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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the word “frequencie” which appears twice should be changed to “frequency” to match the other instances. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the specification refers to the figures in different places throughout which do not appear to describe the figures submitted. For example, paragraph 0043 refers to FIG. 1 with regard to a functional relationship, but Fig. 1 is a flowchart of the method steps. Paragraph 0054 refers to fig. 4 as a testing method, while the figure itself appears to show a test apparatus. Additionally, Fig. 5 is not described in a manner which indicates what is occurring in each of the steps shown, for example the terms “MATLAB”, “ANSYS,” “E1” and “E” are not defined. With regard to MATLAB and ANSYS, it is assumed that the steps are merely inputs into the respective software.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Fig. 5 is a flow chart which is not clear. Further, the description of the drawing beginning in paragraph 0054 does not describe the steps as best interpreted from the figure. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the preamble of the claim recites “A testing method for Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio based on a square plate.” This is unclear and will be interpreted as determining the Young’s modulus and Poisson ratio of a square plate since the plate itself is what is being tested in the method.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: the equations included in the claim are difficult to read and should be amended for clarity as in claims 2 and 4 for example.
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 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites the limitation in line 3 of “a quality information” of the square plate however there is no indication as to what the quality information comprises or how it would be used in the calculations.
Regarding claims 4, 5 and 9, the claims recite equations which each comprise the variables μ and ψ which are not defined and are therefore unclear as to what is represented.
Regarding claim 5, the claim recites the limitation of “when the thickness-length ratio is fixed at 0.001 and 0.1” however it is unclear as to how a ratio could comprise both numbers. If the thickness is valued at 0.001 and the length is 0.1, then the ratio would be fixed at a single value of 1:100 for example.
Regarding claim 6, the claim refers to “different isotropic materials” based on the continuous function relationship. It is not clear if the materials are isotropic in the sense that they are the same as the square plate, or if they are different square plate specimens being tested. In the latter case, it is not clear if the steps are being repeated for additional samples.
Regarding claim 7, the value p in the claim has not been defined and will be assumed to be the parameter being introduced.
All claims which depend from those above are rejected for the same reasons due to their dependency thereon.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a testing method comprising generic computerized steps for data processing. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the steps amount to an abstract idea of obtaining data and calculating products as an output.
For example, with regard to claim 1, the claim recites the limitations of:
A method comprising:
obtaining a height, a length, a density, and a quality information of the square plate specimen;
measuring a first-order torsional frequency and a second-order torsional frequency of the square plate specimen;
obtaining a relationship between the first-order torsional frequency, the second-order torsional frequency, and an ideal first-order torsional frequency, an ideal second-order torsional frequency based on an influence of system damping;
calculating Poisson's ratio based on the height, the length, the first-order torsional frequency, and the second-order torsional frequency of the square plate specimen;
calculating a Young's modulus of the square plate specimen based on the Poisson's ratio and the density.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold and the remaining limitations are the “additional elements.”
For determination of subject matter eligibility, the claims will be evaluated under a 2-step process.
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03.
The claim is analyzed for eligibility in accordance with its broadest reasonable interpretation, which here covers performance of the method by hand or by a computer. The claim recites a series of acts including determining receiving data from a sensor, evaluating the data, determining a meter drift loss based on the data and providing the determined value.
Thus, the claim is directed to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES). The claim is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exception.
This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
The claim recites steps for collecting non-tangible data and using it to perform various calculations. These limitations set forth a judicial exception, because mathematical relationships have been characterized by the courts as abstract ideas. Thus, the claim is directed to an exception (Step 2A: YES).
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception. The claim recites additional elements/steps of the sensor in operable communication with a fuel storage facility. Taken alone, none of the additional elements amounts to significantly more than the exception. The additional element such as the square plate are not part of the method and the measuring step regarding the torsional frequency of the square plate specimen is likewise only a collection of data step and would not require significantly more than the exception., Taken alone or as an ordered combination, these additional elements do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the exception. (Step 2B: NO). The claim is not eligible.
Claim 2 recites limitations with regard to mathematical functions and therefore does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 3 recites additional limitations which include the steps of calculating additional values which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 4 recites additional limitations which include the definition of a function which does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 5 recites additional limitations which further defines a mathematical relationship and does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 6 recites additional limitations which include the steps introducing a parameter and calculating a value based thereon which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 7 recites additional limitations which further defines a mathematical relationship and does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 8 recites additional limitations with regard to a mathematical function which does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 9 recites additional limitations with regard to a mathematical function which does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 10 recites additional with regard to a mathematical function which does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 may be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph and 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record does not explicitly teach the method wherein a first-order and second order torsional frequencies of a square plate specimen are used in conjunction with an influence of system damping in order to calculate Poisson’s ratio and Young’s modulus based on the Poisson’s ratio and density of the sample.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mark A. Shabman whose telephone number is (571)272-8589. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:30 EST.
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, Laura Martin can be reached at 571-272-2160. 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.
/MARK A SHABMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights