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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to applicant’s response received on 02/24/2026.
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1:
According to the first part of the analysis, in the instant case, claims 1-9 is directed to a grain particle granulometry measurement system, claims 10-11 is directed to a method for measuring a grain particle granulometry, and claims 12-13 is directed to a calibration method. Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Regarding claim 10:
A method for measuring the grain particle granulometry, comprising the steps of:
measuring the vibration characteristics caused by the impact of the grain flow through a vibration measurement device; and
calculating the grain particle granulometry in the grain flow, based on the measured vibration characteristics, wherein the step of calculating the grain particle granulometry comprises inserting the vibration characteristics into a predefined mathematical model.
Step 2A Prong 1:
“measuring the vibration characteristics caused by the impact of the grain flow through a vibration measurement device” is directed to math because the impact and subsequent vibrations are described using mathematical equations derived from physics, such as those governing oscillations, wave propagation, and solid mechanics. Since grain impact is often random, statistical methods are used to determine average grain mass flow rates. Modeling the flow can involve differential equation to determine grain velocity along a vibrating surface.
“calculating the grain particle granulometry in the grain flow, based on the measured vibration characteristics” is directed to math because differential equation is used to predict the trajectory and movement of individual particles in a vibrated flow. Fast Fourier Transform used to convert time-domain vibration data from sensors into frequency-domain data to identify the characteristic frequencies of different size particles.
“wherein the step of calculating the grain particle granulometry comprises inserting the vibration characteristics into a predefined mathematical model” is directed to math because the vibration data is used to solve complex equations that the motion and separation of particles. The mathematical modeling might use discrete element method (DEM) or hydrodynamics of multiphase media to simulate how particles of different sizes and densities react to those vibrations.
Each limitation recites in the claim is a process that, under BRI covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of a generic “sensor and measurement” which is a mere indication of the field of use. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Further, the claim recites the step of "measuring the vibration characteristics caused by the impact of the grain flow through a vibration measurement device; and calculating the grain particle granulometry in the grain flow, based on the measured vibration characteristics, wherein the step of calculating the grain particle granulometry comprises inserting the vibration characteristics into a predefined mathematical model” which as drafted, under BRI recites a mathematical calculation. The grouping of "mathematical concepts” in the 2019 PED includes "mathematical calculations" as an exemplar of an abstract idea. 2019 PEG Section |, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Thus, the recited limitation falls into the "mathematical concept" grouping of abstract ideas. This limitation also falls into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas, because the recited mathematical calculation is simple enough that it can be practically performed in the human mind, e.g., scientists and engineers have been solving the Arrhenius equation in their minds since it was first proposed in 1889.
Note that even if most humans would use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper, a slide rule, or a calculator) to help them complete the recited calculation, the use of such physical aid does not negate the mental nature of this limitation. See October Update at Section I(C)(i) and (iii).
Additional Elements:
Step 2A Prong 2:
“measuring the vibration characteristics caused by the impact of the grain flow through a vibration measurement device” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“calculating the grain particle granulometry in the grain flow, based on the measured vibration characteristics, wherein the step of calculating the grain particle granulometry comprises inserting the vibration characteristics into a predefined mathematical model” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim is merely collecting data, manipulating or analyzing the data using math and mental process, and displaying the results.
This is similar to electric power: MPEP 2106.05(h) 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).
Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. 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 integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
The claim as a whole does not meet any of the following criteria to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
An additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Step 2B:
“measuring the vibration characteristics caused by the impact of the grain flow through a vibration measurement device” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“calculating the grain particle granulometry in the grain flow, based on the measured vibration characteristics, wherein the step of calculating the grain particle granulometry comprises inserting the vibration characteristics into a predefined mathematical model” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim is therefore ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 1 is similar to claim 10 but recites a grain particle granulometry measurement system comprising: a vibration measurement device; and a processing unit connected to the vibration measurement device, wherein the vibration measurement device is configured to perform the steps as in claim 10. These additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality and do not add significantly more to the judicial exception. These elements are generic computing devices that perform generic functions. Using generic computer elements to perform an abstract idea does not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. See 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. Moreover, “the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 223; see also FairWarninglP, LLCv. latric SysInc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citation omitted) (“[T]he use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter”).
On the record before us, we are not persuaded that the hardware of claim 1 integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Nor are we persuaded that the additional elements are anything more than well-understood, routine, and conventional so as to impart subject matter eligibility to claim 1.
Claim 12:
A calibration method for a grain particle granulometry measurement system, comprising the steps of:
classifying grain samples by particle granulometry;
measuring the vibration characteristics of a vibration caused by the impact of the grain flow of each one of the grain samples through a vibration measurement device; and
creating a mathematical model, based on the measured vibration characteristics for each one of the grain samples, wherein the mathematical model is a set of equations prepared in a manner that allows the calculation of a grain particle granulometry for the grain flow whose particle granulometry is unknown.
Step 2A Prong 1:
“classifying grain samples by particle granulometry” is directed to a mental step of abstract.
“measuring the vibration characteristics of a vibration caused by the impact of the grain flow of each one of the grain samples through a vibration measurement device” is directed to math because the impact and flow of grain samples involve the application of classical mechanics principles, which are fundamentally rooted in mathematical equations (e.g., Newton's laws of motion).
“creating a mathematical model, based on the measured vibration characteristics for each one of the grain samples” is directed to math because the process of creating a mathematical model is a core tenet of applied mathematics. It involves translating real-world, physical phenomena (grain vibration) into mathematical terms (equations, functions, algorithms).
“wherein the mathematical model is a set of equations prepared in a manner that allows the calculation of a grain particle granulometry for the grain flow whose particle granulometry is unknown” is directed to math because the process involves several mathematical concepts and techniques: mathematical modeling, system of equations, statistics and probability, numerical methods, and algorithm development.
Each limitation recites in the claim is a process that, under BRI covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of a generic “sensor and measurement” which is a mere indication of the field of use. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Further, the claim recites the step of "measuring the vibration characteristics of a vibration caused by the impact of the grain flow of each one of the grain samples through a vibration measurement device; and creating a mathematical model, based on the measured vibration characteristics for each one of the grain samples, wherein the mathematical model is a set of equations prepared in a manner that allows the calculation of a grain particle granulometry for the grain flow whose particle granulometry is unknown” which as drafted, under BRI recites a mathematical calculation. The grouping of "mathematical concepts” in the 2019 PED includes "mathematical calculations" as an exemplar of an abstract idea. 2019 PEG Section |, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Thus, the recited limitation falls into the "mathematical concept" grouping of abstract ideas. This limitation also falls into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas, because the recited mathematical calculation is simple enough that it can be practically performed in the human mind, e.g., scientists and engineers have been solving the Arrhenius equation in their minds since it was first proposed in 1889.
Note that even if most humans would use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper, a slide rule, or a calculator) to help them complete the recited calculation, the use of such physical aid does not negate the mental nature of this limitation. See October Update at Section I(C)(i) and (iii).
Additional Elements:
Step 2A Prong 2:
“classifying grain samples by particle granulometry” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“measuring the vibration characteristics of a vibration caused by the impact of the grain flow of each one of the grain samples through a vibration measurement device” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“creating a mathematical model, based on the measured vibration characteristics for each one of the grain samples, wherein the mathematical model is a set of equations prepared in a manner that allows the calculation of a grain particle granulometry for the grain flow whose particle granulometry is unknown” is directed to insignificant activity and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The claim is merely collecting data, manipulating or analyzing the data using math and mental process, and displaying the results.
This is similar to electric power: MPEP 2106.05(h) 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).
Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. 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 integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
The claim as a whole does not meet any of the following criteria to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
An additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Step 2B:
“classifying grain samples by particle granulometry” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“measuring the vibration characteristics of a vibration caused by the impact of the grain flow of each one of the grain samples through a vibration measurement device” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“creating a mathematical model, based on the measured vibration characteristics for each one of the grain samples, wherein the mathematical model is a set of equations prepared in a manner that allows the calculation of a grain particle granulometry for the grain flow whose particle granulometry is unknown” is directed to insignificant activity and does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. See MPEP 2106.05(g) and 2106.05(d)(ii), third list, (iv).
Regarding claim 2, “wherein the grain flow particle granulometry is estimated, based on a mathematical model predefined in the processing unit” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claim 3, “wherein the mathematical model is defined, based on the measured vibration characteristics, based on the grain flow from samples classified by particle granulometry” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claim 4, “wherein the vibration measurement device comprises a vibration sensor, wherein the vibration sensor is an accelerometer” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claim 5, “wherein the vibration sensor is a capacitive accelerometer” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claim 6, “wherein the vibration measurement device comprises an impact plate, wherein the impacts generated by the grain flow in the vibration measurement device are generated on the impact plate” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claim 7, “wherein the impact plate is a contact surface configured to withstand impacts resulting from the grain flow and allow the vibration sensor to collect information on the impacts generated by the grain flow” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claim 8, “wherein the surface of the impact plate is inclined in relation to the direction of the grain flow” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claim 9, “wherein the device also comprises a regulator and a passageway, wherein the regulator is connected to the passageway and the passageway is connected to the impact plate, wherein the regulator limits the grain flow, and wherein the impact plate is inclined in relation to the longitudinal axis of the passageway” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claim 11, “creating a mathematical model, based on the vibration characteristics of the grain flow from samples screened individually” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claim 13, “classifying grain samples individually is performed through screening” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Hence the claims 1-13 are treated as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
-Applicant argues that the claims are directed to a specific industrial measurement system with purpose-built structural and functional components (i.e., a physical measurement system), not to an abstract mathematical concept or mental process performed generically.
Response: The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claims are directed to an abstract mathematical concept or mental process. The steps of measuring the vibration characteristics caused by the impact of the grain flow through a vibration measurement device and calculating the grain particle granulometry in the grain flow, based on the measured vibration characteristics, wherein calculating the grain particle granulometry comprises inserting the vibration characteristics into a predefined mathematical model where a computer is used to compute these steps, and the computer recited at generic level to perform these abstract-idea steps does not amount significantly more to abstract ideas. Using a computer to calculating the grain particle granulometry in the grain flow is merely applying the abstract data processing to a computer, not an improvement to human error.
Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. 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 integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
The limitations of “calculating the grain particle granulometry comprises inserting the vibration characteristics into a predefined mathematical model” encompasses mental observations or evaluations, e.g., a computer programmer’s mental calculating the grain particle granulometry and inserting the vibration characteristics into a predefined mathematical model.
-Applicant argues that the claims provide a concrete technological improvement to grain processing operations. The specification explains that the system enables automated, continuous granulometry measurement directly at the cracking mill, replacing slow, error-prone manual sieve analysis. This represents an improvement to the technological process of granulometry measurement in agricultural/industrial settings-not merely using generic equipment to apply an abstract idea.
Response: The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claims are directed to measuring the vibration characteristics caused by the impact of the grain flow through a vibration measurement device; and
calculating the grain particle granulometry in the grain flow, based on the measured vibration characteristics, wherein the step of calculating the grain particle granulometry comprises inserting the vibration characteristics into a predefined mathematical model. It is unclear how calculating the grain particle granulometry in the grain flow, based on the measured vibration characteristics, wherein the step of calculating the grain particle granulometry comprises inserting the vibration characteristics into a predefined mathematical model in improvement of the technological process of granulometry measurement in agricultural/industrial settings or improvement another technology or technical filed. According to [0038] of applicant’s specification, the vibration characteristics are information on the frequency with which the vibration sensor 119 can capture the vibration generated by the impact of the grain flow on the impact plate 120. These vibration characteristics are sent to the processing unit 150 so that the processing unit 150 can estimate the grain flow particle granulometry whose vibration characteristics were measured and according to [0035] In one embodiment, a grain flow particle granulometry is estimated, based on a mathematical model predefined in the processing unit 150. The mathematical model is a set of equations drawn up in a manner that allows the control unit to calculate the grain particle granulometry of the grain flow whose particle granulometry is unknown.
Therefore, the discussed improvement (i.e. calculating the grain particle granulometry in the grain flow, based on the measured vibration characteristics, wherein the step of calculating the grain particle granulometry comprises inserting the vibration characteristics into a predefined mathematical model) is related to an abstract idea itself, which is identifying ordering of variable for a mathematical formula. As discussed in 2106.05(a)(II), an improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement of the technological process of granulometry measurement in agricultural/industrial settings or improvement another technology or technical filed.
The steps of “calculating the grain particle granulometry in the grain flow, based on the measured vibration characteristics, wherein the step of calculating the grain particle granulometry comprises inserting the vibration characteristics into a predefined mathematical model” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
-Applicant argues that the prior arts do not teach “the vibration measurement device is configured to measure vibration characteristics of a vibration caused by impacts generated by the grain flow in the vibration measurement device and send the measured vibration characteristics to the processing unit, wherein the processing unit is configured to estimate the particle granulometry of the grain flow, based on the vibration characteristics” as cited in claims 1 and 10 and “measuring the vibration characteristics of a vibration caused by the impact of the grain flow of each one of the grain samples through a vibration measurement device; and creating a mathematical model, based on the measured vibration characteristics for each one of the grain samples, wherein the mathematical model is a set of equations prepared in a manner that allows the calculation of a grain particle granulometry for the grain flow whose particle granulometry is unknown” as cited in claim 12.
Examiner agrees, therefore the rejection under 102 of claims 1-13 have been withdrawn.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN H LE whose telephone number is (571)272-2275. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 7:00am – 3:30pm ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shelby A. Turner can be reached on (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 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOHN H LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights