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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 16-29, 59-66 and 85-88 have been examined and claims 1-15,30-58,67-84 have been withdrawn from consideration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 19, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments filed in response to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that amended claim 16 now recites physical steps of obtaining measurements, including:
"obtaining a first measurement on contents of the first impulse line; obtaining a second measurement on contents of a second impulse line operatively connected to the system;"
and:
"obtaining a third measurement on contents of the first impulse line at the first time."
Applicant contends that these amended limitations positively recite physical steps that are not performed on a computer and therefore remove the claims from the realm of mental processes or abstract ideas.
Applicant further argues that amended claim 59 now recites:
"a first sensor operatively connected to the first impulse line for measuring a property of contents of the first impulse line;"
and:
"a second sensor operatively connected to the second impulse line for measuring a property of contents of the second impulse line;"
and that these sensors are physical components that perform physical measurement operations rather than computer operations.
Applicant therefore submits that claims 16 and 59, and claims dependent thereon, are directed to a physical technological process and overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
The arguments are not persuasive.
Step 2A — Identification of the Judicial Exception
The amended claims have been considered in their entirety, including the added measurement and sensor limitations.
Claim 16 recites a method for detecting a malfunction associated with an impulse line by:
obtaining measurement information from a first impulse line and a second impulse line;
obtaining a predicted measurement based on the obtained measurements;
obtaining an actual measurement at a later time;
comparing the predicted measurement with the actual measurement;
determining whether a malfunction has occurred; and
generating an alert.
Claim 59 similarly recites an apparatus including sensors, a processor, and memory configured to perform substantially the same operations.
Although the claims recite obtaining measurements from physical components, the focus of the claims remains directed to collecting information, analyzing information using a prediction and comparison process, determining whether a condition exists based on the analysis, and reporting the result.
The recited prediction, comparison, and determination steps are directed to information analysis. The claims do not recite a particular mathematical formula, specific prediction algorithm, or improvement to computer functionality. Rather, the claims recite the functional result of analyzing measurement information to identify a malfunction condition.
Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea directed to collecting, analyzing, and reporting information regarding a system condition.
Applicant's Argument Regarding Physical Measurement Steps
Applicant argues that the amended measurement limitations distinguish the claims from mental processes because a person cannot mentally obtain measurements from contents of an impulse line.
This argument is acknowledged. However, the rejection is not based solely on the premise that the entire claimed process can be performed by a human mind.
The amended claims have been evaluated under the information analysis framework. The relevant abstract idea is not the physical acquisition of measurements alone, but rather the subsequent steps of:
using obtained measurements as information inputs;
generating a predicted measurement;
comparing the predicted measurement with another measurement;
determining whether a malfunction exists based on the comparison; and
providing an alert.
The physical measurement steps merely provide data used by the claimed information analysis.
It has recognized that claims directed to collecting information, analyzing information, and presenting results remain directed to an abstract idea even where the information relates to a particular technological environment.
The claimed impulse lines provide the source of information being analyzed but do not change the character of the claimed information-processing activity.
Therefore, the amendment requiring measurement acquisition does not remove the claims from the scope of abstract information analysis.
Applicant's Argument Regarding Sensors in Claim 59
Applicant argues that claim 59 now recites:
"a first sensor operatively connected to the first impulse line"
and:
"a second sensor operatively connected to the second impulse line"
and that these sensors are physical components forming part of the claimed apparatus.
Applicant's argument is acknowledged. However, the presence of physical components alone does not necessarily integrate an abstract idea into a practical application.
The claimed sensors are recited functionally as components that:
measure a property of contents of an impulse line; and
provide measurement information for subsequent processing.
The claim does not recite:
a particular sensor structure;
a particular sensing technique;
an improvement in sensor operation;
an unconventional sensor arrangement; or
a modification to the operation of the impulse line system resulting from the detected condition.
Instead, the sensors perform their ordinary function of acquiring measurement data.
Accordingly, the first and second sensors represent data acquisition components that provide information inputs to the claimed prediction and comparison process.
Step 2A — Practical Application
Applicant has not identified, and the amended claims do not recite, a technical improvement to:
the impulse line structure;
the monitored industrial system;
the sensor technology;
the processor operation; or
the computer functionality.
The claims terminate with:
"causing an alert indicating that the malfunction has been detected."
The claims do not require:
automatically correcting the malfunction;
modifying operation of the system;
controlling a physical component;
adjusting process parameters; or
otherwise changing the operation of the monitored system.
The alert merely communicates the result of the analysis.
Thus, the added limitations of obtaining measurements, using sensors, and generating an alert constitute data gathering and result reporting activities associated with the abstract information analysis, and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B — Significantly More / Inventive Concept
Assuming, arguendo, that claims 16 and 59 recite a judicial exception, the additional elements must be evaluated individually and as an ordered combination to determine whether they provide significantly more than the exception.
They do not.
Claim 16
The additional elements include:
obtaining measurements from first and second impulse lines;
obtaining an additional measurement;
comparing predicted and actual measurements; and
generating an alert.
These limitations merely apply information collection and analysis techniques to determine whether a system condition exists.
The ordered combination:
obtaining measurements → predicting a measurement → comparing measurements → detecting malfunction → generating an alert
does not provide an inventive concept because it represents the conventional sequence of acquiring information, analyzing information, and reporting an analytical result.
The claim does not recite any unconventional technique for generating the prediction or any technical improvement resulting from the comparison.
Claim 59
The additional elements include:
first sensor;
second sensor;
processor; and
non-transitory computer-readable storage medium.
These elements perform their ordinary functions:
sensors acquire measurements;
processors execute instructions; and
storage media store instructions.
The claim does not recite a particular improvement in sensor technology or computer operation.
The combination of conventional sensors with conventional processing components to analyze measurement information does not provide an inventive concept.
Dependent Claims 17-29 and 60-66 and 85-88
Applicant's arguments regarding claims 16 and 59 apply similarly to dependent claims.
The additional limitations of the dependent claims, including:
timing relationships;
thresholds;
machine-learning model development;
operational range measurements; and
pressure, level, or flow properties,
further define the information being collected and analyzed but do not change the character of the claimed invention.
These limitations continue to relate to collecting, analyzing, and reporting information regarding a detected malfunction.
The dependent claims therefore also fail to recite additional elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendments adding measurement steps in claim 16 and sensor limitations in claim 59 have been considered.
However, the added limitations merely provide physical data acquisition components that supply information for the claimed prediction, comparison, and reporting process. The claims remain focused on analyzing measurement information to determine whether a malfunction exists and communicating the result.
Because the claims do not recite a technical improvement to the monitored system, sensor technology, or computer functionality, and because the additional elements represent data gathering, generic processing, and result reporting, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not provide significantly more than the judicial exception.
Accordingly, the rejection of claims 16-29 and 59-66 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 16-29, 59-66 and 85-88 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim(s) recite(s) the abstract idea of collecting measurement information from a first and second impulse line, analyzing the collected information by generating a predicted measurement, comparing the predicted measurement with an actual measurement to identify a deviation associated with a malfunction, and reporting the detected condition by generating an alert. This type of information collection, analysis, comparison, and reporting is directed to the evaluation and manipulation of information and corresponds to the abstract idea grouping of certain methods of organizing information and/or analysis of information.
For example, independent claim 16 recites:
“obtaining a predicted measurement for the first impulse line at a first time, wherein the predicted measurement is based on the first measurement and the second measurement,”
followed by:
“comparing the predicted measurement to the third measurement to detect whether a malfunction associated with the first impulse line has occurred,”
and:
“responsive to detecting that the malfunction has occurred at the first impulse line, causing an alert indicating that the malfunction has been detected.”
Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitations are directed to obtaining data, analyzing relationships between data values, identifying a deviation or condition based on the analysis, and communicating the result.
Similarly, independent claim 59 recites an apparatus configured to perform substantially the same information processing operations, including obtaining measurements from sensors, generating a predicted measurement, comparing the predicted measurement with another measurement, determining whether a malfunction exists, and generating an alert.
These claimed operations are directed to analyzing and reporting information rather than a particular improvement to the operation of the impulse line, sensor hardware, or the underlying system.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements recited in claims 16 and 59 merely apply the information analysis process to the field of impulse-line monitoring using generic data acquisition components and generic computer functionality.
Although claim 16 recites obtaining measurements from contents of a first impulse line and a second impulse line and claim 59 recites a first sensor and a second sensor operatively connected to the respective impulse lines, these elements merely provide data inputs used by the claimed prediction and comparison process.
The claims do not recite any particular improvement to the sensor technology, impulse-line structure, measurement technique, signal-processing architecture, or operation of the monitored system. The claims also do not recite any particular control action performed on the system after detecting the malfunction. Instead, the claimed process ends with determining a condition and causing an alert.
The obtaining of measurements from the impulse lines constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity because the measurements merely provide information used as inputs for the claimed analysis. Likewise, causing an alert after determining a malfunction constitutes insignificant post-solution activity because the alert merely communicates the result of the analysis.
The claim(s) do(es) not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, considered individually and as an ordered combination, amount only to generic components performing their ordinary functions and do not provide an inventive concept beyond the abstract information analysis process.
For claims 16-29,85-86, the additional elements include:
obtaining first, second, and third measurements from impulse lines;
generating a predicted measurement based on previously obtained measurements;
comparing predicted and measured values;
applying thresholds, labels, operational ranges, sliding time windows, and different measured properties; and
generating an alert.
These limitations merely refine the type of information collected and the manner in which the information is analyzed. The additional limitations do not provide a technological improvement to the impulse line system or to computer functionality, but instead define additional data inputs and analysis parameters for performing the same abstract information analysis.
For claims 59-66, 87-88, the additional elements include:
a first sensor operatively connected to the first impulse line;
a second sensor operatively connected to the second impulse line;
at least one processor; and
a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions.
The sensors, processor, and storage medium are recited at a high level of generality and perform their conventional functions of collecting measurements, processing information, and storing instructions. The use of sensors to acquire measurements and a processor to execute instructions does not provide an inventive concept where the claimed advance is the collection, prediction, comparison, and reporting of information.
Considering the elements separately and as an ordered combination, the claims merely use conventional sensing components and generic computer components to implement the abstract idea of analyzing measurement information and reporting a detected condition. Such generic implementation does not transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.
Accordingly, claims 16-29 and 59-66 and 85-88 are directed to an abstract idea and do not include additional elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claims 16-29 and 59-66 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter.
In alternative:
Claims 16-29, 59-66 and 85-88 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.
Claims 16-29 and 85-86 recite methods, and claims 59-66 and 87-88 recite apparatuses including a processor and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. Therefore, the claims fall within at least one statutory category of invention under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Independent claim 16 recites:
"obtaining a first measurement on contents of the first impulse line; obtaining a second measurement on contents of a second impulse line operatively connected to the system; obtaining a predicted measurement for the first impulse line at a first time, wherein the predicted measurement is based on the first measurement and the second measurement; obtaining a third measurement on contents of the first impulse line at the first time; comparing the predicted measurement to the third measurement to detect whether a malfunction associated with the first impulse line has occurred; and responsive to detecting that the malfunction has occurred at the first impulse line, causing an alert indicating that the malfunction has been detected."
Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, claim 16 recites collecting measurement information from a system, analyzing the collected information by generating a predicted value and comparing the predicted value with an actual measurement, and communicating the result of the analysis.
The claimed steps of obtaining measurements, predicting a measurement based on obtained information, comparing information, determining whether a condition exists based on the comparison, and reporting the result are directed to the evaluation and analysis of information. Such information analysis is similar to the abstract ideas, including collecting information, analyzing the information, and displaying or reporting the results of the analysis.
Although the claim recites measurements obtained from impulse lines, the claim language does not recite a particular improvement to the impulse line, measurement hardware, sensor technology, or the operation of the associated system. Rather, the physical system merely supplies information that is subsequently analyzed.
Accordingly, claim 16 recites an abstract idea directed to collecting, analyzing, and reporting information regarding a system condition.
Independent claim 59 similarly recites:
"a first sensor operatively connected to the first impulse line for measuring a property of contents of the first impulse line; a second sensor operatively connected to the second impulse line for measuring a property of contents of the second impulse line; at least one processor; and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to obtain a predicted measurement, compare the predicted measurement to a third measurement, detect whether a malfunction has occurred, and cause an alert."
Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, claim 59 similarly recites obtaining measurement information using sensors, processing the information to generate a prediction and comparison result, determining whether a malfunction exists, and communicating the determination.
The recited sensors, processor, and storage medium merely provide conventional components for collecting and processing information. The claim does not recite a particular sensor configuration, improved sensing technique, improved processor operation, or modification of the physical system based on the detected malfunction.
Therefore, claim 59 also recites an abstract idea directed to collecting, analyzing, and reporting information regarding a system condition.
Step 2A, Prong Two — Integration Into a Practical Application
The additional elements of claims 16 and 59 do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application.
For claim 16, the additional elements include:
obtaining measurements from a first impulse line;
obtaining measurements from a second impulse line;
obtaining a third measurement from the first impulse line;
comparing the predicted measurement with the third measurement; and
causing an alert.
These limitations merely provide data gathering and output steps surrounding the information analysis. Obtaining measurement data serves as an input to the claimed analysis, and causing an alert merely communicates the result of the analysis.
The claim does not require any further action based on the detected malfunction, such as controlling the system, modifying operation of the impulse line, correcting the malfunction, adjusting equipment parameters, or otherwise changing the operation of the physical system.
Thus, the physical environment of an impulse line system is merely the field in which the information analysis is performed and does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
For claim 59, the additional elements include:
a first sensor;
a second sensor;
at least one processor; and
a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium.
The sensors are recited at a high level of generality for their conventional function of obtaining measurements. The processor and storage medium are likewise recited only as generic computing components for executing instructions.
The combination of sensors, processor, and storage medium merely implements the collection and analysis of information using conventional technological components.
The claim does not recite:
an improvement to sensor operation;
a specific sensor structure;
a particular signal-processing technique;
improved computer functionality; or
a specific physical modification to the monitored system.
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B — Significantly More / Inventive Concept
Assuming, arguendo, that claims 16 and 59 recite a judicial exception, the claims do not include additional elements, individually or as an ordered combination, that amount to significantly more than the exception.
For claim 16, the additional elements include:
obtaining measurement information from impulse lines;
generating a predicted measurement;
comparing measurements; and
generating an alert.
These elements represent conventional data acquisition, information analysis, and notification functions.
The ordered combination of:
collecting measurements,
predicting a measurement,
comparing the predicted measurement with an actual measurement, and
generating an alert,
does not provide an inventive concept because it merely applies information analysis techniques to detect a system condition.
The claim does not recite any unconventional implementation of the prediction process or any improvement to the underlying impulse-line system.
For claim 59, the additional elements include:
first and second sensors;
a processor; and
computer-readable storage medium.
These components perform their ordinary functions of measuring, processing, storing, and executing instructions.
The arrangement of using sensors to collect information, processing the information with a processor, and generating an alert based on the processed information is a conventional use of computer and sensing technology.
The claimed sensors do not provide an unconventional technical improvement because the claims do not specify any particular sensor structure, sensor operation, or improved measurement technique.
Therefore, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not add significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 17-29, 85-86 and 60-66, 87-88 recite additional limitations including:
additional measurement timing;
machine-learning model development;
operational range measurements;
threshold comparisons; and
different measured properties including pressure, level, and flow.
These additional limitations further define the information collected and analyzed but remain directed to the same abstract concept of collecting measurement data, analyzing the data to determine whether a malfunction exists, and reporting the result.
The dependent claims do not recite additional elements that improve the operation of the impulse line system, sensor technology, or computer functionality.
Accordingly, dependent claims 17-29, 85-86 and 60-66, 87-88 also fail to include significantly more than the judicial exception.
Conclusion
Claims 16-29, 59-66 and 85-88 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims recite collecting measurement information, generating a predicted measurement, comparing information, determining whether a malfunction exists, and reporting the result. The additional elements of sensors, processors, storage media, measurement acquisition, and alert generation merely provide generic technological implementation and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
Accordingly, claims 16-29 and 59-66 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-29, 59-66 and 85-88 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOI C LAU whose telephone number is (571)272-8547. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5:00Pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Davetta Goins can be reached on (571)272-2957. 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.
/HOI C LAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689
Prosecution Insights