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 .
Status of the Claims
This Final Action is in response to Applicant’s amendment of 22 January 2026. Claims 1-7, 12-13, 24-25, 109 and 112 are pending and have been considered as follows. Claims 8-11, 14-23, 26-80, 88-108 and 110-111 are cancelled. Claim 81-87 have been withdrawn. Claim 112 is entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/11/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Argument
Applicant's amendments and arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 1-7, 12-13, 24-25, 109 and 111 under 35 USC 103 as set forth in the office action of 31 October 2025 have been considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection of claims 1-7, 12-13, 14-15, 109 and 111 under 35 USC 103 as set forth in the office action of 31 October 2025 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments and/or arguments with respect to the rejection of Claims 1-7, 12-13, 24-25, 109 and 111 under 35 USC 101 as set forth in the office action of 31 October 2025 have been considered and are NOT persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues:
Claims 1-7, 12-13, 24-25, 109, 111 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Applicant respectfully traverses this rejection.
The Office Action at page 7 rejects the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because "the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more." Applicant respectfully disagrees with this analysis. Claim 1 as currently amended is directed towards a filter monitoring system and requires the following limitations:
A filter sensor device, wherein the filter sensor device is configured to generate data
reflecting a filter condition value of a filter;
o a geolocation circuit, wherein the geolocation circuit is configured to determine a
present geolocation of a vehicle; and
o a system control circuit;
o wherein the system control circuit is configured to
- generate or receive local contaminant concentration values at the present geolocation;
- evaluate the filter sensor device data to determine at least one of the filter condition value and a change in the filter condition value; and
- generate at least one of a maintenance recommendation or a routing recommendation based on the local contaminant concentration values, time spent at the geolocation of the vehicle, duty cycle of the vehicle, and at least one of the filter condition value and a change in the filter condition value; and
- identify a type of contaminant based on a loading curve of the filter
element and at least one of a type of the vehicle and an operational state of the vehicle.
Rather than being directed towards an abstract idea, claim 1 is directed towards a filter monitoring system that performs a specific function. As detailed by the published application in paragraph [0125], it is important to monitor the condition of filters so that they can be replaced as needed. However, as detailed by the published application at paragraph [0127], the dynamic nature of vehicle systems makes it difficult to monitor filter conditions: However, the concentrations and types of contaminants are not uniformly dispersed
across large geospatial areas. Rather, local concentrations and types of contaminants can vary substantially based on the weather, drought conditions, wind currents, events such as forest fires, proximity to anthropic activities such as road construction work, and the like. This can make it difficult to accurately account for concentrations of
contaminants across a large potential vehicle travel zone, particularly in the context of vehicles that may travel hundreds or thousands of miles as part of a route...
As detailed by the published application at paragraph [0127], the claimed subject matter provides a solution to this issue by providing a filter monitoring system configured to monitor filter condition as a function of geolocation: However, in accordance with embodiments herein, geospatial patterns of contaminants, such as airborne particulates, can be identified and accounted for allowing for more accurate estimates of filter service hfe and more accurate selection of appropriate filter types. In various embodiments, a filter monitoring system herein can include a filter sensor device configured to generate data reflecting a filter condition value of a filter.
The filter monitoring system herein can also include a geolocation circuit configured to determine a present geolocation of a vehicle. The filter monitoring system can also include system control circuit configured to generate or receive local contaminant concentration values at the geolocation of the vehicle, evaluate the filter sensor device data to determine at least one of the filter condition value and a change in the filter condition value, and generate at least one of a maintenance recommendation and a routing recommendation.
Moreover, as detailed by the published application at paragraph [0153], the claimed filter monitoring system is configured to identify a type of contaminant based on a loading curve of the filter element and at least one of a type of the vehicle and an operational state of the vehicle: In various embodiments, the type of vehicle and its operational state can be a source of information on expected contamination levels and types. For example, if it is known that a vehicle type is one associated with road construction and its operational state is consistent with active use, then it can be inferred that the expected contaminant levels and types will be characteristic of those found in road construction areas during active use of the vehicle. This information can be used to more accurately characterize both the concentrations and types of contaminants. In addition, this information can be used to establish expected loading curve values for individual vehicles herein, such that abnormal filter loading conditions can be more accurately identified. Information regarding the type of vehicle and its operational state can be sent on to a remote system so that the same can be utilized in updating the database and or in assessing local contaminant concentrations and types by the system.
Finally, claim 1 contains specific elements (e.g., filter sensor device, contaminant sensor, particulate sensor filter, geolocation circuit) configured to interact with one another in a specific way. As such, Applicant respectfully asserts that claim 1 is directed towards a particular machine. For at least these reasons, the subject matter of claim 1 and its dependents are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. For at least these reasons, Applicant respectfully requests that this rejection be withdrawn.
The Examiners Response:
Examiner has carefully considered Applicant’s amendments and arguments and respectfully disagrees. Regarding the claimed invention, the claims systems collect information from sensor devices and make determinations with the collected data, the claims do not make mention of the difficulty in identifying concentrations of contaminants in a vehicle area or that accuracy would be improved, it is the subject matter of the claims, not embodiments disclosed in the Specification, that we analyze. ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc., 920 F.3d 759, 769 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“[A]ny reliance on the specification in the § 101 analysis must always yield to the claim language. . . . [T]he specification cannot be used to import details from the specification if those details are not claimed.”).
Furthermore, the inclusion of a computer/processor and well-known sensors does not integrate the abstract idea into a patent eligible invention, See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'!, 573 U.S. at 223 ("[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention."). The sensor device(s) and processor(s) are recited at a high level of generality and merely are used to collect/obtain information (data-gathering) and to automate the steps. As such, even in combination, these additional elements, under broadest reasonable interpretation, do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea.
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 1-7, 12-13, 24-25, 109 and 112 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a system, and claim 24 is directed to a system. Therefore, claims 1 and 24 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 and 24 include limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection.
Claim 1 recites:
A filter monitoring system comprising:
a filter sensor device, wherein the filter sensor device is configured to generate data reflecting a filter condition value of a filter;
a geolocation circuit, wherein the geolocation circuit is configured to determine a present geolocation of a vehicle;
and a system control circuit;
wherein the system control circuit is configured to generate or receive local contaminant concentration values at the present geolocation;
evaluate the filter sensor device data to determine at least one of the filter condition value and a change in the filter condition value;
and generate at least one of a maintenance recommendation or a routing recommendation based on the local contaminant concentration values, time spent at the geolocation of the vehicle, duty cycle of the vehicle, and at least one of the filter condition value and a change in the filter condition value;
and identify a type of contaminant based on a loading curve of the filter element and at least one of a type of the vehicle and an operational state of the vehicle.
Claim 24 recites:
A filter monitoring system comprising:
a filter sensor device, wherein the filter sensor device is configured to generate data reflecting a filter condition value of a filter, the filter sensor device comprising a contaminant sensor and/or a particulate sensor;
a geolocation circuit, wherein the geolocation circuit is configured to determine a geolocation of a vehicle based on detection of wireless signals;
and a system control circuit;
wherein the system control circuit is configured to evaluate the filter sensor device data to determine at least one of the filter condition value and a change in the filter condition value;
receive data relating to filter loading conditions at a plurality of geolocations;
and generate a recommended vehicle route based on a starting geolocation, an ending geolocation, and the filter loading conditions at geolocations along possible routes between the starting geolocation and the ending geolocation, wherein the recommended vehicle route reflects the lowest estimated cost of vehicle operation based on parameters evaluated by the system, the estimated cost of vehicle operation comprising an estimated fuel price at refueling stations along the route and an estimated filtration cost.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “generate…”, “evaluate…” and “identify…” all the various data in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (received, detected, senses, etc.) and forming a simple judgement (determination, analysis, comparison, etc.) either mentally or using a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”),
Claim 1 recites:
A filter monitoring system comprising:
a filter sensor device, wherein the filter sensor device is configured to generate data reflecting a filter condition value of a filter;
a geolocation circuit, wherein the geolocation circuit is configured to determine a present geolocation of a vehicle;
and a system control circuit;
wherein the system control circuit is configured to generate or receive local contaminant concentration values at the present geolocation;
evaluate the filter sensor device data to determine at least one of the filter condition value and a change in the filter condition value;
and generate at least one of a maintenance recommendation or a routing recommendation based on the local contaminant concentration values, time spent at the geolocation of the vehicle, duty cycle of the vehicle, and at least one of the filter condition value and a change in the filter condition value;
and identify a type of contaminant based on a loading curve of the filter element and at least one of a type of the vehicle and an operational state of the vehicle.
Claim 24 recites:
A filter monitoring system comprising:
a filter sensor device, wherein the filter sensor device is configured to generate data reflecting a filter condition value of a filter, the filter sensor device comprising a contaminant sensor and/or a particulate sensor;
a geolocation circuit, wherein the geolocation circuit is configured to determine a geolocation of a vehicle based on detection of wireless signals;
and a system control circuit;
wherein the system control circuit is configured to evaluate the filter sensor device data to determine at least one of the filter condition value and a change in the filter condition value;
receive data relating to filter loading conditions at a plurality of geolocations;
and generate a recommended vehicle route based on a starting geolocation, an ending geolocation, and the filter loading conditions at geolocations along possible routes between the starting geolocation and the ending geolocation, wherein the recommended vehicle route reflects the lowest estimated cost of vehicle operation based on parameters evaluated by the system, the estimated cost of vehicle operation comprising an estimated fuel price at refueling stations along the route and an estimated filtration cost.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations above, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (processor) to perform the process. In particular, the receiving step using sensor systems are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of receiving information for use in the generate and other steps), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, claims 1 and 24 further recite “A filter monitoring system comprising:” and “a system control circuit; wherein the system control circuit is configured to” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose vehicle control environment. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). The device(s) and processor(s) are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the steps.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the steps amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations discussed above are insignificant extra-solution activities.
The additional limitations of receiving information and values/features detecting/detectable are well-understood, routine and conventional activities because the background recites that the sensors are all conventional sensors, and the specification does not provide any indication that the processor is anything other than a conventional computer. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner.
Dependent claims 2-7, 12-13, 25, 109 and 112 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The dependent claims merely define terms or have additional steps such as “receiving”, “calculate”, “generate” and “identify”. Therefore, dependent claims 2-7, 12-13, 25, 109 and 112 are not patent eligible.
Therefore, claims 1-7, 12-13, 24-25, 109 and 112 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 MOISES GASCA ALVA JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3752. The examiner
can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30 - 4:00. 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,
Faris Almatrahi can be reached on (313) 446-4821. 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.
/MOISES GASCA ALVA/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/FARIS S ALMATRAHI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights