Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
All claims are process/system claims thereby falling into one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, prong 1:
Applicant recites the following elements in Claim 1 (and similarly in claim 7, or more broadly in claim 19):
A method for diagnostic and predictive health management for a vehicle water and waste system, comprising: (a) providing threshold value (T) is exceeded by the Δ difference, recommending scheduling preventive maintenance or replacing or repairing the one or more components from which the sensed value was collected.
Examiner has bolded the limitations that are part of the abstract idea and struck through additional elements beyond the abstract idea. Claim 19 includes additional elements of “working elements” as part of the component.
Applicant claims an abstract idea in the at least the category of Mental Processes because a human could certainly compare collected values, match values to other values, and make recommendations. MPEP 2104(a)(2)(IIT)(A) provides an example of an abstract mental process: “a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis".
The independent claims thus recite an abstract idea. The dependent claims contain the same abstract idea by virtue of their dependency on the independent claims. Accordingly, Claims 1-19 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, prong 2:
In addition to the abstract idea discussed above, applicant recites one or more sensors (of various types described in dependent claims), one or more components (of various types described in dependent claims), working elements (claim 19 as part of the components) as additional elements in the claims.
The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and the use of sensors to acquire information is considered mere data gathering and/or insignificant extra solution activity. MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) states “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”.
Step 2B: As discussed above, applicant claims:
A method for diagnostic and predictive health management for a vehicle water and waste system, comprising: (a) providing
which is an abstract idea in at least the category of Mental Processes.
As discussed above, applicant also recites the additional elements in the claims of: one or more sensors (of various types described in dependent claims), one or more components (of various types described in dependent claims), working elements (claim 19 as part of the components). As discussed above with respect to Step 2A, prong 2, the claimed additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and amount to applying the exception using machinery in its ordinary capacity.
The additional elements alone or in combination do not improve the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technological field. The additional elements alone or in combination do not apply the judicial exception to a particular (non-general purpose) machine. The additional elements alone or in combination do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Applicant does not claim or teach in their specification any special purpose hardware or improvements thereof. Therefore, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 1-19 are therefore not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 6-15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over LI FAN ET AL: "Integrated System Health Management for Environmental Control and Life Support System in Manned- Spacecraft" in view of US2021157340A1 to Heydari B et al.
Examiner note: The examiner is in agreement with respect to the teachings of LI FAN et al. and Heydari et al., as presented in the Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority received from applicant on 11/20/2023. The applicant is directed toward that report for supporting rationale for this obviousness rejection.
LI FAN ET AL discloses:
a. A method for diagnostic and predictive health management for a vehicle water and waste system (see Abstract, and "water recovery and management (WRM), waste management (WM)" in p. 431), comprising:
b. providing one or more sensors associated with one or more components of the water and waste system (see "ECLSS Monitors" in fig. 37.1);
c. collecting at least one actual sensed value from at least one of the one or more sensors (see "ECLSS Monitors" in fig. 37.1);
d. comparing the sensed value with an expected value for the component
from which the sensed value was collected (see "Health Evaluation" in fig. 37.1);
e. determining a difference between the sensed value and the expected value (see "Health Evaluation" in fig. 37.1);
f. comparing the difference to a predetermined threshold value (see "Health Evaluation" in fig. 37.1); and
g. if the predetermined threshold value is exceeded by the difference, recommending scheduling preventive maintenance or replacing or repairing the one or more components from which the sensed value was collected (see "Prognostics" and "Decision Making" in fig. 37.1).
LI FAN ET AL. does not specifically teach that the vehicle water system is a water and waste system although LI FAN ET AL does teach monitoring water pumps (§ 23, 24).
Heydari et al. teaches a water and waste system together (Fig. 2).
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have the vehicle in LI FAN be equipped with waste water treatment system, as taught by Heydari et al., in order to provide predictive maintenance to any system, including the vehicle system of LI FAN. It is noted that the teaching of LI FAN is not limited to any specific in-vehicle equipment, and claim 1 fails to define any method step specifically related to a vehicle water and waste system that could be combined to produce an unexpected technical effect, and monitoring and predictive control for water waste systems is known.
Regarding claims 2, 3, 6, 8 - 15: the additional features relate to apparatus features and not to additional method steps that could be combined with any of the features present in claims 1 or 7 to produce an unexpected technical effect and obvious modification to the LI FAN teachings.
Claims 4, 5, 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over LI FAN ET AL: "Integrated System Health Management for Environmental Control and Life Support System in Manned- Spacecraft" in view of US2021157340A1 to Heydari B et al., as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of US2020/126326A1 to Lavie.
LI FAN ET AL. in view of Heydari et al. lack the specific limitations of the claims but Lavie teaches the limitations (See Lavie, paragraphs 15, 42, 80-83). Note that Lavie further teaches the limitations of claims 1, 7, and 19 in paragraphs 3, 8-10, 15, 23, 24, 58-73, and figs. 1 and 2.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to incorporate features of the limitations in claim 4, 5, 16-18, in order to get the closest prediction possible to 100% (See Lavie, paragraph 80).
Conclusion
It is noted by the examiner that Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority received 11/10/2023 further discusses EZHILARASU CM ET AL. as disclosing the limitations of claims 1-19 and should be reviewed thoroughly if applicant intends to further prosecution.
The references cited on the PTO-892 attached are considered relevant to applicant’s claims. It is suggested the applicant review the prior art cited when/if amending/responding to the current Office action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Florian Zeender whose telephone number is (571)272-6790. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:30-5:30pm 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, Florian M Zeender can be reached at 571-272-6790. 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.
Florian Zeender
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3627
/FLORIAN M ZEENDER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627