DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to communication filed on April 14, 2026.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on April 14, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Amendments filed on April 14, 2026 have been entered.
Claims 1 and 10-12 have been amended.
Claims 2 and 9 remain canceled.
Claims 3-8 and 13-20 have been canceled.
Claims 21-35 have been added.
Claims 1, 10-12 and 21-35 have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Although applicant has not presented arguments with respect to the objections to the claims raised in the previous office action, the examiner submits that in view of the amendments to the claims addressing the informalities raised in the previous office action, the objections to the claims have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new objections to the claims are presented to address additional informalities introduced by the amendments.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks (p. 12-14), filed on 04/14/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1 and 10-12 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (p. 12) that amended claim 1 recites the step of determining, according to the volume consumption of the natural gas of the user within the metering period and the heat value of the natural gas used by the user, an energy consumption of the natural gas of the user within the metering period for performing energy settlement at the user side in response to the volume consumption data received from the gas volume collecting apparatus. That is, in the technical solution as defined in amended claim 1, the energy consumption of the natural gas of the user within the metering period is determined with the specific technical purpose of performing energy settlement at the user side in response to the volume consumption data received from the gas volume collecting apparatus (i.e., a physical device), which specifies the practical application. Thus, Applicant respectfully submits that the claimed invention is not merely using computers as tools to perform the abstract idea, but reciting an unconventional technical process that integrates the judicial exception recited in amended claim 1 into a practical application of that exception by performing energy settlement at the user side in response to the volume consumption data received from the gas volume collecting apparatus, to achieve a specific technical purpose in energy metering.
These arguments are not persuasive.
First, the examiner submits that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, the claimed invention recites a series of mental processes/mathematical concepts used for manipulating data in order to determine a value (i.e., an energy consumption of the natural gas of the user within the metering period), while using generic computer components (e.g., server), adding extra-solution activities (e.g., mere data gathering, selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated) and/or link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g., energy metering), which as described in the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence: “Even if the judicial exception is narrow (e.g., a particular mathematical formula or detailed mental process), the Court has held that a claim may not preempt that judicial exception” (see “III. Update on Certain Areas of the USPTO’s Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance Applicable to AI Inventions”, section “A. Evaluation of Whether a Claim Is Directed to a Judicial Exception (Step 2A)”)
Furthermore, the examiner submits that according to applicant’s disclosure: “The present application relates to the field of data processing technology and, in particular, to an energy metering method, apparatus, device and system, and a storage medium” (see specification at [0002]), and as explained in the current Office’s guidance “For data, mere “manipulation of basic mathematical constructs [i.e.,] the paradigmatic ‘abstract idea,’” has not been deemed a transformation. CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 n.2, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1355, 1360, 31 USPQ2d 1754, 1755, 1759 (Fed. Cir. 1994))” (see MPEP 2106.05(c)).
Additionally, the examiner submits that the limitation “determining, according to the volume consumption of the natural gas of the user within the metering period and the heat value of the natural gas used by the user, an energy consumption of the natural gas of the user within the metering period for performing energy settlement at the user side in response to the volume consumption data received from the gas volume collecting apparatus”, under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, covers performance of the limitation using mental processes and/or mathematical concepts to manipulate data and obtain additional information (i.e., an energy consumption of the natural gas of the user; see specification at [0061]-[0064]) while also reciting an intended use that falls under the grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity as described in the Office guidelines:
“The phrase “methods of organizing human activity” is used to describe concepts relating to:
fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk);
commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations); and
managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
The Supreme Court has identified a number of concepts falling within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping as abstract ideas … The term “fundamental” is not used in the sense of necessarily being “old” or “well-known.” See, e.g., OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1364, 115 U.S.P.Q.2d 1090, 1092 (Fed Cir. 2015) (a new method of price optimization was found to be a fundamental economic concept) …” (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Regarding the gas volume collecting apparatus, the examiner submits that in light of the specification (see specification at [0040]-[0042]), this physical device is used for extra-solution activities (e.g., mere data gathering, selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated), and as indicated in the MPEP: “Use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not integrate a judicial exception or provide significantly more” (see MPEP 2106.05(b)).
Applicant further argues (p. 13) that in the existing energy metering methods, settlement based on volume is still used for end users, and different settlement methods between upstream and downstream may cause gas transmission difference. In contrast, in the technical solution as defined in amended claim 1, the energy consumption of the natural gas of the user within the metering period is determined according to the volume consumption of the natural gas of the user within the metering period and the heat value of the natural gas used by the user, for performing energy settlement at the user side in response to the volume consumption data received from the gas volume collecting apparatus. In this way, according to paragraph [0065] of the specification, the energy metering of the natural gas used by the user terminal can be realized, thus reducing the natural gas transmission difference. Thus, the above-mentioned additional elements a)-e) provide for reduced natural gas transmission difference, and integrate the abstract idea into a practical application when considered in combination because amended claim 1 reflects an improvement in the technical field of energy metering.
These arguments are not persuasive.
The examiner submits that applicant seeks patent protection for a business practice in the energy metering field (e.g., billing customers for natural gas consumption using a series of mental/mathematical steps to manipulate collected data) which according to the Office guidance is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. For instance, the examiner submits that as described in the MPEP: “Examples of limitations that the courts have described as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception include: … vi. Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)” (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Moreover, the examiner submits that as explained in the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility: “… in Parker v. Flook, the Court found that the claim recited a mathematical formula. This determination was not altered by the fact that the math was being used to solve an engineering problem (i.e., updating an alarm limit during catalytic conversion processes)” (p. 3).
Also, the examiner submits that according to the current Office’s guidance: “The Supreme Court’s decisions make it clear that judicial exceptions need not be old or long-prevalent, and that even newly discovered or novel judicial exceptions are still exceptions. For example, the mathematical formula in Flook, the laws of nature in Mayo, and the isolated DNA in Myriad were all novel or newly discovered, but nonetheless were considered by the Supreme Court to be judicial exceptions because they were “‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that lie beyond the domain of patent protection.” Myriad, 569 U.S. 576, 589, 106 USPQ2d at 1976, 1978 (noting that Myriad discovered the BRCA1 and BRCA1 genes and quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. 71, 101 USPQ2d at 1965); Flook, 437 U.S. at 591-92, 198 USPQ2d at 198 (“the novelty of the mathematical algorithm is not a determining factor at all”); Mayo, 566 U.S. 73-74, 78, 101 USPQ2d 1966, 1968 (noting that the claims embody the researcher’s discoveries of laws of nature). The Supreme Court’s cited rationale for considering even “just discovered” judicial exceptions as exceptions stems from the concern that “without this exception, there would be considerable danger that the grant of patents would ‘tie up’ the use of such tools and thereby ‘inhibit future innovation premised upon them.’” Myriad, 569 U.S. at 589, 106 USPQ2d at 1978-79 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 86, 101 USPQ2d at 1971). See also Myriad, 569 U.S. at 591, 106 USPQ2d at 1979 (“Groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant discovery does not by itself satisfy the §101 inquiry.”). The Federal Circuit has also applied this principle, for example, when holding a concept of using advertising as an exchange or currency to be an abstract idea, despite the patentee’s arguments that the concept was “new”. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 714-15, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1753-54 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Cf. Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea”) (emphasis in original)” (see MPEP 2106.04).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language “An energy metering method, applied to a server communicatively connected to a gas volume collecting apparatus at a user side and a gas source heat value detecting apparatus at a gas source side, comprising:” should read “An energy metering method[[,]] applied to a server communicatively connected to a gas volume collecting apparatus at a user side and a gas source heat value detecting apparatus at a gas source side, the energy metering method comprising:” in order to clarify the recited subject matter.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language “An energy metering device communicatively connected to a gas volume collecting apparatus at a user side and a gas source heat value detecting apparatus at a gas source side, comprising:” should read “An energy metering device communicatively connected to a gas volume collecting apparatus at a user side and a gas source heat value detecting apparatus at a gas source side, the energy metering device comprising:” in order to provide appropriate antecedence basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language should read
“An energy metering system comprising:
[[a]]the gas volume collecting apparatus at [[a]]the user side and [[a]]the gas source heat value detecting apparatus at [[a]]the gas source side, the gas volume collecting apparatus and the gas source heat value detecting apparatus are respectively communicatively connected with an energy metering apparatus;
the gas volume collecting apparatus is configured to meter [[a]]the volume consumption of the natural gas at a user terminal;
the gas source heat value detecting apparatus is configured to detect [[a]]the heat value of [[a]]the gas source; and
the energy metering apparatus is configured to execute the energy metering method according to claim 1” in order to provide appropriate antecedence basis (claim 12 depends from claim 1).
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.
Claims 1, 10-12 and 21-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, the examiner submits that under Step 1 of the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence (see also 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance) for evaluating claims for eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, the claim is to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Continuing with the analysis, under Step 2A - Prong One of the test (see italic text):
the limitation “determining, by receiving heat value data of various gas sources detected by the gas source heat value detecting apparatus, heat values of the various gas sources published in each publishing period within the metering period” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, covers performance of the limitation using mental processes and/or mathematical concepts to obtain a result (i.e., heat values of the various gas sources; see specification at [0051]-[0055]). Except for the recitation of the extra-solution activities (e.g., source/type of data being evaluated, see specification at [0053]) and/or the particular technological environment or field of use, the limitation in the context of the claim mainly refers to performing mental evaluations and/or applying mathematical concepts to manipulate data and obtain a result.
the limitation “determining a heat value of the natural gas used by the user according to a gas source supply structure corresponding to the user and the heat values of the various gas sources published in each publishing period,” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, covers performance of the limitation using mental processes and/or mathematical concepts to manipulate data and obtain additional information (i.e., a heat value of the natural gas used by the user; see specification at [0056]-[0060], [0068], [0078], [0081], [0086], [0092], [0094], [0098], [0100]). Except for the recitation of the extra-solution activities (e.g., source/type of data being evaluated) and/or the particular technological environment or field of use, the limitation in the context of the claim mainly refers to performing mental evaluations and/or applying mathematical concepts to manipulate data and obtain a result.
the limitation “determining, according to the volume consumption of the natural gas of the user within the metering period and the heat value of the natural gas used by the user, an energy consumption of the natural gas of the user within the metering period for performing energy settlement at the user side in response to the volume consumption data received from the gas volume collecting apparatus” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, covers performance of the limitation using mental processes and/or mathematical concepts to manipulate data and obtain additional information (i.e., an energy consumption of the natural gas of the user; see specification at [0061]-[0064]). Except for the recitation of the extra-solution activities (e.g., source/type of data being evaluated, intended use that also falls under the grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity – see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)) and/or the particular technological environment or field of use, the limitation in the context of the claim mainly refers to performing mental evaluations and/or applying mathematical concepts to manipulate data and obtain a result.
Therefore, the claim recites a judicial exception under Step 2A - Prong One of the test.
Furthermore, under Step 2A - Prong Two of the test, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements recited in the claim (see non-italic text):
“An energy metering method, applied to a server communicatively connected to a gas volume collecting apparatus at a user side and a gas source heat value detecting apparatus at a gas source side” generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., energy metering) (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) while adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer (i.e., server) as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) and generic elements (i.e., a gas volume collecting apparatus, a gas source heat value detecting apparatus) used for extra-solution activities (e.g., mere data gathering, source/type of data to be manipulated; see specification at [0040]-[0042], [0053]) (see MPEP 2106.05(g));
“obtaining, by receiving volume consumption data collected by the gas volume collecting apparatus, a volume consumption of natural gas of a user within a metering period” adds extra-solution activities (e.g., mere data gathering, source/type of data to be manipulated) using elements recited at a high level of generality (i.e., the gas volume collecting apparatus, see specification at [0040]-[0042], [0044]-[0050]) (see MPEP 2106.05(g));
“determining, by receiving heat value data of various gas sources detected by the gas source heat value detecting apparatus, heat values of the various gas sources published in each publishing period within the metering period” adds extra-solution activities (e.g., mere data gathering, source/type of data to be manipulated) using elements recited at a high level of generality (i.e., the gas source heat value detecting apparatus, see specification at [0053]) (see MPEP 2106.05(g)); and
“the gas source supply structure being used to indicate a type, a quantity, and a gas supply mode of a gas source of the natural gas used by the user” adds extra-solution activities (e.g., mere data gathering, source/type of data to be manipulated) (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered individually and in combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea when considering the claim as a whole. The claim is directed to a judicial exception under Step 2A of the test.
Additionally, under Step 2B of the test, the claim does not include additional elements that, when considered individually and in combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements:
generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., energy metering), which as indicated in the MPEP: “As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible “simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application” (see MPEP 2106.05(h));
append generic computer components (i.e., a server) used to facilitate the application of the abstract idea (i.e., mere computer implementation), which as indicated in the MPEP: “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more” (see MPEP 2106.05(f), item 2); and
recite extra-solution activities (i.e., mere data gathering by selecting a particular data source/type to be manipulated) using elements recited at a high level of generality (i.e., a gas volume collecting apparatus, a gas source heat value detecting apparatus; see specification at [0040]-[0042], [0053]), which as indicated in the MPEP: “Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more in Step 2B is whether the additional elements add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The term “extra-solution activity” can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process” (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) and “Use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not integrate a judicial exception or provide significantly more” (see MPEP 2106.05(b)).
The claim, when considered as a whole, does not provide significantly more under Step 2B of the test.
Based on the analysis, the claim is not patent eligible.
Similarly, independent claims 10 and 11 are directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more as explained above with regards to claim 1.
With regards to the dependent claims they are also directed to the non-statutory subject matter because:
they just extend the abstract idea of the independent claims by additional limitations (Claims 21-35), that under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, cover performance of the limitations using mental processes and/or mathematical concepts, and
the additional elements recited in the dependent claims, when considered individually and in combination, refer to extra-solution activities (e.g., mere data gathering using a data type or source), generic computer components (see specification at [0016], [0038], [0116]) and/or field of use (Claim 12), which as indicated in the Office’s guidance do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A – Prong Two) and/or does not provide significantly more (Step 2B).
Subject Matter Not Rejected Over Prior Art
Claims 1, 10-12 and 21-35 are distinguished over the prior art of record for the following reasons:
Regarding claim 1.
Hammond (US 6517237 B1) discloses/teaches:
An energy metering method, applied to a server (Fig. 1, item 5 – “control means”) communicatively connected to a gas volume collecting apparatus (Fig. 1, item 4 – “volumetric flow meter”) at a user side and a gas source heat value detecting apparatus (Fig. 1, item 3 – “CV measurement apparatus”) at a gas source side (col. 1, lines 5-8; col. 2, lines 1-18: a method of metering consumed energy in the form of gas is based on measurement of gas volume performed at point of delivery to the consumer (see col. 1, lines 42-52) and energy value provided at the gas supplier side (see also col. 1, lines 10-22)), comprising:
obtaining, by receiving volume consumption data collected by the gas volume collecting apparatus, a volume consumption of natural gas of a user within a metering period (col. 1, line 42-45; col. 3, lines 1-12: a volume of the gas supplied to a consumer over a period (see col. 6, lines 59-67) is measured by the volumetric flow meter, the gas being natural gas (see col. 4, lines 37-43));
determining a heat value of the natural gas used by the user (col. 1, line 46; col. 3, lines 1-12: calorific value of the gas supplied to the consumer over a period (see col. 6, lines 59-67) is measured);
determining, according to the volume consumption of the natural gas of the user within the metering period and the heat value of the natural gas used by the user, an energy consumption of the natural gas of the user within the metering period for performing energy settlement at the user side in response to the volume consumption data received from the gas volume collecting apparatus (col. 1, lines 47-52; col. 6, lines 59-67: energy value of the supplied gas is calculated based on measured volume and calorific value, examiner interprets energy value being used for billing purposes (see col. 1, lines 10-13)).
Dong (CN 103134619 A, IDS reference, see translation) discloses:
“claims analyzer, based on gas metering device, method and system of heat value and gas metering management platform. heat value analyzer for analyzing the gas heat value according to a predetermined analysis period, obtaining the analysis result, the heat value information transmission instruction of analysis result, for remote gas metering device or remote management platform. the gas metering device for measuring the mass or volume of gas to obtain the gas quality metric, receiving gas heat value information, and according to the heat value information of the quality metric and the receiving, calculating the thermal value metering of fuel gas. The invention example embodiment takes as fuel gas heat value reference can varies with gas components adjusting the benchmark, achieving accurate and fair gas metering” (Abstract: a gas metering measures volume of gas to obtain a gas quality metric, analyzes a gas heat value according to a predetermined analysis period to obtain heat value information, which varies according to gas components (see also [0024]), and calculates the thermal value metering of fuel gas (see also [0004]-[0006])).
The closest prior art of record, taken individually or in combination, fail to teach or suggest:
“determining, by receiving heat value data of various gas sources detected by the gas source heat value detecting apparatus, heat values of the various gas sources published in each publishing period within the metering period;
determining a heat value of the natural gas used by the user according to a gas source supply structure corresponding to the user and the heat values of the various gas sources published in each publishing period, the gas source supply structure being used to indicate a type, a quantity, and a gas supply mode of a gas source of the natural gas used by the user”
in combination with all other limitations within the claim, as claimed and defined by the applicant.
Regarding claim 10.
Hammond (US 6517237 B1) discloses/teaches:
An energy metering device communicatively connected to a gas volume collecting apparatus (Fig. 1, item 4 – “volumetric flow meter”) at a user side and a gas source heat value detecting apparatus (Fig. 1, item 3 – “CV measurement apparatus”) at a gas source side (col. 1, lines 5-8; col. 2, lines 1-18: a method of metering consumed energy in the form of gas is based on measurement of gas volume performed at point of delivery to the consumer (see col. 1, lines 42-52) and energy value provided at the gas supplier side (see also col. 1, lines 10-22)), comprising:
a memory configured to store program instructions (Fig. 1, item 5 – “control means”; col. 3, lines 1-7; col. 6, lines 44-48: control means of the meter is a microprocessor or a computer, which implies memory capabilities storing program instructions to perform the metering of the consumed energy);
a processor configured to call and execute the program instructions stored in the memory (Fig. 1, item 5 – “control means”; col. 3, lines 1-7; col. 6, lines 44-48: control means of the meter is a microprocessor or a computer, which implies processor capabilities to execute the program instructions stored in memory) to:
obtain, by receiving volume consumption data collected by the gas volume collecting apparatus, a volume consumption of natural gas of a user within a metering period (col. 1, line 42-45; col. 3, lines 1-12: a volume of the gas supplied to a consumer over a period (see col. 6, lines 59-67) is measured by the volumetric flow meter, the gas being natural gas (see col. 4, lines 37-43));
determine a heat value of the natural gas used by the user (col. 1, line 46; col. 3, lines 1-12: calorific value of the gas supplied to the consumer over a period (see col. 6, lines 59-67) is measured);
determine, according to the volume consumption of the natural gas of the user within the metering period and the heat value of the natural gas used by the user, an energy consumption of the natural gas of the user within the metering period for performing energy settlement at the user side in response to the volume consumption data received from the gas volume colleting apparatus (col. 1, lines 47-52; col. 6, lines 59-67: energy value of the supplied gas is calculated based on measured volume and calorific value, examiner interprets energy value being used for billing purposes (see col. 1, lines 10-13)).
Dong (CN 103134619 A, IDS reference, see translation) discloses:
“claims analyzer, based on gas metering device, method and system of heat value and gas metering management platform. heat value analyzer for analyzing the gas heat value according to a predetermined analysis period, obtaining the analysis result, the heat value information transmission instruction of analysis result, for remote gas metering device or remote management platform. the gas metering device for measuring the mass or volume of gas to obtain the gas quality metric, receiving gas heat value information, and according to the heat value information of the quality metric and the receiving, calculating the thermal value metering of fuel gas. The invention example embodiment takes as fuel gas heat value reference can varies with gas components adjusting the benchmark, achieving accurate and fair gas metering” (Abstract: a gas metering measures volume of gas to obtain a gas quality metric, analyzes a gas heat value according to a predetermined analysis period to obtain heat value information, which varies according to gas components (see also [0024]), and calculates the thermal value metering of fuel gas (see also [0004]-[0006])).
The closest prior art of record, taken individually or in combination, fail to teach or suggest:
“determine, by receiving heat value data of various gas sources detected by the gas source heat value detecting apparatus, heat values of the various gas sources published in each publishing period within the metering period; and
determine a heat value of the natural gas used by the user according to a gas source supply structure corresponding to the user and the heat values of the various gas sources published in each publishing period, the gas source supply structure being used to indicate a type, a quantity, and a gas supply mode of a gas source of the natural gas used by the user”
in combination with all other limitations within the claim, as claimed and defined by the applicant.
Regarding claim 11.
Hammond (US 6517237 B1) discloses/teaches:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, wherein the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium stores a computer program, and when the computer program is executed by a processor (Fig. 1, item 5 – “control means”; col. 3, lines 1-7; col. 6, lines 44-48: control means of a meter for metering consumed energy in the form of gas (see col. 1, lines 5-8, 30-41) corresponds to a microprocessor or a computer, which implies memory capabilities storing program instructions to be performed by a processor), the processor is enabled to:
obtain, by receiving volume consumption data collected by a gas volume collecting apparatus (Fig. 1, item 4 – “volumetric flow meter”) at a user side, a volume consumption of natural gas of a user within a metering period (col. 1, line 42-45; col. 3, lines 1-12: a volume of the gas supplied to a consumer over a period (see col. 6, lines 59-67) is measured by the volumetric flow meter, the gas being natural gas (see col. 4, lines 37-43));
determine a heat value of the natural gas used by the user (col. 1, line 46; col. 3, lines 1-12: calorific value of the gas supplied to the consumer over a period (see col. 6, lines 59-67) is measured);
determine, according to the volume consumption of the natural gas of the user within the metering period and the heat value of the natural gas used by the user, an energy consumption of the natural gas of the user within the metering period for performing energy settlement at the user side in response to the volume consumption data received from the gas volume collecting apparatus (col. 1, lines 47-52; col. 6, lines 59-67: energy value of the supplied gas is calculated based on measured volume and calorific value, examiner interprets energy value being used for billing purposes (see col. 1, lines 10-13)).
Dong (CN 103134619 A, IDS reference, see translation) discloses:
“claims analyzer, based on gas metering device, method and system of heat value and gas metering management platform. heat value analyzer for analyzing the gas heat value according to a predetermined analysis period, obtaining the analysis result, the heat value information transmission instruction of analysis result, for remote gas metering device or remote management platform. the gas metering device for measuring the mass or volume of gas to obtain the gas quality metric, receiving gas heat value information, and according to the heat value information of the quality metric and the receiving, calculating the thermal value metering of fuel gas. The invention example embodiment takes as fuel gas heat value reference can varies with gas components adjusting the benchmark, achieving accurate and fair gas metering” (Abstract: a gas metering measures volume of gas to obtain a gas quality metric, analyzes a gas heat value according to a predetermined analysis period to obtain heat value information, which varies according to gas components (see also [0024]), and calculates the thermal value metering of fuel gas (see also [0004]-[0006])).
The closest prior art of record, taken individually or in combination, fail to teach or suggest:
“determine, by receiving heat value data of various gas sources detected by a gas source heat value detecting apparatus at a gas source side, heat values of the various gas sources published in each publishing period within the metering period; and
determine a heat value of the natural gas used by the user according to a gas source supply structure corresponding to the user and the heat values of the various gas sources published in each publishing period, the gas source supply structure being used to indicate a type, a quantity, and a gas supply mode of a gas source of the natural gas used by the user”
in combination with all other limitations within the claim, as claimed and defined by the applicant.
Regarding claims 12 and 21-35.
They are also distinguished over the prior art of record due to their dependency.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Marathe; Sharad M., US 4306293 A, Energy monitoring system
Reference discloses an energy monitoring system for measuring temperature differential at the inlet and outlet of a consuming unit as heat usage and using equal fluid flow among several units for billing customers.
Matter; Daniel et al., US 20060179936 A1, Thermal gas flowmeter comprising a gas quality indicator
Reference discloses measuring gas consumption by determining mass flow signals and a gas type using tables of properties of known gases.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINA CORDERO whose telephone number is (571)272-9969. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 am - 6:00 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, 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.
/LINA CORDERO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights