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 1-14 are objected to because of the following informalities: in multiple claims, the term “section” is used (Claims 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, and 11) The correct term as known in the art and as best understood by the examiner, is “cross-section”. This term should be replaced to avoid indefiniteness rejection.
The Examiner also notes that the same issue exists throughout the disclosure.
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.
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 1-10 and 12 are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “A computer implemented method for measuring the kinematic viscosity of a free fluid stream…”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “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…”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter, more specifically, non-transitory tangible medium.
Claim 9 is directed to a program (software code per se), and, therefore, are considered to be non-statutory under 35 U.S.C. 101 (See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter) and Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Aug. 24, 2009; p.1-7.
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 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.”
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;
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;
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.
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”.
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
Claim 14 is found eligible as it recites a meaningful additional element that indicates a practical application (“the monitored kinematic viscosity is implemented into a feedback operation for adjusting the temperature of the molten glass in the vicinity of the bushing”).
Examiner Note with Regards to Prior Art of Record
Claims 1-14 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
Claim 14 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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.”
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights