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. Claims 1-20 are pending and under consideration for this Office Action. 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception(s) without significantly more. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and t he claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception . MPEP § 2106 describes the two-step analysis of judicial exceptions in claims. “ Step 2A is a two- prong inquiry, in which examiners determine in Prong One whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then determine in Prong Two if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception. Together, these prongs represent the first part of the Alice/Mayo test, which determines whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception. ” Step 2B determines whether additional elements in the claim contribute to an inventive concept. Claim 1 : T he claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Step 2A Prong 1: The limitation claiming “determining at least one…” includes the evaluation /observation of the pressure or viscosity of the fluid. Evaluations and observations are considered mental processes, which are abstract ideas (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)( 2)III ). T he limitation claiming “selecting a probability…” is considered a mental process, which is an abstract ideas (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)( 2)III ). The limitation claiming “ calculating…” includes mathematical calculations according to the specification (see [0062]). Therefore , this limitation would be considered a mathematical concept, which is an abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)I) . Therefore, the claim contains judicial exceptions and Prong 2 analysis is necessary. Step 2A Prong 2: After the optimal flow rate is calculated (an abstract idea, as explained above), the flow rate of the flue is adjusted to the optimal flow rate. This is considered an i nsignificant e xtra- s olution a ctivity . According to MPEP § 2106.05(g) (3), “[T] he courts have found [the following] to be insignificant extra-solution activity … i. Cutting hair after first determining the hair style, In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1016-1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential) ”. This is considered to be similar to the instant invention where the flow rate is set after determining the optimal flow rate. Additionally, that section of the MPEP states “ When determining whether an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity, examiners may consider the following: (1) Whether the extra-solution limitation is well known ”. Ogumerem et al (“ Dynamic Modeling and Explicit Control of a PEM Water Electrolysis Process ”, Smart and Sustainable Manufacturing Systems , vol 2, 2, 2018) discloses that setting a flow rate to dislodge bubbles from a reaction surface (see e.g. page 34, paragraph starting with “In Fig. 5a” ). Therefore, the claim has not integrated the j udicial exception into a practical application . Step 2B: T he claim further claims a fluid, a reactive surface, and bubbles that form on said surface due to the reaction. These elements are well understood, routine and conventional across most arts at this point and therefore would not amount to significantly more . Ogumerem et al (“ Dynamic Modeling and Explicit Control of a PEM Water Electrolysis Process ”, Smart and Sustainable Manufacturing Systems , vol 2, 2, 2018) – see e.g. abstract. Swiegers et al (“ The prospects of developing a highly energy efficient water electrolyser by eliminating or mitigating bubble effects ”, Sustainable Energy Fuels , 2021, 5,1280 ) – see e.g. abstract. Bakker et al (“ Gas bubble removal in alkaline water electrolysis with utilization of pressure swings ”, Electrochimica Acta , 319 (2019) 148 - 15 7) – abstract. Therefore, the claim is rejected for failing to satisfy the requirements of 35 USC 101. Claim 11 : T he claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Step 2A Prong 1: The limitation claiming “determining at least one…” includes the evaluation /observation of the pressure or viscosity of the fluid. Evaluations and observations are considered mental processes, which are abstract ideas (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)( 2)III ). T he limitation claiming “selecting a probability…” is considered a mental process, which is an abstract ideas (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)( 2)III ). The limitation claiming “calculating…” includes mathematical calculations according to the specification (see [0062]). Therefore , this limitation would be considered a mathematical concept, which is an abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)I) . Therefore, the claim contains judicial exceptions and Prong 2 analysis is necessary. Step 2A Prong 2: After the optimal flow rate is calculated (an abstract idea, as explained above), the flow rate of the flue is adjusted to the optimal flow rate. This is considered an i nsignificant e xtra- s olution a ctivity . According to MPEP § 2106.05(g) (3), “[T] he courts have found [the following] to be insignificant extra-solution activity … i. Cutting hair after first determining the hair style, In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1016-1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential) ”. This is considered to be similar to the instant invention where the flow rate is set after determining the optimal flow rate. Additionally, that section of the MPEP states “ When determining whether an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity, examiners may consider the following: (1) Whether the extra-solution limitation is well known ”. Ogumerem et al (“ Dynamic Modeling and Explicit Control of a PEM Water Electrolysis Process ”, Smart and Sustainable Manufacturing Systems , vol 2, 2, 2018) discloses that setting a flow rate to dislodge bubbles from a reaction surface (see e.g. page 34, paragraph starting with “In Fig. 5a”). Therefore, the claim has not integrated the j udicial exception into a practical application . Step 2B: T he claim further claims a fluid, a reactive surface, bubbles that form on said surface due to the reaction, and control circuitry. These elements are well understood, routine and conventional across most arts at this point and therefore would not amount to significantly more . Ogumerem et al ( cited above ) – see e.g. abstract. Swiegers et al ( cited above ) – see e.g. abstract. Bakker et al ( cited above ) – see e.g. abstract. Therefore, the claim is rejected for failing to satisfy the requirements of 35 USC 101. Any claims dependent on the above claims are rejected for their dependence. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a) The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. MPEP 2164.01 states the following: Any analysis of whether a particular claim is supported by the disclosure in an application requires a determination of whether that disclosure, when filed, contained sufficient information regarding the subject matter of the claims as to enable one skilled in the pertinent art to make and use the claimed invention. The standard for determining whether the specification meets the enablement requirement was cast in the Supreme Court decision of Minerals Separation Ltd. v. Hyde, 242 U.S. 261, 270 (1916) which postured the question: is the experimentation needed to practice the invention undue or unreasonable? That standard is still the one to be applied. In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988) … There are many factors to be considered when determining whether there is sufficient evidence to support a determination that a disclosure does not satisfy the enablement requirement and whether any necessary experimentation is "undue." These factors i nclude, but are not limited to: (A) The breadth of the claims; (B) The nature of the invention; (C) The state of the prior art; (D) The level of one of ordinary skill; (E) The level of predictability in the art; (F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor; (G) The existence of working examples; and (H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure. In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (A) , ( B ), (F), (G) : The claims are drawn to a method/controller configured to perform the method of calculating and applying an optimal flow rate of fluid to dislodge bubbles from a reactive surface based on a selected probability distribution of bubble size. (C), (E) : Ogumerem , Swiegers , and Bakker (all cited above) all show that is known in the art that flow rate of electrolyte can be used to dislodge bubbles from a surface (see e.g. abstract of Ogumerem ; see e.g. abstract of Swiegers ; see e.g. abstract of Bakker). Ogumerem teaches creating predictive models of the cell to optimize the parameters used to run the cell (See e.g. abstract). Swiegers explicitly states that “ It should perhaps then be no surprise that, while numerous studies have sought to develop accurate theoretical models for bubble generating processes and their in fl uence on electrode performance, predicting and modelling bubble behaviour has been a very challenging task ” (see e.g. page 1284, col 1, paragraph starting with “In summary”). (D), (H) : The instant specification does not provide any formula or guidance on how the probability distribution is generated or selected and does not provide guidance on how the optimal flow rate of the fluid is calculated for the selected probability distribution of bubble sizes. While it is know n in the art use models, Swiegers discusses the difficult in developing models for the bubbles that are generated. Given the difficulty with getting a model, such as a probability distribution of bubble sizes, it would be more difficult to then use these probability distributions to calculate an optimal flow rate without any guidance given for how to develop or select the distributions and how those are used to calculate flow rate. Thus, the claims require undue experimentation. Any claims dependent on the above claims are rejected for their dependence. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ALEXANDER W KEELING whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-9961 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 7:30 AM - 4:00 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Luan Van can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-8521 . 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. /ALEXANDER W KEELING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795