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 § 112
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Claim 1, the lone independent claim, requires a determination of a flow metric, and the flow metric is determined based on an estimated variation of an amplitude of a reflected signal. It is not disclosed what the flow metric actually is. Let alone what is a difference between a flow metric and a compensated flow metric per the specification. Further, why is there an estimation claimed, but then the estimation is disclosed to be calculated? Calculating and estimating are not the same thing. Further what exactly is the relationship between the metric and the variation in order that the metric can even be obtained from the variation? Finally, how is the flow metric indicative of flow? What is the relationship between the metric and flow? These questions are simply not answered by the specification as filed.
There are many factors to be considered when determining whether there is sufficient evidence to support a determination that a disclosure does not satisfy the enablement requirement and whether any necessary experimentation is "undue." These factors include, but are not limited to:
(A) The breadth of the claims;
(B) The nature of the invention;
(C) The state of the prior art;
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill;
(E) The level of predictability in the art;
(F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor;
(G) The existence of working examples; and
(H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure.
A conclusion of lack of enablement means that, based on the evidence regarding each of the above factors, the specification, at the time the application was filed, would not have taught one skilled in the art how to make and/or use the full scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation. In re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557,1562, 27 USPQ2d 1510, 1513 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
With respect to the case of the present invention, there is not enough direction provided by the applicant as to what the metric is or whether the variation is calculated or estimated in order to find the metric (Wands Factor F), there is no comparison to any working examples to assist one of ordinary skill in the art to make an educated guess as to what the metric is or how one uses an estimated or calculated variation to find it (Wands Factor G), and finally, there is a huge amount of experimentation and trial and error required to determine what the metric might be, and how it could be obtained, and how it is indicative of flow (Wands Factor H). Since claim 1 lacks enablement, then claims 3-15, which depend either directly or indirectly from claim 1, lack enablement as well.
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) 1, 3, 11, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thiel (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2022/0163361).
With respect to claim 1, Thiel discloses and illustrates a method for determining a flow metric for a flow of granular particles, the method comprising: performing, using a radar sensor (see at least paragraph [0019]), a plurality of radar measurements distributed over a measurement time period (see at least paragraph [0002]) comprising: transmitting radar pulses through the flow and in a direction across the flow(see at least paragraphs [0019] and [0020]), receiving reflected signals (see at least paragraph [0002]), and processing the reflected signals (see at least paragraph [0011]); estimating, using a radar signal processor and based on the samples, a variation over time of an amplitude of the reflected signals (see at least paragraph [0017]); and determining, using the radar signal processor, the flow metric based on the estimated variation, wherein estimating the variation comprises calculating a variance of the amplitude of the reflected signals (see at least paragraphs [0017] and [0026]); wherein the flow metric is indicative of a flow rate of the flow of granular particles (see at least paragraph [0031]). Thiel fails to disclose sampling of the reflected signals. However, Thiel does teach a determination of a reflection peak of the signal during an evaluation process (see at least paragraph [0017]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize a sampling method as a part of the evaluation process as sampling is a well-known suitable evaluation method for accurate results of processing radar signals. In paragraph [0017], Thiel teaches that a suitable evaluation method can be carried out. Since sampling is suitable, then it can be carried out in order to provide more accurate results as well.
With respect to claim 3, the method according to claim 1, further comprising: estimating, using the radar signal processor, a flow rate of the flow of granular particles from the determined flow metric (see at least paragraphs [0040] and [0120]).
With respect to claim 11, the method according to claim 1, further performing, using the radar sensor, a further plurality of radar measurements distributed over a further measurement time period different from said measurement time period, comprising: transmitting radar pulses through the flow and in a direction across the flow, receiving further reflected signals, and sampling the further reflected signals; estimating, using the radar signal processor and based on samples of the further reflected signals, a variation over time of an amplitude of the further reflected signals; and determining, using the radar signal processor, a further flow metric based on the determined variation of the amplitude of the further reflected signals; and generating a signal indicative of a changed flow based on a comparison of said flow metric and the further flow metric (see at least claims 9 and 16).
With respect to claim 12, the method according to claims 1, wherein the flow of granular particles is inside a conduit, and the radar sensor is of arranged outside the conduit is shown in at least Figure 12.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 23 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant essentially simply place claim 2 into claim 1. It assumed this was done in order to resolve the previous 35 USC 112 rejection, but that doesn’t resolve most of the other issues presented. It in fact adds a new issue of an estimation versus a calculation. Further, claim 2 was already previously rejected in view of prior art, so a similar prior art rejection would still apply here. For at least these reasons, the amendment does not overcome the rejection given.
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 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 RODNEY T FRANK whose telephone number is (571)272-2193. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at (571) 272-2375. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
RODNEY T. FRANK
Examiner
Art Unit 2855
/PETER J MACCHIAROLO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
February 13, 2026