DETAILED ACTION
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are claims that recite “unit” in claims.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
4. Claims 1-5 and 8-11 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 being integrated into a practical application and do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Utilizing the two step process adopted by the Supreme Court (Alice Corp vs CLS Bank Int'l, US Supreme Court, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014) and the recent 101 guideline, Federal Register Vol. 84, No., Jan 2019)), determination of the subject matter eligibility under the 35 USC 101 is as follows: Specifically, the Step 1 requires claim belongs to one of the four statutory categories (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). If Step 1 is satisfied, then in the first part of Step 2A (Prong one), identification of any judicial recognized exceptions in the claim is made. If any limitation in the claim is identified as judicial recognized exception, then proceeding to the second part of Step 2A (Prong two), determination is made whether the identified judicial exception is being integrated into practical application. If the identified judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, then in Step 2B, the claim is further evaluated to see if the additional elements, individually and in combination, provide “inventive concept” that would amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. If the element and combination of elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial recognized exception itself, then the claim is ineligible under the 35 USC 101.
Looking at the claims, the claims satisfy the first part of the test 1A, namely the claims are directed to two of the four statutory classes, apparatus and method. In Step 2A Prong one, we next identify any judicial exceptions in the claims. In Claim 1 (as a representative example), we recognize that the limitations “calculates a flow rate on basis of pressures measured by the upstream pressure sensor and the downstream pressure sensor, calculates a delayed flow rate by generating a response delay in the calculated flow rate; and compares an absolute difference between a predetermined
reference value and the calculated flow rate and an absolute difference between the reference value and the delayed flow rate, and outputs the calculated flow rate or the delayed flow rate having a smaller absolute difference,” are abstract ideas, as they are directed to mental process, under the BRI. Similar rejections are made for other independent and dependent claims. With the identification of abstract ideas, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong two, where with additional elements and taken as a whole, we evaluate whether the identified abstract idea is being integrated into a practical application.
In Step 2A, Prong two, the claims additionally recite “fluid control device in which a fluid control valve, an upstream pressure sensor, a fluid resistance element, and a downstream pressure sensor are arranged in this order from an upstream side,” “pressures measured by the upstream pressure sensor and the downstream pressure sensor,” “a switching unit that switches whether or not to cause the flow rate output unit to compare the absolute differences,” “fluid control system, wherein the fluid control device is disposed in a part or all of a plurality of branch flow paths connected to a main flow path and provided in parallel” and various “units” are merely directed to insignificant data collection activity, recited at high level of generality and recitation of general purpose computers for implementing the abstract idea and outputting the desired value. The claims do not improve the functioning of any computer or devices and do not improve other technology. At most, the claims are an improvement in the abstract idea of determining the flow rate or delayed flow rate having a smaller absolute difference. However, improved or new abstract ideas are still abstract ideas and not eligible under the 101. In short, the claims do not provide sufficient evidence to show that they are more than a drafting effort to monopolize the abstract idea. As such, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Consequently, with the identified abstract idea not being integrated into a practical application, we proceed to Step 2B and evaluate whether the additional elements provide “inventive concept” that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
In Step 2B, the claims additionally recite “fluid control device in which a fluid control valve, an upstream pressure sensor, a fluid resistance element, and a downstream pressure sensor are arranged in this order from an upstream side,” “pressures measured by the upstream pressure sensor and the downstream pressure sensor,” “a switching unit that switches whether or not to cause the flow rate output unit to compare the absolute differences,” “fluid control system, wherein the fluid control device is disposed in a part or all of a plurality of branch flow paths connected to a main flow path and provided in parallel” and various “units” are merely directed to insignificant data collection activity, recited at high level of generality and recitation of general purpose computers for implementing the abstract idea and outputting the desired value, that are well-understood, routine and conventional. As such ,the claims do not provide additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
In Summary, the claims recite abstract idea without being integrated into a practical application, and do not provide additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As such, taken as a whole, the claims are ineligible under the 35 USC 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 10 and 11 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection under 101 set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claims 1, 10 and 11. The prior arts do not teach or suggest a combination, including calculating a delayed flow rate by generating a response delay in the calculated flow rate calculated by the actual flow rate calculation unit, and comparing an absolute difference between a predetermined reference value and the calculated flow rate and an absolute difference between the reference value and the delayed flow rate, and outputting the calculated flow rate or the delayed flow rate having a smaller absolute difference.
The dependent claims 6 and 7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 6. The prior arts do not teach or suggest a combination, including the switching unit enables a function of the flow rate output unit when the fluid control valve is in a closed state and an absolute difference between the calculated flow rate and the reference value falls below an enablement determination threshold.
Regarding Claim 7. The prior arts do not teach or suggest a combination, including the switching unit disables a function of the flow rate output unit when the fluid control valve is in an open state and a value obtained by subtracting the pressure measured by the downstream pressure sensor from the pressure measured by the upstream pressure sensor exceeds a disablement determination threshold.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kitahara, US-PGPUB 2012/0291533
Kitahara et al., US-PGPUB 2019/0383655
Yasuda et al., US-PGPUB 2015/0331430
Hays et al., US-PGPUB 2012/0125124
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HYUN D PARK whose telephone number is (571)270-7922. The examiner can normally be reached 11-4.
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, Arleen Vazquez can be reached at 571-272-2619. 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.
/HYUN D PARK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857