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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because 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 computer implemented method for measuring the kinematic viscosity of a free fluid stream flowing from an opening with constant acceleration, wherein said method takes as input at least one image of an area of interest of a fluid stream, a cross-section, s.sub.0, of said opening and an output volume flow rate, U.sub.0, of the fluid stream from said opening; wherein said method provides as output a kinematic viscosity, η, of the fluid; wherein said method comprises the following steps: (a) modelling the geometrical profile GP of the fluid stream through a digital processing operation of the input image; (b) computing the kinematic viscosity of the fluid with a mathematical or physical model from the modelled geometrical profile GP, the cross-section, s.sub.0, and the output volume flow rate, U.sub.0, and (c) controlling a physical parameter of the free fluid stream based on the computed kinematic viscosity, n.”
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 exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the groupings of subject matter that covers mathematical concepts - mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations.
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claims 2 and 11.
Next, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the above claims that recites a judicial exception are integrated into a practical application.
The above claims comprise the following additional elements:
In Claim 1: A computer implemented method for measuring the kinematic viscosity of a free fluid stream flowing from an opening with constant acceleration, wherein said method takes as input at least one image of an area of interest of a fluid stream, a section, s.sub.0, of said opening and an output volume flow rate, U.sub.0, of the fluid stream from said opening; controlling a physical parameter of the free fluid stream based on the computed kinematic viscosity;
In Claim 2: A computer implemented method, wherein said method takes as input a first image of an area of interest of a fluid stream, a section, s.sub.0, of said opening and an output volume flow rate, U.sub.0, of the fluid stream from said opening, a second time-shifted image of at least two features of the fluid stream, wherein said features are present in the first image provided as input; controlling a physical parameter of the free fluid stream based on the computed kinematic viscosity;
In Claim 11: A process for measuring a kinematic viscosity, η, of a fluid stream flowing from an opening with constant acceleration, wherein said process comprises the following steps: (a) acquiring, with an image recording device, at least one image of an area of interest of a fluid stream; controlling a physical parameter of the free fluid stream based on the computed kinematic viscosity.
The additional elements in the preambles are recited in generality and represent insignificant extra-solution activity (field-of-use limitations) that is not meaningful to indicate a practical application.
The additional elements in the claims such as a computer implementation (Claims 1 and 2) are examples of generic computer equipment (components) that are generally recited and not meaningful and, therefore, are not qualified as particular machines to indicate a practical application. The limitations that generically recite acquiring one image of an area of interest of a fluid stream, a section, s.sub.0, of said opening and an output volume flow rate, U.sub.0, of the fluid stream from said opening (Claim 1), a first image of an area of interest of a fluid stream, a section, s.sub.0, of said opening and an output volume flow rate, U.sub.0, of the fluid stream from said opening, a second time-shifted image of at least two features of the fluid stream (Claim 2), and/or acquiring, with an image recording device, at least one image of an area of interest of a fluid stream (Claim 11) represent insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering. According to the October update on 2019 SME Guidance such steps are “performed in order to gather data for the mental analysis step, and is a necessary precursor for all uses of the recited exception. It is thus extra-solution activity, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application”.
The newly amended limitation “controlling a physical parameter of the free fluid stream based on the computed kinematic viscosity” is not meaningful to indicate a practical application as recited in generality.
Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
However, the above claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B analysis) because these additional elements/steps are well-understood and conventional in the relevant art based on the prior art of record.
The independent claims, therefore, are not patent eligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 3-10 and 12 provide additional features/steps which are part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims (additionally comprising abstract idea steps) and, therefore, these claims are not eligible without meaningful additional elements that reflect a practical application and/or additional elements that qualify for significantly more for substantially similar reasons as discussed with regards to Claim 1.
For example, additional elements in Claims 7, 8-10, and 13 (a section of the opening and of the fluid stream are circular and a data processing device, a non-transitory computer-readable medium, and performing the process … in a manufacturing line of glass fibers, respectively) are all recited in generality and not meaningful/do not correspond to a particular machine to indicate a practical application and/or qualify for significantly more.
Examiner Note
Claims 15-17 are found eligible as it recites a meaningful additional elements that indicate a practical application of the abstract ideas of Claims 1, 2, and 11.
Examiner Note with Regards to Prior Art of Record
Claims 1-13 are distinguished over prior art of record based on the reasons below.
The following references are considered to be the closest prior art to the claimed invention:
Robert L. Houston (US 4090241) discloses a computer implemented method for measuring mass flow rate of a free fluid stream flowing from an opening with constant acceleration, wherein said method takes as input at least a section, s.sub.0, of said opening. Houston discloses using a velocity profile in 3 zones.
Isak Sheinkop et al. (US 4812151) discloses calculating the viscosity of the material using the measured mass flow rate and modifying a process parameter in response to the measured temperature and calculated viscosity of the auxiliary stream.
Tianshu Liu, “OpenOpticalFlow: An Open Source Program for Extraction of Velocity Fields from Flow Visualization Images”, Journal of Open Research Software, 5: 29, DOI: htt ps://doi.org/10.5334/jors,168, discloses image processing methods for flow velocity profiles to use the optical flow method in various flow measurements.
Mazhar Hussain et al., “Multi-Camera Based Setup for Geometrical Measurement of Free-Falling Molten Glass Gob”, Sensors 2021, 21, 1041. https://doi.org/10.3390/s21041041, discloses multi-camera setup to achieve accuracy close to the segmentation error associated with the resolution of the images. The experimental setup presented shows that the geometrical parameters can be characterized dynamically through the whole free-fall process at a frame rate of 600 frames per second.
Yosuke Murake et al. (US 20130258075) discloses a flow cytometer includes apparatus for evaluating a trajectory of an ejected stream that carries micro-particles. The apparatus includes an imaging device and at least one processor configured to evaluate a trajectory of the ejected stream.
However, with regards to Claims 1 and 11, none of the references discloses using geometric profile derived from an image to compute viscosity of flow.
Similarly, with regards to Claim 2, the references do not disclose using time -shifted first and second images of the fluid stream to measure a displacement of features of the fluid stream to compute velocity and then determine a kinematic viscosity with a model based on the velocity.
Therefore, in regards to Claim 1, the claims differ from the closest prior art, Houston, Sheinkop, Liu, Murake, and Hussain, either singularly or in combination, because the references fail to anticipate or render obvious using input at least one image of an area of interest of a fluid stream, a section, s.sub.0, of said opening and an output volume flow rate, U.sub.0, of the fluid stream from said opening; wherein said method provides as output a kinematic viscosity, η, of the fluid; wherein said method comprises the following steps: (a) modelling the geometrical profile GP of the fluid stream through a digital processing operation of the input image; (b) computing the kinematic viscosity of the fluid with a mathematical or physical model from the modelled geometrical profile GP, the section, s.sub.0, and the output volume flow rate, U.sub.0, in combination with all other limitations in the claim as claimed and defined by applicant.
Similarly, with regards to Claim 2, the above references either singularly or in combination, fail to anticipate or render obvious using input a first image of an area of interest of a fluid stream, a section, s.sub.0, of said opening and an output volume flow rate, U.sub.0, of the fluid stream from said opening, a second time-shifted image of at least two features of the fluid stream, wherein said features are present in the first image provided as input, wherein said method provides as output a kinematic viscosity, η, of the fluid; wherein said method comprises the following steps: digital processing of the first and second images to measure a displacement of said features; computing velocities of each said features from a measure of the displacement over a time shift between the first and second images, and computing the kinematic viscosity of the fluid with a mathematical or physical model from the velocities, the section, s.sub.0, and the output volume flow rate, U.sub.0.
Similarly, with regards to Claim 11, the above references either singularly or in combination, fail to anticipate or render obvious a) acquiring, with an image recording device, at least one image of an area of interest of a fluid stream; (b) modelling, with a data processing device, a geometrical profile of the fluid stream trough a digital processing operation of the acquired image; (c) computing, with a data processing device, the kinematic viscosity, η, of the fluid with a mathematical or physical model from the modelled geometrical profile, the section, s.sub.0, of the opening and the output volume flow rate, U.sub.0, of the fluid stream.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-17 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In regard to Claim 14, the claims differ from the closest prior art, Houston, Sheinkop, Liu, Murake, and Hussain, either singularly or in combination, because the references fail to anticipate or render obvious (a) acquiring, with an image recording device, at least one image of an area of interest of the free fluid stream;
(b) modelling, with a data processing device, a geometrical profile of the free fluid stream through a digital processing operation of the acquired image;
(c) computing, with a data processing device, the kinematic viscosity, n, of the free fluid stream with a mathematical or physical model from the modelled geometrical profile, a cross-section, s0, of the opening and an output volume flow rate, U0, of the free fluid stream, in combination with all other limitations in the claim as claimed and defined by applicant.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues (p. 10): The Office Action identifies the exception by placing in bold substantially the whole operative body of claim 1, including step (a) "modelling the geometrical profile GP of the fluid stream through a digital processing operation of the input image." No mathematical relationship, formula, equation or calculation recited in the claim is identified, because the claim recites none. Claim 1 recites "a mathematical or physical model," in the alternative and unspecified; it sets forth no equation and no mathematical relationship.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The mathematical relationship is recited when geometric profile (function) is modeled image data (argument). According to MPEP 2106.04(a)(1)C: “A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word "calculating" in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of "determining" a variable or number using mathematical methods or "performing" a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation.”
Additionally, the Applicant further acknowledged (p.11) that “the geometric profile "may be computed with any adapted edge detection algorithm for image processing, e.g., marching square algorithm, canny edge detector, thresholding, edge operators based on Prewitt, Sobel or Scharr filters" (paragraph [0078] …”. The Examiner submits that these examples illustrate mathematical relationships.
The Applicant argues (p.10): The same subsection cites Thales Visionix, Inc. v. United States, 850 F.3d 1343, 1348-49 (Fed. Cir. 2017), where claims to a particular configuration of inertial sensors and a particular method of using the raw sensor data to calculate position and orientation more accurately were held not to recite an abstract idea.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. There are significant differences between Thales and the current claims.
In Thales, the claims were not directed to an abstract idea. There, the eligibility conclusion was reached due to unconventional configuration of sensors.
As was indicated in Thales decision: “The claims specify a particular configuration of inertial sensors and a particular method of using the raw data from the sensors in order to more accurately calculate the position and orientation of an object on a moving platform. The mathematical equations are a consequence of the arrangement of the sensors and the unconventional choice of reference frame in order to calculate position and orientation. Far from claiming the equations themselves, the claims seek to protect only the application of physics to the unconventional configuration of sensors as disclosed.”
The current claims are directed to an abstract idea because no unconventional configuration of sensors are recited.
The Applicant argues (p. 11): Applicant further notes that the Office Action does not identify a judicial exception in claims 3-10, 12 or 13. Claims 2 and 11 are addressed in a single sentence stating that "[s]imilar limitations comprise the abstract ideas".
The Examiner submits that unless the argued claims recite meaningful additional elements/significantly more/eligible transformation, further (detailed) analysis of abstract ideas in these claims will not ensure their eligibility when the underlining independent claim is ineligible.
The Applicant argues (p. 11): Applicant also respectfully notes that the passage quoted in the Office Action from the October 2019 Update describes data gathering performed "in order to gather data for the mental analysis step." The Office Action identifies the exception here as a mathematical concept, not a mental process, and the claims recite no mental analysis step.
The Examiner submits that the quote is not limited to the mental steps but rather to all judicial exceptions where particular data are needed to execute the abstract idea.
The Applicant argues
(p.12): 1. The claims reflect an improvement to a technological field … and (p.13): 2. The controlling step imposes a meaningful limit …
With regards to Claims 1, 2, and 11, the Examiner submits that the claims do not recite meaningful limitations or combinations of additional elements that are qualified for significantly more needed to reflect an improvement in technology. The new limitation of “controlling a physical parameter” is recited in generality and not meaningful to indicate a practical application.
The Applicant argues (p.14): 4. The additional elements have not been evaluated in combination … claims recite acquiring an optical image of a free-falling stream, extracting the stream's geometrical profile from that image by digital processing, computing the fluid's kinematic viscosity from the profile together with the opening cross-section and output flow rate, and using the computed viscosity to control a physical parameter of the stream. That combination is a specific, contactless, temperature-independent measurement-and-control technique, not an instruction to apply a formula.
This argument includes abstract idea steps while the combination should refer to the combination of additional elements. The claim only recites, as additional elements, a steps of data acquisition and a step of controlling which are not qualified for significantly more. Please see the Examiner’s response above with regards to “using the computed viscosity to control a physical parameter of the stream”.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER SATANOVSKY whose telephone number is (571)270-5819. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9 am-5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Catherine Rastovski can be reached on (571) 270-0349. 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.
/ALEXANDER SATANOVSKY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
