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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/26/2024 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. In particular, claims are directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
When considering subject matter eligibility launder 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include mental processes; certain methods of organizing human activities; and mathematical relationships/formulas. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. ____ (2014).
Analysis has been updated based on the new 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG).
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1 (exemplary) recites a method.
The claim is directed to a process, which is a statutory category of invention.
The claim is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception. The claim recites a method that comprises the limitations of:
determining a reference line segment; wherein an end point of the reference line segment is a position point T, a length of the reference line segment is equal to a focal length P of the reflector; and the position point T is the position of the ultrasonic emission source;
based on the focal length P and the position point T, constructing a first right-handed three- dimensional rectangular coordinate system O₁X₁Y₁Z₁, a second right-handed three-dimensional rectangular coordinate system TXpYpZp and a third right-handed three-dimensional rectangular coordinate system OXYZ; wherein the position point T is at a positive value of an O₁Y₁ coordinate axis of the first right-handed three-dimensional rectangular coordinate system O₁X₁Y₁Z₁, and a length of a line segment O₁T is equal to half of the focal length P; the position point T is a coordinate origin of the second right-handed three-dimensional rectangular coordinate system TXₚYₚZₚ, the second right-handed three-dimensional rectangular coordinate system TXpYₚZₚ is obtained by translating the length of the line segment O₁T in a direction of the positive value of the O₁Y₁ coordinate axis of the first right-handed three-dimensional rectangular coordinate system O₁X₁Y₁Z₁; a coordinate origin O of the third right-handed three- dimensional rectangular coordinate system OXYZ is at a positive value of the coordinate axis TXₚ of the second right-handed three-dimensional rectangular coordinate system TXPYpZp, and the coordinate origin O of the third right-handed three-dimensional rectangular coordinate system OXYZ is the other end point of the reference line segment; the length of the line segment TO is equal to the focal length P, the third right-handed three-dimensional rectangular coordinate system OXYZ is obtained by translating the length of the line segment TO in the direction of the positive value of the coordinate axis TXₚ of the second right-handed three-dimensional rectangular coordinate system TXpYpZp; and the position point T is located at a negative value of the OX axis of the third right-handed three-dimensional rectangular coordinate system OXYZ;
according to the position point T and the focal length P, determining a basic cross section of the reflector on a O₁X₁Y₁ coordinate plane of the first right-handed three-dimensional rectangular coordinate system O₁X₁Y₁Z₁; wherein the basic cross section is a basic parabola, the focal length of the basic parabola is the focal length P; the focus of the basic parabola is the
position point T; and the basic parabola rotates with the O₁Y₁ coordinate axis as the rotation axis to form a paraboloid;
determining a first cross section of the reflector on the TXₚYₚ coordinate plane of the
second right-handed three-dimensional rectangular coordinate system TXpYpZp according to the form of the parabolic equation in the second right-handed three-dimensional rectangular coordinate system TXPYpZp; wherein the first cross section is a first parabola; the focal length of the first parabola is the focal length P; and the focus of the first parabola is the position point T;
determining a second cross section of the reflector on the TXₚZₚ coordinate plane of the
second right-handed three-dimensional rectangular coordinate system TXpYpZₚ according to the form of the parabolic equation in the second right-handed three-dimensional rectangular coordinate system TXpYₚZₚ; wherein the second cross section is an arc; a radius of the are is the focal length P; and a center of the arc is the position point T;
determining a third cross section of the reflector on the OYZ coordinate plane of the third
right-handed three-dimensional rectangular coordinate system OXYZ according to the form of the parabolic equation in the third right-handed three-dimensional rectangular coordinate system OXYZ; wherein the third cross section is a second parabola; the focal length of the second parabola is the focal length P; and the focus of the second parabola is the position point T;
determining a parabolic reflector according to the basic cross section, the first cross section, the second cross section and the third cross section; wherein the center point of the parabolic reflector is the coordinate origin O, the focus of the parabolic reflector is the position point T, and the focal length of the parabolic reflector is the focal length P.
The claimed process simply describes series of steps for a method, based on multiple determining steps. These limitations set forth a judicial exception, because this is simply the organization and comparison of data which can be performed with pen and paper and is an idea of itself. These limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations activities that falls within the enumerated group of “mental processes” and or “mathematical process” in the 2019 PEG.
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if it is integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional limitation of using a reflector and an ultrasonic emission source to perform the steps. Furthermore, there is no recitation of a processor or computer in the claims and specification The recitation of the claimed limitations amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea. Also, these limitations are an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract ideas (whether claim provides inventive concept). As discussed above, the recitation of the claimed limitations amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea and have additional elements present in the claims of a reflector and an ultrasonic emission source. These additional limitations of a reflector and an ultrasonic emission source are mere generic implantations of compiling/organizing data which can be performed by pen and paper and falls under enumerated group of “mental processes” and/or “mathematical process” and do not transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. Other independent claims include the additional limitations of a vertical tank external measurement liquid level meter, an ultrasonic signal source locator, an ultrasonic transmitting probe, an ultrasonic transmitting circuit, an ultrasonic receiving probe and an ultrasonic intensity indicator however these additional limitations are also mere generic implantations of compiling/organizing data which can be performed by pen and paper and falls under enumerated group of “mental processes” and/or “mathematical process” and do not transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. The same analysis applies here, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at or provide an inventive concept.
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention including claims 1-20.
Furthermore, the dependent claims do not resolve the issues raised in the independent claims. The dependent claims do not add limitations that meaningfully limit the abstract idea. The dependent claims do not impart patent eligibility to the abstract idea of the independent claims. Therefore, none of the dependent claims alone or as an ordered combination add limitations that qualify as integrating the abstract idea into a practical application.
Lastly, dependent claims include the additional elements of a supporting part, a heavy hammer, a focal length scale and a laser ranging calibrator however these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are simply steps performed of organizing and comparing data as discussed with respect to the independent claims above. The claim merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea.
Accordingly, claims 1-20 are rejected as ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. 101 based upon the same analysis.
The instant claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 in view of The Decision in Alice Corporation Ply. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. in a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court held that the patent claims in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, el al. ("Alice Corp. ") are not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Regarding claim 4, applicant uses the language “actual conditions and work requirements”, however these terms are not a commonly used term of the art. It is unclear to what applicant is referring to when using these terms “actual conditions and work requirements”, thus the claims is left unclear and indefinite to the metes and bounds of the invention. Furthermore, applicant specification is silent to properly describe the terms “actual conditions and work requirements” in a clear and definite way for a person of ordinary skill in the art to understand the invention.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the pitch angle and the range of the horizontal angle”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation " the measured vertical tank”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation " the third right-handed rectangular coordinate system OXYZ”, “the second right-handed rectangular coordinate system TXpYpZe” and “the first right-handed rectangular coordinate system OXYZ”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Reimer (US 20160041024 A1), directed to an ultrasonic sensor formed by a tank (e.g., automotive fuel tank) coupled to an ultrasonic sensor subassembly, various systems and methods are described for coupling (e.g., bonding) the tank to the ultrasonic sensor subassembly, testing the coupling of the tank to the ultrasonic sensor subassembly and the ultrasonic sensor, and programming the ultrasonic sensor for a specified tank design and type of fluid being measured.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDALLAH ABULABAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4755. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:00am-3:00pm EST.
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, Isam Alsomiri can be reached at 571-272-6970. 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.
/ABDALLAH ABULABAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3645