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 .
Response to Amendment
The action is responsive to the Amendment filed on October 30, 2025. Claims 1 and 25, were amended. Claims 2, 4, 6, and 13 remain cancelled. Thus, claims 1, 3, 5, 7-12, and 14-26 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 Non-Statutory
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, 5, 7-12, and 16-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Specifically, Claim 1 recites:
A monitoring device for a steam trap, the monitoring device comprising: a sensor subsystem including a first microphone configured to capture audio data representing sound generated by the steam trap and a secondary microphone oriented away from the steam trap, the secondary microphone configured to capture secondary audio data representing sound from an environment of the steam trap; a memory; a communications interface configured to communicate with a server; a processor interconnected to the sensor subsystem, the memory, and the communications interface, the processor configured to: obtain first audio data captured by the first microphone of the senor subsystem, the first audio data representing the sound generated by the steam trap; obtain secondary audio data from the secondary microphone, the secondary audio data representing sound from an environment of the steam trap; sample the first and secondary audio data at a predefined number of points at predefined time intervals; determine average magnitudes of the sampled first and secondary audio data; and send, via the communications interface, the average magnitudes as audio data points to the server for further processing, such that a failure of the steam trap is determinable by the server. The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold; the remaining limitations are “additional elements.” Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of claim 25.
Under Step 1 of the analysis, claim 1 does belong to a statutory category, namely it is an apparatus claim. Likewise, claim 25 is a system claim.
Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim., Under Step 2A, Prong One, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the steps recited in Claim 1 include at least one judicial exception, that being a mathematical process. This can be seen in the claimed process step of “determine an average magnitude of the sampled audio data…” (See, for example, FIG. 7A; ¶¶54-55, of the instant specification), which encompasses mathematical concepts requiring mathematical calculations (“in particular the processor 400, samples the audio data captured by the microphone 212-1 at a predefined number of points over or at predefined time intervals. That is, the monitoring device 104 determines the magnitude of the detected audio data at discrete points in time over or at the predefined time interval…the monitoring device 104 determines an average value of the magnitude of the samples obtained at block 705 (i.e., an average magnitude of the sampled audio data).” described in ¶¶54-55 of the instant specification.) to determine an average magnitude of the sampled audio data, prior to sending the average magnitude to the server for further processing, and therefore encompasses mathematical concepts.
In the alternative, the recited judicial exception may also be considered a mental process because it is merely a data evaluation including calculations, capable of being performed using a pen and paper. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, consistent with the specification, upon receipt of the sampled the audio data, a human user would be capable of calculating an average magnitude of the sampled audio data, by pen and paper. While such calculations by pen and paper may be time consuming, they fall in the “mental processes” abstract idea grouping. Noting MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) “MENTAL PROCESSES,” “The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea.” CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). “‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work.’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ 193, 196 (1978). Claim 25 recites similar abstract ideas.
In claim 1, the step of: “determine an average magnitude” falls within either the mathematical concepts or mental concepts grouping of abstract ideas. The recited process step is a single abstract idea for further analysis. Claim 25 recites similar abstract ideas. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A, Prong Two of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception(s) into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. 2019 PEG Section III(A)(2), 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-55.
The process step of “determine an average magnitude” is recited as being performed by a computer (“FIG. 7A; ¶¶54-55, of the instant specification). The computer is recited at a high level of generality (“processor”). The computer is used as a tool to perform the generic computer functions of collecting data and performing the recited process step The computer is used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The recited process steps comprise an “insignificant extra-solution” activity(ies). See MPEP 2106.05(g) “Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity,” Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ 193, 196 (1978). It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of the controller does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(g) “Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity,” Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ 193, 196 (1978).
Claim 1 also recites the additional elements (equipment) of “a monitoring device,” “a steam trap,” “a sensor subsystem,” “a first microphone,” “a secondary microphone,” “a memory,” “a communications interface,” “a server,” “a processor” (See, for example, FIG. 1; ¶17; ¶20-21; FIG. 4; ¶¶40-42, of the instant specification), and “a secondary microphone,” (See, for example, FIG. 1; ¶28; FIG. 4; ¶¶40-42, of the instant specification). Claim 1 additionally recites data comprising “audio data,” “sampled audio data,” “audio data point” (See, for example, FIG. 1; ¶17; ¶20-21; FIG. 7A; ¶¶54-55, of the instant specification), and “secondary audio data” (See, for example, FIG. 1; ¶28; FIG. 4; ¶51, of the instant specification). However, these additional elements merely comprise generic conventional non-specific equipment, and computer hardware and software elements, data/information, and data processing, and is/are set forth at a highly generic level and each of which comprise an “insignificant extra-solution” activity(ies). See MPEP 2106.05(g) “Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity,” Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ 193, 196 (1978). Thus, the newly presented elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception(s) into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Applicant is thanked for their amendments to claim 1, as well as claim 25, which include the newly presented elements of “a sensor subsystem including a first microphone configured to capture audio data representing sound generated by the steam trap and a secondary microphone oriented away from the steam trap, the secondary microphone configured to capture secondary audio data representing sound from an environment of the steam trap” which was/were presented in an effort to overcome the outstanding rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101. However, the newly presented element(s) merely comprise generic conventional non-specific equipment, and data/information, and is/are set forth at a highly generic level and each of which comprise an “insignificant extra-solution” activity(ies). For example, nothing is done with the secondary audio data, representing sound from an environment of the steam trap, captured by the secondary microphone oriented away from the steam trap. See MPEP 2106.05(g) “Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity,” Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ 193, 196 (1978). Thus, the newly presented elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception(s) into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
The Examiner notes that the step of “send, via the communications interface, the average magnitude as an audio data point to the server for further processing,” comprises an “insignificant extra-solution” {post-solution} activity(ies). See MPEP 2106.05(g) “Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity,” Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ 193, 196 (1978). Claim 25 recites analogous additional elements.
The recited additional elements can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a computer. Noting MPEP 2106.04(d)(I): “It is notable that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in Step 2A Prong Two. As the Supreme Court explained in Alice Corp., mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception does not guarantee eligibility. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014) ("The fact that a computer ‘necessarily exist[s] in the physical, rather than purely conceptual, realm,’ is beside the point")”.
Thus, under Step 2A, Prong Two of the analysis, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements recited in claim 1, as well as claim 25, do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. No specific practical application is associated with the claimed method. For instance, the server makes no failure of the steam trap determination, nor is any action preformed responsive to performing any determination.
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, merely amount to a general purpose computer system that attempts to apply the abstract idea in a technological environment, limiting the abstract idea to a particular field of use, and/or merely insignificant extra-solution activity (Claims 1, 25). Such insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. data gathering and output, when re-evaluated under Step 2B is further found to be well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) (describing conventional activities that include transmitting and receiving data over a network, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information from memory, and electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document).
Therefore, similarly the combination and arrangement of the above identified additional elements when analyzed under Step 2B also fails to necessitate a conclusion that claim 1, as well as claim 25, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 1, as well as claim 25, is not patent eligible under 101.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 5, 7-12, 16, 18-24, and 26, provide additional features/steps which are part of an expanded algorithm, so these limitations should be considered part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is 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 and to overcome the outstanding section 101 rejections.
The primary reason for the indicated allowability of dependent claim 3, is that, in combination with the other claim elements, a barrel oriented between the microphone and the steam trap, the barrel configured to limit the audio data captured at the microphone to sound originating substantially from a direction corresponding to a direction of the steam trap. Therefore, dependent claim 3 would be allowable over the prior art of record if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and to overcome the outstanding section 101 rejections.
Regarding claims 14-15, claims 14-15 are allowed. The reasons for allowance of claim 14 was given in the prior action. Dependent claim 15 depends from dependent claim 14, and is allowable as being dependent on an allowable base claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on October 30, 2025 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant’s amendments and arguments have overcome the prior rejections. However, claims 1, 5, 7-12, and 16-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
In regard claims 1, 5, 7-12, and 16-26 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, Examiner’s position and supporting remarks are presented in the rejection.
Additionally, Applicant is thanked for their amendments to claim 1, as well as claim 25, which include the newly presented elements of “wherein the sensor subsystem further includes a secondary microphone oriented away from the steam trap, the secondary microphone configured to capture secondary audio data representing sound from an environment of the steam trap” which was/were presented in an effort to overcome the outstanding rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101. However, the newly presented element(s) merely comprise generic conventional non-specific equipment, and data/information, and is/are set forth at a highly generic level and each of which comprise an “insignificant extra-solution” activity(ies). For example, nothing is done with the secondary audio data, representing sound from an environment of the steam trap, captured by the secondary microphone oriented away from the steam trap.
However, the newly presented element(s) merely comprise generic conventional non-specific equipment, and data/information, and is/are set forth at a highly generic level and each of which comprise an “insignificant extra-solution” activity(ies). For example, nothing is done with the secondary audio data, representing sound from an environment of the steam trap, captured by the secondary microphone oriented away from the steam trap. See MPEP 2106.05(g) “Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity,” Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ 193, 196 (1978). Thus, the newly presented elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception(s) into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Thus, under Step 2A, Prong Two of the analysis, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements recited in claim 1, as well as claim 25, do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. No specific practical application is associated with the claimed method. For instance, the server makes no failure of the steam trap determination, nor is any action preformed responsive to performing any determination.
Therefore, the rejection of the independent claims, claim 1, as well as claim 25, under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
Similarly, the rejection of the dependent claims, claims 5, 7-12, 16, 18-24, and 26, under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY P AIELLO whose telephone number is (303) 297-4216. The examiner can normally be reached on 8 AM - 4:30 PM EST.
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, Shelby Turner can be reached on (571) 272-6334. 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.
/JEFFREY P AIELLO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857