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 .
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 1-11 are directed to a method for tank gauging, which is considered to be a process. Claims 12-17 are directed to a system for tank gauging, which is considered to be a machine. Claims 18-20 are directed to a tank gauging apparatus, which is considered to be a machine. Therefore claims 1-20 each fall into one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 is directed to a method for tank gauging, comprising “calculating a first mass of a product in a tank using data indicative of a first condition and calculating a second mass of the product in the tank using data indicative of a second condition, wherein the data indicative of the first condition is collected independently of the data indicative of the second condition; and
reporting a tank mass of the product in the tank based on a comparison of the first mass to the second mass” which are considered to be mathematical concepts and mental processes. The disclosed invention, in at least paragraphs [0038]-[0046] of the instant PGPub, teach the calculating to be mathematical processes and give no indication that it is not performed on a general purpose computer. In addition, the reporting could be carried out as purely mental processes or are equivalent to human work. Thus, these limitations recite concepts that fall into the “mathematical concept” group and the “mental process” group of abstract ideas.
With respect to Step 2A Prong 2, claim 1 further recites the additional elements “a product” and “a tank”. The additional elements of the product and the tank are recited at such a high level of generality that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions in a particular field of use. Even if the “reporting a tank mass of the product in the tank based on a comparison of the first mass to the second mass” is considered to be an additional element, the reporting is considered to be post-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). As such, the limitation is considered to be extra-solution activity. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claim as a whole is not considered to integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
With respect to Step 2B, the additional elements of “a product” and “a tank” do not provide an inventive concept. The additional elements of the product and the tank are recited at a high level of generality that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions in a particular field of use. Even if the “reporting a tank mass of the product in the tank based on a comparison of the first mass to the second mass” is considered to be an additional element, the reporting is considered to be post-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). As such, the limitation is considered to be extra-solution activity. These limitations therefore remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Thus, these limitations do not amount to significantly more than the above indicated abstract ideas. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements represent merely generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, claim 1 is not eligible.
Claims 2-7 and 11 merely extend the abstract idea identified above for claim 1 and do not add any further additional elements. Therefore, the claims are considered to be directed to the abstract idea analogously to claim 1 above.
Claim 8 recites the further additional elements of “measuring the first condition in the tank using a first sensor and providing data indicative of the first condition from the first sensor;
measuring the second condition in the tank using a second sensor that is independent of the first sensor, wherein the second sensor provides data indicative of the second condition”. The additional elements of measuring the first condition, measuring the second condition, a first sensor, and a second sensor are recited at a high level of generality that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions in a particular field of use. The additional element of the first sensor, the second sensor, and the measurings are considered to represent mere data gathering (collecting data) that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception (the data is used in the using limitations’ mathematical concept) and is recited at a high level of generality. The measuring and sensor limitations in the claim is thus insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, whether considered alone or in combination with the above identified the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore claim 8 is not eligible.
Claim 9 recites the further additional element of “wherein the first sensor comprises a hydrostatic pressure sensor”. The additional elements of the first sensor being a hydrostatic pressure sensor is recited at a high level of generality that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions in a particular field of use. The additional element of the hydrostatic pressure sensor is considered to represent mere data gathering (collecting data) that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception (the data is used in the using limitations’ mathematical concept) and is recited at a high level of generality. The sensor limitation in the claim is thus insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, whether considered alone or in combination with the above identified the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore claim 9 is not eligible.
Claim 10 recites the further additional element of “wherein the second sensor comprises a level sensor for measuring a level of the product in the tank”. The additional elements of the second sensor being level sensor is recited at a high level of generality that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions in a particular field of use. The additional element of the level sensor is considered to represent mere data gathering (collecting data) that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception (the data is used in the using limitations’ mathematical concept) and is recited at a high level of generality. The sensor limitation in the claim is thus insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, whether considered alone or in combination with the above identified the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore claim 10 is not eligible.
Claim 12 is directed to a system for tank gauging comprising “the computer program code comprising instructions executable by the at least one processor and configured for:
calculating a first mass of a product in a tank using data indicative of a first condition and calculating a second mass of the product in the tank using data indicative of a second condition, wherein the data indicative of the first condition is collected independently of the data indicative of the second condition; and
reporting a tank mass of the product in the tank based on a comparison of the first mass to the second mass” which are considered to be mathematical concepts and mental processes. The disclosed invention, in at least paragraphs [0038]-[0046] of the instant PGPub, teach the calculating to be mathematical processes and give no indication that it is not performed on a general purpose computer. In addition, the reporting could be carried out as purely mental processes or are equivalent to human work. Thus, these limitations recite concepts that fall into the “mathematical concept” group and the “mental process” group of abstract ideas.
With respect to Step 2A Prong 2, claim 12 further recites the additional elements “at least one processor; and a non-transitory computer-usable medium embodying computer program code, the computer-usable medium capable of communicating with the at least one processor”, “a product”, and “a tank”. The additional elements of the at least one processor, the non-transitory computer-usable medium, the product and the tank are recited at such a high level of generality that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions in a particular field of use. The at least one processor and the non-transitory computer-usable medium are recited at such a high level of generality that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a computer. Even if the “reporting a tank mass of the product in the tank based on a comparison of the first mass to the second mass” is considered to be an additional element, the reporting is considered to be post-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). As such, the limitation is considered to be extra-solution activity. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claim as a whole is not considered to integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
With respect to Step 2B, the additional elements of “at least one processor; and a non-transitory computer-usable medium embodying computer program code, the computer-usable medium capable of communicating with the at least one processor”, “a product” and “a tank” do not provide an inventive concept. The additional elements of the at least one processor, the non-transitory computer-usable medium, the product, and the tank are recited at a high level of generality that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions in a particular field of use. The at least one processor and the non-transitory computer-usable medium are recited at such a high level of generality that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a computer. Even if the “reporting a tank mass of the product in the tank based on a comparison of the first mass to the second mass” is considered to be an additional element, the reporting is considered to be post-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). As such, the limitation is considered to be extra-solution activity. These limitations therefore remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Thus, these limitations do not amount to significantly more than the above indicated abstract ideas. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements represent merely generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, claim 12 is not eligible.
Claims 13-15 and 17 merely extend the abstract idea identified above for claim 12 and do not add any further additional elements. Therefore, the claims are considered to be directed to the abstract idea analogously to claim 12 above.
Claim 16 recites the further additional elements of “measuring the first condition in the tank using a first sensor and providing data indicative of the first condition from the first sensor;
measuring the second condition in the tank using a second sensor that is independent of the first sensor, wherein the second sensor provides data indicative of the second condition”. The additional elements of measuring the first condition, measuring the second condition, a first sensor, and a second sensor are recited at a high level of generality that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions in a particular field of use. The additional element of the first sensor, the second sensor, and the measurings are considered to represent mere data gathering (collecting data) that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception (the data is used in the using limitations’ mathematical concept) and is recited at a high level of generality. The measuring and sensor limitations in the claim is thus insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, whether considered alone or in combination with the above identified the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore claim 8 is not eligible.
Claim 18 is directed to a tank gauging apparatus, comprising “wherein a first mass of a product in a tank is calculated using data indicative of the first condition and a second mass of the product in the tank is calculated using data indicative of the second condition, and
wherein the data indicative of the first condition is collected independently of the data indicative of the second condition, and wherein a tank mass of the product in the tank is reported based on a comparison of the first mass to the second mass” which are considered to be mathematical concepts and mental processes. The disclosed invention, in at least paragraphs [0038]-[0046] of the instant PGPub, teach the calculating to be mathematical processes and give no indication that it is not performed on a general purpose computer. In addition, the reporting could be carried out as purely mental processes or are equivalent to human work. Thus, these limitations recite concepts that fall into the “mathematical concept” group and the “mental process” group of abstract ideas.
With respect to Step 2A Prong 2, claim 18 further recites the additional elements “a plurality of sensors that measure at least one of: a first condition and a second condition”, “a product”, and “a tank”. The additional elements of the plurality of sensors, the product, and the tank are recited at a high level of generality that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions in a particular field of use. The additional element of the plurality of sensors is considered to represent mere data gathering (collecting data) that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception (the data is used in the using limitations’ mathematical concept) and is recited at a high level of generality. The sensor system limitation in the claim is thus insignificant extra-solution activity. Even if the “reporting a tank mass of the product in the tank based on a comparison of the first mass to the second mass” is considered to be an additional element, the reporting is considered to be post-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). As such, the limitation is considered to be extra-solution activity. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claim as a whole is not considered to integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
With respect to Step 2B, the additional elements of “a plurality of sensors that measure at least one of: a first condition and a second condition”, “a product”, and “a tank” do not provide an inventive concept. The additional elements of the plurality of sensors, the product, and the tank are recited at a high level of generality that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions in a particular field of use. The additional element of the sensor system is considered to represent mere data gathering (collecting data) that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception (the data is used in the using limitations’ mathematical concept) and is recited at a high level of generality. The sensor system limitation in the claim is thus insignificant extra-solution activity. Even if the “reporting a tank mass of the product in the tank based on a comparison of the first mass to the second mass” is considered to be an additional element, the reporting is considered to be post-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). As such, the limitation is considered to be extra-solution activity. These limitations therefore remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Thus, these limitations do not amount to significantly more than the above indicated abstract ideas. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements represent merely generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, claim 18 is not eligible.
Claims 19-20 merely extend the abstract idea identified above for claim 18 and do not add any further additional elements. Therefore, the claims are considered to be directed to the abstract idea analogously to claim 18 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 12-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Laws et al. (US PGPub 2021/0010849 A1).
As to claim 1, Laws et al. teaches a method for tank gauging (paragraph [0027]), comprising:
calculating a first mass of a product in a tank using data indicative of a first condition (paragraph [0033] using 25a) and calculating a second mass of the product in the tank using data indicative of a second condition (paragraph [0033] using 30a), wherein the data indicative of the first condition is collected independently of the data indicative of the second condition (paragraph [0027] and [0033], figure 2, where the measurements are independent sensors); and
reporting a tank mass of the product in the tank based on a comparison of the first mass to the second mass (paragraphs [0013], [0036]-[0037]).
As to claim 2, Laws et al. teaches wherein reporting the tank mass of the product in the tank based on the comparison of the first mass to the second mass, further comprises: reporting the tank mass when a result of the comparison is within a required uncertainty between the first mass and the second mass (paragraph [0036]-[0038] and [0051]).
As to claim 3, Laws et al. teaches further comprising reporting a service issue when a result of the comparison is not within a required uncertainty between the first mass and the second mass (paragraph [0051]).
As to claim 4, Laws et al. teaches wherein the data indicative of a first condition of the product in the tank comprises pressure (paragraph [0033]).
As to claim 6, Laws et al. teaches wherein the data indicative of a first condition of the product in the tank comprises a level of the product in the tank (paragraph [0012]).
As to claim 7, Laws et al. teaches wherein the data indicative of a first condition of the product in the tank comprises at least one of: density (paragraph [0011]) and temperature.
As to claim 8, Laws et al. teaches further comprising:
measuring the first condition in the tank using a first sensor (25a) and providing data indicative of the first condition from the first sensor (paragraph [0033]);
measuring the second condition in the tank using a second sensor (30a) that is independent of the first sensor (figure 2), wherein the second sensor provides data indicative of the second condition (paragraph [0033]).
As to claim 12, Laws et al. teaches a system for tank gauging (paragraph [0027]), comprising:
at least one processor (100); and
a non-transitory computer-usable medium (165) embodying computer program code, the computer-usable medium capable of communicating with the at least one processor, the computer program code comprising instructions executable by the at least one processor (paragraph [0041]) and configured for:
calculating a first mass of a product in a tank using data indicative of a first condition (paragraph [0033] using 25a) and calculating a second mass of the product in the tank using data indicative of a second condition (paragraph [0033] using 30a), wherein the data indicative of the first condition is collected independently of the data indicative of the second condition (paragraph [0027] and [0033], figure 2, where the measurements are independent sensors); and
reporting a tank mass of the product in the tank based on a comparison of the first mass to the second mass (paragraphs [0013], [0036]-[0037]).
As to claim 13, Laws et al. teaches wherein the instructions for reporting the tank mass of the product in the tank based on the comparison of the first mass to the second mass, are further configured for: reporting the tank mass when a result of the comparison is within a required uncertainty between the first mass and the second mass (paragraph [0036]-[0038] and [0051]).
As to claim 14, Laws et al. teaches wherein the instructions for reporting a tank mass of the product in the tank based on a comparison of the first mass to the second mass, further comprise instructions configured for: reporting a service issue when a result of the comparison is not within a required uncertainty between the first mass and the second mass (paragraph [0051]).
As to claim 15, Laws et al. teaches wherein the data indicative of a first condition of the product in the tank comprises at least one of: a pressure (paragraph [0033]), a level of the product in the tank, a density, and a temperature.
As to claim 16, Laws et al. teaches wherein the instructions are further configured for:
measuring the first condition in the tank using a first sensor (25a) and providing data indicative of the first condition from the first sensor (paragraph [0033]);
measuring the second condition in the tank using a second sensor (30a) that is independent of the first sensor (figure 2), wherein the second sensor provides data indicative of the second condition (paragraph [0033]).
As to claim 18, Laws et al. teaches a tank gauging apparatus (paragraph [0027]), comprising:
a plurality of sensors that measure at least one of: a first condition and a second condition (paragraph [0033], fluidized pressure and pack pressure),
wherein a first mass of a product in a tank is calculated using data indicative of the first condition (paragraphs [0033] and [0035] using 25a) and a second mass of the product in the tank is calculated using data indicative of the second condition (paragraphs [0033] and [0035] using 30a), and
wherein the data indicative of the first condition is collected independently of the data indicative of the second condition (paragraph [0027] and [0033], figure 2, where the measurements are independent sensors), and wherein a tank mass of the product in the tank is reported based on a comparison of the first mass to the second mass (paragraphs [0013], [0036]-[0037]).
As to claim 19, Laws et al. teaches wherein the tank mass is reported when a result of the comparison is within a required uncertainty between the first mass and the second mass (paragraph [0036]-[0038] and [0051]).
As to claim 20, Laws et al. teaches wherein a service issue is reported when a result of the comparison is not within a required uncertainty between the first mass and the second mass (paragraph [0051]).
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.
Claims 5, 9-11,and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laws et al. (US PGPub 2021/0010849 A1) in view of Isenmann et al. (EP 4116690 A1).
As to claim 5, Laws et al. teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as noted above for claim 1, except explicitly teaching wherein the data indicative of a first condition of the product in the tank comprises hydrostatic pressure. Laws et al. teaches the type of material is not particularly limited (paragraph [0016]).
Isenmann et al. teaches the data indicative of a first condition of the product in the tank comprises hydrostatic pressure (page 3, paragraph 4 and page 6, paragraph 3).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify Laws et al. to have wherein the data indicative of a first condition of the product in the tank comprises hydrostatic pressure and the product is a fluid as taught by Isenmann et al. because it allows the measurement of a fluid product in a container (page 3, paragraph 4).
As to claim 9, Laws et al. teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as noted above for claim 8, except wherein the first sensor comprises a hydrostatic pressure sensor. Laws et al. teaches the type of material is not particularly limited (paragraph [0016]).
Isenmann et al. teaches the first sensor comprises a hydrostatic pressure sensor (page 3, paragraph 4 and page 6, paragraph 3).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify Laws et al. to have wherein the first sensor comprises a hydrostatic pressure sensor and the product is a fluid as taught by Isenmann et al. because it allows the measurement of a fluid product in a container (page 3, paragraph 4).
As to claim 10, Laws et al. teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention, as noted above for claim 8, except wherein the second sensor comprises a level sensor for measuring a level of the product in the tank.
Isenmann et al. teaches wherein the second sensor comprises a level sensor for measuring a level of the product in the tank (page 3, paragraphs 6).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify Laws et al. to have wherein the second sensor comprises a level sensor for measuring a level of the product in the tank and the product is a fluid as taught by Isenmann et al. because it allows the measurement of a fluid product in a container (page 3, paragraph 6).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hess et al. (6,157,894) and Longsdorf et al. (WO 92/05408 A1) teach systems with similarities to the disclosed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER E S BAHLS whose telephone number is (571)270-7807. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am-3:30 pm.
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, Stephen Meier can be reached at (571) 272-2149. 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.
/JENNIFER BAHLS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853