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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/15/2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1, 3, 11, 12, and 17 are amended. Claim 8 is canceled. Claims 1-7 and 9-19 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/15/2026 regarding 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Claims Recite An Abstract Idea Under Step 2A Prong One
Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to certain methods of organizing human activity nor mental processes. Examiner disagrees.
Step 2A Prong One of the Alice/Mayo framework evaluates whether an abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. The Federal Circuit has explained that "the 'directed to' inquiry applies a stage-one filter to claims, considered in light of the specification, based on whether 'their character as a whole is directed to excluded subject matter."' Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). It asks whether the focus of the claims is on a specific improvement in relevant technology or on a process that itself qualifies as an "abstract idea" for which computers are invoked merely as a tool. Here, it is clear from the Specification (including the claim language) that claim 1 focuses on an abstract idea, and not on an improvement to technology and/or a technical field. Applicant’s specification recites in the Background [003] “Most conventional methods for assessing and calculating the value of these attribute (marginal attributes including embedded energy, chemicals, and other inputs used to produce and deliver clean water to end users) provide only system-level or pressure-zone-level estimates and only target one specific attribute each. Accordingly, operators of water distribution networks rely on such methods to determine how and where to allocate water resources, which may be suboptimal for a particular situation at a particular time. Paragraph [0013] of the Specification discusses calculating a marginal quality of delivered water, the system can include computing the concentration of conservative and non-conservative contaminants, as well as other water quality parameter, and notes that by solving a system of differential equations using a finite difference method or other approach, the concentration of any non-conservative chemical can be precisely estimated at any location and time. The Specification goes on to disclose in [0014] an embodiment that when applied to calculate a marginal cost of a water supply, the method can include calculating either or both the operational cost that is associated with the energy, chemical and other time-varying inputs along the flow paths and the fixed cost that can be proportional to the usage of the water supply infrastructure (e.g., treatment plant, pipeline network) along the flow paths. The paragraph also discloses the details of operational cost and fixed costs. Further in [0016] the Specification discloses calculating the demand response potential (e.g., value) of a specific location at a specific time. Additionally, [0030] discloses that the claimed invention is for a system for “optimizing water system management by calculating marginal attributes of water delivered at specific locations and times”, and discloses further that:
“In many embodiments of the system, by tracing the virtual flows, including the embedded energy, chemicals, and other inputs of a water supply in a network, processes in accordance with many embodiments of the invention can capture many attributes of water supply that are important to a system operator and/or software application that can use such information to optimize and/or determine water distribution. For instance, for a system operator seeking to reduce the carbon intensity of water supply, the carbon emissions associated with the virtual flows of energy and chemicals can serve as an informative metric. However, conventional methods for assessing such attributes provide only system-level or pressure-zone-level estimates and may only target one specific attribute each. Accordingly, systems and methods in accordance with a number of embodiments of the invention provide a multi- purpose computational framework that can calculate the marginal attributes of the delivered water by backtracking the water delivered at any specific location (e.g., down to the tap or appliance level) and time to its source(s). Methods in accordance with numerous embodiments of the invention can support the assessment of various attributes, such as (but not limited to) the intensity of energy use, chemical use, embedded carbon emissions, the cost of water supply, the water quality, the value of location-specific water efficiency upgrades, the value of location-specific maintenance or leak reduction upgrades. In a number of embodiments, methods can determine the electricity grid demand response (EG-DR) potential and the value of that DR realized by not consuming water and thus not consuming electricity to provide that water. In various embodiments, processes can determine the water grid demand response potential (WG- DR) that would stabilize the water grid against low pressure under periods of excessively high demand (e.g., fire, drought, among other situations) by not consuming water at that specific location and time. Methods in accordance with a number of embodiments of the invention can enable multi-attribute characterization and optimization of the water system across one or more of these attributes.”
There are several additional portions of the Specification that may be cited to indicate that applicant’s claimed invention is directed to a process that itself qualifies as an "abstract idea" for which computers are invoked merely as a tool. 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, automatically managing the water supply system based on the marginal values (the “automatic” management being due to the implementation of the process via computer), by identifying pumps upstream of consumers with high marginal energy intensity values and adjusting a discharge rate of the identified pumps to match an expected change in water consumption rates of consumers targeted by the electricity demand response while maintaining quality of the water supply based on the marginal quality of delivered water. The claim limitations also correspond to mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), as evidence by the claims describing the observation and evaluation of various data, and making a judgment or opinion (decision based on the observed and evaluated data, even though the computer is providing the analysis, computing/calculations, and output/decision. The claims recite an abstract idea. As indicated in the claims and specification, the invention provides “a multi- purpose computational framework that can calculate the marginal attributes of the delivered water by backtracking the water delivered at any specific location” which is used by a system operator and/or software application to optimize and/or determine water distribution, for instance, a system operator seeking to reduce the carbon intensity of water supply. This directly correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes.
Applicant’s argument that “a human mind cannot practically solve systems of linear equations with millions of variables across thousands of nodes and time steps in real-time to manage pump discharge rates” is unpersuasive. The mental-steps inquiry under Step 2A Prong One isn’t “could a human do this at the same speed/precision.” It’s whether the claim limitation, under BRI, covers performance in the mind (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) but for the recitation of generic computer components. MPEP §2106.04(a)(2) is explicit that a claim can recite a mental process even though it’s performed with the assistance of a computer. (MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III) recites that claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. If the claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept, the claim is considered to recite a mental process). The question is the underlying nature of the step, not whether a human could literally replicate the computer’s exact arithmetic. The claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind or as a mathematical concept, but for the recitation of generic computer components. Further, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015); see also MPEP 2106.05(f).
For the reasons set forth above, the claims recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
The Judicial Exception Is Not Integrated Into A Practical Application Under Step 2A Prong Two
Applicant argues that the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Examiner disagrees.
The courts have identified limitations that does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application which includes: (see MPEP §2106.04(d))
Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception;
Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use;
In the applicant’s claimed invention, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application simply because the claims recite the additional elements of: a water supply system, a processor and memory containing software (claim 17), a plurality of water supply devices comprising a plurality of pumps (claim 17). The additional elements of the 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 a plurality of pumps 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.
Applicant’s reference to Desjardins is misplaced. Desjardins does not provide the applicable framework for Applicant’s specific invention. Applicant also mischaracterizes or misunderstands what Desjardins stands for as evidenced by their arguments. Requirements that the specification provides a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention, and that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement in technology, has been well-established before Desjardins (see MPEP §2106.05(a), McRO, Inc. dba Planet Blue v. Bandai Namco Games American Inc., 120 USPQ2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1316, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Desjardins relates to a demonstration in improvements in machine learning by the training methods reducing storage requirements and preserving task performance across sequential training. In Desjardins the claimed invention improved the operation of a machine learning system, such as by enhancing its training efficiency or preserving prior learning. Applicant’s invention is not drawn towards an improvement in machine-learning technology. It is also noted that issue here is not whether applicant’s specification recites an improvement, but whether the recited improvement is an improvement in the judicial exception itself or an improvement in computers or technology. Examiner has highlighted the portions of the specification in the Step 2A Prong One section that indicates the alleged improvement. The alleged improvement at best is an improvement in the judicial exception itself, not an improvement in computers or technology. The various computations and calculations related to marginal intensity correspond to the judicial exception. Reducing the carbon footprint of water supply systems in the context of the applicant’s invention is not an improvement in computers or technology. For instance, the computer functionality or operations do not change. The computer does not run or process faster, nor provide improvements to bandwidth or latency (for example). The business process is merely implemented on the computer which is an improvement in the business process at best. This is an improvement in the judicial exception: commercial interactions, business relations, managing personal behavior; commercial interactions, business relations; the observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. Technical improvement focuses on enhancing the tools, software, or machinery, while business process improvement focuses on streamlining the steps, workflows, and methodologies people use to do their work. Applicant’s claims fall in the latter as evidenced by the specification and claims. It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements, or the additional element(s) in combination with the recited judicial exception. Here, the additional elements amount to “apply it” or merely using a computer as a tool to implement the judicial exception and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use, both of which the courts have indicated does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Applicant further argues that their claims are similar to that of McRO, Inc. dba Planet Blue v. Bandai Namco Games American Inc., 120 USPQ2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("McRO"). Examiner disagrees. Applicant’s claims are in no way analogous to McRO. The basis for the court’s decision was that the claims improved a computer-related technology by enabling the computer to perform functions that previously could not be performed by a computer and that required the subjective judgement of a human. The court emphasized both the specific claiming of the rules and the specification’s explanation of how the claimed rules enabled the automation of these specific animation tasks that previously could not be automated. This enabling of functionality that could not previously be performed by a computer was what amounted to the improvement in computer-related technology, not the simple recitation of a set of particular rules. Examiner notes that applicant’s conclusion that the claims recite “specific computational steps” and that it is a “particular solution to a problem” is unpersuasive since these computational steps correspond to the judicial exception itself and the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. Further, the computational steps being implemented via computer, as in the applicant’s claims, amounts to merely implement the judicial exception via computer.
Applicant argues that their claims are similar to Example 45 of the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidelines. Examiner disagrees. Claim 2 of Example 45 was found eligible due to limitation (d) which specifies that the controller is configured to send control signals instructing the apparatus to open the mold and eject the molded polyurethane from the mold once the polyurethane has reached a target percentage. The claimed controller opens the mold and ejects the molded polyurethane at the time when the target percentage of cure is reached, thus the claimed controller avoids the technical problems associated with undercure and overcure, which would otherwise negatively affect the cured polyurethane’s strength and wear performance. The claim as a whole improves upon previous controllers used in this technical field of injection molding. Further, using the information obtained via the judicial exception to take corrective action and control the injection molding apparatus in a particular way is an “other meaningful limitation” that integrates the judicial exception into the overall control scheme and accordingly practically applies the exception, such that the claim is not directed to the judicial exception. Most importantly, as illustrated in the analysis of claim 2, the “improvements” consideration requires evaluation of the specification and the claim to ensure that a technical explanation of the asserted improvement is present in the specification, and that the claim reflects the asserted improvement. Applicant argues that the system uses computer MEI data to take corrective action on pumps, but the specification and the claims lack a technical explanation indicating that the physical control of a pump is improved. The technical details and explanation is severely lacking in the specification. For example [0015] merely discloses “in situations w[h]ere the pumps in the UWSS may be equipped with variable-speed drives (VSDs), the system operator can backtrack the flows into the high- MEI consumers, identify their upstream pumps, and precisely adjust the discharge rate of each pump to match the expected change in water consumption rates of consumers that are targeted and recruited by the demand response activity.” No technical details explained. This is the closet the specification gets to any sort of control of a pump, and it does not give details on how the system operator is adjusting the discharge rate and whether this is a mechanical/technical adjustment or not. Applicant’s claimed invention is similar to that of Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016) where the court relied on the specification’s failure to provide details regarding the manner in which the invention accomplished the alleged improvement when holding the claimed methods of delivering broadcast content to cellphones ineligible.
For the reasons set forth above, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
The Claims Do Not Include Additional Elements That Are Sufficient To Amount To Significantly More Than The Judicial Exception Under Step 2B.
Applicant argues that the claims include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Examiner disagrees.
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.
Applicant argues that their claims are not well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. Applicant is reminded that, under step 2B, whether the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional activity is only one consideration under Step 2B. Limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception also include: (see MPEP §2106.05)
Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer; and
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use;
Thus, since 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, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, as indicated by the courts, MPEP, and the most recent Office Action, there was not merely a recitation of the Step 2A Prong Two findings. Instead, the same consideration for Step 2A Prong Two was also applicable and found for Step 2B, and it is proper. Applicant’s reference to Berkheimer is invalid here as well. At Step 2B, there is no requirement for evidence to support a finding that the exception is not integrated into a practical application or that the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the exception unless the Examiner asserts that additional limitations are well-understood, routine, conventional activities in Step 2B. There was no assertion that the additional elements/limitations are well-understood, routine, conventional activities in Step 2B, thus no requirement of evidence of well-understood, routine, and conventional activity according to Berkheimer is necessary.
Applicant’s argument regarding novelty and obviousness is invalid here as well. Although the courts often evaluate considerations such as the conventionality of an additional element in the eligibility analysis, the search for an inventive concept should not be confused with a novelty or non-obviousness determination. As made clear by the courts, the "‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 01 categories of possibly patentable subject matter." Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1315, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In addition, the search for an inventive concept is different from an obviousness analysis under 35 U.S.C. 103. See, e.g., BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1242 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Specifically, lack of novelty under 35 U.S.C. 102 or obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 of a claimed invention does not necessarily indicate that additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional elements. Because they are separate and distinct requirements from eligibility, patentability of the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 with respect to the prior art is neither required for, nor a guarantee of, patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101.
For the reasons set forth above, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B.
Regarding the Affidavit, examiner notes that the information that appears in the Affidavit appear to be statements of opinion, respectively, and are not evidentiary facts, per se. The content presented in the Affidavit was considered and is unpersuasive in overcoming the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection. Additionally, Ms. Mauter is a named inventor and is employed by the assignee, Stanford University, making her statements appear to be self-serving, and her conclusion does not appear to be made an objective review of patent eligibility and the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections.
The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is maintained.
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 the set of marginal values comprises a marginal energy intensity of water supply to a specific location and an electricity demand response potential of a specific location at a specific time; 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, wherein the set of marginal values comprises a marginal energy intensity of water supply to a specific location, an electricity demand response potential of a specific location at a specific time, and a marginal quality of delivered water; quantifying the intensity of inputs associated with the marginal paths; computing the marginal energy intensity of water supply to a specific location as the energy consumption of pumps and energy dissipation due to frictional and minor loss along the marginal paths based on the intensity of inputs; and computing the electricity demand response potential of the specific location at the specific time as the energy cost that can be saved by shifting water consumption by consumer; and automatically managing the water supply system based on at least the set of marginal values by identifying pumps upstream of consumers with high marginal energy intensity values and adjusting a discharge rate of the identified pumps to match an expected change in water consumption rates of consumers targeted by the electricity demand response while maintaining quality of the water supply based on the marginal quality of delivered water. 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 automatically managing the water supply system based on the marginal values by identifying pumps upstream of consumers with high marginal energy intensity values and adjusting a discharge rate of the identified pumps to match an expected change in water consumption rates of consumers targeted by the electricity demand response while maintaining quality of the water supply based on the marginal quality of delivered water. The claim limitations also correspond to mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), as evidenced by the claims describing 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 to a consumer, quantifying the intensity of inputs associated with the marginal paths, and managing the water supply system based on the marginal values, allow which are the evaluation and observation of data, and making a decision (judgment/opinion) based on the observed and evaluated data. 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 processor and memory containing software (claim 17), a plurality of water supply devices comprising a plurality of pumps (claim 17). The additional elements of the 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 a plurality of pumps 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 the water supply system comprises [a plurality of pumps], 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 (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. 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 appear to explicitly disclose the amended limitations of computing the marginal energy intensity of water supply to a specific location as the energy consumption of pumps and energy dissipation due to frictional and minor loss along the marginal paths based on the intensity of inputs; and computing the electricity demand response potential of the specific location at the specific time as the energy cost that can be saved by shifting water consumption by consumer; and automatically managing the water supply system based on at least the set of marginal values by identifying pumps upstream of consumers with high marginal energy intensity values and adjusting a discharge rate of the identified pumps to match an expected change in water consumption rates of consumers targeted by the electricity demand response while maintaining quality of the water supply based on the marginal quality of delivered water. 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 appear to explicitly disclose the amended limitations of computing the marginal energy intensity of water supply to a specific location as the energy consumption of pumps and energy dissipation due to frictional and minor loss along the marginal paths based on the intensity of inputs; and computing the electricity demand response potential of the specific location at the specific time as the energy cost that can be saved by shifting water consumption by consumer; and automatically managing the water supply system based on at least the set of marginal values by identifying pumps upstream of consumers with high marginal energy intensity values and adjusting a discharge rate of the identified pumps to match an expected change in water consumption rates of consumers targeted by the electricity demand response while maintaining quality of the water supply based on the marginal quality of delivered water. The claims appear to overcome the prior art.
Conclusion
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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at (571) 270-1833. 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 3629
Prosecution Insights