DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of Claims
This is a Final Rejection office action Request for Continued Examination (RCE) application in response to communication received for application Serial No. 18/046,200. Claim(s) 1-3, 5-13, and 15-19 have been examined and fully considered. Claim(s) 1, 11, and 16 are amended, and claim(s) 4, 14 and 20-21 is canceled. Claim(s) 1-3, 5-13, and 15-19 are pending in Instant Application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 11/12/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-3, 5-13, and 15-19 under 35 USC § 101 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that because claims 1, 11 and 16 recites in part, "generating, by the vehicle or a water generation system of the vehicle, potable water," the claims are subject matter eligible as this limitation cannot be performed in the human mind.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that the step directed to generating potable water is determined to be an additional element, which merely amounts to post-solution activity.
The amendment is not claiming the use the “generated potable water” data/information utilized for implementing said abstract idea (i.e. does not improve the computing technology or the transportation technology, e.g., the operation of automobile, , etc.) and is thus does not represent an integration of said abstract idea into a practical application.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 11/12/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-3, 5-13, and 15-19 under 35 U.S.C 35 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claim(s) 1-3, 5-13, and 15-19 of record has been withdrawn.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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-13, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test entails 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-13, and 15-19 are directed to a method (process) and a system (machine or manufacture), respectively. As such, the claims are directed to statutory categories of invention.
If the claim recites a statutory category of invention, the claim requires further analysis in Step 2A. Step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
Claim 1 recites abstract limitations, including those identified in bold below:
A method comprising: determining, by a processor, trip information for a trip of a traveler, the trip information including route information; receiving, by the processor, an input from the traveler indicating a current amount of potable water supply available with the traveler; determining, by the processor, a potable water generation rate of a vehicle that is used for the trip; determining, by the processor, an estimated amount of potable water needed by the traveler for the trip; determining, by the processor, a potable water generation estimate of the vehicle based on the route information, forecasted weather conditions, and the potable water generation rate; determining, by the processor and based on the estimated amount of potable water needed by the traveler, the current amount of potable water supply, and the potable water generation estimate of the vehicle, that the traveler will have insufficient potable water for the trip; providing, by the processor, a notification to the traveler, determining, by the processor and during the trip, a current location of the traveler determining, by the processor, an amount of water generation in a prior time frame; generating, by the vehicle or a water generation system of the vehicle, potable water; determining, by the processor, current water generation in real-time and transmitting, by the processor, the current location, the amount of water generation in the prior time frame, and the current water generation to a group of travelers.
Claim 11 recites abstract limitations, including those identified in bold below:
A system comprising: a vehicle having a vehicle controller and a potable water generation system; a processor and memory, the processor configured to: determine information for a trip of a traveler, the information including a first route information; determine a current amount of potable water supply available with the traveler; determine potable water generation capability of the vehicle; determine an estimated amount of potable water needed for the trip; determine, based on the potable water generation capability and first route information, a predicted amount of potable water generation by the vehicle during the trip; determine, based on the predicted amount of potable water generation, the current amount of potable water supply, and the estimated amount of potable water needed for the trip, that the traveler will have insufficient potable water for the trip; provide an alternative route to a destination of the trip, determine a current location of the traveler; determine an amount of potable water generation done by the vehicle in a prior time frame; generating, by the vehicle or a water generation system of the vehicle, potable water; determine current potable water generation by the vehicle in real-time; and transmit the current location, the amount of potable water generation in the prior time frame, and the current potable water generation, to a group of travelers, the group of travelers including the traveler.
Claim 16 recites abstract limitations, including those identified in bold below:
A vehicle comprising: a potable water generation system configured to generate potable water; and a controller coupled to the potable water generation system and configured to: determine information for a trip of a traveler, the information including information about a route from a source to a destination; receive an input indicative of a current amount of potable water available with the traveler; determine a water generation capability of the potable water generation system; determine a first amount of potable water needed by the traveler for the trip; determine, based on the water generation capability and the route, a total amount of estimated potable water generation by the vehicle during the trip; determine, that a combined water supply including the current amount of potable water and the total amount of estimated potable water generation will be less than the first amount of potable water needed by the traveler; and provide an alternative route to the destinations cause the water generation system of the vehicle to generate potable water; identify excess potable water generation information among a group of travelers including the traveler; and provide the excess potable water generation information to all travelers in the group of travelers.
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind, or by a human using pen and paper, and therefore recite mental processes. More specifically, other than reciting that the steps are performed by a computing element (e.g., processor/controller), nothing in the claim limitation precludes the aforementioned steps from practically being performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper. The mere recitation of generic computing elements does not take the claim out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
If the claim recites a judicial exception in step 2A Prong One , the claim requires further analysis in step 2A Prong Two. In step 2A Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
Claim 1 additional elements, including those underlined below:
A method comprising: determining, by a processor, trip information for a trip of a traveler, the trip information including route information; receiving, by the processor, an input from the traveler indicating a current amount of potable water supply available with the traveler; determining, by the processor, a potable water generation rate of a vehicle that is used for the trip; determining, by the processor, an estimated amount of potable water needed by the traveler for the trip; determining, by the processor, a potable water generation estimate of the vehicle based on the route information, forecasted weather conditions, and the potable water generation rate; determining, by the processor and based on the estimated amount of potable water needed by the traveler, the current amount of potable water supply, and the potable water generation estimate of the vehicle, that the traveler will have insufficient potable water for the trip; providing, by the processor, a notification to the traveler, determining, by the processor and during the trip, a current location of the traveler determining, by the processor, an amount of water generation in a prior time frame generating, by the vehicle or a water generation system of the vehicle, potable water; determining, by the processor, current water generation in real-time and transmitting, by the processor, the current location, the amount of water generation in the prior time frame, and the current water generation to a group of travelers.
Claim 11 recites additional elements, including those underlined below:
A system comprising: a vehicle having a vehicle controller and a potable water generation system; a processor and memory, the processor configured to: determine information for a trip of a traveler, the information including a first route information; determine a current amount of potable water supply available with the traveler; determine potable water generation capability of the vehicle; determine an estimated amount of potable water needed for the trip; determine, based on the potable water generation capability and first route information, a predicted amount of potable water generation by the vehicle during the trip; determine, based on the predicted amount of potable water generation, the current amount of potable water supply, and the estimated amount of potable water needed for the trip, that the traveler will have insufficient potable water for the trip; provide an alternative route to a destination of the trip, determine a current location of the traveler; determine an amount of potable water generation done by the vehicle in a prior time frame; generating, by the vehicle or a water generation system of the vehicle, potable water; determine current potable water generation by the vehicle in real-time; and transmit the current location, the amount of potable water generation in the prior time frame, and the current potable water generation, to a group of travelers, the group of travelers including the traveler.
Claim 16 recites additional elements, including those underlined below:
A vehicle comprising: a potable water generation system configured to generate potable water; and a controller coupled to the potable water generation system and configured to: determine information for a trip of a traveler, the information including information about a route from a source to a destination; receive an input indicative of a current amount of potable water available with the traveler; determine a water generation capability of the potable water generation system; determine a first amount of potable water needed by the traveler for the trip; determine, based on the water generation capability and the route, a total amount of estimated potable water generation by the vehicle during the trip; determine, that a combined water supply including the current amount of potable water and the total amount of estimated potable water generation will be less than the first amount of potable water needed by the traveler; and provide an alternative route to the destinations cause the water generation system of the vehicle to generate potable water; identify excess potable water generation information among a group of travelers including the traveler; and provide the excess potable water generation information to all travelers in the group of travelers.
The data processing functions of “processor”, “system comprising: a vehicle having a vehicle controller and a potable water generation system”; “a processor” and “memory”, and “vehicle comprising: a potable water generation system”; and “a controller coupled to the potable water generation system”, are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic components.
The characterization of the vehicle and potable water generation system could also be characterized as field of use.
The transmitting/receiving functions executed by the processor is merely a form of extra-solution data gathering.
The generating function (generating potable water) is recited at a high level of generality and merely amounts to apply it.
As recited, the providing step could be abstract (a human is capable of outputting information). However, the providing function of the processor could alternatively be interpreted as a form of post-solution activity if information was sent by the processor to remote devices (though not explicitly recited).
If the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application in step 2A Prong Two, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception, and requires further analysis under Step 2B to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself).
As discussed above, the processor, system comprising: a vehicle having a vehicle controller and a potable water generation system; a processor and memory, and vehicle comprising: a potable water generation system; and a controller coupled to the potable water generation system, amount to mere instructions to apply the exception. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). In addition, as discussed above, the characterization of the vehicle and potable water generation system also indicates a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, which does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
As discussed above, the transmitting/receiving function could be interpreted as a form of extra-solution data gathering. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
As discussed above, the function of generating water, is recited at a high level of generality. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it”. See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
As discussed above, the providing function could alternatively be interpreted as a form of post-solution activity. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function.
The specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of additional elements as it describes the additional elements as well-understood or routine or conventional (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, or in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. §112(a).
Dependent claim(s) 2-3, 5-10, 12-13, 15, and 17-19 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception (e.g., requesting and receiving calendar, route, water supply, location and traveler information) and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements (see analysis above regarding pre and post-solution activity (sending/receiving/displaying data) that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application optimizing water usage and generation during trips. Therefore, dependent claims 2-3, 5-10, 12-13, 15, and 17-19 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim(s) 1, 11 and 16.
Therefore, claim(s) 1-3, 5-13, and 15-19 is/are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Potentially Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3, 5-13, and 15-19 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, however, would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Prior art, John Martin et al. (Pub. No.: US 2019/0270419A1; previously recorded) generally teaches methods and systems for controlling usage of water, generated via a water harvesting system, on-board a vehicle including prioritizing an order of water usage for different functions.
Prior art, Kohavi et al. (Pub. No.: US 2012/0221198A1; previously recorded) generally teaches system of managing water production in a vehicle. The system comprises water conducting element set to receive and conduct water generated as a product of an operation of a vehicle air conditioner of the vehicle to a water container, a gauge that measures the amount of water in the water container, and a manager that receives the measurement and instructs the operation accordingly.
While the aforementioned reference disclose each of the elements of the invention, the combination of references does not fully capture the structure and interplay of the elements as recited in the claims. Therefore, upon review of the evidence at hand, it is hereby concluded that the evidence obtained and made of record, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, nor renders obvious all the features of applicant’s invention as the features amount to more than a predictable use of elements in 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 BAKARI UNDERWOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-8462. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8:00 TO 4:30.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached on (571)-272-9855. 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.
/B.U./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ABBY J FLYNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights