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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
2. 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 2-11, 14, and 17-21 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.
In view of the new 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (Federal Register Vol. 84, No. 4, January 7, 2019), the Examiner has considered the claims and has determined that under step 1, claims 2-18 are to a process, claims 19-20 are to a machine, and claim 21 is to an article of manufacture. Next under the new step 2A prong 1 analysis, the claims are considered to determine if they recite an abstract idea (judicial exception) under the following groupings: (a) mathematical concepts, (b) certain methods of organizing human activity, or (c) mental processes. The independent claims contain at least the following bolded limitations (see representative independent claims) that fall into the grouping of mathematical concepts and/or mental processes:
2. A method comprising:
determining, for a valve configured to adjust an operational state to control a fluid flow rate through a pipe branch of a piping system of a property, the operational state of the valve;
determining, using the operational state of the valve, an expected fluid flow rate through the pipe branch; obtaining flow rate sensor data that indicates a measured fluid flow rate through the pipe branch; and
in response to determining that a difference between the expected fluid flow rate through the pipe branch and the measured fluid flow rate through the pipe branch does not satisfy a threshold difference, determining that fluid is not likely leaking from the pipe branch.
19. A system comprising: a valve configured to adjust an operational state to control a fluid flow rate through a pipe branch of a piping system of a property;
one or more processors;
and one or more storage devices, the one or more storage devices storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
determining, for the valve configured to adjust an operational state to control a fluid flow rate through a pipe branch of a piping system of a property, the operational state of the valve;
determining, using the operational state of the valve, an expected fluid flow rate through the pipe branch; obtaining flow rate sensor data that indicates a measured fluid flow rate through the pipe branch; and
in response to determining that a difference between the expected fluid flow rate through the pipe branch and the measured fluid flow rate through the pipe branch does not satisfy a threshold difference, determining that fluid is not likely leaking from the pipe branch.
21. A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing software comprising instructions executable by one or more computers which, upon such execution, cause the one or more computers to perform operations comprising: determining, for a valve configured to adjust an operational state to control a fluid flow rate through a pipe branch of a piping system of a property, the operational state of the valve;
determining, using the operational state of the valve, an expected fluid flow rate through the pipe branch; obtaining flow rate sensor data that indicates a measured fluid flow rate through the pipe branch; and
in response to determining that a difference between the expected fluid flow rate through the pipe branch and the measured fluid flow rate through the pipe branch does not satisfy a threshold difference, determining that fluid is not likely leaking from the pipe branch.
The limitations of "determining, for a valve configured to adjust an operational state to control to control a fluid flow rate through a pipe branch of a piping system of a property, the operational state of the valve" amounts to a mental process to observe and recognize a state of a valve, as a person can visually look at a valve and mentally recognize whether it is open or closed. The limitations of "determining, using the operational state of the valve, an expected fluid flow rate through the pipe branch" amounts to a mental process to form an evaluation or judgement of a flow rate based on the state of the valve. This can be as simple as a person visually noting that a valve is closed and mentally forming an evaluation or judgment that there would be an expected zero flow, or that a valve is open and expecting some numerical estimate of a flow rate amount. The limitations of "in response to determining that a difference between the expected fluid flow rate through the pipe branch and the measured fluid flow rate through the pipe branch does not satisfy a threshold difference, determining that fluid is not likely leaking from the pipe branch" amounts to a mathematical calculation/concept to solve for a difference between two numerical values, while the comparison to a threshold to determine whether fluid is not likely leaking from the pipe branch amounts to a mental process to compare and evaluate data. It is important to note that a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula."(see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I.). The sequence of steps to calculate a difference and compare that value to a threshold difference amount in words to a mathematical algorithm to solve for an informational-based data result of whether fluid is not likely leaking from the pipe branch.
Next in step 2A prong 2, the independent claims are analyzed to determine whether there are additional elements or combination of elements that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, in order to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. These limitations have been identified and underlined above, and are not indicative of integration into a practical application because: (1) the "obtaining flow rate sensor data that indicates a measured fluid flow rate through the pipe branch," amount to adding insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)); (2) "the system," "one or more processors", "one or more storage devices, the one or more storage devices storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations," and "non-transitory computer-readable medium storing software comprising instructions executable by one or more computers which, upon such execution, cause the one or more computer to perform operations" amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)); and (3) "a valve configured to adjust an operational state to control a fluid flow rate through a pipe branch of a piping system of a property" amount to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Next in step 2B, the independent claims are considered to determine if they recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (“significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception. The recitation of obtaining flow rate sensor data that indicates a measured fluid flow rate through the pipe branch does not add something significantly more because such a limitation amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g) to gather necessary data for the calculations, and does not describe any gathering of data in an unconventional measurement arrangement. The recitations of a system, one or more processors, one or more storage devices storing instructions executed by the processors, and the non-transitory computer-readable medium storing software comprising instructions executable by one or more computers, are limitations that do not add something significantly more because such limitations amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The recitations of "a valve configured to adjust an operational state to control a fluid flow rate through a pipe branch of a piping system of a property" does not add significantly more because such limitations amount to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), as no further change in operation or improvement is applied back to the technology or technological environment.
Dependent claims 3-5, 8, 11, 17-18, and 20 contain additional limitations that fall under the abstract idea grouping of a mental process or mathematical concepts, as they describe further data observations, difference calculations, and comparisons to a threshold that can be performed mentally by a person or on pen and paper. Dependent claim 6 describes insignificant extrasolution data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)), which does not provide an integration into a practical application or significantly more. Dependent claim 7 describes storing expected fluid flow rates in memory, where selecting a particular generic function for computer hardware to perform (e.g., buffering content, storing and retrieving data from memory) from within a range of well- known, routine, conventional functions performed by the hardware does not provide integration into a practical application or significantly more (see Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1264, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1208 (Fed. Cir. 2016) and (MPEP 2106.05(a)II, last paragraph)). Dependent claims 9-10 describe the environment of pipe branches and valves, but such limitations amount to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use of a piping system, and is not indicative of integration into a practical application nor something significantly more than the recited judicial exception (see MPEP 2016.05(h)). Dependent claim 14 recites transmitting a notification to a user device indicating that the fluid is likely leaking, which amounts to insignificant post-solution data outputting, which does not provide an integration into a practical application or significantly more (as the MPEP states that when “whether the limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting, (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output) the limitations can be mere data gathering or data output" (see MPEP 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra- Solution Activity, in particular item (3)). Dependent claims 12-13 and 15-16 contain patent eligible subject matter because they describe transmitting an instruction to cause a physical control action of a valve to adjust an operational state, which amounts to an integration of the abstract idea into a practical application.
3. An invention is not rendered ineligible for patent simply because it involves an abstract concept. Applications of such concepts "to a new and useful end" remain eligible for patent protection (see Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2354 (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67)). However, "a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea" (see Synopsys v. Mentor Graphics Corp. _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q. 2d1473 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). There needs to be additional elements or combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception or render the claim as a whole to be significantly more than the exception itself in order to demonstrate “integration into a practical application” or an “inventive concept.” For instance, particular physical arrangements for actively obtaining the sensor data, or further physical applications using the determination result (of whether fluid is leaking or not from a pipe branch) to physically control or drive a change in operation, transformation, or repair/maintenance, could provide an integration into a practical application to demonstrate an improvement to the technology or technical field.
Allowable Subject Matter
4. Claims 2-11, 14, and 17-21 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action. Claims 12-13 and 15-16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
5. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 2 contains allowable subject matter because the next closest prior art, Devereaux et al. (US Pat. No. 10,526,771) fails to anticipate or render obvious a method comprising: determining, for a valve configured to adjust an operational state to control a fluid flow rate through a pipe branch of a piping system of a property, the operational state of the valve; determining, using the operational state of the valve, an expected fluid flow rate through the pipe branch, in combination with the rest of the claim limitations as claimed and defined by the Applicant. Claim 19 contains allowable subject matter because the next closest prior art, Devereaux et al. (US Pat. No. 10,526,771) fails to anticipate or render obvious a system comprising: determining, for the valve configured to adjust an operational state to control a fluid flow rate through a pipe branch of a piping system of a property, the operational state of the valve; determining, using the operational state of the valve, an expected fluid flow rate through the pipe branch, in combination with the rest of the claim limitations as claimed and defined by the Applicant.
Claim 21 contains allowable subject matter because the next closest prior art, Devereaux et al. (US Pat. No. 10,526,771) fails to anticipate or render obvious a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing software comprising instructions executable by one or more computers which, upon such execution, cause the one or more computers to perform operations comprising: determining, for a valve configured to adjust an operational state to control a fluid flow rate through a pipe branch of a piping system of a property, the operational state of the valve; determining, using the operational state of the valve, an expected fluid flow rate through the pipe branch, in combination with the rest of the claim limitations as claimed and defined by the Applicant.6. Dependent claims 3-18 depend from claim 2 and contain allowable subject matter for at least the same reasons as given for claim 2. Dependent claim 20 depends from claim 19 and contains allowable subject matter for at least the same reasons as given for claim 19.
Response to Arguments
7. Applicant's arguments filed January 26, 2026 regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
8. Applicant argues in regards to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections that:
PNG
media_image1.png
720
714
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
456
702
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(see Applicant's Arguments/Remarks 1/26/2026, pg. 1-2).
9. In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees that the claims of Enfish are similar and relevant to the present application. The Federal Circuit in Enfish held that the claimed database software designed as a "self-referential" table is patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because it is not directed to an abstract idea, and that software can make non-abstract improvements to computer technology. The Federal Circuit determined that the claims in Enfish were directed to an improvement in existing computer technology by achieving other benefits over conventional databases such as increased flexibility, faster search times, and smaller memory requirements, and that the improvement is defined by logical structures and processes The Enfish claims were not ones in which general-purpose computer components are added after the fact to a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation, but were directed to a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in the software arts, and were thus not directed to an abstract idea (see Bahr Memo May 19, 2016, http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ieg-may-2016_enfish_memo.pdf). In contrast, the present claims do not define any solution to a software-based problem to improve the operation of a processor, but rather use the processor to carry out abstract steps to recognize "data" of a likelihood of fluid leaking from a pipe branch. It should be noted that "a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea" (see Synopsys v. Mentor Graphics Corp. _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q. 2d1473 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). An improved sequence of abstract numerical/mathematical manipulation steps to calculate a more accurate value is still an abstract idea, just as an improved formula for calculating a value is still an abstract idea. The analysis of the EPG Court is particularly applicable: "Accordingly, we have treated collecting information, including when limited to particular content (which does not change its character as information), as within the realm of abstract ideas. In a similar vein, we have treated analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category," (see Electronic Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, 830 F. 3d 1350, 119 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016) at pg. 7). The claims, defining a desirable information-based result and not limited to inventive means of achieving the result, fail under § 101" (see Electronic Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, 830 F. 3d 1350, 119 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016) at pg. 2). The Examiner regards the "improved" determination that fluid is not likely leaking from the pipe branch to be tied to an improved information-based calculation result obtained using a processor/computer, and not an improvement in the operation of the processor/computer itself (as seen by the self-referential table abilities provided in Enfish).
Regarding the decision in Desjardins, the Examiner notes that if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology or a technical field, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement, i.e., that is, the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification (see MPEP 2106.04(d)). The improvement is reflected for example in claim 12 ("in response to determining that fluid is likely leaking from the second pipe branch, transmitting an instruction that causes a second valve of the plurality of valves to adjust operational state to control a fluid flow rate through the second pipe branch" ) or claim 15 ("in response to a user selection of the selectable icon, transmitting an instruction that causes a second valve of the plurality of valves to adjust operational state to control a fluid flow rate through the second pipe branch"), which have been previously identified by the Examiner as being directed to patent eligible subject matter. The independent claims in their current form do not recite such applied improvement to the piping system or operational control capabilities of a system, as the independent claims in their current form only describe an improvement to an abstract idea, where an improved abstract idea is still an abstract idea as explained above.
10. Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant's Arguments/Remarks, filed January 26, 2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections of claims 2-4, 6-10, and 17-21 and the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 5 have been withdrawn.
Conclusion
11. 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 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL D LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1598. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 9:30 am to 6 pm.
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, Arleen Vazquez can be reached on (571)272-2619. 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.
PAUL D. LEE
Examiner
Art Unit 2857
/PAUL D LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857 3/13/2026