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 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 8 is drawn to a composition identification apparatus for identifying a composition of a mixture of three different liquids comprising a composition identifier that identifies a composition of the mixture based on known pre-solution variables (first and second characteristic values). The identification of the composition of the mixture can be done by mental process using routine mathematical calculations.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim only includes a composition identifier for identifying the composition of the mixture. The composition identifier performs generic computing functions which can be done via mental process as noted above. The claim does not include any active steps of measurement or the like and does not do anything with the determined composition of the mixture.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as noted above, the claim does not include additional elements to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claimed composition identifier is claimed with a high-level of generality and does not provide significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 9 is drawn to a composition identification apparatus for identifying a composition of a fuel mixture containing different types of fuels comprising a composition identifier that identifies a composition of the fuel mixture based on known pre-solution variables (characteristic values). The identification of the composition of the fuel mixture can be done by mental process using routine mathematical calculations.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim only includes a composition identifier for identifying the composition of the fuel mixture. The composition identifier performs generic computing functions which can be done via mental process as noted above. The claim does not include any active steps of measurement or the like and does not do anything with the determined composition of the mixture.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as noted above, the claim does not include additional elements to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claimed composition identifier is claimed with a high-level of generality and does not provide significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 10 recites a memory for storing the identified composition and/or a transmitter that transmits the identified composition. The memory and transmitter perform generic post-solution activity and are claimed with a high-level of generality and do not provide significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 11, this claim further defines the pre-solution variables of claim 9 and does not provide significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 14, this claim recites a characteristic value identifier that identifies characteristic values. The functionality of the characteristic value identifier can be done via mental process using routine mathematical calculations. The characteristic value identifier performs generic computing function recited at a high-level of generality and does not provide significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 15, this claim is drawn to a mathematical formula. The calculation of the mathematical formula can be done via mental process using routine mathematical calculations and does not provide significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 16, this claim further defines the pre-solution variables of claim 8 and does not provide significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 17, this claim further defines the pre-solution variables of claim 8 and does not provide significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 18, this claim further defines liquid components and does not provide significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 19 recites a memory for storing the identified composition and/or a transmitter that transmits the identified composition. The memory and transmitter perform generic post-solution activity and are claimed with a high-level of generality and do not provide significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 20 is drawn to a composition identification method for identifying a composition of a mixture of three different liquids where the identification of the composition of the mixture is based on known pre-solution variables (first and second characteristic values). The identification of the composition of the mixture can be done by mental process using routine mathematical calculations.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application the claim does not provide any additional elements/steps to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as noted above, the claim does not include additional elements to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
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)(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.
Claims 8-14, 16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kobayashi et al. (hereafter Kobayashi)(US 5,363,314).
Regarding claim 8, Kobayashi discloses a composition identification apparatus for identifying a composition of a mixture of three different liquids of a liquid A, a liquid B, and a liquid C (Figures 1, 2, 5, 6, Column 5, lines 50-53, and Column 7, lines 54-64 where the fuel character judging system determines the composition of a fuel mixture comprising three liquids), the composition identification apparatus comprising: a composition identifier (Figure 1, Element 26) that identifies a composition of the mixture on a basis of a first characteristic value and a second characteristic value of the mixture, a first characteristic value and a second characteristic value unique to the liquid A, a first characteristic value and a second characteristic value unique to the liquid B, and a first characteristic value and a second characteristic value unique to the liquid C (Figures 1, 2, 5, 6, Column 7, lines 12-33 and Column 7, line 65-Column 8, line 21 where dielectric constants and resistivities of the three liquids are used to calculate the composition of the fuel mixture).
Regarding claim 9, Kobayashi discloses a composition identification apparatus for identifying a composition of a fuel mixture containing different types of fuels (Figures 1, 2, 5, 6), the composition identification apparatus comprising a composition identifier (Figure 1, Element 26) that identifies a composition of the fuel mixture on a basis of one or a plurality of characteristic values of the fuel mixture and one or a plurality of characteristic values unique to each of a plurality of the fuels contained in the fuel mixture (Figures 1, 2, 5, 6, Column 7, lines 12-33 and Column 7, line 65-Column 8, line 21 where dielectric constants and resistivities of the three liquids are used to calculate the composition of the fuel mixture).
Regarding claim 10, Kobayashi discloses a composition memory that memorizes the identified composition of the fuel mixture and/or a composition transmitter that transmits the identified composition of the fuel mixture to another computer apparatus (Figure 1, Element 27 and Column 8, line 15-Column 10, line 26 where composition data is stored in the memory).
Regarding claim 11, Kobayashi discloses wherein the one or the plurality of characteristic values unique to each of the plurality of fuels are values identified according to a state of the fuel mixture or a surrounding environment of the fuel mixture (Figures 1, 2, 5, 6, Column 7, lines 12-33 and Column 7, line 65-Column 8, line 21 where dielectric constants and resistivities of the three liquids are used to calculate the composition of the fuel mixture. The composition of the fuel mixture is determined based on a current state and surrounding environment of the fuel mixture).
Regarding claim 12, Kobayashi discloses a composition identification system comprising: the composition identification apparatus according to claim 9; a fuel unit in which a fuel mixture is present (Figure 1, Element 9); and one or a plurality of measurers capable of measuring one or a plurality of different characteristic values of the fuel mixture present in the fuel unit (Figure 1, Elements 15, 16), wherein the composition identifier identifies a composition of the fuel mixture on a basis of the one or the plurality of different characteristic values of the fuel mixture measured by the one or the plurality of measurers (Figures 1, 2, 5, 6, Column 7, lines 12-33 and Column 7, line 65-Column 8, line 21 where dielectric constants and resistivities of the three liquids are used to calculate the composition of the fuel mixture. The composition of the fuel mixture is determined based on a current state and surrounding environment of the fuel mixture).
Regarding claim 13, Kobayashi discloses a moving object (Figure 1 where the fuel character system is provided in a vehicle) comprising: the composition identification apparatus according to claim 9; a fuel unit in which a fuel mixture is present (Figure 1, Element 9); one or a plurality of measurers capable of measuring one or a plurality of different characteristic values of the fuel mixture present in the fuel unit (Figure 1, Elements 15, 16); and a heat engine (Figure 1, Element 1), wherein the composition identifier identifies a composition of the fuel mixture on a basis of the one or the plurality of different characteristic values of the fuel mixture measured by the one or the plurality of measurers, and wherein the moving object is driven by burning fuel supplied from the fuel unit in the heat engine (Figures 1, 2, 5, 6, Column 7, lines 12-33 and Column 7, line 65-Column 8, line 21 where dielectric constants and resistivities of the three liquids are used to calculate the composition of the fuel mixture. The vehicle is driven by burning fuel supplied from the fuel unit to the engine).
Regarding claim 14, Kobayashi discloses the composition identification apparatus comprising a characteristic value identifier that identifies the first characteristic value and/or the second characteristic value unique to the liquid A, the first characteristic value and/or the second characteristic value unique to the liquid B, and/or the first characteristic value and/or the second characteristic value unique to the liquid C according to a temperature of the mixture (Figures 1, 2, 5, 6, Column 7, lines 12-33 and Column 7, line 65-Column 8, line 21 where dielectric constants and resistivities of the three liquids are used to calculate the composition of the fuel mixture. The composition of the fuel mixture is determined based on a current state and surrounding environment of the fuel mixture (temperature)).
Regarding claim 16, Kobayashi discloses wherein the composition identifier identifies the composition of the mixture on a basis of a deviation amount between a volume fraction of the liquid A, the liquid B, and/or the liquid C calculated by a predetermined calculation formula and a volume fraction of the liquid A, the liquid B, and/or the liquid C in an actual mixture (Figures 1, 2, 5, 6 and Column 7, line 1-Column 9, line 65 where dielectric constants and resistivities of the three liquids are used to calculate the composition of the fuel mixture based on volume fractions).
Regarding claim 18, Kobayashi discloses wherein the liquid A is fossil fuel, the liquid B is hydrogenated vegetable oil, and the liquid C is bio-derived fuel (Figures 1, 2, 5, 6 and Column 7, line 1-Column 9, line 65 where the determination of mixture composition is applicable for use with various types of liquid).
Regarding claim 19, Kobayashi discloses the composition identification apparatus comprising a composition memory that memorizes the identified composition of the mixture and/or a composition transmitter that transmits the identified composition of the mixture to another computer apparatus (Figure 1, Element 27 and Column 8, line 15-Column 10, line 26 where composition data is stored in the memory).
Method claim 20 is drawn to the method of using the corresponding apparatus claimed in claim 1. Therefore method claim 20 corresponds to apparatus claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons of anticipation as used above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi et al. (hereafter Kobayashi)(US 5,363,314).
Regarding claim 15, Kobayashi does not specifically disclose wherein, in a case where the first characteristic value of the mixture is P and the second characteristic value of the mixture is Q, the first characteristic value of the liquid A is P.sub.A and the second characteristic value of the liquid A is Q.sub.A, the first characteristic value of the liquid B is P.sub.B, and the second characteristic value of the liquid B is Q.sub.B, and the first characteristic value of the liquid C is P.sub.C and the second characteristic value of the liquid C is Q.sub.C, the composition identifier identifies a volume fraction X vol % of the liquid A, a volume fraction Y vol % of the liquid B, and/or a volume fraction Z vol % of the liquid C on a basis of a formula: [Mathematicalformula1]X=100-Y-Z(a) Y=(P-PA)(QC-QA)-(PC-PA)(Q-QA)(PB-PA)(QC-QA)-(PC-PA)(QB-QA)×100(b) Z=-(P-PA)(QB-QA)+(PB-PA)(Q-QA)(PB-PA)(QC-QA)-(PC-PA)(QB-QA)×100(c) and identifies the composition of the mixture. Kobayashi discloses the claimed variables. Calculating results based on known values is well known in the art and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the composition of the mixture using the formula as claimed since calculating a result based on known variables is well known in the art, involves routine skill in the art and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill absent of unexpected results.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi et al. (hereafter Kobayashi)(US 5,363,314) and in view of Harris et al. (hereafter Harris)(US 5,239,860).
Regarding claim 17, Kobayashi discloses wherein the first characteristic value is a dielectric constant or a parameter regarding the dielectric constant but fails to specifically disclose wherein the second characteristic value is a thermal conductivity or a parameter regarding the thermal conductivity. In the same field of endeavor, Harris discloses a mixture content determining system where it is disclosed that determining content of a mixture is measured using property variables such as dielectric constant, thermal conductivity and index of refraction (Column 1, lines 18-49).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the mixture calculation using thermal conductivity of Harris to the fuel judging system of Kobayashi, motivation being that determining mixture content using both dielectric constant and thermal conductivity was well known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, involves routine skill in the art and would be obvious absent of unexpected results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS D ALUNKAL whose telephone number is (571)270-1127. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM.
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, BRIAN ZIMMERMAN can be reached at 571-272-3059. 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.
/THOMAS D ALUNKAL/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686