DETAILED ACTION
Claims 13-18, 20-22 and 24-27 are pending. Claims 1-12, 19 and 23 are cancelled.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) to Belgian Patent Application No. 2020/5939, filed on 12/16/2020.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/2/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 4/2/26, have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, with regard to 35 U.S.C. § 101, that ‘claim 13 requires, in part, generating corrective action based on the assessment, including at least decreasing and/or increasing an input pressure of a pneumatic network and/or output pressure of the compressor… the specific corrective action directly modifies the physical operating parameters of the pneumatic network’ (pages 9-11).
It is respectfully submitted that ‘generating corrective action’ is recited very broadly and is therefore broadly interpreted as including determining a corrective action. The claim wording omits a positive recitation of, for example, performing or executing the corrective action. Therefore the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim is not limited to physically changing the pressure of the pneumatic network. Applicant’s argument is therefore not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims ‘are integrated into a practical application because they use sensor-derived assessments to control physical equipment’, recite closed-loop feedback control and actual pressure control of the system (pages 10-11).
It is respectfully submitted that, as detailed above, ‘generating corrective action’ is not limited to actually changing the pressure of the pneumatic network under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim wording. Applicant’s argument is therefore not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the dependent claims (page 11) not persuasive given the continued rejection of independent claim 13
Applicant’s arguments regarding claims 25-27 (page 11) are moot because the claims are not rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Further, Applicant’s arguments regarding the patentability of claims 26-27 based on their dependence are not persuasive given the continued rejection of independent claim 13 (see above).
For at least these reasons, the rejection of the claims is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation 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.
Claim(s) 20-21 and 25-27 is/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 written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent claim 13 recites ‘generating corrective action based on the assessment, including at least decreasing and/or increasing an input pressure of a pneumatic network and/or output pressure of the compressor’ and dependent claim 20 recites ‘the corrective action further comprising one of the group of: changing a setting of the compressor; generating an alarm signal; formulating a recommendation’, i.e. actions that are additional to the corrective action recited in claim 13. Paragraph [0038] of the specification/PGPub states ‘This corrective action includes one of the group of changing a setting of the compressor, generating an alarm signal, decreasing and/or increasing the input pressure of the pneumatic network and/or output pressure of the compressor, formulating a recommendation…’, i.e. only one of these alternatives is supported by the specification not a combination of multiple alternatives as now recited in claim 13 and in claim 20. Therefore the recitation in claim 20 constitutes new matter because it is not described in the application as originally filed.
Independent claim 25 recites ‘adjusting an operational status of the pneumatic network comprising the at least one compressor based on the assessment, wherein the operational status includes at least one of pressure, electric current, rotational speed, voltage, power, humidity, and flow rate’ and, at least, adjusting electric current, rotational speed, voltage, power, humidity, and flow rate are not specifically recited in the original specification and this therefore constitutes new matter.
With regard to claim 26, this claim recites ‘further comprising the step of: adjusting timing of a plurality of compressors based on the assessment and according to consumption of gas by the at least one pneumatic consumer’ but, as detailed above, the specification only supports one of the recited group of actions, i.e. the corrective action previously recited in independent claim 13, not a combination and this therefore constitutes new matter.
With regard to claim 27, this claim recites ‘further comprising the step of: shutting down at least part of the pneumatic network that is idle based on the assessment’ but, as detailed above, the specification only supports one of the recited group of actions, i.e. the corrective action previously recited in independent claim 13, not a combination and this therefore constitutes new matter.
The respective dependent claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112 as they inherit all of the characteristics of the claim from which they depend.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 13-18, 20-22 and 24-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
With regard to independent claim 13, this claim recites ‘detecting associated context information at the at least two distinct locations at the two distinct points in time’ and it is unclear what the context information is associated with.
In addition, claim 13 recites ‘synchronizing the measured one or more parameters of the gas and the detected associated context information at the two distinct points in time respectively, thereby obtaining a first and second snapshot, respectively, of the pneumatic network’ and it is unclear exactly what is being synchronized or the precise meaning of ‘respectively’ in this context. The specification supports synchronizing the measured one or more parameters, e.g. [0053] states ‘The step of synchronized 202 measurements is repeated’, however, the specification does not clearly support synchronizing the context information. In addition, the wording of the claim would appear to indicate that the measured parameters and the detected context information are being synchronized with each other, that is also not clearly supported.
In addition, claim 13 recites ‘comparing said associated context information at the first and second points in time to determine whether the measurement of the one or more parameters of the gas occurred under similar conditions’ and it is unclear which of the previously recited measurements ‘the measurement’ refers to or what the conditions are intended to be compared to.
In addition, claim 13 recites ‘after determining… that conditions at either of the at least two distinct locations are insufficiently similar, performing new measurements until the conditions are sufficiently similar’ and it is unclear what the conditions are intended to be compared to in order to determine similarity. It is also noted that, given that there are 4 separate measurements at 2 different locations and 2 different times, it is unclear exactly which of these times and locations the ‘conditions’ relate to.
Independent claim 25 recites similar limitations to claim 13 (see above) and is rejected based on the same rationale.
In addition to the above, claims 13-18, 20-22 and 24-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01.
Claim 13 omits connecting ‘performing new measurements’ to the rest of the claimed method. Paragraph [0057] of the specification/PGPub indicates that these new measurements, and therefore, their connection to the rest of the claimed method, are essential but there is no claimed connection between the new measurements and assessing a condition of a pneumatic network and taking corrective action.
Independent claim 25 recites similar limitations to claim 13 (see above) and is rejected based on the same rationale.
The respective dependent claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112 as they inherit all of the characteristics of the claim from which they depend and none of the dependent claims provide a cure for the indefiniteness of the parent claims.
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) 13-18, 20-22 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to the abstract idea (mental process) of processing data to assess context data to make a judgement and assess a condition of a system and generating a corrective action.
Claim 13 recites a computer-implemented method for assessing a condition of a pneumatic network and taking corrective action, i.e. a process, which is a statutory category of invention.
The claim recites:
synchronizing the measured one or more parameters of the gas and the detected associated context information at the two distinct points in time respectively, thereby obtaining a first and second snapshot, respectively, of the pneumatic network;
comparing said associated context information at the first and second points in time to determine whether the measurement of the one or more parameters of the gas occurred under similar conditions;
after determining, as a result of the comparing step, that conditions at either of the at least two distinct locations are insufficiently similar, performing… until the conditions are sufficiently similar;
assessing the condition of the pneumatic network based on the first and the second snapshot; and
generating corrective action based on the assessment, including at least decreasing and/or increasing an input pressure of a pneumatic network and/or output pressure of the compressor that may be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. Thus the claim recites an abstract idea (mental process), see MPEP 2106.04(a).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements, i.e. a computer-implemented method (applying the exception with generic computer technology, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C), a pneumatic network comprising at least one compressor configured to compress a gas, and at least one pneumatic consumer (generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h)), and measuring one or more parameters of the gas at at least two distinct locations of the pneumatic network and at two distinct points in time; detecting associated context information at the at least two distinct locations at the two distinct points in time; and performing new measurements (insignificant extra-solution elements – mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05 I A, MPEP 2106.05(g) MPEP 2106.05(d)) does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Note that ‘generating corrective action’ is broadly interpreted as including determining a corrective action — the current claim wording omits a positive recitation of, for example, performing or executing the corrective action. The claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Note that pneumatic networks with compressors and consumers are well-understood, routine and conventional, see for example Jacob U.S. Patent No. 6257680 [col. 5], Bissontz U.S. Patent Publication No. 20150217640 [particularly 0025], or Jochman U.S. Patent Publication No. 20190154029 [particularly 0012-0019] and the references cited below in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, a computer-implemented method (applying the exception with generic computer technology, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C), a pneumatic network comprising at least one compressor configured to compress a gas, and at least one pneumatic consumer (generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h)), and measuring one or more parameters of the gas at at least two distinct locations of the pneumatic network and at two distinct points in time; detecting associated context information at the at least two distinct locations at the two distinct points in time; and performing new measurements (insignificant extra-solution elements – mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05 I A, MPEP 2106.05(g) MPEP 2106.05(d)) does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are not considered significantly more. Considering the additionally elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 14 recites detecting the one or more parameters and associated context information over a predefined time horizon comprising a series of snapshots (insignificant extra-solution elements – mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05 I A, MPEP 2106.05(g) MPEP 2106.05(d)); generating a data set comprising the series of snapshots; and wherein the assessment is further done based on the data setpoints of the machine (mental process). Thus this claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 15 recites preparing a reference data set indicative of the condition of the pneumatic network; and wherein the assessment is done by comparing the data set with the reference data set (mental process). Thus this claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 16 recites retrieving characteristics of the pneumatic network (insignificant extra-solution elements – mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05 I A, MPEP 2106.05(g) MPEP 2106.05(d)); and wherein the preparation of the reference data set is further done based on the characteristic (mental process). Thus this claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 17 merely recites a list of types of characteristics (abstract information). Thus this claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 18 merely recites a list of types of parameters (abstract information). Thus this claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 20 recites the corrective action further comprising one of the group of: changing a setting of the compressor (mental process involving changing data); generating an alarm signal (insignificantly extra-solution activity — see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III A regarding displaying information and MPEP 2106.05(d)); formulating a recommendation (mental process). Thus this claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 21 merely recites a list of types of recommendation (abstract information). Thus this claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 22 recites a system for assessing a condition of a pneumatic network, the system comprising a processing unit configured to perform the computer-implemented method, i.e. a machine, which is a statutory category of invention. However, the method performed by the system is similar to that in claim 13 and is rejected under the same rationale. Note that, as explained above, linking the exception to a pneumatic system and applying the exception with a processing unit are not considered significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus this claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 24 recites a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium containing computer-readable instructions for performing the method… when executed on a computer, i.e. an article of manufacture, which is a statutory category of invention. However, the method performed by the computer-readable instructions is similar to that in claim 13 and is rejected under the same rationale. Note that, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium containing computer-readable instructions is considered applying the exception with generic computer technology, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C, and not significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus this claim recites an abstract idea.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bagwell et al. U.S. Patent No. 11041779 discloses a system and method for detecting leaks in a compressed gas system.
Note that any citations to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BERNARD G. LINDSAY whose telephone number is (571)270-0665. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8:30 AM to 5:30 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mohammad Ali can be reached on (571)272-4105. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant may call the examiner or use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/BERNARD G LINDSAY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2119
Prosecution Insights