DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 1-4 and 6-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception, namely mathematical concepts and mental processes involving collecting measurement data, converting signals to concentration, computing BPD load, and calculating percent removal without significantly more.
As for claim 1, the claim recites mathematical relationships and calculations and evaluation of data obtained from sensors and flow meters. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements are limited to generic sensors, flow meters, and an electronic controller performing routine data collection and processing, and the recited step of “treating the wastewater to produce reusable water” is expressed in purely result-oriented terms and constitutes an intended use rather than a specific technological implementation.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are well understood, routine, and conventional, and the claim fails to recite any specific mechanisms by which the computed values are used to control or improve wastewater treatment, instead merely applying the abstract calculations to achieve a desired result. The claim does not specify how treatment is performed based on the computation, and is basically measure then compute, then “treat” (and is essentially “apply it” language).
Similarly, as for claims 2-4 and 6-13 the claimed invention is directed to the same judicial exception as claim 1, namely mathematical concepts, mental processes, and data analysis of wastewater measurements, including calculation of concentrations, contaminant removal, and resource-related values without significantly more.
The claims recite additional data gathering, timing adjustments, and further calculations, including synchronization of datasets, computation of contaminant removal, and determination of resource-related or billing values. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitations merely refine the abstract data analysis and do not impose any specific technological improvement or meaningful control of a treatment process, and any recited treatment remains expressed as a desired outcome rather than a defined operational step.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements consist of generic computing components and routine data manipulation, and certain claims further recite economic concepts such as billing rates, which are themselves abstract ideas, thereby reinforcing that the claims do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The 103 rejections of the prior office action have not changed except to state that specifying the sampling interval to be “weekly” constitutes a matter of design choice or optimization of a result-effective variable, absent a showing that the specific interval achieves a new or unexpected result. The prior art teaches sampling wastewater parameters over time, and it would have been obvious to the skilled man to select an appropriate sampling frequency, including a weekly interval, depending on system requirements such as monitoring needs, data resolution, or operational constrains. See MPEP 2144.05.
Further, the claim does not recite any functional relationship between the “weekly” sampling interval and the subsequent computation or treatment steps that would indicate a technological improvement or criticality of the selected interval.
Also, as for the step of “producing the reusable water”, the prior art produces a treated water. Naming it as “reusable” water does not impose a patentable limitation on the claimed method. The claim fails to define any specific treatment steps, or structures, or operational parameters required to achieve “reusable water” and therefor does not distinguish over the prior art, which inherently treats wastewater to produce treated effluent.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive since the prior art inherently produces water suitable for reuse to some degree, and the claim does not require any particular reuse standard or quality threshold that would distinguish over the prior art.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mr. TERRY K CECIL whose telephone number is (571)272-1138. The examiner can normally be reached Normally 7:30-4:00p M-F.
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 repeated attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful (including leaving a voice message), the examiner’s supervisor, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached on (571) 270-3240. 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.
/TERRY K CECIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779
Prosecution Insights