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 .
The preliminary amendment filed on November 13, 2023 has been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because boxes 10, 20, 170l, 170r, 180, 190, 240, 220, 222, 226, 230 (Fig. 3) should be provided with descriptive text labels (see MPEP 608.02(b)(II) FP 6.22).
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 limitation(s) is/are: sensor assembly (claims 1, 15), processing system (claim 1).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/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 limitation(s) 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 it/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 limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5, 6, 12, 13, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 5, 12, and 19, the bias indicator having two definitions is indefinite: the bias indicator is a central tendency value of the plurality of difference values AND a reliability indicator of the central tendency value.
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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Pursuant to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (MPEP 2106), the following analysis is made:
Under step 1 of the Guidance, the claims fall within a statutory category.
Under step 2A, prong 1, claims 1, 8, and 15 recite an abstract idea of “compare the plurality of zero-flow values to a reference zero-flow value to determine a bias indicator of the reference zero-flow value” (mathematical process).
The mere nominal recitation of a generic processor (processing system/meter electronics) does not take the claim limitation out of the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) (III).
Under step 2A, prong 2, the claim limitations are not integrated into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)(I)).
A sensor assembly performs sensing which is directed an insignificant extra solution activity of data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Under step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(A)).
The remaining dependent claims do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea.
Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-21 are directed to an abstract idea.
Accordingly, claims 1, 8, and 15 and their respective dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-21 are patent ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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)(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, 2, 5-9, 12-16, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Greco (US 2020/0249063).
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 15, Greco discloses a meter electronics (20) and method (Fig. 2) configured to detect a measurement bias of a reference zero-flow value (zero offset based on measured flow rate, the meter electronics (20) comprising:
an interface (301) communicatively coupled to a sensor assembly (10) containing a fluid (paragraph 0038, lines 1-3); and
a processing system (310) communicatively coupled to the interface (301) (Fig. 3), the processing system (301) being configured to measure a plurality of zero-flow values of the sensor assembly (step 240; measured parameters correspond to zero offset values if the parameters are within the corresponding ranges, paragraph 0059, lines 1-3) and compare the plurality of zero-flow values to a reference zero-flow value (comparing the parameters to the corresponding ranges, paragraph 0059, lines 4-9) to determine a bias indicator of the reference zero-flow value (to determine a true no flow measurement, paragraph 0059, lines 7-8).
Regarding claim 15, Greco further discloses a vibratory meter (5) configured to detect a measurement bias of a reference zero-flow value (Fig. 2), the vibratory meter (5) comprising: the sensor assembly (10) and the meter electronics (20).
Regarding claims 2, 9, and 16, Greco discloses determine a plurality of difference values between the plurality of zero-flow values and the reference zero-flow value (comparing measurements with corresponding ranges to determine that the measurements, while different, are within the corresponding ranges, paragraph 0059, lines 4-9).
Regarding claims 5, 12, and 19, Greco discloses the bias indicator is a central tendency value of the plurality of difference values (no flow measurements have differences within the corresponding ranges, paragraph 0059, lines 4-9) and a reliability indicator of the central tendency value (flow calibration is along zero offset/no flow measurements, accordingly, the no flow measurements are reliable/accurate, paragraph 0005, lines 15-16; paragraph 0006, lines 1-3).
Regarding claims 6, 13, and 20, Greco discloses the reliability indicator of the central tendency value is a dispersion value of the central tendency value (no flow measurements are dispersion values that are within the corresponding ranges, paragraph 0059, lines 4-9).
Regarding claims 7, 14, and 21, Greco discloses compare the bias indicator to a bias indicator reliability threshold value (no flow measurements are compared with corresponding ranges to be determined that they are within the corresponding ranges, paragraph 0059, lines 4-9).
Prior Art Note
Claims 3, 4, 10, 11, 17, and 18 do not have prior art rejections.
The combination as claimed wherein a meter electronics and method configured to detect a measurement bias of a reference zero-flow value comprising the bias indicator of the reference zero-flow value comprises a signum ratio of the plurality of difference values (claims 3, 10, 17) is not disclosed, suggested, or made obvious by the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kowalczyk et al. (US 2003/0158830) discloses a training method for a support vector machine, including executing an iterative process on a training set of data to determine parameters defining the machine, the iterative process being executed on the basis of a differentiable form of a primal optimization problem for the parameters, the problem being defined on the basis of the parameters and the data set (Abstract).
Kowalczyk et al. further discloses a free parameter usually called bias and "sgn" denotes the ordinary signum function (paragraph 0005).
However, Kowalczyk et al. does not disclose a bias indicator of the reference zero-flow value comprises a signum ratio of the plurality of difference values.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Nghiem whose telephone number is (571) 272-2277. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Schechter can be reached at (571) 272-2302. 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).
/MICHAEL P NGHIEM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857 February 4, 2026