0DETAILED 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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 1-2, filed 12/22/2025, with respect to 1-6 and 8-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 102 rejection of 10/01/2025 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/22/2025 regarding the 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 101 rejection, applicant asserts that the process captured in amended independent Claim 1, when considered as a whole, cannot reasonably be construed as merely indicating a field of use, mere data gathering, or anything else that might add only an insignificant extra-judicial activity to the judicial exception. Rather, Applicant asserts that the process captured in amended independent Claim 1 provides a significant technological advancement over the technology available prior to when the present application was filed. Applicant further asserts that implementing a process to allow a MPMS to function properly in real time by facilitating movement of a fluid from the fluid management apparatus through a maintenance system manifold to the MPMS, as set forth in amended independent Claim 1, is a practical application of obtaining and analyzing sensor data about the MPMS, and subsequently identifying an issue with the functionality of the MPMS based on the sensor data. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
When interpreting whether claim limitations provide improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technological field, the examiner references MPEP 2106.05(a). the third paragraph of this section discloses “If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology.”
The following paragraph discloses “After the examiner has consulted the specification and determined that the disclosed invention improves technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement in technology. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1316, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (patent owner argued that the claimed email filtering system improved technology by shrinking the protection gap and mooting the volume problem, but the court disagreed because the claims themselves did not have any limitations that addressed these issues). That is, the claim must include the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification.”
Lastly, “an important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome.”
The amendments as disclosed fail to incorporate the claim limitations into a practical application. As written, the claims leave the examiner wondering what the actual solution is to the problem? The amendment discloses implementing the process to resolve the issue by facilitating movement of a fluid from the apparatus through a maintenance system to the MPMS.” How does this solve the problem? The claimed solution is vague, open-ended and fails to cover a particular way to achieve a desired outcome and is therefore interpreted as an abstract. It is for this reason, the examiner maintains the 101 rejection.
To overcome the 101 rejection, examiner suggest clearly defining/disclosing how the applicant’s approach to resolving the issue solves the problem (example: clear a blockage, conduct a routine cleaning, etc. [0126]).
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 1-6 and 8-20 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.
Specifically, representative Claim 1 recites:
A method for maintaining a multiphase metering system (MPMS), the method comprising: obtaining, in real time, a plurality of values associated with a plurality of measurements of a parameter made by a sensor device, wherein the parameter is associated with operation of the MPMS; identifying, in real time, and based on the plurality of values, an issue with functionality of the MPMS during the operation of the MPMS; determining, in real time, a process to resolve the issue with the functionality of the MPMS during the operation of the MPMS; and implementing, in real time, the process to resolve the issue with the functionality of the MPMS using a fluid management apparatus wherein implementing the process to resolve the issue with the functionality of the MPMS comprises facilitating movement of a fluid from the fluid management apparatus through a maintenance system manifold to the MPMS, wherein the maintenance system manifold is coupled to an external interface of the MPMS, and wherein the fluid management apparatus is coupled to the maintenance system manifold.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (process).
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter when recited as such in a claim limitation, that covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) and mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion.
For example, steps of “identifying, in real time, and based on the plurality of values, an issue with functionality of the MPMS during the operation of the MPMS; determining, in real time, a process to resolve the issue with the functionality of the MPMS during the operation of the MPMS” are treated as belonging to mental process grouping.
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claims 2-3, 9-11 and 20.
Next, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
The above claims comprise the following additional elements:
In Claim 1: a sensor device, a fluid management apparatus;
In Claim 2: sensor device, a fluid management apparatus;
In Claim 11: a fluid management apparatus, management system controller, sensor device
The additional element in the preamble of “A method for maintaining a multiphase metering system (MPMS)” is not qualified for a meaningful limitation because it is only generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. A sensor device represents a mere data gathering step and only adds an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. A fluid management apparatus, management system controller are generally recited and are not qualified as particular machines.
Additionally, the limitation “obtaining a plurality of values associated with a plurality of measurements of a parameter made by a sensor device, wherein the parameter is associated with operation of the MPMS” is regarded by MPEP 2106.05(g) as insignificant extra-solution activity; mere data gathering. Further, the limitation “implementing the process to resolve the issue with the MPMS using a fluid management apparatus coupled to the MPMS,” is considered by MPEP 2105.06(f) as mere instructions to apply an exception.
In conclusion, the above additional elements, considered individually and in combination with the other claim elements do not reflect an improvement to other technology or technical field, and, therefore, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
However, the above claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B analysis).
The claims, therefore, are not patent eligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2-6 and 8-10 and 12-19 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
Claims 1-6 and 8-20 would be allowable if written overcome the 101 rejection set forth in this office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 1, Slupphaug teaches a method for maintaining a multiphase metering system (MPMS) [0074-0075], the method comprising: obtaining, in real time, a plurality of values associated with a plurality of measurements of a parameter made by, a sensor device, wherein the parameter is associated with operation of the MPMS [0074]; identifying, in real time and based on the plurality of values, an issue with the functionality of MPMS during the operation of the MPMS [0084]; determining, in real time, a process to resolve the issue with the functionality of MPMS during the operation of the MPMS [0086]; and implementing, in real time, the process to resolve the issue with the functionality of the MPMS using a fluid management apparatus [0105].
Slupphaug, along with all other references fail to teach wherein implementing the process to resolve the issue with the functionality of the MPMS comprises facilitating movement of a fluid from the fluid management apparatus through a maintenance system manifold to the MPMS, wherein the maintenance system manifold is coupled to an external interface of the MPMS, and wherein the fluid management apparatus is coupled to the maintenance system manifold. It is for this reason, Claim 1 and all of its dependencies would be allowed.
Claim 11 and 20 includes analogous, though not necessarily coextensive, features in conjunction with Claim 1, an is, therefore, along with its dependencies, for similar rationale as disclosed above, allowed.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 MICHAEL J SINGLETARY whose telephone number is (571)272-4593. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-5:00pm.
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, Catherine Rastovski can be reached at 571-270-0349. 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.
/MICHAEL J SINGLETARY/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/Catherine T. Rastovski/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857