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 Objections
Claims 18-34 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 18, the term "the correlation" in line 14 should be "the temporal correlation".
In claim 34, the term "the correlation" in line 19 should be "the temporal correlation".
As to claims 19-33, claims 19-33 are also objected due to their dependency on claim 18.
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 19-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
As to claims 19-20, the phrase "can be" of claim 19 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
As to claim 21, claim 21 is also rejected because they are dependent on the rejected claim 20 as set forth above.
As to claim 21, claim 21 recite limitations “the first type; the second type” in lines 4,6 of claim 21. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 21 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. The claim languages “the first type; the second type” appear for the first time, however, read as though they have already been recited. See MPEP 2173.05(e).
As to claim 21, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) is considered indefinite, since the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). Note the explanation given by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences in Ex parte Wu, 10 USPQ2d 2031, 2033 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989), as to where broad language is followed by "such as" and then narrow language. The Board stated that this can render a claim indefinite by raising a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Note also, for example, the decisions of Ex parte Steigewald, 131 USPQ 74 (Bd. App. 1961); Ex parte Hall, 83 USPQ 38 (Bd. App. 1948); and Ex parte Hasche, 86 USPQ 481 (Bd. App. 1949).
In the present instance, lines 4 and 6 of claim 21 recites the broad recitation “density limit value”, and lines 4 and 6 of the claim also recites “in particular …”, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
As to claim 22, claim 22 recite limitations “the context” claim 22. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 22 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. The claim languages “the context” appear for the first time, however, read as though they have already been recited. See MPEP 2173.05(e).
As to claim 23, claim 23 recite limitations “the generation; the comparison” claim 23. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 23 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. The claim languages “the generation; the comparison” appear for the first time, however, read as though they have already been recited. See MPEP 2173.05(e).
As to claims 24-29, claims 24-29 are also rejected because they are dependent on the rejected claim 23 as set forth above.
As to claim 24, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) is considered indefinite, since the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). Note the explanation given by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences in Ex parte Wu, 10 USPQ2d 2031, 2033 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989), as to where broad language is followed by "such as" and then narrow language. The Board stated that this can render a claim indefinite by raising a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Note also, for example, the decisions of Ex parte Steigewald, 131 USPQ 74 (Bd. App. 1961); Ex parte Hall, 83 USPQ 38 (Bd. App. 1948); and Ex parte Hasche, 86 USPQ 481 (Bd. App. 1949).
In the present instance, claim 24 recites the broad recitation “the first measured value, the second measured value”, and the claim also recites “in particular …”, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation respectively follows the broad recitation “the first measured value, the second measured value”.
As to claim 25, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) is considered indefinite, since the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). Note the explanation given by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences in Ex parte Wu, 10 USPQ2d 2031, 2033 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989), as to where broad language is followed by "such as" and then narrow language. The Board stated that this can render a claim indefinite by raising a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Note also, for example, the decisions of Ex parte Steigewald, 131 USPQ 74 (Bd. App. 1961); Ex parte Hall, 83 USPQ 38 (Bd. App. 1948); and Ex parte Hasche, 86 USPQ 481 (Bd. App. 1949).
In the present instance, claim 25 recites the broad recitation “the second measured value”, and the claim also recites “in particular …”, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
As to claim 27, claim 27 recite limitations “the determination” claim 27. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 27 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. The claim languages “the determination” appear for the first time, however, read as though they have already been recited. See MPEP 2173.05(e).
As to claim 30, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) is considered indefinite, since the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). Note the explanation given by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences in Ex parte Wu, 10 USPQ2d 2031, 2033 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989), as to where broad language is followed by "such as" and then narrow language. The Board stated that this can render a claim indefinite by raising a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Note also, for example, the decisions of Ex parte Steigewald, 131 USPQ 74 (Bd. App. 1961); Ex parte Hall, 83 USPQ 38 (Bd. App. 1948); and Ex parte Hasche, 86 USPQ 481 (Bd. App. 1949).
In the present instance, claim 30 recites the broad recitation “a foreign body-free”, and the claim also recites “in particular …”, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
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 18-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract ideas without significantly more. The claims recite mathematical concepts and/or mental processes, and fail to integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application, or to recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as set forth below.
The following analysis is performed as set forth in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (hereinafter 2019 PEG), as set forth in MPEP § 2106.
As to claims 18-33:
Step 1
Step 1 of the 2019 PEG asks whether the claim is to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Claims 18-33 are directed to a method.
Step 2A Prong One
Step 2A Prong One of the 2019 PEG analysis asks whether the claim recites an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon.
Claim 18 recites a method for detecting a foreign body in a flowable medium, comprising the method steps of:
determining a first time curve of a first measured value using a first measuring device, for determining a physical density of the medium (“using a first measuring device, for determining a physical density of the medium” is routine and conventional in measuring physical parameters of a fluid flowing (as seen in para. 0088 of US 20140224006) for data gathering necessary for the abstract limitations of “determining a first time curve of a first measured value”, which is directed to math);
wherein the first measured value correlates with the physical density and/or the change in the physical density of the medium over time (this is routine data gather necessary for the abstract limitations);
determining a second time curve of a second measured value using a second measuring device for ascertaining a relative permittivity of the medium (“using a second measuring device, for determining a relative permittivity of the medium” is routine and conventional in measuring physical parameters of a fluid flowing (as seen in para. 0088 of US 20140224006) for data gathering necessary for the abstract limitations of “determining a second time curve of a second measured value”, which is directed to math);
wherein the second measured value correlates with the relative permittivity and/or a change in the relative permittivity of the medium over time (this is routine data gather necessary for the abstract limitations),
determining a temporal correlation between the first curve and the second curve (this is directed to mental step which can be done in human mind to implement the abstract ideas);
detecting pairs of measured values of the first measured value and the second measured value (this is routine and conventional in measuring physical parameters of a fluid flowing (as seen in para. 0088 of US 20140224006));
checking whether the detected pairs of measured values within a predefined tolerance interval correspond to the correlation of at least one predefined function (which is directed to both math (comparing numbers) and a mental step (a comparison of numbers can be in human mind)); and
if this is not the case, establishing that the foreign body is present in the medium (this is directed to abstract limitations: the establishing/determining step is a mental step (the establishing that the foreign body is present in the medium can be in human mind)).
Thus, claim 18 recites limitations that fall into the mathematical concept of abstract ideas. Mathematical algorithms are not eligible for patent protection. Mathematical algorithms are found by courts to be abstract (see Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 209 U.S.P.Q. 1 (1981)). Claims 19-33 depends on claim 18. Claims 19-33 recite at least all of the judicial exceptions of claim 18, and therefore also recite limitations that fall into the mathematical concept of abstract ideas. Additionally, claims 19-33 recites nothing more than additional abstract ideas of mental step and/or math to implement the abstract ideas.
Applicant should note, with respect to the limitations regarding the data recited in claim 18, that because the device merely recites abstract ideas of data gathering/identifying and mathematical concepts, and not any particular structure or steps for gathering data, the examiner, under a broad, reasonable interpretation of the claims, does not consider any details about the data to be anything other than part of the abstract step of routine data generating and routine data collecting.
Step 2A Prong Two
Step 2A Prong Two of the 2019 PEG analysis asks whether a claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claims 18-33 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because additional elements do not add to the mathematical algorithms/formula/concept something that in terms of patent law’s objectives had significance i.e. improvements to another technology or technical field, meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to particular technological environment.
Step 2B
Step 2B of the 2019 PEG analysis asks whether the claim provide an inventive concept, i.e., does the claim recite additional element(s) or a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim?
Regarding claims 18-33, as discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the same analysis applies in Step 2B, i.e., insignificant extra-solution activities of mental processes; data generating and/or gathering and/or collecting and field of use cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
The claims 18-33 do not recite additional element(s) or a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claims. For these reasons, there are no inventive concepts in claims 18-33, and claims 18-33 are therefore ineligible as being directed to judicial exceptions of abstract ideas.
As to claim 34:
Step 1
Step 1 of the 2019 PEG asks whether the claim is to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Claim 34 is directed to a system.
Step 2A Prong One
Step 2A Prong One of the 2019 PEG analysis asks whether the claim recites an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon.
Claim 34 recites a measurement arrangement, comprising:
a pipeline for conveying a medium in a flow direction; a first measuring device for determining a physical density of the medium, a second measuring device for determining a relative permittivity of the medium, wherein the first measuring device and the second measuring device are integrated in the pipeline and arranged offset to one another in the flow direction; an evaluation circuit which is designed to carry out the following method (this is routine and conventional in measuring physical parameters density and relative permittivity of a fluid flowing (as seen in para. 0088, 0006, and 0030 and fig.1 of US 20140224006) for data gathering and/or processing):
determining a first time curve of a first measured value using a first measuring device, for determining a physical density of the medium (“using a first measuring device, for determining a physical density of the medium” is routine and conventional in measuring physical parameters of a fluid flowing (as seen in para. 0088 of US 20140224006) for data gathering necessary for the abstract limitations of “determining a first time curve of a first measured value”, which is directed to math);
wherein the first measured value correlates with the physical density and/or the change in the physical density of the medium over time (this is routine data gather necessary for the abstract limitations);
determining a second time curve of a second measured value using a second measuring device for ascertaining a relative permittivity of the medium (“using a second measuring device, for determining a relative permittivity of the medium” is routine and conventional in measuring physical parameters of a fluid flowing (as seen in para. 0088 of US 20140224006) for data gathering necessary for the abstract limitations of “determining a second time curve of a second measured value”, which is directed to math);
wherein the second measured value correlates with the relative permittivity and/or a change in the relative permittivity of the medium over time (this is routine data gather necessary for the abstract limitations),
determining a temporal correlation between the first curve and the second curve (this is directed to mental step which can be done in human mind to implement the abstract ideas);
detecting pairs of measured values of the first measured value and the second measured value (this is routine and conventional in measuring physical parameters of a fluid flowing (as seen in para. 0088 of US 20140224006));
checking whether the detected pairs of measured values within a predefined tolerance interval correspond to the correlation of at least one predefined function (which is directed to both math (comparing numbers) and a mental step (a comparison of numbers can be in human mind)); and
if this is not the case, establishing that the foreign body is present in the medium (this is directed to abstract limitations: the establishing/determining step is a mental step (the establishing that the foreign body is present in the medium can be in human mind)).
Thus, claim 34 recites limitations that fall into the mathematical concept of abstract ideas. Mathematical algorithms are not eligible for patent protection. Mathematical algorithms are found by courts to be abstract (see Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 209 U.S.P.Q. 1 (1981)).
Applicant should note, with respect to the limitations regarding the data recited in claim 34, that because the device merely recites abstract ideas of data gathering/identifying and mathematical concepts, and not any particular structure or steps for gathering data, the examiner, under a broad, reasonable interpretation of the claims, does not consider any details about the data to be anything other than part of the abstract step of routine data generating and routine data collecting.
Step 2A Prong Two
Step 2A Prong Two of the 2019 PEG analysis asks whether a claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 34 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because additional elements do not add to the mathematical algorithms/formula/concept something that in terms of patent law’s objectives had significance i.e. improvements to another technology or technical field, meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to particular technological environment.
Step 2B
Step 2B of the 2019 PEG analysis asks whether the claim provide an inventive concept, i.e., does the claim recite additional element(s) or a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim?
Regarding claim 34, as discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the same analysis applies in Step 2B, i.e., insignificant extra-solution activities of mental processes; data generating and/or gathering and/or collecting and field of use cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
The claim 34 does not recite additional element(s) or a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claims. For these reasons, there are no inventive concepts in claim 34, and claim 34 is therefore ineligible as being directed to judicial exceptions of abstract ideas.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18-34 are allowable once claim objections and 112b and 101 rejections are corrected.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art of record is Scott- US 20140224006, which teaches a pipeline 140 for conveying a medium in a flow direction; a first measuring device 110 for determining a physical density of the medium ([0009]: measuring density using a Coriolis flow meter), a second measuring device 120 for determining a relative permittivity of the medium ([0035,0037] and fig.1), wherein the first measuring device 110 and the second measuring device 120 are integrated in the pipeline 140 and arranged offset to one another in the flow direction; an evaluation circuit 130 which is designed to carry out the following method (see para. 0088, 0006, and 0030 and fig.1); wellhead test system measures the properties of the fluid (i.e., oil, gas, and water) in pipe 140 and uses the combined measurements from Coriolis meter 110 and water analyzer 120 (or microwave sensor as in [0047]) to calculate the gas volume fraction (GVF) to correct the flow, density, and water percentage, thereby improving the accuracy of the measurement. Advantageously, using a Coriolis flow meter and a water analyzer without additional equipment reduces cost and provides improvements over conventional systems. This also allows full-time well data to be measured instead of flowing one well at a time through a multiphase system for measurement.
Scott fails to teach determining a temporal correlation between the first curve and the second curve; detecting pairs of measured values of the first measured value and the second measured value; checking whether the detected pairs of measured values within a predefined tolerance interval correspond to the temporal correlation of at least one predefined function, when in combination with all other elements of a method for detecting a foreign body in a flowable medium as claimed in the claim 18.
Scott also fails to teach determining a temporal correlation between the first curve and the second curve; detecting pairs of measured values of the first measured value and the second measured value; checking whether the detected pairs of measured values within a predefined tolerance interval correspond to the temporal correlation of at least one predefined function, when in combination with all other elements of a measurement arrangement as claimed in the claim 34.
Hence the prior art of record fails to teach the invention as set forth in claims 18-34 and Examiner cannot find specific teaching of the invention, nor reasons within the cited art to combine and/or modify the elements of the prior art of record other than applicant's own reasoning.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRUONG D PHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8883. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday 12pm-8pm.
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 on (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 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). 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. /TRUONG D PHAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/JOHN E BREENE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
