DETAILED ACTION
This non-final office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment and request for continued examination filed March 16, 2026. Applicant’s March 16th amendment amended claims 1-4, 8-11, 14, 16, 17, and 20. Currently Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 16 and 20 are the independent claims.
The March 16th request for continued examination and amendment were filed after the Patent Trials and Appeals Board decision of January 16, 2026 affirming the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claims 1-20.
The instant application is a continuation of Application No. 17344432 now U.S. Patent No. 11605040. Application No. 17344432 is a continuation of App. No. 16219318 now U.S. Patent No. 11055651.
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 was filed in this application after a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, but before the filing of a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or the commencement of a civil action. 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examination under 37 CFR 1.114 and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the appeal has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114 and prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on March 16, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claims 1-20 in the previous office action is maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 16, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the claims, as newly amended, are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as the claims are not directed to an abstract idea/organizing human activity (e.g. claims control physical devices/switches/valves, facilitate distribution/flow/control of fluid or electrical power; Remarks: Pages 11, 12), the examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claims are directed to a well-known business practice –electrical power/fluid distribution management (Title: “Systems and Methos for Visualization of Flow Direction in a Distribution Network”; Figure 1, Element 110 – Distribution Network Management System)– more specifically the claimed invention ‘dynamically’ displays animated data indicative of the direction of flow of a fluid OR electrical power over a distribution area on a geographic map to facilitate the distribution of the fluid OR electrical power by ‘controlling’ a switch OR a valve (e.g. sending a signal to a valve/switch or developing emergency operation orders) to facilitate the distribution of the fluid OR electrical power over by a hardware device. See at least Specification Paragraphs 5, 42, 124 (below, emphasis added) and Figure 5.
[0005] As is known, flow direction information can be of life or death importance, for example, when developing emergency switching or valve operation orders to be executed in the distribution network.
[0042] In embodiments, the DNMS 110 may also process the GIS data and the sensor data to identify actionable events (e.g., emergency events, or failures) in the distribution network, e.g., in response to analysis of the visualized flow direction of the commodity. In embodiments, the DNMS 110 may generate a control signal (or signals) in the response to the identified actionable event, with the control signal (or signals) being used to automatically performing an action affecting at least one component (e.g., equipment 150) of the distribution network. In the example embodiment shown, the DNMS 110 is coupled to at least one valve or other control device (here, two control devices 160) and the control devices 160 are each coupled to respective equipment 150 in the distribution network. In embodiments, the control devices 160 are responsive to control signals received from the DNMS 110 to control, for example, a flow (or a rate of flow) or energy level of the commodity in the distribution network.
[0124] As illustrated, it is much easier to see the flow direction of the commodity over the distribution area using the animation feature in accordance with embodiments of the disclosure than, for example, using conventional techniques in which flow direction is shown by stationary arrows. As noted above, flow direction information can be of life or death importance, for example, when developing emergency switching or value operation orders to be executed in the field on a distribution network. As also noted above, flow direction information may be vital when designing distribution network facilities or analyzing their performance.
While the claims may represent an improvement to the fundamental economic process of visualizing and managing the distribution a fluid OR electrical power by dynamically displaying (visualizing, inherently for a human user) animated data indicative of a flow and ‘controlling’ a valve or a switch to facilitate the distribution over a network and then updating the dynamic display based on sensor data, the claims in no way either claimed or disclosed represent a practical application (e.g. provide a technical solution to a technical problem; improve any of the underlying technology (processor, computer readable medium, hardware device, display, database, switches, valves, etc.).
Additionally, the claims are directed to a mental processing practically capable of being performed in the human mind via observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion. Representative claim 1: The step of receiving GIS data including information relating to the distribution of the fluid OR electrical power may be performed in the human mind using observation of data. The step of receiving sensor data may be performed in the human mind using observation of data. The step of generating fluid OR electrical power vectorized measurement data indicative of at least a direction of flow of the fluid OR electrical power encompasses both a well-known mathematical concept/operation (vectorizing data; mathematical grouping of abstract ideas) and can be performing practically by a human evaluating the vectorized data to determine the direction of fluid OR electrical power flow. The step of dynamically displaying the fluid OR electrical power vectorized measurement data as an animation of a geographic map is directed to insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. data output), further a human via pen and paper is practically capable of drawing on a geographic map a direction of flow and a flow rate of a fluid OR electrical power. The step of controlling a switch OR a valve to facilitate distribution/control the flow of a fluid OR electrical power flow can be practically performed by a human and at best may represent automation of a well-known manual control methods (e.g. user views display and decides to manually close a valve or through a switch, or generate orders (telephone call) to have a switch OR valve open, closed, throttled, etc. based on the displayed data). The recitation of a generic switch OR valve, used for their conventional, routine, well-known purposes of controlling the flow of a fluid or electrical power, does not negate the mental nature of these claim limitations as the claims merely use the one or more switches OR valves as a tool to perform an otherwise mental process. The switch OR valve are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic switch OR valve (Applicant’s disclosure fails to disclose anything other than generic switches or valves – no unique, no specific, no non-generic, no non-conventional switch or valve is discussed or disclosed at any level of detail in Applicant’s specification) – an insignificant application. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and MPEP 2106.05(g) – below – emphasis added. The subsequent step of dynamically displaying second fluid OR electrical power vector measurement data is directed to insignificant extra solution activity (post solution data output), further a human via pen and paper is practically capable of drawing second fluid OR electrical power vectorized measurement data on a geographic map.
Further the controlling step is results based as the limitation merely recites a wished-for result without limiting how the step is performed/executed. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
MPEP 2106.05(f)
For example, as described in MPEP § 2106.05(f), additional elements that invoke computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process will generally not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception. See, e.g., Versata Development Group v. SAP America, 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (explaining that in order for a machine to add significantly more, it must “play a significant part in permitting the claimed method to be performed, rather than function solely as an obvious mechanism for permitting a solution to be achieved more quickly”).
(2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. 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 (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or 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). Similarly, “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). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
TLI Communications provides an example of a claim invoking computers and other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. The court stated that the claims describe steps of recording, administration and archiving of digital images, and found them to be directed to the abstract idea of classifying and storing digital images in an organized manner. 823 F.3d at 612, 118 USPQ2d at 1747. The court then turned to the additional elements of performing these functions using a telephone unit and a server and noted that these elements were being used in their ordinary capacity (i.e., the telephone unit is used to make calls and operate as a digital camera including compressing images and transmitting those images, and the server simply receives data, extracts classification information from the received data, and stores the digital images based on the extracted information). 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48. In other words, the claims invoked the telephone unit and server merely as tools to execute the abstract idea. Thus, the court found that the additional elements did not add significantly more to the abstract idea because they were simply applying the abstract idea on a telephone network without any recitation of details of how to carry out the abstract idea.
Other examples where the courts have found the additional elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process include:
vi. A method of assigning hair designs to balance head shape with a final step of using a tool (scissors) to cut the hair, In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
MPEP 2106.05(g)
Insignificant application:
i. Cutting hair after first determining the hair style, In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1016-1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential);
Other than the recitation of a computer readable medium storing instructions, hardware device including a processor, database, communication network, sensors, switch, valve, and display device nothing in the claimed steps precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. The claims do not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The limitations directed to a hardware device including a processor, computer readable memory, display device, sensors, network, switch, valve and/or database are each recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer, generic sensors, and/or generic switches/valves. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Further the mere nominal recitation of a generic computer (i.e., computer readable memory storing instructions, processor, display device), sensors, switch, valve, communication network and/or database (each used for their well-understood, conventional and routine purpose) does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. The claims use “conventional or generic technology in a nascent but well-known environment” to implement the abstract idea of “visualizing flow direction is a distribution network” (Claim 20, preamble). In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Pat. Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 612 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The recited technology (processor, memories, etc.), are used as a “conduit for the abstract idea,” not to provide a technological solution to a specific technological problem. Id.; see also id. at 611–13 (holding claims reciting the use of a cellular telephone and a network server to classify an image and store the image based on its classification to be abstract because the patent did “not describe a new telephone, a new server, or a new physical combination of the two” and did not address “how to combine a camera with a cellular telephone, how to transmit images via a cellular network, or even how to append classification information to that data”).
Nothing in Appellant’s disclosures suggests that the Applicant intended to accomplish any of the steps recited in the claims through anything other than generic technology used in a routine and conventional manner. Therefore, the claims lack an inventive concept. See also, e.g., Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1355 (holding claims lacked inventive concept where “[n]othing in the claims, understood in light of the specification, requires anything other than off-the-shelf, conventional computer, network, and display technology for gathering, sending, and presenting the desired information”); Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1348 (holding claims lacked an inventive concept where the claims recited the use of “existing scanning and processing technology”).
Reevaluating the steps of receiving GIS data, receiving sensor data, dynamically display the geographic map and dynamically displaying second fluid OR electrical power vectorized measurement data which are considered insignificant extra solution activity, these limitations are mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality and amount to nothing more than receiving data over a network of display data via display device which are both well-understood, routine and conventional activities. The limitations remain insignificant extra solution activity even upon reconsideration. Even when considered in combination the additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra solution activity which cannot provide an inventive concept.
Controlling the distribution of a fluid or electrical power, as encompassed by the pending claims, is at best a well-known, well-understood, conventional and routine economic activity/business practice – distribution management. Controlling switches and/or valves as disclosed in Specification Paragraph 124 is a common goal/wished for capability of every public utility company (power, water, electric, gas, etc.) and in and of itself is not a technical field. The claimed invention does not provide a technical solution to a technical problem. The claim solution does not improve any of the underlying technological components (e.g. sensor, display, switch, valve, memory, processor, network, etc.). The claims do no improve another technical field. Controlling the flow of any fluid OR electrical power over any distribution area using any switch or valve is how nearly every fluid OR electrical power distribution network operates, therefore even if fluid OR electrical power distribution was a technical field utilizing generic, well-understood, conventional and routine technological elements to perform widely practiced activities such as controlling the flow of a fluid OR electrical power through a network would not reflect an improvement. Likewise providing a visualization of data (e.g. flow direction, flow rate) to enable the control of a fluid OR electrical power in a distribution network does not represent a technical field much alone an improvement to a technical field. There is a fundamental difference between computer functionality improvements, on the one hand, and uses of existing computers as tools to perform a particular task, on the other — a distinction that the Federal Circuit applied in Enfish, in rejecting a § 101 challenge at the first stage of the Mayo/Alice framework because the claims at issue focused on a specific type of data structure, i.e., a self-referential table, designed to improve the way a computer stores and retrieves data in memory, and not merely on asserted advances in uses to which existing computer capabilities could be put. See Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335-36. Here the claims simply use a computer as a tool and nothing more.
For the reasons outlined above, the claims recite a method of organizing human activity, i.e., an abstract idea, and that the additional element recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea (e.g. hardware device, computer readable medium, switch, valve, database, sensor, network, etc.) is no more than generic technological components used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As such, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223-24 (“[Wholly generic computer implementation is not generally the sort of ‘additional featur[e]’ that provides any ‘practical assurance that the process is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea] itself.’” (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77)).
Dynamically displaying data is well-understood, conventional and routine. Animating data is well-understood, conventional and routine. Displaying data on a client display device is well-understood, conventional and routine. Neither Appellant’s disclosure nor the pending claims support Appellant’s assertion that the claimed invention improves the presentation/visualization of data as argued.
As discussed above the claims recitation of well-understood, conventional and routine technological components (e.g. hardware device, sensor, network, display, switch, valve, etc.) for their inherent, well-understood, conventional and routine purpose. Generic computers and/or other generic technological components (e.g. sensors) performing generic computer/technological component functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Moreover, when viewed as a whole with such additional elements considered as an ordered combination, the claim modified by adding a generic computer would be nothing more than a purely conventional computerized implementation of appellant's data visualization in the general field of fluid OR electrical power control and would not provide significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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 1-20 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.
Regarding independent Claims 1, 16 and 20, the claims are directed to the abstract idea of electrical power/fluid distribution management (Figure 1, Element 110 – Distribution Network Management System)– more specifically the claimed invention ‘dynamically’ displays animated data indicative of the direction of flow of a fluid OR electrical power over a distribution area on a geographic map to facilitate the distribution of the fluid OR electrical power by ‘controlling’ a switch OR a valve by a hardware device This is a process (i.e. a series of steps) which (Statutory Category – Yes –process).
The claims recite a judicial exception, a method for organizing human activity, fluid OR electrical power distribution management (Judicial Exception – Yes – organizing human activity). Specifically, the claims are directed to providing an animated visualization, to a human user via a display, of fluid OR electrical power flow within a fluid OR electrical power flow network (e.g. water, electricity, telecommunication, etc.), wherein fluid OR electrical power distribution management is a fundamental economic practice that falls into the abstract idea subcategories of sales activities and/or commercial interactions. Further all of the steps of “receiving”, “receiving”, “generating”, “dynamically displaying”, “controlling”, and “dynamically displaying” recite functions of fluid OR electrical power distribution management are also directed to an abstract idea that falls into the abstract idea subcategories of sales activities and/or commercial interactions. The intended purpose of independent claims 1, 16 and 20 appears to be to display to a human user, via the client device display, flow direction in a fluid OR electrical power distribution network and enable a human user to control the fluid OR electrical power flow in a distribution network. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea – fundamental economic practice, specifically in the abstract idea subcategories of sales activities and/or commercial interactions. The exceptions are the additional limitations of generic computer elements: computer-readable medium storing computer executable instructions, network, hardware device, processor, switch, valve, client display device.
Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong One, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong Two. Considering whether the additional elements set forth in the claim integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, the previously identified non-abstract elements directed to generic computing components include: computer-readable medium storing computer executable instructions, network, hardware device, processor, switch, valve, client display device and sensor. These generic computing components are merely used to receive, process and display data as described extensively in Applicant’s specification (Specification: Figures 1-2; Paragraphs 47, 48, 132; Paragraph 132: “As described above and as will be appreciated by those of ordinary skill in the art, embodiments of the disclosure herein may be configured as a system, method, or combination thereof.”)
Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Moreover, when viewed as a whole with such additional elements considered as an ordered combination, the claim modified by adding a generic computer would be nothing more than a purely conventional computerized implementation of applicant's fluid OR electrical power distribution management in the general field of business management and would not provide significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Note McRo, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc. (837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016)), guides: "[t]he abstract idea exception prevents patenting a result where 'it matters not by what process or machinery the result is accomplished."' 837 F.3d at 1312 (quoting O'Reilly v. Morse, 56 U.S. 62, 113 (1854)) (emphasis added). The claims are not directed to a particular machine nor do they recite a particular transformation (MPEP § 2106.05(b)).
Additionally, the claims do not recite any specific claim limitations that would provide a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Nor do the claims present any other issues as set forth in MPEP 2106 regarding a determination of whether the additional generic elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Rather, the claims merely use instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Thus, under Step 2A, Prong Two (MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)-(c) and (e)- (h)), claims 1-20 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Regarding the use of the generic (known, conventional) recited computer-readable medium storing computer executable instructions, network, hardware device, processor, switch, valve, client display device," the Supreme Court has held "the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Alice, 573 U.S. 208, 223. Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims as a whole do not recite more than what was well-known, routine and conventional in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)). In light of the foregoing, that each of the claims, considered as a whole, is directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application and does not include an inventive concept.
The claims use “conventional or generic technology in a nascent but well-known environment” to implement the abstract idea of fluid OR electrical power distribution management. In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Pat. Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 612 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The recited technology (computer-readable medium storing computer executable instructions, network, hardware device, processor, etc.), are used as a “conduit for the abstract idea,” not to provide a technological solution to a specific technological problem. Id.; see also id. at 611–13 (holding claims reciting the use of a cellular telephone and a network server to classify an image and store the image based on its classification to be abstract because the patent did “not describe a new telephone, a new server, or a new physical combination of the two” and did not address “how to combine a camera with a cellular telephone, how to transmit images via a cellular network, or even how to append classification information to that data”).
Nothing in Applicant’s disclosures suggests that the Applicant intended to accomplish any of the steps recited in the claims through anything other than well understood technology used in a routine and conventional manner. Therefore, the claims lack an inventive concept. See also, e.g., Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1355 (holding claims lacked inventive concept where “[n]othing in the claims, understood in light of the specification, requires anything other than off-the-shelf, conventional computer, network, and display technology for gathering, sending, and presenting the desired information”); Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1348 (holding claims lacked an inventive concept where the claims recited the use of “existing scanning and processing technology”).
Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Additionally, the claims recite a judicial exception, a mental processes, which can be performed in the human mind or via pen and paper (Judicial Exception – Yes – mental process).
The claimed steps of generating CVM data and controlling a switch OR valve all describe the abstract idea. These limitations as drafted are directed to a process that under its reasonable interpretation covers performance of the steps in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computer components. Other than the recitation of a computer-readable medium storing computer executable instructions, network, hardware device, processor, switch, valve, client display device nothing in the claimed steps precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. The claims do not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the step(s) of receiving GIS data and receiving sensor data are directed to insignificant pre-solution activity (i.e. data gathering). The steps of displaying CVM data and displaying second CVM data are directed to insignificant post solution activity (i.e. data output). The mere nominal recitation of a generic processor does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process. (Judicial Exception recited – Yes – mental process).
The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The generic computer-readable medium storing computer executable instructions, network, hardware device, processor, switch, valve, client display device are recited at a high level of generality merely performs generic computer functions of receiving and processing data. The generic processor merely applies the abstract idea using generic computer components. The 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 do not recite improvements to the functioning of a computer or any other technology field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, the claims to do apply the abstract idea with a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (e.g. data remains data even after processing; MPEP 2106.05(c)), the claims no not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the user of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e. a generic computer) such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(e)). The recited generic computing elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
As for the newly recited generic switch OR valve, used for their conventional, routine, well-known purposes of controlling the flow of a fluid or electrical power as part of a conventional distribution network, the switches OR valves are nothing more than generic tools to perform an otherwise manual, conventional, routine process of controlling the distribution/flow of a fluid OR electrical power. The switch OR valve are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic switch OR valve. At best the switch OR valve used to control the flow of a fluid OR electrical power is an insignificant application See MPEP 2106.05(f) and MPEP 2106.05(g) – above – emphasis added. Even, if Applicant were to amend the claims to recite that the valve or switch was operated automatically by the hardware device the claims would still remain ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as the claims as the switch or valve used in their ordinary capacity function solely as an obvious mechanism for permitting a solution to be achieved.
Accordingly, this 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. (Integrated into a Practical Application – No).
As discussed above the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than a mere instruction to apply the abstract idea using generic computing components, wherein mere instructions to apply an judicial exception using generic computer components cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. For the receiving and displaying steps that were considered extra-solution activity, this has been re-evaluated and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. Applications specification does not provide any indication that the computer/processor is anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer component, and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)) indicate that mere receiving or displaying 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). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claim is ineligible (Provide Inventive Concept – No).
Neither Applicant’s disclosure nor claims are directed/disclose a technical solution to a technical problem. At best the claims enable a human user to visualize the direction of flow of an electrical distribution (fluid OR electrical power) network and subsequently ‘control’ the flow of the electricity/fluid OR electrical power through the network using well-known, routine, widely used, commercially available hardware, computers, sensors and switches OR valves. None of the recited technological elements is improved in any way.
Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding dependent claims 2-15 and 17-19, the claims are directed to the abstract idea of fluid OR electrical power distribution management and merely further limit the abstract idea claimed in independent claims 1, 16 and 20.
Claim 2 further limits the abstract idea by determining a current measurement value and generating CVM data flow directed based on a comparison of previous and current measurements (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 3 further limits the abstract idea by receiving third/fourth sensor data, determining first/second measurement values, and comparing first/second with current values (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 4 further limits the abstract idea by limiting the parameters to equipment state (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 5 further limits the abstract idea by identifying portions of network of interest and displaying CVM data for the identified portions (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 6 further limits the abstract idea by distinguishing select portions of the network (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 7 further limits the abstract idea by limiting the animation to animated line graphics (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 8 further limits the abstract idea by including a direction of motion in the line graphics (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 9 further limits the abstract idea by associating measured data with the line graphics (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 10 further limits the abstract idea by determining the rate of flow by comparing current to previous measurements (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 11 further limit the abstract idea by limiting the animation to one of flow direction, flow rate, pressure level or energy level (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 12 further limits the abstract idea by identifying a platform, generating a geographic map and presenting the geographic map (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 13 further limits the abstract idea by analyzing distribution network performance and providing an indication of the performance (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 14 further limits the abstract idea by limiting the fluid OR electrical power to one of electricity, gas, water or telecom (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 15 further limits the abstract idea by controlling at least one component of the network based on the CVM data (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 17 further limits the abstract idea by generating CVM data based on network topology inferences (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 18 limits the equipment to one or more of pipes (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 19 further limits the abstract idea by controlling equipment based on CVM data (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea).
None of the limitations considered as an ordered combination provide eligibility because taken as a whole the claims simply instruct the practitioner to apply the abstract idea to a generic computer.
Further regarding claims 1-20, Applicant’s specification discloses that the claimed elements directed to a memory, processor, and non-transitory storage media including computer instructions at best merely comprise generic computer hardware which is commercially available (Specification: Figures 1-2; Paragraphs 47, 48, 132; Paragraph 132: “As described above and as will be appreciated by those of ordinary skill in the art, embodiments of the disclosure herein may be configured as a system, method, or combination thereof. Accordingly, embodiments of the present disclosure may be comprised of various means including hardware, software, firmware or any combination thereof.”). More specifically Applicant’s claimed features directed to a system do not represent custom or specific computer hardware circuits, instead the terms merely refers to commercially available software and/or hardware. Thus, as to the system recited, "the system claims are no different from the method claims in substance. The method claims recite the abstract idea implemented on a generic computer; the system claims recite a handful of generic computer components configured to implement the same idea." See Alice Corp. Pry. Ltd., 134 S.Ct. at 2360.
Accordingly, the claims merely recite manipulating data utilizing generic computer hardware (e.g. processor, hardware, etc.). Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further the lack of detail of the claimed embodiment in Applicant’s disclosure is an indication that the claims are directed to an abstract idea and not a specific improvement to a machine.
Accordingly given the broadest reasonable interpretation and in light of the specification the claims are interpreted to include the process steps being performed by a human mind or via pen and paper. The claim limitations which recite a computer implemented method is at best recite generic, well-known hardware. However, the recited generic hardware simply performs generic computer function of storing, accessing, displaying or processing data. Generic computers performing generic, well known computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further the recited memories are part of every conventional general-purpose computer.
Applicant has not demonstrated that a special purpose machine/computer is required to carry out the claimed invention. A special purpose machine is now evaluated as part of the significantly more analysis established by the Alice decision and current 35 U.S.C. 101 guidelines. It involves/requires more than a machine only broadly applying the abstract idea and/or performing conventional functions.
Applicant’s specification discloses that the claimed elements directed to a system, processor, interface, component and memory merely comprise generic computer hardware which is commercially available (Specification: Figures 1-2). More specifically Applicant’s claimed features directed to a system and components do not represent custom or specific computer hardware circuits, instead the term system merely refers to commercially available software and/or hardware (Specification: Paragraphs 47, 48, 132; Paragraph 132: “As described above and as will be appreciated by those of ordinary skill in the art, embodiments of the disclosure herein may be configured as a system, method, or combination thereof. Accordingly, embodiments of the present disclosure may be comprised of various means including hardware, software, firmware or any combination thereof.”). Thus, as to the system recited, "the system claims are no different from the method claims in substance. The method claims recite the abstract idea implemented on a generic computer; the system claims recite a handful of generic computer components configured to implement the same idea." See Alice Corp. Pry. Ltd., 134 S.Ct. at 2360.
Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT L JARRETT whose telephone number is (571)272-7033. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 6am-4:30PM.
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, Beth Boswell can be reached at (571) 272-6737. 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.
SCOTT L. JARRETT
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3625
/SCOTT L JARRETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights