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 .
Priority
Current application, US Application No. 18/711,997 filed on 05/21/2024, is a National Stage entry of PCT/US2021/061976 , International Filing Date: 12/06/2021.
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to the application filed on 04/17/2024. Claims 1-28 are currently pending.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In [pg. 7 line 11-13], the phrase “include the RTD signal” in “As can be appreciated, the sensor signals 100 include the RTD signal, drive signal, and the left and right sensor signals” should be replaced with “include the resistive (or resistance) temperature detector (RTD) signal” because the acronym should be spelled out at the first time use. Accordingly, the phrase “resistive temperature detector (RTD) 190” in [pg. 7 line 18] should be replaced with “RTD 190” for the ease of readability.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 15-28 are objected to because of the following informalities: As per claims 15-28, the numeric numbers surrounded by opening and closing brackets, e.g. (20}, (30, (301), for clarity by reducing clutters. As per claim 15, the limitation “interface” should be replaced with “peripheral (or I/O) interface” for clarity by avoiding invocation of 35 USC 112(f) – means for ‘functional language’.
As per claims 16-28, claims are also objected because base claim 15 is objected.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. As per claim 1, the limitation “and switching a totalizing of the multi-phase/single-phase flow from an estimated gas mass flow rate of a precedent multi-phase flow to an estimated gas mass flow rate of the liquid flow” is ambiguous because (1) the step “totalizing of the multi-phase/single-phase flow” misses an element that an action word ‘totalizing’ applies to and it is not clear which element of the multi-phase/single-phase flow the action word ‘totalizing’ applies to, and (2) the switching the word “totalizing” is misleading although the specification also simply recites the same phrase in numerous locations (see ), the real meaning of switching is not switching “totalizing” itself, but switching/transitioning between sub-processes of “totalizing” from one of the sub-processes to the other of the sub-processes (see specification – a transition from a multi-phase flow to a liquid flow in a multi-phase/single-phase, switch from cumulating an estimated gas mass flow rate of the liquid flow, which may be zero, to an estimated gas mass flow rate of a multi-phase flow and, subsequently, to a mass flow rate measurement of a gas flow [pg. 22 line 6 – 21]).
For the sake of examination, the limitation is interpreted as “totalizing the flow rate of a multi-phase/single-phase flow includes (or comprises) switching from accumulating an estimated gas mass flow rate of a precedented multi-phase to an estimated gas mass flow rate of the liquid flow’.
As per claim 15, the limitation “switch a totalizing of the multi-phase/single-phase flow from an estimated gas mass flow rate of a precedent multi-phase flow to an estimated gas mass flow rate of the liquid flow” is ambiguous as explained in claim 1 above.
As per claims 2-14 and 16-28, claims are also rejected because base claims 1 and 15 are rejected.
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 1-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to nonstatutory subject matter. The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Specifically, representative claim 1 recites:
“A method for totalizing a flow rate of a multi-phase/single-phase flow, (1.A) the method comprising:
detecting that a liquid flow is being measured; (1.B)
and switching a totalizing of the multi-phase/single-phase flow from an estimated gas mass flow rate of a precedent multi-phase flow to an estimated gas mass flow rate of the liquid flow. (1.C)”.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (Process).
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exception. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter when recited as such in a claim limitation, that covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations), and mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion).
For example, highlighted limitations/steps (1.B)– (1.C) are treated by the Examiner as belonging to Mathematical Concept grouping or Mental Process grouping or a combination of Mathematical Concept and Mental Process groupings as the limitations include Mathematical Calculations/Algorithms, or show Mathematical Relationship combined or Mental evaluations/judgements.
Next, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
The above claims comprise the following additional elements: (Side Note: duplicated elements are not repeated)
In Claim 1: “A method for totalizing a flow rate of a multi-phase/single-phase flow”;
In Claim 15: “A meter electronics for totalizing a flow rate of a multi-phase/single phase flow”, “interface” and “a processing system communicatively coupled to the interface”;
As per claim 1, the additional element in the preamble “A method for totalizing a flow rate of a multi-phase/single-phase flow” is not a meaningful limitation because the preamble simply links the method with an intended purpose which can be also interpreted as an abstract idea, i.e. totalizing a flow rate of a multi-phase/single-phase flow.
As per claim 15, the additional element in the preamble “A meter electronics for totalizing a flow rate of a multi-phase/single-phase flow” is not a meaningful limitation because the preamble simply links the meter electronics with an intended purpose which can be also interpreted as an abstract idea, i.e. totalizing a flow rate of a multi-phase/single-phase flow. The limitation/element “A meter electronics” represents a standard element in the art and it is not particular. The limitations/elements “interface” and “a processing system communicatively coupled to the interface” represent standard components of a general computer and they are not particular in the art.
In conclusion, the above additional elements, considered individually and in combination with the other claim elements as a whole do not reflect an improvement to the computer technology or other technology or technical field, and, therefore, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. No particular machine or real-world transformation are claimed. Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
Under Step 2B analysis, the above claims fail to include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as shown in the prior art of record.
The limitations/elements listed as additional elements above are well understood, routine and conventional steps/elements in the art according to the prior art of record. (See Schollen, Hollings, Ruesch, Zimmer, Henry, Wein ‘230, Wein ‘675 and others in the list of prior art cited below)
Claims 1-28, therefore, are not patent eligible.
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.
Claims 1 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schollenberger (WO 2016140733 A1), hereinafter ‘Schollen’ best understood by the examiner.
As per claim 1, Schollen discloses
A method for totalizing a flow rate of a multi-phase/single-phase
flow (the meter electronics is configured to provide measurements of totalized
mass flow [page 7, lines 18-26]), the method comprising:
detecting that a liquid flow is being measured; (during time where little or no gas is present, the drive gain is low and stable and the mixture volume flow rate is equal to the liquid volume flow rate [page 10 line 30 - page 11 line 7]) and
switching a totalizing of the multi-phase/single-phase flow from an estimated
gas mass flow rate of a precedent multi-phase flow to an estimated gas mass
flow rate of the liquid flow (even during time periods in which hold values remain constant, meter electronics still rely on the accuracy of other real-time measurement values. For example, some method hold volume flow rate constant during gas slugs, but rely on the realtime density value to calculate GVF and thus determine the total liquid portion of volume flow [page 12, lines 12-17]).
Although Schollen does not use the identical limitations/terms as the limitations/terms of the claim, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when invention is filed before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the limitations/terms of Schollen to disclose the claim limitations.
As per claim 15, Schollen discloses
A meter electronics (20) for totalizing a flow rate of a multi-phase/single phase flow (the meter electronics is configured to provide measurements of totalized mass flow [page 7 lines18-26]), the meter electronics (20) comprising:
an interface (201 [Fig. 2]) configured to receive sensor signals from a
sensor assembly (10) configured to contain and measure the multi-phase/
single-phase flow; and
a processing system (203) communicatively coupled to the interface (201), the
processing system (302) being configured to:
detect that a liquid flow is being measured (during time where little or no gas is present, the drive gain is low and stable and the mixture volume flow rate is equal to the liquid volume flow rate ([page 10 line 30 - page 11 line 7]); and
switch a totalizing of the multi-phase/single-phase flow from an estimated
gas mass flow rate of a precedent multi-phase flow to an estimated gas mass
flow rate of the liquid flow (even during time periods in which hold values remain constant, meter electronics still rely on the accuracy of other real-time measurement values. For example, some method hold volume flow rate constant during gas slugs, but rely on the realtime density value to calculate GVF and thus determine the total liquid portion of volume flow [page 12 lines 12-17]).
Although Schollen does not use the identical limitations/terms as the limitations/terms of the claim, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when invention is filed before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the limitations/terms of Schollen to disclose the claim limitations.
As per claims 2, 4-7, 16 and 18-21, Schollen discloses claim 1 and 15 set forth above.
Schollen further discloses the limitations of claims ([Fig. 2]).
Claims 3, 14, 17 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schollen in view of Hollingsworth (WO 2021177961 A1), hereinafter ‘Hollings’ best understood by the examiner.
As per claims 3, 14, 17 and 28, Schollen discloses claims 1-2 and 15-16 set forth above.
Schollen is silent regarding the limitations in the claims.
Hollings discloses the limitations ([Fig. 3]) and Hollings is in the same flow measurement art using vibratory meters like Schollen.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when invention is filed before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of Schollen in view of Hollings to disclose the limitations with a rationale for promoting an accurate flow metering for multiphase flows (see Schollen - highly desirable that the resulting metering be as accurate as possible, even for such multiphase flows [pg. 2 line 1-6]).
As per claims 8-13 and 22-27, Schollen discloses claims 1, 7, 15 and 21 set forth above.
The limitations are easily figured out by a person having ordinary skill in the art or are found in the recited. prior art of record.
Notes with regard to Prior Art
The prior arts made of record are provided as additional references relevant to the current claims.
Ruesch (WO 8802853 A1) discloses totalizing liquid flow rate utilizing Coriolis meter ([abs]).
Zimmer (US 20180274460 A1) discloses switching fuel types for measuring flow rates (fuels is switched from the first fuel type to the second fuel type [abs]).
Henry (US 20140137643 A1) discloses totalizing liquid flow rate for multi=phase flow and switching data ( ).
Weinstein (US 8322230 B2), hereinafter “Wein ‘230” discloses multi-phase flow and switching placed between two fluid parcels (multi-phase consider two fluid parcels … switching places [Fig. 7]).
Weinstein ((US 20200182675 A1), hereinafter “Wein ‘675” discloses (totalizing … flow rate
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS KAY, whose telephone number is (408) 918-7569. The examiner can normally be reached on M, Th & F 8-5, T 2-7, and W 8-1.
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 M Vazquez can be reached on 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 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DOUGLAS KAY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights