DETAILED ACTION
Final Rejection
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
Applicant’s amendments, filed 11/20/2025 to claims are accepted. In this amendment, claims 1-3 have been amended.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim limitation “interface module, processing module, optimization training module, a module for early warning, display module (as cited in claims 1),” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function based on [114-115] of current discloser PgPub.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Each of claims1-20 falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP § 2106.03. For example, each of claim 1-9 and 20 falls within category of machine, i.e., a “concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices.” Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1348–49, 111 USPQ2d at 1719 (quoting Burr v. Duryee, 68 U.S. 531, 570, 17 L. Ed. 650, 657 (1863)); For example, each of claims 10-19 fall within category of process;
Regarding Claims 1-9 and 20
Step 2A – Prong 1
Exemplary claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea of associating a current operating state of a pump system.
The abstract idea is set forth or described by the following italicized limitations:
1. A pump monitoring system for associating a current operating state of a pump system
comprising n ≥1 pumps with one or more of k ≥1 fault scenarios, wherein the pump monitoring system comprises
- an interface module for receiving at least one set of m ≥ 2 operational values from the pump system, wherein the m operational values define a current operational point in an m-dimensional operating space, and
- a processing module for processing the operational values received by the interface module, wherein the processing module is configured
to consult given or determined model parameters describing a non-faulty model pump characteristic in the m-dimensional operating space, wherein the processing module is further configured to determine a k-dimensional decision vector with k decision vector components being indicative of a deviation between an actual differential volume in the m-dimensional operating space based on distances between the m operational values and the non-faulty model pump characteristic, and a modeled differential volume in the m-dimensional operating space for the respective fault scenario, wherein the processing module is configured to provide a signal as output, the signal comprising the k-dimensional decision vector.
The italicized limitations above represent a mathematical concepts (i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships or rules or idea) . Therefore, the italicized limitations fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
For example, the limitations “determined model parameters [..]; determine a k-dimensional decision vector [..];” are mathematical concepts (i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships or rules or idea)
Limitations are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (discussing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)).
Step 2A – Prong 2
Claims 1 does not include additional elements (when considered individually, as an ordered combination, and/or within the claim as a whole) that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
For example, first additional first element is “comprising n ≥1 pumps with one or more of k ≥1 fault scenarios, wherein the pump monitoring system comprises - an interface module for receiving at least one set of m ≥ 2 operational values from the pump system, wherein the m operational values define a current operational point in an m-dimensional operating space, and a processing module for processing the operational values received by the interface module, wherein the processing module” to be performed, at least in-part, these additional elements appear to only add insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering) and only generally link the abstract idea to a particular field. Therefore, this element individually or as a whole does not provide a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g)
The 2nd additional element is “A pump monitoring system; the processing module ”. This element amounts to mere use of a generic computer components, which is well understood routine and conventional (see background of current discloser and IDS and PTO 892) and this element individually does not provide a practical application. In view of the above, the “additional element” individually or combine does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. see MPEP 2106.05(d).
For example,3rd additional first element is “wherein the processing module is configured to provide a signal as output, the signal comprising the k-dimensional decision vector” to be performed, at least in-part, these additional elements appear to only add insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering) and only generally link the abstract idea to a particular field. Therefore, this element individually or as a whole does not provide a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g)
In view of the above, the three “additional elements” individually do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. Furthermore, the “additional elements” in combination amount to a plurality of generic component with software, where such computers and software amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer(s) and/or mere use of a generic computer component(s) as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, these elements in combination do not provide a practical application. The combination of additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, and for this additional reason, the combination of additional elements does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea.
.
Step 2B
Claims1 does not include additional elements, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. For example, the limitation of Claim 1 contains additional elements that are, i.e. “pump system, Monitoring system”, generic device, which are well understood, routine and convention (see background of current discloser and IDS and PTO 892) and MPEP 2106.05(d))The reasons for reaching this conclusion are substantially the same as the reasons given above in § Step 2A – Prong 2. For brevity only, those reasons are not repeated in this section. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(g) and MPEP §§2106.05(II).
.
Dependent Claims 2-9 and 20
Dependent claims 2-9 and 20 fail to cure this deficiency of independent claim 1 (set forth above) and are rejected accordingly. Particularly, claims 2-9 and 20 recite limitations that represent (in addition to the limitations already noted above) either the abstract idea or an additional element that is merely extra-solution activity, mere use of instructions and/or generic computer component(s) as a tool to implement the abstract idea, and/or merely limits the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
For example, the limitations of Claims 3-9 and 20 are mathematical concepts.
For example, the limitations of Claims 2-3: the limitations, i.e. “a displaying module, the displaying module receiving the output as input, wherein the displaying module is configured to display one or more of the k decision vector components; wherein the n> 1 pumps of the pump system comprise one or more submersible pumps and/or wastewater pumps and/or booster pumps(claim 2), wherein the pumping system is configured to be controlled based on the one or more of the k decision vector components”, are a combination of to be performed, at least in-part, these additional elements appear to only add insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering) and only generally link the abstract idea to a particular field with generic component along with control of a pump system, which is well understood routine and conventional (see background of current discloser and IDS and PTO 892) and this element individually does not provide a practical application. In view of the above, the “additional element” individually or combine does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. see MPEP 2106.05(d)
Claims 10 -19
Claims 10-19 contains language similar to claims 1-9 and 20 as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, and for reasons similar to those discussed above, claims 10-19 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101(abstract idea).
.
.
Examiner Notes
Three is no prior art rejection over claims 1 and 10, however there is 101 rejection. Closes prior arts fail to teach the limitations of “to consult given or determined model parameters describing a non-faulty model pump characteristic in the m-dimensional operating space, determine a k-dimensional decision vector with k decision vector components being indicative of a deviation between an actual differential volume in the m-dimensional operating space based on distances between the m operational values and the non-faulty model pump characteristic, and a modeled differential volume in the m-dimensional operating space for the respective fault scenario”
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments with respect 101 rejection, specially claim 1, the applicant did not agree with it., see pages 11-12.The Applicant argus that amended Claim “integrates an abstract idea into a practical application as the signal. The signal is a practical application of the alleged abstract idea since the signal can be transmitted for further analysis or display. Displaying at least one k decision vector component for a respective fault scenario as featured in claim 10 is also a practical application of the alleged abstract idea. Displaying at least one k decision vector component for a respective fault scenario advantageously allows an operator to know whether there is an issue with a pump system, which is a real world application of the alleged abstract idea. As such, the present invention is directed toward patentable subject matter and not an abstract idea”.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagree because claims limitations represent f mathematical concepts (i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships or rules or idea) and mental step (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper or a mental judgment). Therefore, the italicized limitations fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, (see [0118]-[0186]of current application PG Pub ). Furthermore, the additional first element is “wherein the processing module is configured to provide a signal as output, the signal comprising the k-dimensional decision vector” to be performed, at least in-part, these additional elements appear to only add insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering) and only generally link the abstract idea to a particular field. Therefore, this element individually or as a whole does not provide a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). In view of the “additional elements” individually does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. Furthermore, the “additional elements” in combination amount to a generic pump system with extra solution activity. The combination of additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, and for this additional reason, the combination of additional elements does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. As such 101 rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
a) Hofstad et al. (US 2023/0366409) A method for preventing damage to a multiphase pump includes measuring a differential pressure of a fluid across the pump and an axial position of a rotor of the pump over a time period, calculating a pressure fluctuation by measuring a difference between a maximum and a minimum value of the measured differential pressure over the time period, calculating a dynamic axial position by measuring a difference between a maximum and a minimum value of the measured axial position of the rotor over the time period, comparing the calculated pressure fluctuation with an expected pressure fluctuation value, comparing the calculated dynamic axial position with an expected dynamic axial position value, and selecting an operating condition of the pump based on the comparison of the calculated pressure fluctuation with the expected pressure fluctuation value and of the calculated dynamic axial position with the expected dynamic axial position value.
b)Tofte et al. (US 11,761,447) disclose a sump pump system may implement adaptive learning and machine learning techniques to facilitate improved control of sump pumps. A sump pump system may implement the described techniques to generate, train, and/or implement a machine learning model that is capable of predicting or estimating one or more conditions of the sump pump system (e.g., water level in the basin, motor malfunction, stuck impeller, geyser effect, blocked outlet pipe, faulty level sensor/switch, faulty bearing, failure to engage pump at high-water mark, etc.) based on one or more detected input variables (e.g., acceleration or vibration patterns detected in water, on a pump, or on a pipe; capacitance values of water; audio signatures; electrical signatures, such as power or current draw; pump motor rotation speed; water pressure signatures or values, such as those detected at the bottom of a sump basin; etc.)..
c) Mau. et al. (US 11,512,697) disclose a method for determining a flow volume of a fluid delivered by a pump. The flow volume is determined as a function of predefined pump information depending on a pump geometry, rotation speed information, which correlates with the rotation speed of the pump, and pressure information, which correlates with a differential pressure at the pump..
d) Todal (US 2021/0340985) disclose the differential pressure across the pump and the torque may be sampled using different sampling frequencies. For example, the differential pressure over the pump may vary relatively slowly due to large volumes of hydrocarbon fluid upstream and downstream of the pump. However, the gas volume fraction and/or the density of the hydrocarbon fluid may change quickly, e.g. due to gas and/or liquid slugs in the system. Consequently, the pump torque may also change relatively quickly. Therefore, in order to enable the system to react quickly to a change in the gas volume fraction and/or the density of the fluid, it may be advantageous to sample the torque using a higher sampling frequency than when sampling the differential pressure.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD K ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)270-0328. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m..
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, Shelby A Turner can be reached at 571-272-6334. 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.
/MOHAMMAD K ISLAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857