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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/21/25 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6, 8-11, 13-14, 16, 18-20, and 41-46 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Please see the detailed explanation below, in the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, as to why the claimed amendments are not considered to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Drawings
As previously discussed, the drawings filed on 06/12/24 are accepted.
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, 3-4, 6, 8-11, 13-14, 16, 18-20, and 41-46 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.
With respect to step 1 of the patent subject matter eligibility analysis, the claims are directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Independent claim 1 is directed to a computer-implemented method, which is a process. Independent claim 11 is directed to a system, which is a machine. All other claims depend on independent claims 1 and 11. As such, claims 1-20 are directed to a statutory category.
With respect to step 2A, prong one, the claims recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon. Specifically, the following limitations recite mathematical concepts and/or mental processes.
Claim 1
determining a state of the component based on the first time series data and on the second time series data, including two or more of: determining a rate of change in the first set of temperatures, determining a rate of change in the second set of temperatures, determining that one or more temperatures in the first set of temperatures exceeds a threshold, or determining that one or more temperatures in the second set of temperatures exceeds a threshold (Rate of change is represented by a specific mathematical calculation (such as Δtemp/Δtime). Determination of whether a value or values exceed a threshold represents a mathematical relationship. It is also an observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion that can be performed in the human mind. The claimed limitation recites both an abstract mathematical concept and an abstract mental process.)
Independent claim 11 recites similar abstract elements.
All other claims depend on claims 1 and 11 and also recite abstract elements as a result of their dependency.
Claims 41-46 recite deriving temperature or time differences. These represent abstract mathematical calculations.
With respect to step 2A, prong two, the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The following limitations are considered “additional elements” and explanation will be given as to why these “additional elements” do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 1
generating, by a plurality of sensors, monitor data, all of the sensors located on a conduit connected to only an inlet or only an outlet of a component of a pressurized system (This limitation is not indicative of integration into a practical application because it merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). In making this evaluation, the examiner considered whether the locating of all of the sensors to only an inlet or only an outlet of a component of a pressurized system was “critical” or “exemplary.” The examiner considered that if this feature was critical to the “solution,” then it would likely be indicative of integration into a practical application. However, if such a feature was well-known, routine, and conventional in the art, such that placement of sensors were well-understood to have many different configurations and variations that do not significantly impact the key data processing “solution” provided by the invention, then the limitation would be more indicative of being insignificant “extra-solution” activity. Upon consideration of both the applicant’s disclosure and the prior art, the examiner determined that the limitation more resembled insignificant extra-solution activity. The applicant’s original specification appears to discuss many different potential configurations, where positioning sensors on only an inlet or outlet side of the conduit is merely one exemplary embodiment, out of many permissible embodiments. The applicant’s “solution” of deriving time series data and then forming a determination based on that time series data appears to hold true for all of the different embodiments, such that placing the sensors only on an inlet or outlet end does not appear to critically affect the core claimed solution. Paragraph 0038 of primary reference Somrah states, “It should be appreciated that the arrangement of sensors described herein can be grouped together in different combinations … the positioning and number of sensors described herein is exemplary and the claimed invention should not be so limited.” It would appear that both the applicant’s disclosure and the art recognize that varying sensor positioning is well-understood and not critical. Therefore, although the claimed limitation is structural, it will be considered to merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). It is not indicative of integration into a practical application. The discussion of a pressurized system merely serves to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). It is also not indicative of integration into a practical application.)
the sensors including:
a first sensor located at a first location on the conduit (This limitation is not indicative of integration into a practical application because it merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed above.)
a second sensor located at a second location on the conduit (This limitation is not indicative of integration into a practical application because it merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed above.)
the monitor data indicating measurements, over time, of:
a first set of temperatures related by timing data, the first set of temperatures detected by the first sensor and being of one or more of steam or condensate at the first location (Here, what appears to be claimed is a processing of monitor data about structure, as opposed to a positive recitation of the structure itself (emphasis mine). Gathering data about structure is not the same thing as affirmatively claiming that structure. In their current form, the claims are gathering data and then processing that data by deriving the time series data and the vector data. This most closely resembles generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), which is not indicative of integration into a practical application. Also, merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea is also not indicative of integration into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Here, the limitations appear to be directed to data processing using a computer.)
and a second set of temperatures related by the timing data, the second set of temperatures detected by the second sensor and being of one or more of steam or condensate at the second location (Here, what appears to be claimed is a processing of monitor data about structure, as opposed to a positive recitation of the structure itself (emphasis mine). Gathering data about structure is not the same thing as affirmatively claiming that structure. In their current form, the claims are gathering data and then processing that data by deriving the time series data and the vector data. This most closely resembles generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), which is not indicative of integration into a practical application. Also, merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea is also not indicative of integration into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Here, the limitations appear to be directed to data processing using a computer.)
deriving first time series data from the first set of temperatures and second time series data from the second set of temperatures (This limitation merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application.)
Independent claim 11 discloses similar limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application.
All other claims depend on independent claims 1 and 11 and also recite the limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application, as a result of their dependency.
The dependent claims are further directed to data about the particular technological environment or field of use, in such a way that there is merely a general link. However, the limitations appear to still be directed to data processing, rather than affirmative use with a particular structure or machine. The limitations directed to location continue to be interpreted as insignificant extra-solution activity.
With respect to step 2B, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claimed invention does not add significantly more because, as discussed above in step 2A, prong two, the claims do nothing more than merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and/or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The claims are directed to receiving and processing data. This is well-understood, routine, and conventional. Simply appending well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, and specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception is not indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) (see MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 8-11, 13-14, 18-20, 42, and 45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Somrah (US PgPub 20110100488) in view of Bryce et al (US PgPub 20170078111).
With respect to claim 1, Somrah discloses:
A method (figure 8; Title discloses, “Steam Trap Assembly and Method of Operation.”)
the sensors (figure 9) including:
a first sensor located at a first location on the conduit (suggested by figure 9, reference 120; Somrah represents the broad teaching of collecting various data from various sensors positioned in various locations in the system.)
a second sensor located at a second location on the conduit, the second location displaced from the first location along a circumference of the conduit (suggested by figure 9, reference 124; Somrah represents the broad teaching of collecting various data from various sensors positioned in various locations in the system.)
the monitor data indicating measurements, over time (claim 20 states, “measuring said first temperature over time …”), of:
a first set of temperatures related by timing data, the first set of temperatures detected by the first sensor and being of one or more of steam or condensate at the first location (paragraph 0035 states, “Steam trap arrangement 20 also includes sensors, such as upstream temperature sensors 88, 90 and downstream sensors 92, 94 … The temperature sensors may be any sensor suitable for reliably measuring temperatures in the environment the steam trap assembly 20 is located.”; Claim 20 discloses measuring temperature over time, which demonstrates that the various temperatures are inherently related by timing data.)
a second set of temperatures related by the timing data, the second set of temperatures detected by the second sensor and being of one or more of steam or condensate at the second location (figures 9-10; paragraphs 0035-0036)
With respect to claim 1, Somrah differs from the claimed invention in that it does not explicitly disclose:
generating, by a plurality of sensors, monitor data, all of the sensors located on a conduit connected to only an inlet or only an outlet of a component of a pressurized system
deriving first time series data from the first set of temperatures and second time series data from the second set of temperatures
determining a state of the component based on the first time series data and on the second time series data, including two or more of: determining a rate of change in the first set of temperatures, determining a rate of change in the second set of temperatures, determining that one or more temperatures in the first set of temperatures exceeds a threshold, or determining that one or more temperatures in the second set of temperatures exceeds a threshold
With respect to claim 1, the following limitation(s) is/are obvious in view of the total teachings of Somrah:
generating, by a plurality of sensors, monitor data, all of the sensors located on a conduit connected to only an inlet or only an outlet of a component of a pressurized system (Paragraph 0038 of primary reference Somrah states, “It should be appreciated that the arrangement of sensors described herein can be grouped together in different combinations … the positioning and number of sensors described herein is exemplary and the claimed invention should not be so limited.” Although Somrah doesn’t explicitly disclose the specific claimed exemplary embodiment, it discloses many different exemplary embodiments and acknowledges that there can be many different exemplary variations. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed embodiment as one such exemplary variation.)
With respect to claim 1, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Somrah. The motivation for the skilled artisan in doing so is to gain the benefit of providing flexibility in positioning sensors in various locations in a system.
With respect to claim 1, Bryce et al discloses:
deriving first time series data from the first set of temperatures and second time series data from the second set of temperatures (The abstract of Bryce et al states, “Determination of a state of operation of a domestic appliance … provided a method for determining a state of operation of a domestic appliance in a plurality of domestic appliances, having … a time series (51, 52, 53, 54) of data relating to the operation of the domestic appliance …”; Paragraph 0069 states, “the parameter values may include the type of feature and may include feature-specific values, such as maximum temperature … heat exchanger differential temperature, etc.”; Paragraph 0223 states, “the auxiliary cycle 7 may be derived from a duration taken from a first time series … and from a portion of a second time series …”; In view of the teachings of Bryce et al, the claimed limitation is obvious in view of Somrah in view of Bryce et al. Somrah teaches the claimed temperature and location limitations. Bryce et al teaches deriving first and second time series data from sensed data and then using that time series data to determine a state of operation.)
determining a state of the component based on the first time series data and on the second time series data (obvious in view of combination; Bryce et al teaches determining a state of component based on time series data, as well as rate of change.)
including two or more of: determining a rate of change in the first set of temperatures, determining a rate of change in the second set of temperatures, determining that one or more temperatures in the first set of temperatures exceeds a threshold, or determining that one or more temperatures in the second set of temperatures exceeds a threshold (obvious in view of combination; Bryce teaches rate of change of different parameters, in the context of heating systems (paragraphs 0002 and 0273), including temperature (paragraph 0295). Bryce also teaches determination of threshold crossings (paragraphs 0002, 0004, and 0273). Somrah teaches determination of operating state (paragraph 0046).)
With respect to claim 1, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Bryce et al into the invention of Somrah. The motivation for the skilled artisan in doing so is to gain the benefit of accurate monitoring results.
Independent claim 11 represents the system version of independent claim 1. It is rejected for similar reasons as those given with respect to claim 1 above. Paragraph 0045 of Somrah discloses microprocessor and microcomputer, which suggests “comprising one or more processors and memory.”
With respect to claims 3 and 13, Somrah, as modified, discloses:
wherein the second location is displaced from the first location along the circumference of the conduit by about 180 degrees (Somrah figures 9-10, references 120 and 124)
With respect to claims 4 and 14, Somrah, as modified, discloses:
wherein the first location is on a top of the conduit relative to a local gravity vector, and wherein the second location is on a bottom of the conduit relative to the local gravity vector (Somrah figures 9-10, references 120 and 124)
With respect to claims 8 and 18, Somrah, as modified, discloses:
wherein determining the state of the component based on the first time series data includes determining that a first temperature in the first set of temperatures exceeds the threshold within a first duration or for longer than a second duration (obvious in view of combination; Bryce para 0075 states, “the derived features may typically be displayed as coloured bars occupying areas representing the real time duration …”; paragraph 0219 states, “operation of the heating system 2 is derived from a duration taken from a time series …”; see also paragraphs 0223, 0313, and claim 22 for further “duration” teachings.)
With respect to claims 9 and 19, Somrah, as modified, discloses:
wherein the second sensor is configured to capture measurements of an ambient temperature of the pressurized system in a vicinity of the component, the second time series data representing the ambient temperature (Somrah paragraph 0011 states, “An ambient parameter is measured. Somrah paragraph 0035 states, “An optional ambient sensor, such as temperature sensor 96 for example, determines the temperature of the ambient air …”; see also paragraphs 0040-0043 for further “ambient” teachings.)
With respect to claims 10 and 20, Somrah, as modified, discloses:
wherein the state of the component is determined based on the first time series data and on the second time series data by comparing a change in the first set of temperatures with a change in the ambient temperature (Somrah paragraph 0011 states, “An ambient parameter is measured. The first parameter, the second parameter and the ambient parameter are compared. It is determine that the steam trap is blocked if the first parameter is substantially equal to the ambient parameter.”)
With respect to claims 42 and 45, Somrah, as modified, discloses:
wherein deriving the first time series data from the first set of temperatures includes deriving one or more first time differences between consecutive temperatures in the first set of temperatures (Bryce paragraph 0002 states, “the monitoring device reacts to a rate of change of different parameters.”; see also Bryce paragraphs 0273 and 0295 for further rate of change teachings (note that paragraph 0295 discloses rate of change in the context of temperature).; The claimed limitation is obvious in view of Bryce’s time series data and rate of change teachings.)
Claim(s) 6 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Somrah (US PgPub 20110100488) in view of Bryce et al (US PgPub 20170078111), as applied to claims 1, 3-4, 8-11, 13-14, 18-20, 42, and 45 above, and further in view of Danzy (US PgPub 20100305883).
With respect to claims 6 and 16, Somrah, as modified, discloses:
The method of claim 1 (as applied to claim 1 above)
The system of claim 11 (as applied to claim 11 above)
With respect to claims 6 and 16, Somrah, as modified, differs from the claimed invention in that it does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the state of the component comprises an open state or a leaking state, and a rate of change corresponds to the open state or the leaking state
With respect to claims 6 and 16, Danzy discloses:
wherein the state of the component comprises an open state or a leaking state, and a rate of change corresponds to the open state or the leaking state (Paragraph 0032 of Danzy teaches, “For example, a calculated rate of change in temperature based on temperature readings from a relief device can be compared against pressure values for the system to determine whether a relief device is open and releasing fluid from the system. A detected open condition may indicate that the relief device 110 is functioning correctly to relieve an overpressure condition in the system 105 or that the relief device is leaking or otherwise malfunctioning.”)
With respect to claims 6 and 16, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Danzy into the invention of modified Somrah. The motivation for the skilled artisan in doing so is to gain the benefit of greater accuracy in monitoring.
Claim(s) 41, 43-44, and 46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Somrah (US PgPub 20110100488) in view of Bryce et al (US PgPub 20170078111), as applied to claims 1, 3-4, 8-11, 13-14, 18-20, 42, and 45 above, and further in view of Okanohara et al (US PgPub 20160371316).
With respect to claims 41 and 44, Somrah, as modified, discloses:
The method of claim 1 (as applied to claim 1 above)
The system of claim 11 (as applied to claim 11 above)
With respect to claims 41 and 44, Somrah, as modified, differs from the claimed invention in that is does not explicitly disclose:
wherein deriving the first time series data from the first set of temperatures includes deriving one or more first temperature differences between consecutive temperatures in the first set of temperatures
With respect to claims 41 and 44, Okonohara et al discloses:
wherein deriving the first time series data from the first set of temperatures includes deriving one or more first temperature differences between consecutive temperatures in the first set of temperatures (Okonohara paragraph 0029 states, “The target time series may be used in a forecasting model … or classification model (e.g., support vector machine …) …”; Okonohara paragraph 0032 states, “in the time series a 502 is used to determine the difference in temperature … and the temperature differentials … A time series or vector a represents the temperature information for four time steps …”; see also Okonohara paragraphs 0033 and 0054; The claimed limitation is obvious in view of the time series/vector teachings (with respect to temperature) of Okonohara et al.)
With respect to claims 41 and 44, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Okonahara et al into the invention of Somrah. The motivation for the skilled artisan in doing so is to gain the benefit of improved accuracy and reliability in using time series data for forecasting.
With respect to claims 43 and 46, Somrah, as modified, discloses:
The method of claim 1 (as applied to claim 1 above)
The system of claim 11 (as applied to claim 11 above)
wherein deriving the second time series data from the second set of temperatures includes deriving one or more second time differences between consecutive temperatures in the second set of temperatures (obvious in view of combination of Somrah and Bryce, for reasons discussed with respect to claims 42 and 45 above)
With respect to claims 43 and 46, Somrah, as modified, differs from the claimed invention in that is does not explicitly disclose:
wherein deriving the second time series data from the second set of temperatures includes deriving one or more second temperature differences between consecutive temperatures in the second set of temperatures
With respect to claims 43 and 46, Okonohara et al discloses:
wherein deriving the second time series data from the second set of temperatures includes deriving one or more second temperature differences between consecutive temperatures in the second set of temperatures (Okonohara paragraph 0029 states, “The target time series may be used in a forecasting model … or classification model (e.g., support vector machine …) …”; Okonohara paragraph 0032 states, “in the time series a 502 is used to determine the difference in temperature … and the temperature differentials … A time series or vector a represents the temperature information for four time steps …”; see also Okonohara paragraphs 0033 and 0054; The claimed limitation is obvious in view of the time series/vector teachings (with respect to temperature) of Okonohara et al.)
With respect to claims 43 and 46, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Okonahara et al into the invention of Somrah. The motivation for the skilled artisan in doing so is to gain the benefit of improved accuracy and reliability in using time series data for forecasting.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Shamseldin et al (US PgPub 20090290971) discloses seal monitoring and control system.
McHugh et al (US PgPub 20140046605) discloses leak detection in fluid conducting conduit.
O’Donnell et al (US PgPub 20140216717) discloses systems and methods for selectively producing steam from solar collectors and heaters for processes including enhanced oil recovery.
Bergem et al (US PgPub 20160039643) discloses multi function heave compensator.
Luccini et al (US PgPub 20200386648) discloses methods and apparatus for acoustically detecting fluid leaks.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEONARD S LIANG whose telephone number is (571)272-2148. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 AM - 7 PM.
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, ARLEEN M VAZQUEZ can be reached on (571)272-2619. 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.
/LEONARD S LIANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2857 04/04/25
Prosecution Insights