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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the reasons set forth below.
With respect to the rejection of claims 15 to 25 under 35 U.S.C. 101. Applicant argues that independent claim 15 is not directed to an abstract idea because it recites physical steps such as exciting a magnet coil, capturing a measurement signal, and adapting pulse duration or inactive phase, which allegedly cannot be performed mentally. This argument is not persuasive.
The rejection does not assert that the claim as a whole is entirely abstract. Rather, it properly identifies the abstract idea within the claim as the limitations directed to establishing mean values of a measurement signal, determining whether mean values differ by at least a threshold, recognizing interference based on that comparison, and adapting timing parameters based on the result. These limitations fall squarely within the groupings of mathematical concepts (e.g., averaging, threshold comparison, and signal evaluation) and mental processes (e.g., observation, evaluation, and decision-making) under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, these steps can be performed using mathematical calculations or evaluative logic, and nothing in the claim precludes such interpretation.
The presence of additional physical steps such as exciting a magnet coil and capturing a measurement signal does not remove the claim from the abstract idea. These steps merely provide input data for the recited analysis and are considered data-gathering steps. The focus of the claim remains on processing the acquired data and making a determination based on mathematical relationships and comparisons. As such, the claim recites a judicial exception under Step 2A, Prong One.
Applicant further argues that the claim integrates any alleged abstract idea into a practical application by modifying the operation of the magneto-inductive flowmeter through adaptive control of excitation parameters. This argument has been considered but is not persuasive.
Although claim 15 recites adapting pulse duration or inactive phase, the claim does not recite any specific technological implementation, control architecture, or structural modification to the flowmeter. The adaptation is expressed in a result-oriented manner without defining how the adjustment is technically achieved or how it improves the functioning of the device at a structural or operational level. The claimed steps amount to adjusting operating parameters based on analyzed data using conventional components performing their ordinary functions. Such generic control of parameters does not constitute an improvement to the technology itself, but rather applies the abstract idea within a particular field of use. Accordingly, the additional elements are considered insignificant extra-solution activity and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two.
Under Step 2B, applicant argues that the claimed invention provides a non-conventional control technique and that Strack does not disclose the specific claimed arrangement. This argument is not persuasive.
The rejection properly relies on Strack et al. as evidence that acquiring electromagnetic measurement data, performing mathematical processing (including averaging and comparison), and adjusting parameters based on signal behavior were well-understood, routine, and conventional in the relevant art. Applicant’s argument that Strack does not disclose specific claim details such as sub-portions or exact sequencing is not dispositive. The Step 2B analysis does not require that a single reference disclose the claim in its entirety, but rather evaluates whether the additional elements represent more than routine and conventional activities. The claimed operations of dividing signals into portions, averaging values, comparing results, and adjusting parameters are standard signal processing and control techniques.
When considered as an ordered combination, the claim merely applies conventional data acquisition and signal processing techniques to a magneto-inductive flowmeter environment. The claim does not recite any non-conventional hardware or any improvement to the underlying measurement technology. Accordingly, claim 15 does not recite significantly more than the abstract idea.
For the same reasons, independent claim 23 and dependent claims 16–22 and 24–25 are rejected on the same grounds. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 15–25 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained.
With respect to the rejection of claims 15 to 30 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Ameri et al. in view of Almaguer. Applicant argues that Ameri fails to disclose exciting a magnet coil with a square-wave signal and contends that a direct current signal cannot be a square-wave signal. This argument is not persuasive.
Ameri expressly discloses that a digital processor controls a current generator to produce “direct current square wave current pulses that alternate direction through the coils” (see paragraph [0036]). Ameri further discloses switching circuitry and control of pulse timing and frequency to generate periodic excitation signals (see paragraphs [0040]–[0043]), and delivery of such excitation to the field coils to generate a magnetic field within the pipe (see paragraph [0045]). When considered as a whole, Ameri clearly teaches excitation of the magnet coil using square-wave pulse signals at a defined excitation frequency.
Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, the claimed “square-wave signal” does not require an idealized mathematical waveform with perfectly vertical transitions. Rather, it encompasses practical square-wave excitation signals as implemented in real systems, including signals that may be subject to filtering or non-idealities. Accordingly, Ameri’s disclosure of square-wave current pulses corresponds to the claimed square-wave excitation. Applicant’s distinction between direct current and square-wave signals is not persuasive in view of Ameri’s explicit disclosure of alternating square-wave pulses.
Applicant further argues that Ameri does not disclose sub-portions, interference recognition based on mean value comparison, or adaptive timing. However, the Office Action properly identifies that Ameri discloses signal sampling, temporal segmentation of measurement signals, and averaging of sampled values (see paragraphs [0051]–[0056]). Almaguer is relied upon for the missing limitations.
Almaguer discloses comparative evaluation of electromagnetic measurement signals using multiple or offset measurement points, normalization based on differences between such measurements, and computer-controlled adjustment of excitation parameters, including timing and frequency, to compensate for environmental and electromagnetic interference (see paragraphs [0080], [0089], [0091], and [0110]–[0111]). These teachings correspond to recognizing interference based on differences between measurement portions and adapting excitation parameters to mitigate such interference.
The combination of Ameri and Almaguer is proper. Ameri provides the magneto-inductive flowmeter environment, excitation, and signal acquisition, while Almaguer provides the comparative signal evaluation and adaptive control techniques. It would have been obvious to combine these teachings to improve measurement accuracy and robustness by compensating for interference effects, as explicitly taught by Almaguer.
Applicant’s argument that Almaguer does not disclose square-wave excitation is not persuasive because Almaguer is not relied upon for that limitation. The rejection clearly relies on Ameri for square-wave excitation and on Almaguer only for the missing comparative and adaptive control features.
Applicant does not present separate arguments for independent claims 23, 26, and 27 or for dependent claims 16–22 and 24–30. Accordingly, these claims fall with their respective base claims.
Therefore, the rejection of claims 15–30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is maintained.
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 15–25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 15 is treated as representative. Claim 15 recites, in relevant part, a method comprising:
exciting a magnet coil with a square wave signal at a pulse frequency
capturing a measurement signal
capturing measurement value portions comprising sub portions
establishing mean values of the measurement signal
recognizing interference based on a difference between mean values
adapting pulse duration or inactive phase to balance interference effects
The limitations corresponding to recognizing interference, establishing mean values, comparing mean values, and adapting durations based on interference effects are treated as the abstract idea, while the remaining limitations are additional elements.
Step 1 – Statutory Category
Under Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, claim 15 is directed to a process, which is one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter. Accordingly, Step 1 is satisfied.
Step 2A Prong One – Judicial Exception
Under Step 2A Prong One, the claim is analyzed to determine whether it recites a judicial exception.
The limitations of claim 15 directed to: establishing mean values of a measurement signal; determining whether mean values differ by at least a threshold; recognizing interference based on the comparison; adapting signal timing to balance interference; constitute an abstract idea.
Under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, these limitations fall within the groupings of:
Mathematical concepts, including mathematical calculations, averaging, threshold comparison, and signal evaluation
Mental processes, including observing data, comparing values, and making determinations based on the comparison
Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, these steps can be performed mentally or using pen-and-paper calculations, and nothing in the claim precludes such mental performance. For example, establishing a mean value and determining whether two mean values differ by a threshold is a mathematical comparison, and recognizing interference based on that comparison is an evaluative judgment.
Accordingly, claim 15 recites a judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong Two – Practical Application
Under Step 2A Prong Two, the claim is evaluated to determine whether it integrates the abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional elements of claim 15 include:
exciting a magnet coil with a square wave signal
capturing a measurement signal
adapting pulse duration or inactive phase
These additional elements represent data acquisition and signal excitation performed using generic and conventional magneto inductive flowmeter components. Such steps merely gather data and apply the abstract idea in the context of a particular field of use, namely flow measurement.
According to the October 2019 Update on Subject Matter Eligibility, data gathering and signal acquisition steps performed to supply data for abstract analysis are considered insignificant extra solution activity and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim does not recite any improvement to the magneto inductive flowmeter itself, nor does it recite a specific hardware configuration that changes the way the flowmeter operates at a physical level.
Accordingly, claim 15 does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B – Significantly More
Under Step 2B, the claim is evaluated to determine whether it includes additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 15 does not include additional elements sufficient to amount to significantly more because the claimed steps of: averaging measurement signals; comparing averaged values; identifying interference; adjusting timing parameters based on the comparison are well understood, routine, and conventional in the relevant art. Strack et al. (US 2006/0028208 A1) disclose methods for measuring electromagnetic properties using conductive pipe (106)s, including: acquiring electromagnetic measurements; evaluating current leakage and electromagnetic responses; jointly processing and comparing measurement data; adjusting models and parameters based on measured interference and signal behavior. Strack et al. demonstrate that acquiring electromagnetic signals, processing them mathematically, comparing derived values, and adjusting parameters based on those comparisons were conventional techniques well known in the art prior to the effective filing date. As in the present claims, Strack et al. rely on mathematical inversion, averaging, comparison, and model based adjustment without improving the underlying electromagnetic sensing hardware itself.
Accordingly, the ordered combination of steps in claim 15 amounts to nothing more than applying abstract data analysis using conventional electromagnetic measurement techniques to a particular technological environment. Claim 15 therefore does not recite significantly more than the abstract idea.
Independent claim 23 recites limitations similar to claim 15 and is therefore rejected on the same grounds for being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Dependent Claims 16–22 & 23-24 are rejected on the same grounds as claim 15.
Claims 16–18 further specify temporal relationships of measurement portions and additional averaging steps, which merely refine the mathematical analysis and do not add a practical application.
Claims 19–22 recite modulation, carrier frequency comparison, and frequency shift determination, which are mathematical signal processing operations that remain within the abstract idea groupings of mathematical concepts and mental processes.
Claims 23–25 recite frequency analysis, classification of frequency components, and amplitude determination, which further elaborate on mathematical analysis of signals without reciting a technological improvement to the flowmeter itself.
These dependent claims merely expand the abstract idea of claims 15 & 23, which do not add meaningful limitations sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 15-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ameri et al. (U.S. 2021/0072053 A1, previously cited) in view of Almaguer (U.S. 2009/0166035 A1, previously cited).
Regarding claim 15, Ameri et al. disclose a method for measuring a flow rate (via sensor 108, see [0031]) in a pipe (106) via a magneto inductive flowmeter fastened to the pipe (106) (see [0036]), comprising: exciting a magnet coil (126) of the magneto inductive flowmeter with a square wave signal (168) at a pulse frequency and capturing a measurement signal (see Fig. 2 and paragraphs [0045], wherein the controller drives field coils using square wave DC excitation and captures corresponding measurement signals); capturing a first measurement value portion of the measurement signal (see paragraph [0051], wherein sampled portions of the measurement signal are captured at defined temporal locations within excitation periods); establishing a mean value of the measurement signal (see paragraph [0055], wherein multiple sampled values are averaged to establish an average measurement value).
Ameri et al. fail to disclose that the measurement value portion comprises a first and a second sub portion, that an interference of the measurement signal is recognized if mean values of the first and second sub portions differ by at least an adjustable interference threshold value, and that an inactive phase of the square wave signal (168) is adjustable independently of the measurement value portion and adapted to balance an interference effect in successive measurement value portions.
Almaguer disclose establishing comparative reference measurements using opposing or offset measurement points and normalizing measurement results based on differences between such measurements (see Almaguer paragraphs [0089] & [0092]), and further disclose computer controlled adjustment of excitation timing and excitation parameters to compensate for environmental and interference effects (see Almaguer paragraphs [0080] & [0110-0111]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to modify Ameri et al. by incorporating comparative mean based interference recognition and adaptive excitation timing as taught by Almaguer, as doing so would provide improved mitigation of interference induced measurement errors because Almaguer emphasize that excitation timing and comparative normalization compensate for environmental and electromagnetic interference effects and improve measurement accuracy (see Almaguer paragraphs [0080] & [0089]).
Regarding claim 16, Ameri et al. & Almaguer disclose the method as claimed in claim 15, wherein Ameri et al. further disclose capturing measurement signal samples at different temporal locations within an excitation period and across successive excitation periods (see paragraphs [0056] & [0058], wherein sampling points are temporally offset and may partially overlap in time).
PNG
media_image1.png
817
1492
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17, Ameri et al. & Almaguer disclose the method as claimed in claim 15, wherein Ameri et al. further disclose establishing a mean value of the measurement signal from sampled portions and using the established mean value to represent a magnitude of the measurement signal (see paragraph [0055], wherein averaged sampled values are used to represent signal level); establishing signal amplitude based on averaged measurement responses and calibrated signal processing (see Almaguer paragraphs [0041]).
Regarding claim 18, Ameri et al. & Almaguer disclose the method as claimed in claim 16, wherein Ameri et al. further disclose establishing mean values of the measurement signal for temporally offset measurement portions (see paragraph [0055]) and determining signal magnitude based on such mean values (see [0042]).
Regarding claim 19, Ameri et al. disclose performing excitation and sampling steps for successive measurement value portions (see paragraphs [0051] &[0056]).
Ameri et al. fail to disclose modulating the measurement signals of the first and second measurement value portions onto a carrier signal having a carrier frequency corresponding to the pulse frequency and establishing a frequency shift relative to a comparison frequency.
Almaguer disclose phase sensitive and frequency referenced signal processing synchronized to excitation timing and frequency (see Almaguer paragraphs [0088] & [0091]), which inherently requires modulation of measurement signals relative to an excitation referenced carrier and evaluation of frequency deviations.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to modify Ameri et al. by incorporating carrier referenced modulation and frequency comparison as taught by Almaguer, as doing so would improve discrimination between interference components and excitation related signal components because Almaguer emphasize frequency and phase referenced processing to isolate interference and environmental effects (see Almaguer paragraph [0088]).
Regarding claim 20, Ameri et al. & Almaguer disclose the method as claimed in claim 16, wherein Ameri et al. further disclose performing excitation and sampling for successive measurement value portions as described for claim 19 (see paragraphs [0051] & [0055]); frequency referenced and phase sensitive signal processing synchronized to excitation frequency as described above (see paragraph [0050]).
Regarding claim 21, Ameri et al. & Almaguer disclose the method as claimed in claim 17, wherein Ameri et al. further disclose establishing mean values for measurement value portions and performing excitation and sampling for successive portions (see paragraph [0055]); Almaguer disclose frequency referenced processing and modulation relative to excitation timing as described above (see paragraphs [0051]).
Regarding claim 22, Ameri et al. & Almaguer disclose the method as claimed in claim 19, wherein Ameri et al. further disclose that modulation onto the carrier signal occurs via quadrature amplitude modulation or that the comparison frequency is a mains target frequency (see [0054]); Almaguer disclose phase sensitive and frequency based discrimination of signals synchronized to excitation timing (see Almaguer paragraph [0052]) wherein quadrature modulation and comparison to a known reference frequency obvious signal processing techniques)
Regarding claim 23, Ameri et al. disclose exciting a magnet coil (126) with a square wave signal (168) at a pulse frequency and capturing a measurement signal (see paragraphs [0036] & [0046]); performing a frequency analysis of the measurement signal to establish frequency components (see paragraph [0051], wherein sampled portions of the measurement signal are captured at defined temporal locations within excitation periods); recognizing odd numbered fractions of the pulse frequency as square wave frequency components, recognizing remaining frequency components as interference frequencies (see paragraph [0055], wherein multiple sampled values are averaged to establish an average measurement value, also see [0056]).
Ameri et al. fail to disclose, adapting durations of measurement value portions and inactive phases based on interference frequency.
Almaguer disclose adapting durations of measurement value portions and inactive phases based on interference frequency (see Almaguer paragraphs [0088] & [0080]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to modify Ameri et al. to include frequency domain classification and adaptive timing as taught by Almaguer, as doing so would allow systematic identification and suppression of interference frequencies because Almaguer emphasize frequency based characterization and compensation of electromagnetic environments (see Almaguer paragraph [0088]).
Regarding claim 24, Ameri et al. & Almaguer disclose the method as claimed in claim 23, wherein Ameri et al. further disclose frequency domain analysis techniques applicable to electromagnetic measurement signals (see paragraph [0054], which rendering Fourier analysis or wavelet analysis obvious implementation choices).
Regarding claim 25, Ameri et al. & Almaguer disclose the method as claimed in claim 23, wherein Ameri et al. further disclose establishing signal amplitude based on processed measurement signals (see paragraph [0055]); establishing amplitude based on frequency domain response of measurement signals (see paragraphs [0056]).
Regarding claim 26, Ameri et al. disclose a control unit of a magneto-inductive flowmeter, comprising: a storage unit and a computer unit for executing a computer program product (see Ameri paragraphs [0036] and [0054], wherein a digital processor and associated memory execute control logic and signal-processing instructions); wherein the control unit is configured to excite a magnet coil of the magneto-inductive flowmeter with a square-wave signal at a pulse frequency and capture a measurement signal (see Ameri paragraphs [0036], [0045], and [0046], wherein the controller drives field coils using square-wave DC excitation and captures corresponding measurement signals); capture a first measurement value portion of the measurement signal (see Ameri paragraphs [0051] through [0056], wherein measurement signals are sampled at defined temporal locations within excitation periods); and establish a mean value of the measurement signal (see Ameri paragraph [0055], wherein multiple sampled values are averaged to establish an average measurement value).
Ameri et al. fail to disclose that the measurement value portion comprises a first and a second sub-portion, that an interference of the measurement signal is recognized if mean values of the first and second sub-portions differ by at least an adjustable interference threshold value, and that a square-wave signal has an inactive phase adjustable independently of the measurement value portion, wherein at least one of a pulse duration of the square-wave signal and a duration of the inactive phase is adapted to balance an interference effect in successive measurement value portions.
Almaguer disclose comparative reference-based evaluation of electromagnetic measurement signals using opposing or offset measurement points and normalization of measurement results based on differences between such measurements (see Almaguer paragraphs [0089] and [0092]), and further disclose computer-controlled adjustment of excitation timing and excitation parameters to compensate for environmental and electromagnetic interference effects (see Almaguer paragraphs [0080], [0091], [0110], and [0111]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to modify Ameri et al. by incorporating the comparative mean-based interference recognition and adaptive excitation timing taught by Almaguer, as doing so would provide improved mitigation of interference-induced measurement error and enhance robustness of the control unit because Almaguer emphasize that adjusting excitation timing and normalizing measurements based on comparative signal behavior compensates for environmental interference and improves accuracy of electromagnetic measurement systems (see Almaguer paragraphs [0080] and [0089]).
Regarding claim 27, Ameri et al. disclose a control unit of a magneto-inductive flowmeter, comprising: a storage unit and a computer unit for executing a computer program product (see Ameri paragraphs [0036] and [0054], wherein a digital processor and associated memory execute control and signal-processing instructions); wherein the control unit is configured to excite a magnet coil of the magneto-inductive flowmeter with a square-wave signal at a pulse frequency and capture a measurement signal (see Ameri paragraphs [0036], [0045], and [0046], wherein the controller drives the field coils using square-wave DC excitation and captures corresponding measurement signals); and to perform frequency analysis of the measurement signal to establish frequency components of the measurement signal (see Ameri paragraphs [0052] through [0056], wherein sampled signals are analyzed to identify interference effects associated with excitation-related signal behavior).
Ameri et al. fail to disclose recognizing a frequency component of the measurement signal as a square-wave frequency component if the frequency component corresponds to an odd-numbered fraction of the pulse frequency, recognizing other frequency components as interference frequencies, and amending durations of measurement value portions and durations of inactive phases based on a period duration of an interference frequency.
Almaguer disclose frequency-domain analysis of electromagnetic measurement signals, including analysis of amplitude and phase as a function of frequency and classification of signal components relative to excitation frequency (see Almaguer paragraph [0088]), and further disclose computer-controlled adjustment of excitation parameters, including timing and frequency, based on frequency-dependent signal behavior to compensate for environmental and interference effects (see Almaguer paragraphs [0080], [0081], and [0091]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to modify Ameri et al. by incorporating the frequency-component classification and excitation-timing adaptation taught by Almaguer, as doing so would provide improved discrimination between excitation-related signal components and interference frequencies and allow adaptive timing control to mitigate interference effects because Almaguer emphasize that frequency-based characterization and adjustment of excitation parameters improves robustness and accuracy of electromagnetic measurement systems under varying interference conditions (see Almaguer paragraphs [0080] and [0088]).
Regarding claim 28, Ameri et al. & Almaguer disclose a magneto-inductive flowmeter for measuring a flow rate through a pipe as claimed in claim 27, wherein Ameri et al. further disclose a magneto inductive flowmeter comprising magnet coils (126A-B), voltage sensors, and a control unit (see paragraphs [0035]).
Regarding claim 29, Ameri et al. fail to disclose a computer program product formed as a digital twin for simulating operating behavior of a magneto inductive flowmeter.
Almaguer disclose physics based electromagnetic modeling, response characterization, and computational simulation of electromagnetic tool behavior under varying operating conditions (see Almaguer paragraphs [0092], [0080] & [0081]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to implement such modeling as a computer program product simulating operating behavior, as doing so would enable evaluation and optimization of measurement performance under interference conditions (see Almaguer paragraphs [0092] & [0080]).
Regarding claim 30, Ameri et al. fail to disclose a physics module, emulation under adjustable operating conditions including an interference spectrum, and plausibility testing of voltage sensor signals to identify a defective voltage sensor.
Almaguer disclose physics based electromagnetic modeling, frequency sweeping across operating conditions, and response characterization to evaluate measurement plausibility (see Almaguer paragraphs [0081] & [0092]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to incorporate such physics based modeling and interference spectrum evaluation into a digital simulation to identify defective sensors, as doing so would improve diagnostic reliability of electromagnetic measurement systems (see Almaguer paragraphs [0080] & [0092]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. 2019/0369175 A1 to Schwartz et al. disclose a hyperpolarizing system, comprising a hyperpolarization reaction chamber having a location therein for supporting a solid catalyst with a sample in contact therewith, a cooler configured to lower a temperature of the sample and the solid catalyst to a temperature in a range of about 70K and about 250K, and an optical light source configured to direct light energy toward the solid catalyst to thereby hyperpolarize electrons in the solid catalyst and facilitate transfer of hyperpolarization to nuclei of the sample.
U.S. 2018/0138992 A1 to Kraft et al. disclose systems, methods, and devices for evaluation of an earth formation intersected by a borehole using a logging tool. Methods include performing EM logging in a borehole intersecting an earth formation using a measurement signal from an antenna system in the borehole, the measurement signal dependent upon a parameter of interest of the formation and at least one antenna system parameter of the antenna system, comprising feeding a calibration signal into a signal path of the antenna system to generate a resultant signal; estimating at least one value of the at least one antenna system parameter by using the resultant signal; and performing further logging operations in dependence upon the at least one value of the at least one antenna system parameter. The calibration signal comprises at least two calibration subsignals with a first calibration subsignal having a first frequency and a second calibration subsignal having a second frequency.
U.S. 2017/0097438 A1 to Reime discloses a method for determining at least one physical parameter, a sensor unit which is activated by at least one periodic excitation is provided, wherein the sensor unit has at least one detection region in which changes of the parameter in the surroundings of the sensor unit lead to output signal from the sensor unit. The sensor unit is wired such that if there are no changes of the parameter in the detection region the output signal is a zero signal or virtually a zero signal at the output of the sensor unit, whereas if there are changes of the parameter in the detection region the output signal is a signal that is not zero and has a specific amplitude and phase. In a closed control loop, the non-zero signal in the receive path is adjusted to zero using a control signal to achieve an adjusted state even in the presence of changes of the parameter in the detection region. The control signal is evaluated in order to determine the physical parameter. The output signal from the sensor unit is reduced substantially to the fundamental wave of the excitation and the output signal is controlled to zero in the entire phase space by means of at least one pulse width modulation. A temperature-stable, fully digital measuring system is provided as a result of the fact that the at least one pulse width modulation itself generates a correction signal with a variable pulse width and possibly a variable phase which is then added to the output signal from the sensor unit and the output signal is thereby controlled to zero in the entire phase space, wherein the pulse width of the correction signal and/or the phase of the correction signal is/are determined by the deviations of the output signal from zero.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRUNG NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1966. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon- Friday 8AM - 4:00PM Eastern Time. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Huy Phan can be reached on 571-272-7924. 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.
Examiner: /Trung Q. Nguyen/- Art 2858
April 15, 2026
/HUY Q PHAN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights