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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 9-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) making mathematical calculations. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there is no recitation of a machine to carry out the calculations. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the recitation of a data gathering step (acquiring heating values), is just insignificant extra solution activity. The dependent claims merely limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Applying the “streamlined analysis” outlined in MPEP §§ 2106.03 et seq., the examiner concedes that claims 9-16 passes eligibility step 1, as claim 11 is expressly drawn to a “method”, which is a process, and a process is one of the four statutory classes of subject matter expressly set forth in section 101.
Turning now to eligibility step 2A, namely, does the claim recite an abstract idea, independent claim 9 recites three paragraphs which are are just steps of calculating different numerical values, and mathematical calculations have been held by our reviewing court as an abstract idea1.
The analysis now turns to prong two of step 2A, namely, does the claim recite additional elements that serve to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? Besides the calculations steps, claim 9 recites a preamble that simply limits the claim to a particular technological environment2, and does not add any meaningful limitation to the claim. The first full paragraph after the preamble is just a data gathering step, which is insignificant extra-solution activity3. There is no additional elements that would integrate this abstract idea into a practical application4.
Dependent claim 10 simply adds two more calculating steps.
Dependent claim 11 simply limits the claim to a particular technological environment.
Dependent claim 12 adds another calculating step.
In dependent claim 13, the error correction step is insignificant extra-solution activity.
Dependent claim 14 simply limits the claim to a particular technological environment.
Dependent claim 15, merely specifies in which order to specific calculations are carried out, which does not change the fact that the claim recites nothing more than calculating numbers.
Dependent claim 16 simply limits the claim to a particular technological environment.
Conclusion
Claims 1-8 and 17-20 are allowable over the art of record. The closest prior art, US # 11,193,917 (Kojima et al.), discloses a calculation device, a related method and program to calculate a value relating to a combustible target gas containing miscellaneous gas components, the calculation device is comprising: a heating value calculation unit ([Col. 9, line 41 to col. 10, line 24], equation (5)) configured to calculate a heating value of the target gas on a basis of converted heating values (HOPT and HSONIC) obtained from a refractive index and a density of the target gas, respectively (Col. 12, ll. 40-64); a composition analyzer 10 measures part of the miscellaneous gases in the gas to be analyzed (by-product gas), specifically, the concentrations of the carbon monoxide gas and the carbon dioxide gas. The composition analysis apparatus 10 then calculates the calorific values of the by-product gas based on sound speed and refractive index to calculate the concentrations (volume concentrations) of the nitrogen gas, which is the remaining miscellaneous gas, and the methane gas and the hydrogen gas, the device is calculating pure gas calorific values contained in the analysis target gas based on the approximate concentrations and reference miscellaneous gas total error calorific values QTE.
However, the Kojima reference does not disclose a miscellaneous gas total approximate- concentration calculation unit that is configured to calculate a total approximate concentration (y) of the miscellaneous gas components on a basis of the converted heating values (HOPT and HSONIC); and a virtual basic-heating-value calculation unit configured to calculate, on a basis of the heating value (Hs) and the approximate concentration (y), a basic heating value (H'HC) of the target gas when the miscellaneous gas components are assumed to be removed (hereinafter referred to as a "virtual basic heating value (H'HC)").
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RANDY W GIBSON whose telephone number is (571)272-2103. The examiner can normally be reached Tue-Friday 10AM-6PM.
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571-272-2375. 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.
RANDY W. GIBSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2856
/RANDY W GIBSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
1 MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection (I), subsection (C)
2 MPEP § 2106.05(h)
3 MPEP § 2106.05(g)
4 MPEP § 2106.04(d)
Prosecution Insights