DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This communication is a final action in response to the amendments filed on 2/19/2026. Claims 9-12 are currently pending and have been considered below.
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 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claims 9-12 are determined to be directed to an abstract idea.
The claims 9-12 are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea), without a practical application and without providing significantly more.
Regarding Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility test per MPEP 2106.03, Claims 9-11 are directed to system (i.e., machine/apparatus), Claim 12 is directed to a method (i.e., process), all claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Regarding Step 2A-Prong 1 of the subject matter eligibility test per MPEP 2106.04, Claims 9 and 12 are directed specifically to the abstract idea of managing/facilitating water utilities data including evaluating water pipes by evaluating a value of renewing one of a plurality of water pipes; storing a first data set relating to the plurality of water pipes; and storing a second data set including demographic data in areas where the plurality of water pipes operate, wherein storing a trained model generated based on demographic data over a certain period in the past, for predicting a future water supply population; acquiring the second data set for an area related to a specified water pipe based on the first data set stored; inputting the second data set into the trained model predicting the future water supply population for the area; predicting a future water supply demand using the specified water pipe based on the predicted water supply population and an average water supply per person; and evaluating the value of the specified water pipe by comparing the predicted water supply demand with a present water supply demand, updating the trained model based on the first data set and the second data set; which include mental processes (i.e., evaluating and analyzing data relating to water pipes and their operation for a judgement and opinion for evaluating water pipes) and certain methods of organizing human activities based on fundamental economic practice (such as monitoring the operations and/or forecasting usage in water utilities business), commercial and legal interactions (sales behavior), and managing personal behavior and interactions between people (following rules and instructions for evaluating water pipes and the operation in water utilities business). Claims 10-11 are directed to performing the abstract idea of claim 9 with further details on the data analyzed, thus, they are directed to the mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity for similar reasons as provided above for claim 9. After considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination and in ordered combination, it has been determined that the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Regarding Step 2A-Prong 2 of the subject matter eligibility test per MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05, while the claims 9-12 recite additional elements such as a server, a plurality of water pipes, an information processing apparatus wherein the information processing apparatus comprises a memory and processing circuitry, a first database on the server, a second database on the server, machine learning, these limitations are not enough to qualify as “practical application” being recited in the claims along with the abstract idea since these limitations are merely invoked as a tool to perform instructions of the abstract idea, and mere instructions to apply/implement/automate an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment do not provide practical application for an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05 (f) & (h)). The claims do not amount to "practical application" for the abstract idea because they neither (1) recite any improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) recite any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Regarding Step 2B of the subject matter eligibility test per MPEP 2106.05, while the claims 9-12 recite additional elements which are such as a server, a plurality of water pipes, an information processing apparatus wherein the information processing apparatus comprises a memory and processing circuitry, a first database on the server, a second database on the server, machine learning, these limitations are not enough to qualify as “significantly more” being recited in the claims along with the abstract idea since these limitations are merely invoked as a tool to perform instructions of the abstract idea, and mere instructions to apply/implement/automate an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment do not provide significantly more to an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f) & (h)). The claims do not amount to "significantly more" than the abstract idea because they neither (1) recite any improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) recite any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field; (6) add unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application; nor (7) provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claims 9-12 that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually, the claims are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and would not overcome all of the rejections in the most recent Office action. Details are provided below.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101:
Applicants argued that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea grouping. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant’s claimed invention recites the abstract idea of mental processes (i.e., evaluating and analyzing data relating to water pipes and their operation for a judgement and opinion for evaluating water pipes) and certain methods of organizing human activities based on fundamental economic practice (such as monitoring the operations and/or forecasting usage in water utilities business), commercial and legal interactions (sales behavior), and managing personal behavior and interactions between people (following rules and instructions for evaluating water pipes and the operation in water utilities business).
Applicants argued that the claims are directed to a practical application. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant argues Step 2A Prong 2 simply regarding abstract limitations. While the claim might provide an improvement in the abstract idea/business model, “However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology.” MPEP 2106.05(a)
Further, applicant’s claimed invention does not pertain to the fact pattern of the Uniloc case/decision.
Conclusion
Closest prior art to the invention include Peleg et al (US 20110215945 A1) and Klein et al (US 20180042189 A1) regarding the section recited in the previous Office actions; Peleg and Klein are insufficient especially for focusing on “evaluating a value of renewing … water pipes”, functions recited for a “specified water pipe”, “average water supply per person” for predicting future demand; Naoki et al (JP 2005024375 A) regarding para. 0005 “Multiple water supply areas will be connected in the water supply wide area, pipe connections will be changed in the water supply block, the facilities such as aging pipes are in the period of renewal, changes in the water source environment, etc. In response, the properties of tap water from the faucet at home have continued to change. For leveling and sophistication of water supply services, it is most important to collect as much water quality information as possible at the end, such as faucets for houses in the water supply area, at as low a price as possible and to grasp the current situation in the wide water supply area. is there.”; Nathaniel (US 2492823 A), regarding Col. 1 “The object of the present invention is to provide an improved joint for sewer pipes and more particularly for concrete or terra cotta pipe. The high cost of metal pipe, especially in the large sizes required for sewer lines prohibits the use of such pipe and concrete pipe is now almost universally used in sewer line construction, especially in suburban areas. In the early stages of the use of concrete pipe for community sewer lines, attention was given primarily to preventing leakage from the interior to the exterior of the lines and any joint sufficiently water tight to effect that object was deemed to be satisfactory. However with the rapidly increasing density of population in suburban areas and where the sewerage is being delivered to sewage treatment plants the problem of preventing infiltration of water from the outside to the sewage flow has become of great importance.”; and Nabstedt (US 1115857 A) regarding page 8 “Among the advantages of my invention may be mentioned low first cost, reduced size of tanks due to elimination of waste spaces, small surface area occupied, (the flow being mainly vertical in the particular apparatus illustrated), flexibility of capacity and independence of the various units comprising the apparatus. It is also an advantage that the settling chambers are not separated from the sludge chambers by elaborate aprons which must be built up as reinforced concrete beams. These are costly to build and maintain, In my invention cheap steel, sewer pipe or masonry tanks and plain sheet …”.
None of the prior art alone or in combination teaches the invention as claimed, wherein the novelty is in the combination of all the limitations and not in a single limitation.
Additional relevant prior art not relied upon includes:
Yoshikawa (US-20190301963-A1),
HANAOKA (JP-2011190663-A),
LIANG (CN-102629106-A), and
WU (CN-107808211-A).
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 MEHMET YESILDAG whose telephone number is (571)272-3257. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am - 5:00 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, Jerry O'Connor can be reached on (571) 272-6787. 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.
/MEHMET YESILDAG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624