138-155 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 138-155: The term “low” uncertainty is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 138-139, 142-145, 147-148, and 152-153 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glaser et al. (“Experimental Determination of Air Density Using a 1kg Mass Comparator in Vacuum”, prior art of record) in view of Scheucher (US 20130031958 A1, prior art of record) and further in view of MPEP 2144.02 (Reliance on Scientific Theory).Regarding claim 138:Glaser teaches a method of realizing a low-uncertainty property, comprising:
measuring absolute masses of respective buoyancy artifacts under a vacuum condition, wherein the buoyancy artifacts have substantially the same nominal mass, substantially the same surface area, and different volumes defining a volume difference (e.g., abstract, pages 46-47);
determining an absolute mass difference between the buoyancy artifacts based on the absolute masses (e.g., abstract, pages 46-47);
measuring effective masses of the respective buoyancy artifacts under a gas pressure condition (e.g., abstract, pages 46-47);
determining an effective mass difference between the buoyancy artifacts based on the effective masses (e.g., abstract, pages 46-47);
Glaser fails to teach:
measuring or determining two variables selected from a pressure of the system, a temperature of the system, and the molecule weight of the gas; and
determining the low-uncertainty variable selected from the pressure, the temperature of the system, and the molecule weight of the gas, based on the absolute mass difference, the effective mass difference, the Boltzmann constant, the volume difference, and the two determined variables, using at least one gas law equationScheucher teaches:
measuring or determining two variables selected from a pressure of the system ([0084]), a temperature of the system ([0084]), and the molecule weight of the gas
determining the gas density based on the two determined variables, using at least one gas law equation ([0084])
As taught by Glaser
For an object of volume V immersed in a fluid of density ρ, there is a buoyancy force:
F = ρV
Apparent mass mapp is true mass mtrue minus buoyancy force:
mapp = mtrue – ρgV
in a vacuum fluid density ρ is zero so the apparent mass is the true mass and volume doesn’t matter as ρV = 0
The true / absolute mass difference between two masses (performed in the vacuum)
is merely Δmabsol = mA,true – mB,true
If the process is repeated with a gas present instead of a vacuum, the difference in mass between mass A and mass B changes as ρ is non-zero and, thus, V is also relevant.
Thus the difference in mass with a gas “g” present is
Δmapp = (mA,true – ρgVA) - (mB,true – ρgVB)
This can be rewritten to determine the density of the gas
ρg = (Δmabsol - Δmapp)/ΔV
Scheucher teaches that the gas density may also be calculated using known pressure, known temperature, and the ideal gas law or virial equations.
As for MPEP 2144.02 (Reliance on Scientific Theory), the examiner notes the following, which relies only on well-known mathematical formulas, rearrangement, and substitution.
Gas density ρg is defined as mass over volume and the mass of the gas may be written as the number of moles (n) * molar mass (Mg)
so gas density may also be written as
ρg = (n*Mg) / V (A)
where n is the number of moles of gas in the volume V and Mg is the molar mass of the gas (mass per mole)
The ideal gas law in molecular form is
pV = nRT
however, R may be rewritten to Avogadro’s number multiplied by the Boltzmann constant, yielding
pV = NAKBTn (B)
Where p is pressure, V is volume occupied by the gas, Na is Avogadro’s number, Kb is the Boltzmann constant, T is the temperature, and n is the number of moles of gas. This is a well-known version of the ideal gas law.
Rearranging equation B to solve for n and inserting it into equation A yields:
ρ
g
=
p
M
g
N
a
K
b
T
As set forth above,
ρg = (Δmabsol - Δmapp)/ΔV
Thus,
Δ
m
a
b
s
o
l
-
Δ
m
a
p
p
Δ
V
=
p
M
g
N
a
K
b
T
Solving for pressure yields equation (C)
p
=
N
a
K
b
T
(
Δ
m
a
b
s
o
l
-
Δ
m
a
p
p
)
Δ
V
M
g
This is the ideal gas version.
If we are looking to solve for molar mass
M
g
, we may merely rewrite the above equations to yield
M
g
=
N
a
K
b
T
(
Δ
m
a
b
s
o
l
-
Δ
m
a
p
p
)
p
Δ
V
The molecular weight (i.e., the mass of one single molecule) may be found by simply using the definition for molar mass. Molar mass is the mass of one mole (i.e., Avogadro’s number) of a substance.
m
1
=
M
g
N
A
where
m
1
is the mass of a single molecule of the gas
Equation C may be similarly arranged to solve for temperature.
As such, what applicant is claiming is merely rearranging known formulas to solve for a particular unknown variable when the other variables are known.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the well-known gravimetric method and ideal gas law to determine pressure, temperature, or molecule weight of a gas, as set forth above, to increase accuracy. Where there are three variables (pressure, temperature, and molecule weight of a gas or molar mass), if two are known then the third may be calculated using the above-mentioned equation(s). As such, one may use the most accurate instruments for two of the variables and calculate the third, increasing accuracy.
Regarding claim 139:Glaser, Scheucher, and the Examiner’s reliance on scientific theory render obvious all the limitations of claim 138, as mentioned above.The claim 138 rejection above also teaches (see claim 138 rejection above):
wherein the at least one gas law equation is
p
=
N
a
K
b
T
(
Δ
m
a
b
s
o
l
-
Δ
m
a
p
p
)
Δ
V
M
g
The examiner notes that the addition of R(T) is the well-known virial version of the ideal gas law which accounts for compressibility.
Regarding claim 142:Glaser, Scheucher, and the Examiner’s reliance on scientific theory render obvious all the limitations of claim 138, as mentioned above.Glaser also teaches:
wherein the measuring of the absolute mass difference and the effective masses is performed in the same vessel (e.g., FIG. 1; pages 46-47)
Regarding claim 143:Glaser, Scheucher, and the Examiner’s reliance on scientific theory render obvious all the limitations of claim 138, as mentioned above.Glaser also teaches:
wherein determining the absolute mass difference and the effective mass difference between the buoyancy artifacts, is performed using a processor that receives information from a mass balance (e.g., FIG.3; page 47)
Regarding claim 144:Glaser, Scheucher, and the Examiner’s reliance on scientific theory render obvious all the limitations of claim 138, as mentioned above.Glaser, Scheucher, and the Examiner’s reliance on scientific theory render obvious:
determining the molecular weight of the gas by chemical analysis and determination of relevant isotopic concentrations
As set forth in the claim 138 rejection, to calculate a desired “unknown” variable in the equation, the other variables must be known. As such, if the molecular weight of the gas is not the variable being determined by the equation (i.e., it is being used as a “known”), it must already be determined. The examiner takes Official notice that it is well-known in the art to determine the molecular weight of a gas by chemical analysis and determination of relevant isotopic concentrations.
Regarding claim 145:Glaser, Scheucher, and the Examiner’s reliance on scientific theory render obvious all the limitations of claim 138, as mentioned above.Glaser, Scheucher, and the Examiner’s reliance on scientific theory render obvious:
determining the temperature by methods traceable to the definition of the Kelvin, or traceable to ITS90 with correction to thermodynamic temperature
ITS90 was created to calibrate temperature sensors. The examiner takes Official notice that it is well-known in the art to determine temperature using a temperature sensor calibrated using ITS90. Further, as mentioned in the claim 138 and 144 rejections, to calculate a desired “unknown” variable in the equation, the other variables must be known. As such, if the temperature is not the variable being determined by the equation (i.e., it is being used as a “known”), it must already be determined (e.g., by a temperature sensor).
Regarding claim 147:Glaser teaches a pressure realization system for realization of the Pascal, comprising:
at least a pair of buoyancy artifacts having substantially the same nominal mass, substantially the same surface area, and different volumes defining a volume difference (e.g., abstract, pages 46-47);
a vacuum mass comparator that includes a chamber, a pump coupled to the chamber to provide vacuum conditions, and a mass balance capable of comparing at least the two buoyancy artifacts within the chamber (e.g., abstract, pages 46-47);
a gas supply system coupled to the chamber for supplying a gas into the chamber to provide gas pressure conditions (e.g., abstract, pages 46-48; atmospheric gas);
a processor that is operatively coupled to the vacuum mass comparator in order to receive data therefrom (e.g., FIG.3; page 47)Glaser fails to teach:
the processor being configured to generate a pressure reference value based on: an absolute mass difference between the buoyancy artifacts measured by the vacuum mass comparator, an effective mass difference between the buoyancy artifacts measured by the vacuum mass comparator under the gas pressure conditions, the Boltzmann constant, the volume difference, the molecular weight of the gas at the pressure condition, and the real gas coefficients of the gas; and the temperature at the pressure conditionScheucher teaches:
measuring or determining two variables selected from a pressure of the system ([0084]), a temperature of the system ([0084]), and the molecule weight of the gas
determining the gas density based on the two determined variables, using at least one gas law equation ([0084])
As taught by Glaser
For an object of volume V immersed in a fluid of density ρ, there is a buoyancy force:
F = ρV
Apparent mass mapp is true mass mtrue minus buoyancy force:
mapp = mtrue – ρgV
in a vacuum fluid density ρ is zero so the apparent mass is the true mass and volume doesn’t matter as ρV = 0
The true / absolute mass difference between two masses (performed in the vacuum)
is merely Δmabsol = mA,true – mB,true
If the process is repeated with a gas present instead of a vacuum, the difference in mass between mass A and mass B changes as ρ is non-zero and, thus, V is also relevant.
Thus the difference in mass with a gas “g” present is
Δmapp = (mA,true – ρgVA) - (mB,true – ρgVB)
This can be rewritten to determine the density of the gas
ρg = (Δmabsol - Δmapp)/ΔV
Scheucher teaches that the gas density may also be calculated using known pressure, known temperature, and the ideal gas law or virial equations.
As for MPEP 2144.02 (Reliance on Scientific Theory), the examiner notes the following, which relies only on well-known mathematical formulas, rearrangement, and substitution.
Gas density ρg is defined as mass over volume and the mass of the gas may be written as the number of moles (n) * molar mass (Mg)
so gas density may also be written as
ρg = (n*Mg) / V (A)
where n is the number of moles of gas in the volume V and Mg is the molar mass of the gas (mass per mole)
The ideal gas law in molecular form is
pV = nRT
however, R may be rewritten to Avogadro’s number multiplied by the Boltzmann constant, yielding
pV = NAKBTn (B)
Where p is pressure, V is volume occupied by the gas, Na is Avogadro’s number, Kb is the Boltzmann constant, T is the temperature, and n is the number of moles of gas. This is a well-known version of the ideal gas law.
Rearranging equation B to solve for n and inserting it into equation A yields:
ρ
g
=
p
M
g
N
a
K
b
T
As set forth above,
ρg = (Δmabsol - Δmapp)/ΔV
Thus,
Δ
m
a
b
s
o
l
-
Δ
m
a
p
p
Δ
V
=
p
M
g
N
a
K
b
T
Solving for pressure yields equation (C)
p
=
N
a
K
b
T
(
Δ
m
a
b
s
o
l
-
Δ
m
a
p
p
)
Δ
V
M
g
This is the ideal gas version.
If we are looking to solve for molar mass
M
g
, we may merely rewrite the above equations to yield
M
g
=
N
a
K
b
T
(
Δ
m
a
b
s
o
l
-
Δ
m
a
p
p
)
p
Δ
V
The molecular weight (i.e., the mass of one single molecule) may be found by simply using the definition for molar mass. Molar mass is the mass of one mole (i.e., Avogadro’s number) of a substance.
m
1
=
M
g
N
A
where
m
1
is the mass of a single molecule of the gas
Equation C may be similarly arranged to solve for temperature.
As such, what applicant is claiming is merely rearranging known formulas to solve for a particular unknown variable when the other variables are known.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the well-known gravimetric method and ideal gas law to determine pressure, temperature, or molecule weight of a gas, as set forth above, to increase accuracy. Where there are three variables (pressure, temperature, and molecule weight of a gas or molar mass), if two are known then the third may be calculated using the above-mentioned equation(s). As such, one may use the most accurate instruments for two of the variables and calculate the third, increasing accuracy.
Regarding claim 148:Glaser, Scheucher, and the Examiner’s reliance on scientific theory render obvious all the limitations of claim 147, as mentioned above.The claim 147 rejection above also teaches (see claim 147 rejection above):
wherein the processor is configured to determine the pressure based on a gas law equation selected from:
p
=
N
a