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 § 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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (Abstract Idea) without significantly more. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to claims 1 and 12, the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible
subject matter. Based upon a consideration of all the relevant factors with respect to the claims,
as a whole, the claims are determined to be directed to an abstract idea, based on routine data gathering from a generic vibration sensor and determining physical parameters using a fitting algorithm. The vibration signal nor the calculated physical parameter(s) are utilized to make a determination regarding the status/quality of the fluid in the process pipe(s).
The claimed step of exciting the process pipe and measuring a vibration signal is
understood to be nothing more than a data gathering step. Given the broadest reasonable
interpretation, the measurement data from the sensors do not amount to more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular environment.
The claimed step of reducing a frequency range of the measured vibration signal to a range where a predicted resonant frequency is located is directed to the step of sorting existing data to identify a desired value range. Such a step is understood to be nothing more than a basic mathematical calculation.
The claimed step of estimating a number of parameters and values for the parameters for a fitting algorithm; fitting the fitting algorithm to the processed measured vibration signal and adapting the parameters so that the curve of the fitting algorithm fits to a curve of the processed measured vibration signal is directed to data manipulation and mathematical curve fitting, routine mathematical tools.
Finally, the claimed step of determining the physical parameter from the parameters is understood to be nothing more than a basic mathematical calculation. The parameter is not compared to a threshold nor is the parameter utilized to improve any particular technical field and/or effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing.
To determine eligibility, applying the two-step Alice/Mayo test:
The steps of "estimating parameters," "fitting an algorithm," and "adapting parameters" are fundamental mathematical operations. In cases like Gottschalk v. Benson and Parker v. Flook, the Supreme Court established that mathematical formulas and algorithms are abstract ideas. Processed vibration signals represent data, and performing curve fitting on that data is considered a "mental process" or a mathematical exercise.
If a claim is abstract, it must include "something more" to be eligible. Simply applying a mathematical fit to a specific technical field (vibration monitoring) or performing it on a computer does not transform the abstract idea into a patentable invention. The claim(s) do not describe a specific improvement to a functionality or a non-conventional physical transformation.
Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claims 2-11 depend on claim 1 and therefore inherit the deficiencies of independent claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMEL E WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)270-7027. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10am-4pm.
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, John Breene can be reached at (571)272-4107. 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.
/JAMEL E WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights