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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 19-27, 30-36 and 38-40 are currently pending. Claims 1-18, 28-29 and 37 have been canceled. Claims 38-40 have been added. Entry of this amendment is accepted and made of record.
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 19-27, 31-35 and 39-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 19 recites: “determining thermal conductivity of geological material based on an average rise time associated with the temperatures measured with an average of the temperatures measured with the first sensor and the second sensor”. Thus, these claims are to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Claim 19 recites: “A computer process performed using a thermal conductivity probe, the process comprising: activating a heating element of the thermal conductivity probe to emit heat; measuring temperatures at one or more times with a first sensor and a second sensor of the thermal conductivity probe relative to activation of the heating element, the first sensor and the second sensor being thermally isolated from the heating element in the thermal conductivity probe; and determining thermal conductivity of geological material based on an average rise time associated with the temperatures measured with the first sensor and the second sensor.
The examiner finds that the foregoing underlined limitations falls into the “Mental Processes” and the “Mathematical Concepts” groups within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas set forth in the MPEP 2106 since the claims set forth steps that can be performed in the human mind (e.g., observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and mathematical concepts, relationships, formulas or equations, or calculations. Note that even if most humans would use a physical aid (e.g. pen and paper, a slide rule or a calculator) to help them complete the recited steps, the use of physical aid does not negate the mental nature of this limitation because here merely use the computer to perform the otherwise mental process.
The elements that are not underlined above are the additional elements.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the only additional elements are directed to mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality using conventional equipment (see Smith Jr. US 3807227, Smith Jr. US 3864969, Smith Jr. US 3892128 and Aurora US 2011/0134958). The claim does not contain limitations that may be enough to qualify them as significantly more such as applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; or effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; or adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application; or other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The claim as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, fall within the judicial exception of an abstract idea and do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claim 20, merely expand upon the abstract by adding “activating the heating element of the thermal conductivity probe to emit heat comprises: activating the heating element of the thermal conductivity probe to emit heat for a specified period of time.” The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element(s) or combination of elements (i.e. heating element) in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se amount(s) to no more than a generic components which are well-known, routine and conventional devices and therefore stand rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claim 21, merely expand upon the abstract idea by adding: “activating the heating element of the thermal conductivity probe to emit heat comprises: activating the heating element of the thermal conductivity probe to emit heat to a specified temperature level between 500 Celsius and 2000 Celsius.” The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element(s) or combination of elements (i.e. heating element) in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se amount(s) to no more than a generic components which are well-known, routine and conventional devices and therefore stand rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claim 22, merely expand on the abstract idea by adding: “the activating the heating element of the thermal conductivity probe to emit heat comprises: activating the heating element of the thermal conductivity probe to emit heat in response to detected lack of movement.” The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element(s) or combination of elements (i.e. heating element) in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se amount(s) to no more than a generic components which are well-known, routine and conventional devices and therefore stand rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claim 23 merely expand on the abstract idea by adding: “measuring temperatures at one or more times with the first sensor and the second sensor of the thermal conductivity probe relative to activation of the heating element comprises: measuring temperatures continuously with the first sensor and the second sensor of the thermal conductivity probe relative to activation of the heating element”. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element(s) or combination of elements (i.e. heater, sensors, measuring temperature) in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se amount(s) to no more than mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality using a generic components which are well-known, routine and conventional devices and therefore stand rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claim 24 merely expand on ethe abstract idea by adding: “measuring temperatures at one or more times with the first sensor and the second sensor of the thermal conductivity probe relative to activation of the heating element comprises: measuring temperatures at one or more intervals with the first sensor and the second sensor of the thermal conductivity probe relative to activation of the heating element.” The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element(s) or combination of elements (i.e. heater, sensors, measuring temperature) in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se amount(s) to no more than mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality using a generic components which are well-known, routine and conventional devices and therefore stand rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claim 25 merely expand on ethe abstract idea by adding: “measuring temperatures at one or more times with the first sensor and the second sensor of the thermal conductivity probe relative to activation of the heating element comprises: measuring temperatures at one or more times with the first sensor and the second sensor of the thermal conductivity probe while the heating element is emitting heat.” The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element(s) or combination of elements (i.e. heater, measuring temperature) in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se amount(s) to no more than mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality using a generic components which are well-known, routine and conventional devices and therefore stand rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claim 26 merely expand on the abstract idea by adding: “the measuring temperatures at one or more times with the first sensor and the second sensor of the thermal conductivity probe relative to activation of the heating element comprises: measuring temperatures at one or more times with the first sensor and the second sensor of the thermal conductivity probe relative to activation of the heating element, the first sensor and the second sensor being thermally isolated from and equidistant to the heating element in the thermal conductivity probe.” The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element(s) or combination of elements (i.e. heater, measuring temperature) in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se amount(s) to no more than mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality using a generic components which are well-known, routine and conventional devices and therefore stand rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claim 27 merely expand on the abstract idea by adding: “the measuring temperatures at one or more times with the first sensor and the second sensor of the thermal conductivity probe relative to activation of the heating element comprises: measuring temperatures at one or more times with the first sensor and the second sensor of the thermal conductivity probe relative to activation of the heating element, the first sensor and the second sensor being separated by the heating element in the thermal conductivity probe.” The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element(s) or combination of elements (i.e. heater, measuring temperature) in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se amount(s) to no more than mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality using a generic components which are well-known, routine and conventional devices and therefore stand rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claim 30 merely expand on the abstract idea by adding: “the determining thermal conductivity of geological material based on the average rise time associated with the temperatures measured with the first sensor and the second sensor determining thermal conductivity of geological material based on an average of the temperatures measured with the first sensor and the second sensor comprises: determining thermal conductivity of geological material based on the average rise time associated with the temperatures measured with the first sensor and the second sensor determining thermal conductivity of geological material based on an average of the temperatures measured with the first sensor and the second sensor and based on at least one distance of the first sensor or the second sensor from the heating element.” The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element(s) or combination of elements (i.e. heater, temperature sensors, measuring temperature) in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se amount(s) to no more than mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality using a generic components which are well-known, routine and conventional devices and therefore stand rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claim 31 merely expand on the abstract idea by adding: “wherein the determining thermal conductivity of geological material based on the average rise time associated with the temperatures measured with the first sensor and the second sensor determining thermal conductivity of geological material based on an average of the temperatures measured with the first sensor and the second sensor comprises: determining thermal conductivity of at least one of the following types of geological material: sand, clay, silt, loam, peat, rock, fill, sediment, deposits, or combination thereof.” The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element(s) or combination of elements (i.e. temperature sensors, measuring temperature) in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se amount(s) to no more than mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality using a generic components which are well-known, routine and conventional devices and therefore stand rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claim 32 merely expand on the abstract idea by adding: “controlling a device to push the thermal conductivity probe into the geological material.” The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element(s) or combination of elements (i.e. thermal conductivity probe) in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se amount(s) to no more than generic components which are well-known, routine and conventional devices and therefore stand rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claim 33 merely expand on the abstract idea by adding: “obtaining cone penetration testing (CPT) data using one or more CPT sensors associated with the thermal conductivity probe as the thermal conductivity probe advances into the geological material, including at least one of the following: sleeve friction, pore pressure, or tip resistance.” The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element(s) or combination of elements (i.e. thermal conductivity probe) in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se amount(s) to no more than generic components which are well-known, routine and conventional devices and therefore stand rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claim 34 merely expand on the abstract idea by adding: “geolocating at least one of sleeve friction, pore pressure, or tip resistance data with thermal conductivity.” The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element(s) or combination of elements (i.e. thermal conductivity probe) in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se amount(s) to no more than mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality using a generic components which are well-known, routine and conventional devices and therefore stand rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claim 35 merely expand on the abstract idea by adding: “deactivating the heating element of the thermal conductivity probe to stop emitting heat; and measuring additional temperatures over time with the first sensor and the second sensor of the thermal conductivity probe relative to deactivation of the heating element; and determining a heat loss factor for the geological material based on a mean temperature decay obtained using the additional temperatures.” The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element(s) or combination of elements (i.e. heater, temperature sensors) in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se amount(s) to no more than mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality using a generic components which are well-known, routine and conventional devices and therefore stand rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 36 is 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 method of using a thermal conductivity probe” Thus, these claims are to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Claims 36 recites: “inserting the thermal conductivity probe into a subsurface; heating the subsurface for a specified time using a heating element of the thermal conductivity probe; measuring temperatures at one or more times with a first sensor and a second sensor of the thermal conductivity probe, the first sensor and the second sensor being thermally isolated from the heating element in the thermal conductivity probe; determining a heat loss factor for an area within the subsurface based on an average of the temperatures measured with the first sensor and the second sensor.”
The examiner finds that the foregoing underlined limitations falls into the “Mental Processes” and the “Mathematical Concepts” groups within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas set forth in the MPEP 2106 since the claims set forth steps that can be performed in the human mind (e.g., observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and mathematical concepts, relationships, formulas or equations, or calculations. Note that even if most humans would use a physical aid (e.g. pen and paper, a slide rule or a calculator) to help them complete the recited steps, the use of physical aid does not negate the mental nature of this limitation because here merely use the computer to perform the otherwise mental process.
The elements that are not underlined above are the additional elements.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the only additional elements are directed to mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality using conventional equipment (see Smith Jr. US 3807227, Smith Jr. US 3864969, Smith Jr. US 3892128 and Aurora US 2011/0134958). The claim does not contain limitations that may be enough to qualify them as significantly more such as applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; or effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; or adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application; or other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The claim as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, fall within the judicial exception of an abstract idea and do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 38 is 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 computer process performed using a thermal conductivity probe.” Thus, these claims are to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Claim 38 recites: “A method of using a thermal conductivity probe, the process comprising: energize a heating element of the thermal conductivity probe to emit heat; de-energize the heating element of the thermal conductivity probe to stop emitting heat; measuring temperatures at one or more times with a first sensor and a second sensor of the thermal conductivity probe, the first sensor and the second sensor being thermally isolated from the heating element in the thermal conductivity probe; and determining a heat loss factor for the geological material based on a mean temperature decay obtained using the temperatures measured at the one or more times with the first sensor and the second sensor.”
The examiner finds that the foregoing underlined limitations falls into the “Mental Processes” and the “Mathematical Concepts” groups within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas set forth in the MPEP 2106 since the claims set forth steps that can be performed in the human mind (e.g., observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and mathematical concepts, relationships, formulas or equations, or calculations. Note that even if most humans would use a physical aid (e.g. pen and paper, a slide rule or a calculator) to help them complete the recited steps, the use of physical aid does not negate the mental nature of this limitation because here merely use the computer to perform the otherwise mental process.
The elements that are not underlined above are the additional elements.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the only additional elements are directed to mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality using conventional equipment (see Smith Jr. US 3807227, Smith Jr. US 3864969, Smith Jr. US 3892128 and Aurora US 2011/0134958).
The claim does not contain limitations that may be enough to qualify them as significantly more such as applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; or effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; or adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application; or other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The claim as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, fall within the judicial exception of an abstract idea and do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claim 39 merely expand on the abstract idea by adding: “wherein the determining thermal conductivity of geological material based on the average rise time associated with the temperatures measured with the first sensor and the second sensor comprises: determining thermal conductivity of geological material by applying a one-dimensional heat conduction model to the average rise time associated with the temperatures measured with the first sensor and the second sensor.” The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element(s) or combination of elements (i.e. temperature sensors) in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se amount(s) to no more than mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality using a generic components which are well-known, routine and conventional devices and therefore stand rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claim 40 merely expand on the abstract idea by adding: “the determining thermal conductivity of geological material based on the average rise time associated with the temperatures measured with the first sensor and the second sensor comprises: determining thermal conductivity of geological material by applying a multi-dimensional heat conduction model to the average rise time associated with the temperatures measured with the first sensor and the second sensor.” The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element(s) or combination of elements (i.e. temperature sensors) in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se amount(s) to no more than mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality using a generic components which are well-known, routine and conventional devices and therefore stand rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JANICE M SOTO whose telephone number is (571)270-7707. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am-4:00pm.
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 at 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 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.
/JANICE M SOTO/ Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/JOHN E BREENE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights