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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
The drawing (Fig. 1) is objected.
The objected drawing contains no descriptive legends to convey the scope and facilitate the understanding of the invention without constantly referring back to the Specification, which complicated the understanding of the invention considering the amount of structural elements shown in the drawing (please refer to 37 C.F.R. 1.84 (o): “Suitable descriptive legends may be used subject to approval by the Office, or may be required by the examiner where necessary for understanding of the drawing”).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 16-29 and 31-34 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.
Specifically, representative Claim 16 recites:
“A method for monitoring the operation of a pump station comprising a tank for temporary storage of a liquid, an inlet for influent liquid, an outlet, and at least one pump configured for transporting the liquid away from the tank via the outlet, the method comprising:
providing a control unit comprising a computer-readable medium having computer- readable program code portions embedded therein, wherein execution of the computer- readable code portions by the control unit causes the control unit to perform the method steps of:
monitoring an inflow of the influent liquid to the tank during at least a part of a predetermined time period (T) and determining an Inflow data (IN) value in volume per unit time representative of the inflow of the influent liquid to the tank of the pump station during the predetermined time period (T);
determining a Pump Station Max Capacity data (PSMC) value in volume per unit time representative of a max capacity of the liquid pumped from the tank of the pump station during the predetermined time period (T);
for the predetermined time period, determining at least one momentary Pump Station Capacity Utilization (PSCUM) based on the determined values of the Inflow data (IN) and the Pump Station Max Capacity data (PSMC), using an overall formula PSCUM (%)= 100 * IN / PSMC;
determining a typical Pump Station Capacity Utilization (PSCUT) for the pump station, representative of a capacity utilization of the pump station over time,
based on the at least one momentary Pump Station Capacity Utilization (PSCUM) value;
comparing the PSCUT with one or more historical PSCUT values to determine a trend of the PSCUT for the pumping station; and
triggering an automatic alarm for alerting an operator based on the determined trend or a rate of increase thereof.”
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (process).
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the groupings of subject matter that covers mathematical concepts - mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations and mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion.
For example, steps of “determining a Pump Station Max Capacity data (PSMC) value in volume per unit time representative of a max capacity of the liquid pumped from the tank of the pump station during the predetermined time period (T); for the predetermined time period, determining at least one momentary Pump Station Capacity Utilization (PSCUM) based on the determined values of the Inflow data (IN) and the Pump Station Max Capacity data (PSMC), using an overall formula PSCUM (%)= 100 * IN / PSMC; determining a typical Pump Station Capacity Utilization (PSCUT) for the pump station, representative of a capacity utilization of the pump station over time” are treated as belonging to the mathematical concepts grouping while the steps of “determining a typical Pump Station Capacity Utilization (PSCUT) for the pump station, representative of a capacity utilization of the pump station over time on the at least one momentary Pump Station Capacity Utilization (PSCUM) value; comparing the PSCUT with one or more historical PSCUT values to determine a trend of the PSCUT for the pumping station” are treated as belonging to mental process grouping. These mental steps represent a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. In the context of this claim, it encompasses a user determining a typical Pump Station Capacity Utilization (PSCUT) for the pump station, representative of a capacity utilization of the pump station over time based on the (calculated) momentary PSCUM value, as discussed in [0053], as published, then manually comparing the determined PSCUT value with one or more historical PSCUT values to determine a trend of the PSCUT for the pumping station (mental steps of “observation/evaluation/ judgement/opinion”) to issue an alert command based on the observed trend and/or rate of increase. The step of determining a typical Pump Station Capacity Utilization (PSCUT) for the pump station, representative of a capacity utilization of the pump station over time based on the PSCUM value, under the BRI and [0053], as published, is additionally treated as mathematical relationship step as discussed above (MPEP 2106.04.II: “construing the claims in accordance with their broadest reasonable interpretation”).
Next, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
The above claims comprise the following additional elements:
In Claim 16: A method for monitoring the operation of a pump station comprising providing a control unit comprising a computer-readable medium having computer- readable program code portions embedded therein, wherein execution of the computer- readable code portions by the control unit causes the control unit to perform the method steps …, a tank for temporary storage of a liquid, an inlet for influent liquid, an outlet, and at least one pump configured for transporting the liquid away from the tank via the outlet; monitoring an inflow of the influent liquid to the tank during at least a part of a predetermined time period (T) and determining an Inflow data (IN) value in volume per unit time representative of the inflow of the influent liquid to the tank of the pump station during the predetermined time period (T); triggering an automatic alarm for alerting an operator based on the determined trend or a rate of increase thereof.
The additional elements in the preamble (“monitoring the operation of a pump station”) are recited in generality and represent insignificant extra-solution activity (field-of-use limitations) that is not meaningful to indicate a practical application.
The additional elements in the claims such as a control unit comprising a computer-readable medium having computer- readable program code portions embedded therein, wherein execution of the computer- readable code portions by the control unit causes the control unit to perform the method steps are examples of generic computer equipment (components) that are generally recited and not meaningful and, therefore, are not qualified as particular machines to indicate a practical application. The additional elements “a pump station comprising a tank for temporary storage of a liquid, an inlet for influent liquid, an outlet, and at least one pump configured for transporting the liquid away from the tank via the outlet” are generally recited and, therefore, also are not qualified as particular machines. The limitation “triggering an automatic alarm for alerting an operator based on the determined trend or a rate of increase thereof” represents insignificant post-solution activity to the judicial exception and thus not meaningful enough to render the claim eligible (“means of setting off an alarm or adjusting an alarm system”, MPEP 2106.04(d).I.). The limitations that generically recite “monitoring an inflow of the influent liquid to the tank during at least a part of a predetermined time period (T) and determining an Inflow data (IN) value in volume per unit time” represent insignificant represent extra-solution activity of mere data gathering to the judicial exception. According to the October update on 2019 SME Guidance such steps are “performed in order to gather data for the mental analysis step, and is a necessary precursor for all uses of the recited exception. It is thus extra-solution activity, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application”.
Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
However, the above claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B analysis) because these additional elements/steps are well-understood and conventional in the relevant art based on the prior art of record.
The independent claims, therefore, are not patent eligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 17-29 and 31-34 provide additional features/steps which are part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claim and/or recite additional elements that are not meaningful: therefore, these claims are not eligible without additional elements that reflect a practical application and/or qualified for significantly more for substantially similar reasons as discussed with regards to Claim 16. For example, the limitations about concurrent/not concurrent acting of pumps and being operated at maximum/reduced operational speed are recited in generality and are not meaningful (Claims 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 26, and 27). The limitations that that generically recite computer readable medium (Claims 33, 34), triggering an automatic alarm (Claims 31 and 32), control unit and flowmeter (Claims 33 and 34) are also not meaningful to indicate a practical application and/or qualified for significantly more.
Examiner Note with Regards to Prior Art of Record
Claims 16-29 and 31-34 are distinguished over prior art of record.
With regards to Claim 16, the closest prior art, the closest prior art, Schou, Beaudoim, YASUNORI, and Stuart, either singularly or in combination, fail to anticipate or render obvious the step of determining at least one momentary Pump Station Capacity Utilization (PSCUM) based on the determined values of the Inflow data (IN) and the Pump Station Max Capacity data (PSMC), using an overall formula PSCUM (%)= 100 * IN / PSMC; [[and]]determining a typical Pump Station Capacity Utilization (PSCUT) for the pump station, representative of a capacity utilization of the pump station over time, based on the at least one momentary Pump Station Capacity Utilization (PSCUM) value, in combination with all other limitations in the claim as claimed and defined by applicant.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Objection to Drawings
The Applicant argues (p.10-11): Applicant respectfully submits that no descriptive legend is required because each of the 15 total referenced elements can be easily understood from even a single reference to the Subject Application specification, and because simply having to refer to the specification to determine what element a given reference refers to in no way affects or hinders one's ability to understand the drawing.
The Examiner require inserting short descriptive legends as necessary to improve understanding of the drawing (MPEP 1.84. Section (o)). The objection remains.
35 U.S.C. 101
The Applicant argues (p.12): Applicant respectfully submits that "triggering an automatic alarm for alerting an operator based on the determined trend or rate of increase thereof," as recited in amended independent claim 16, is not a mathematical concept, as asserted in the Office Action.
The Examiner submits that the “triggering” step is not treated as a mathematical concept as discussed in the rejection above.
The Applicant argues (p.12): Like the technology covered in Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981) (Diehr), See, e.g., MPEP Section 101 Examples, Example 25, the claim recites specific variables relating to a specific commercial process (pump station operation) that add meaningful limitations on the use of the mathematical relationship by specifying the types of variables used (inflow data, time, and capacity), their relationship to the pump station, how the process uses the variables for monitoring of the pump station, and how the result of comparison step is employed to provide an automatic action that improves the operation of the system.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the alleged similarity to Diamond v. Diehr.
The claims do not recite any meaningful limitations similar to Diamond v. Diehr.
In Diehr, the eligibility was based on several factors considered together such as installing rubber in the mold, closing the press, constant measurements of temperature at a mold cavity, and repetitive recalculation of the cure time using constantly updated temperature measurements as well as a transformation of a raw rubber into a rubber product. These additional elements/ steps impose meaningful limits to an abstract idea to improve the existing technological process of producing a specific molded compound (”When a claim containing a mathematical formula implements or applies the formula in a structure or process which, when considered as a whole, is performing a function which the patent laws were designed to protect (e. g., transforming or reducing an article to a different state or thing), then the claim satisfies 101’s requirements”, United States Supreme Court, DIAMOND v. DIEHR, (1981) No. 79-1112.
With regards to the improvement argument (“an automatic action that improves the operation of the system”), the Examiner submits that the claims do not recite meaningful additional elements to demonstrate an improvement/practical application as discussed in the rejection.
The Examiner submits that the eligibility analysis presented in the rejection is consistent with the analysis in Flook. As noted by the Supreme Court in that case, in order to be patent eligible, the process itself, not merely the mathematical algorithm, must be new and useful, the novelty of the algorithm is not a determining factor in determining eligibility.
The entire improvement of automatically determining alarm conditions during monitoring is recited via the abstract idea steps. However, according to MPEP 2106.05(a).II: “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 … the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology”.
A step of generating an alarm/reporting result condition that are predicted/forecasted/modeled is known to technology according to the prior art of record (SCHOU, Beaudoim, Seok, etc.) and this step corresponds to insignificant post-solution activity as discussed in the rejection.
According to October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility: “Considerations that may indicate integration include implementing the judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture, effecting a particular transformation or reduction of an article, and applying the judicial exception in some other meaningful way. Considerations that may not indicate integration include merely reciting the words “apply it” or an equivalent, adding extra-solution activity, and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment”.
35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks, filed 2/10/2026, with respect to Claim 16 have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendments. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of 11/10/2025 has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
NAHM EUI SEOK (KR 20060125292) discloses managing the wide-area waterworks by predicting outflow and discharge quantity of reservoirs using monitoring the status of the main facilities (flow monitoring, trends, reports, etc.).
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 ALEXANDER SATANOVSKY whose telephone number is (571)270-5819. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9 am-5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Catherine Rastovski can be reached on (571) 270-0349. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALEXANDER SATANOVSKY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857