DETAILED ACTION
Non-Final Rejection
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use.
Arrangement of the Specification
As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading:
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT.
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM.
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.
(1) Field of the Invention.
(2) Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S).
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING. (See MPEP § 2422.03 and 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825). A “Sequence Listing” is required on paper if the application discloses a nucleotide or amino acid sequence as defined in 37 CFR 1.821(a) and if the required “Sequence Listing” is not submitted as an electronic document either on read-only optical disc or as a text file via the patent electronic system.
Drawings
The drawings (fig. 5) are objected to because The items 101-105 inside the boxes should be changed by 101-detection of a resistance behavior, 102- detecting a common operating behavior, 103- a determination of a substitute model, 104- a determination of the strand-related operating behavior, 105- a reaction process.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Each of claims1-15 falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP § 2106.03. Each of claims 1-13 fall within category of process; Each of claim 15 falls within category of machine, i.e., a “concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices.” Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1348–49, 111 USPQ2d at 1719 (quoting Burr v. Duryee, 68 U.S. 531, 570, 17 L. Ed. 650, 657 (1863)); and claims 14 is directed to a “computer-program product” and therefore falls within category of manufacture.1
Regarding Claims 1-13
Step 2A – Prong 1
Exemplary claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea of processing operating data and determine strand-related operating behavior.
The abstract idea is set forth or described by the following italicized limitations:
1. A method for processing operating data of a flow arrangement of an apparatus with a first conveying line, which has a first flow resistor, and a second conveying line, which has a second flow resistor and is connected in parallel with the first conveying line for a fluid flow in the flow arrangement, wherein the method comprises:
detecting a resistance behavior of the flow arrangement with a first reference behavior of the first flow resistor and a second reference behavior of the second flow resistor,
detecting a common operating behavior with at least one common operating parameter of the first conveying line and the second conveying line as a function of a current operating situation,
determining a substitute model for determining a strand-related operating behavior of the flow arrangement, in which a mutual influence of the first conveying line and the second conveying line is taken into account as a function of the resistance behavior and the common operating behavior,
determining the strand-related operating behavior of the flow arrangement for the current operating situation as a function of the substitute model.
The italicized limitations above represent a mental step (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper or a mental judgment) . Therefore, the italicized limitations fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
For example, the limitations “determining a substitute model [..]; determining the strand-related operating behavior [..] ” are mental step (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper or a mental judgment), see 2106.04(a)(2). Limitations are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (discussing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)).
.
Step 2A – Prong 2
Claims 1 does not include additional elements (when considered individually, as an ordered combination, and/or within the claim as a whole) that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
For example, first additional first element is “ detecting a resistance behavior of the flow arrangement with a first reference behavior of the first flow resistor and a second reference behavior of the second flow resistor, detecting a common operating behavior with at least one common operating parameter of the first conveying line and the second conveying line as a function of a current operating situation,” to be performed, at least in-part, these additional elements appear to only add insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering) and only generally link the abstract idea to a particular field. Therefore, this element individually or as a whole does not provide a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
For example, 2nd additional first element is “an apparatus with a first conveying line, which has a first flow resistor, and a second conveying line, which has a second flow resistor and is connected in parallel with the first conveying line for a fluid flow in the flow arrangement,”. This elements amount to mere use of a generic device, which is well understood routine and conventional (see background of current discloser and IDS and PTO 892) and this element individually does not provide a practical application. In view of the above, the “additional element” individually or combine does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. see MPEP 2106.05(d).
In view of the above, the two “additional elements” individually do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea.
Step 2B
Claims1 does not include additional elements, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. For example, the limitation of Claim 1 contains additional elements that are, i.e. an apparatus, conveying lines, flow resistors”, generic devices, which are well understood, routine and conventional (see background of current discloser and IDS and PTO 892) and MPEP 2106.05(d))The reasons for reaching this conclusion are substantially the same as the reasons given above in § Step 2A – Prong 2. For brevity only, those reasons are not repeated in this section. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(g) and MPEP §§2106.05(II).
Dependent Claims 2-3 and 5-13
Dependent claims 2-13 fail to cure this deficiency of independent claim 1 (set forth above) and are rejected accordingly. Particularly, claims 2-13 recite limitations that represent (in addition to the limitations already noted above) either the abstract idea or an additional element that is merely extra-solution activity, mere use of instructions and/or generic computer component(s) as a tool to implement the abstract idea, and/or merely limits the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
For example, the limitations of Claims 2-3, 6-7and 11: recites a generic device with generic components, which is well understood routine and conventional (see background of current discloser and IDS and PTO 892) and this element individually does not provide a practical application. In view of the above, the “additional element” individually or combine does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. see MPEP 2106.05(d)
For Examples, claims 5 and 12: only add insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering).
For example, the limitations of Claims 8-10 and 13 are a combination of a mathematical concepts (i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships or rules or idea) and a mental step (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper).
Dependent Claims 4
For example, the limitations of Claim 4 contain limitations which are patent eligible subject matter.
Regarding Claims 14-15
Claims 14-15 contains language similar to claims 1-13 as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, and for reasons similar to those discussed above, claims 10-11 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101(abstract idea). Furthermore, claim contain the additional elements “a control device, a flow system”. This elements amount to mere use of a generic device, which is well understood routine and conventional (see background of current discloser and IDS and PTO 892) and this element individually does not provide a practical application. In view of the above, the “additional element” individually or combine does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. see MPEP 2106.05(d).
Examiner Notes
Regarding claims 1-15, specifically Claim 1, There is no prior art rejection over claims, however there is 101 rejections, specifically claim 1, limitations are “determining a substitute model for determining a strand-related operating behavior of the flow arrangement, in which a mutual influence of the first conveying line and the second conveying line is taken into account as a function of the resistance behavior and the common operating behavior, determining the strand-related operating behavior of the flow arrangement for the current operating situation as a function of the substitute model.”
Examiner best understood, based fig. 3, “strand related operating behavior” is a “line graph model”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
a) Hodgson et al. (US 2016/013004) disclose a preferred procedure carried out within the scope of step B), wherein this procedure is referred to below as a first embodiment variant of step B). In step B.1) the at least one injector is opened. This takes place so that the flow resistance for air that flows out of the conveying line is as low as possible. the at least one injector is closed. This is done so that the flow resistance for air that exits the conveying line is in a predefined range. The closing of the injector is carried out only if the injector was opened before step B.i). If the injector is already closed (when the device is activated), the injector can remain in the closed state. this injector is permeable both to the fluid and to air. However, in the closed state, the injector also has an increased (defined) flow resistance to air, with the result that a (slight) pressure increase occurs in the pressure line section if the fluid is conveyed into the conveying line and air is forced out of the conveying line through the injector. Such an injector has, in the closed state, a continuous flow path configured such that air can pass through, while the fluid (for example owing to capillary effects) cannot pass through this flow path.
b) Sweeney et al. (US 8,290,631) disclose Example methods and apparatus to arbitrate valve position sensor redundancy are disclosed. A disclosed example method comprises measuring a first value representative of a position of a valve, measuring a second value representative of the position of the valve, computing a first estimated position of the valve, selecting one of the first and second values based on the first estimated position, and generating a first valve control signal for the valve based on the selected one of the first and second values.
c) Kuhrt et al. (US 6,532,972) disclose invention consists of determining changes in the flow resistance of individual conveying lines, which occur suddenly or slowly during the operation, for example, due to blockages during the transport of dispersions or in the case of leaks in a conveying line. If a permitted control value range is set for the valve used, the above-mentioned disturbances can be noted in good time and the conveying lines in question switched out.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD K ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)270-0328. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m..
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, Shelby A Turner can be reached at 571-272-6334. 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.
/MOHAMMAD K ISLAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
1 Applicant’s specification defines “computer program product” as “the computer program product may be stored on a computer-readable storage medium such as a data disk, a removable drive, a volatile or non-volatile memory, or a built-in memory/processor” (page 10, lines 25–34).