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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/28/2026 was filed before the mailing of this action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1 and 17 have been amended. Claim 8 has been canceled. Claims 1-7 and 9-19 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 1, filed 03/18/2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 03/18/2026 regarding 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that claims 1 and 17 as amended recite features that direct the claims towards and practical application and/or that are significantly more than the abstract idea. Specifically, applicant argues that the operation of the at least one electrical device meaningfully limits the claims to calculating a marginal energy intensity based on the specific electrical device within the operation of the specific water supply system. Examiner disagrees. Calculating a marginal energy intensity based on the specific electrical device within the operation of the specific water supply system is further directed to the judicial exception set forth or described in the claim. The invention and claims are drawn towards optimizing water system management by calculating the marginal attributes of water delivered at specific locations and times, and the claims recite limitations that correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity (commercial interactions, business relations, managing personal behavior; commercial interactions, business relations) as indicated by the claims indicating a method for managing and operating a water supply system, identifying a set of one or more marginal paths of water supply from each raw water source to a consumer, quantifying the intensity of inputs associated with the marginal paths, and managing the water supply system based on the marginal values, integrating the intensity of inputs by computing energy consumption and energy dissipation due to frictional and minor losses along the marginal paths, the set of marginal values comprises an electricity demand response potential of a specific location at a specific time, the intensity of inputs comprises calculating an energy cost that can be saved by shifting water consumption by consumers. The claim limitations also correspond to mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), as evidence by the claims determining marginal values for the transmission, treatment, and distribution stages, identifying a set of one or more marginal paths of water supply from each raw water source toa consumer, quantifying the intensity of inputs associated with the marginal paths, and managing the water supply system based on the marginal values. The claims recite an abstract idea. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application simply because the claims recite the additional elements of: a water supply system, a plurality of devices comprising at least one electrical device, a processor and memory containing software (claim 17). The additional elements of the plurality of devices comprising at least one electrical device, a processor and memory containing software are computer components recited at a high-level of generality performing the above-mentioned limitations. The combination of the additional elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer. Further, the water supply system and plurality of devices comprising at least one electrical device amount to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use (optimizing water system management). Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea. Further, under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer, and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding MPEP §2106.05(e) on “Other Meaningful Limitations”, §2106.05(e) explicitly states that the claim should add meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment to transform the judicial exception into patent-eligible subject matter. This is not the case in the applicant’s invention or claims. The additional elements of the plurality of devices comprising at least one electrical device amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer, and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use. The electronic device is merely described in the claims as managing the mater supply system by its operation, and computing energy consumption which amounts to merely using a computer as a tool to implement the judicial exception. For instance, applicant’s specification indicates in [00103] optimizing water system management by calculating marginal attributes of water delivered include a computer system. A computer system for optimizing water system management by calculating marginal attributes of water delivered at specific locations and times in accordance with an embodiment of the invention is illustrated in Fig. 10. The devices also amount to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use (optimizing water system management). Employing generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, does not add significantly more.
The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 3, filed 03/18/2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection has been withdrawn.
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 and 9-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1-7 and 9-16 recite a method (i.e. process), claims 17-19 a system (i.e. machine). Therefore claims 1-7 and 9-19 fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Independent claims 1 and 17 recite the limitations of calculating a set of one or more marginal values for a [water supply system] by: determining a set of transmission marginal values for a transmission stage; determining a set of treatment marginal values for a treatment stage; and determining a set of distribution marginal values for a distribution stage for a set of consumers, wherein determining the set of one or more marginal values comprises: backtracking consumed water to a set of one or more raw water sources; identifying a set of one or more marginal paths of water supply from each raw water source to a consumer; and quantifying the intensity of inputs associated with the marginal paths; and managing the water supply system based on at least the set of marginal values, wherein managing the [water supply system] comprises operating a [plurality of devices], wherein [the plurality of devices comprise at least one electrical device], wherein the set of marginal values comprises a marginal energy intensity of water supply to a specific location, wherein integrating the intensity of inputs comprises computing energy consumption by the at least one [electrical device] and energy dissipation due to frictional and minor losses along the marginal paths; and wherein the set of marginal values comprises an electricity demand response potential of a specific location at a specific time, wherein integrating the intensity of inputs comprises calculating an energy cost that can be saved by shifting water consumption by consumers. The invention and claims are drawn towards optimizing water system management by calculating the marginal attributes of water delivered at specific locations and times, and the claims recite limitations that correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity (commercial interactions, business relations, managing personal behavior; commercial interactions, business relations) as indicated by the claims indicating a method for managing and operating a water supply system, identifying a set of one or more marginal paths of water supply from each raw water source to a consumer, quantifying the intensity of inputs associated with the marginal paths, and managing the water supply system based on the marginal values, integrating the intensity of inputs by computing energy consumption and energy dissipation due to frictional and minor losses along the marginal paths, the set of marginal values comprises an electricity demand response potential of a specific location at a specific time, the intensity of inputs comprises calculating an energy cost that can be saved by shifting water consumption by consumers. The claim limitations also correspond to mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), as evidence by the claims determining marginal values for the transmission, treatment, and distribution stages, identifying a set of one or more marginal paths of water supply from each raw water source toa consumer, quantifying the intensity of inputs associated with the marginal paths, and managing the water supply system based on the marginal values. The claims recite an abstract idea.
Note: the features or elements in brackets in the above Step 2A Prone One section are inserted for reading clarity, but are analyzed as “additional elements” under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B below.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application simply because the claims recite the additional elements of: a water supply system, a plurality of devices comprising at least one electrical device, a processor and memory containing software (claim 17). The additional elements of the plurality of devices comprising at least one electrical device, a processor and memory containing software are computer components recited at a high-level of generality performing the above-mentioned limitations. The combination of the additional elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer. Further, the water supply system and plurality of devices comprising at least one electrical device amount to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use (optimizing water system management). Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer, and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 3 recites a plurality of devices comprising at least one of a pump, treatment process, pipes, and valves. The claim recites the additional elements of a pump, pipes, and valves. The treatment process is further directed to the abstract idea analyzed above. The additional elements amount to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use. Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 7 recites the limitation that the node is [a tank] that discharges water, wherein backtracking consumed water comprises backtracking historical flows into [the tank] prior to the current discharge. The claim limitation is further directed to the abstract idea analyzed above. The claim also recites the additional element of a tank. The additional element amounts to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use. Accordingly, in combination, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2, 4-6, 9-16, 18, and 19 recite additional limitations that are further directed to the abstract idea analyzed in the rejected claims above. The claims also recite additional elements that have been analyzed in the rejected claims above. Thus, claims 2, 4-6, 9-16, 18, and 19 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7 and 9-19 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
The closest patent or patent application prior art reference found that is relevant to the applicant’s invention includes Kitagawa (2019/0031530) which discloses a water treatment apparatus management system which manages a household water treatment apparatus located at or near a place of water use, and treats water before treatment with at least one type of filter to produce treated water for the place of water use. The system includes a water type estimation means that estimates a water type of the water before treatment based on the information regarding performance change and the information regarding the in-service filter. The reference does not explicitly disclose the amended limitations that integrating the intensity of inputs comprises computing energy consumption by the at least one electrical device and energy dissipation due to frictional and minor losses along the marginal paths, and the set of marginal values comprises an electricity demand response potential of a specific location at a specific time, wherein integrating the intensity of inputs comprises calculating an energy cost that can be saved by shifting water consumption by consumers. The claims appear to overcome the prior art.
The closest non-patent literature prior art reference found that is relevant to the applicant’s invention includes the publication “ Comparing multi-criteria decision analysis and integrated assessment to support long-term water supply planning” (Scholten, et. al.; 2017) which explored models used for supporting long-term water supply planning in a small town case, and considers water supply planning and uncertainty. The publication discusses combining a multi-criteria decision analysis process with scenario analysis allows to consider dynamic future changes and uncertainties even when their exact magnitude is unknown which is essential when planning water systems that must function for long time periods under potentially large future uncertainty. The publication does not explicitly disclose the amended limitations that integrating the intensity of inputs comprises computing energy consumption by the at least one electrical device and energy dissipation due to frictional and minor losses along the marginal paths, and the set of marginal values comprises an electricity demand response potential of a specific location at a specific time, wherein integrating the intensity of inputs comprises calculating an energy cost that can be saved by shifting water consumption by consumers. The claims appear to overcome the prior art.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIONE N SIMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5513. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 7:30 a.m.-4:30 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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at 571-272-5587. 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.
DIONE N. SIMPSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3628
/DIONE N. SIMPSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights