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. 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 -10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Regarding claim 1 0 , the examiner notes that a computer program claim will clearly indicate that it is an article of manufacture claim, that the contents are carried on a non-transitory computer readable or usable medium in a manner that will affect the operation of the computer. Functional descriptive material such as computer programs and/or data structures not claimed as embodied in non-transitory computer-readable media are descriptive material per se and are not statutory because they are not capable of causing functional change in the computer. Such claimed data structures do not define any structural and functional interrelationships between the data structure and other claimed aspects of the invention which permit the data structure’s functionality to be realized. See MPEP 2106.01(I). The examiner requires applicant amend claim 1 0 and insert “non-transitory” before "computer-readable" in line 1. Note from: OFFICIAL GAZETTE of the UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE, February 23, 2010 Volume 1351 Number 4., 212 “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium (also called machine readable medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. The USPTO recognizes that applicants may have claims directed to computer readable media that cover signals per se, which the USPTO must reject under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering both non-statutory subject matter and statutory subject matter. In an effort to assist the patent community in overcoming a rejection or potential rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in this situation, the USPTO suggests the following approach. A claim drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by adding the limitation "non-transitory" to the claim. Such an amendment would typically not raise the issue of new matter, even when the specification is silent because the broadest reasonable interpretation relies on the ordinary and customary meaning that includes signals per se.” Note: The Notice states that if the claims are amended to say "non-transitory computer readable medium", even if the specification is silent concerning whether or not the CRM covers "non-transitory tangible media" or "transitory propagating signals", that would be sufficient to overcome the rejection under 35 USC 101, and this would not involve new matter. Claim 1 is considered as being directed to a series of abstract process steps carried out by a generic processor/computer device(s). The Court (Alice Corporation Vs CLS Bank) determined that an instruction to apply abstract idea using some unspecified generic computer/controller is not patent-eligible. Claim 6 is directed towards a system comprising generic processor/computer device(s) for executing the process recited in claim 1. The examiner notes that claim 1 ha s statutory tie to unspecified generic computer/processor devices configured to perform tasks. Claims 6-8 have statutory tie to unspecified generic computer/processor devices configured to perform specific tasks ; and a generic water purifier system including a generic camera module (claims 7 and 8 merely specifies intended manner of the installation of the camera module). ** However, that is not sufficient for the current claims to pass the patent eligibility test. None of the claims 1-10 recites actuating something or actually adjusting an operational parameter(s) of a non-generic structural component(s) of a water purifier system (a water dispensing device) . As currently presented, the process limitations in claim 1-10 are directed to purely data gathering/generating without significantly more. The claims recite nothing but data gathering; mere data checking ; and generating outputs or newly storing the gathered data . The claims do not include any practical applications. None of the claims recite generating any control instructions and executing the instructions to, for instance, dispensing the water to the user in the container placed/located under the water outlet. Updating data or newly storing data , per se, cannot be considered a practical application. The examiner suggests applicant amend the claims 1 , 6 and 9 and at least include a final step of actually performing something practical in view of the gathered and processed data. Claims 1 -10 do not recite anything integrated into a practical application with significantly more. As currently presented claims are all about data gathering; processing data/information, which is/are not integrated to actual practical applications , i.e. a judicial exception. In this case, t he judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Processes are eligible for patent protection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 if they are not directed to an abstract idea. See Bilski v. Kappos , 95 USPQ2d 1001 (U.S. 2010) (clarifying the standards for subject matter eligibility). Based upon consideration of all the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, they are deemed to claim an abstract idea and are rejected under § 101. The claims are directed to the abstract idea of data gathering and processing of the gathered data. Nominal recitations of structure in an otherwise ineligible method fail to make the method a statutory process. Gottschalk v. Benson 409 U.S. 63, 70-72 (1972). The claims also do not transform any article into a different form; rather, they only generate and display purely abstract data elements. Thus, there is no clear evidence from which to conclude that the claims are not principally drawn to an abstract idea. The examiner recommends amending the claim to require that the problem-solving aspects of the claim (i.e., significant and specific data manipulations; rather than mere generic data inputting, receiving, transmitting, outputting, controlling an apparatus, etc.) are performed by a particular machine in order to overcome this rejection. Furthermore, in order for a method to be considered a "process" under §101, a claimed process must either: (1) be tied to another statutory class (such as a particular apparatus) or (2) transform underlying subject matter (such as an article or materials). If neither of these requirements is met by the claim, the method is not a patent eligible process under §101 and is non-statutory subject matter. Note that the tie to another statutory class should be in the body of the claim, and substantive. Insignificant extra-solution activity (merely updating the database or newly storing processed data ) in the claimed subject matter will not be considered sufficient to convert a process that otherwise recites only mental steps into statutory subject matter. The examiner respectfully reasserts that the instant claims are drawn only to an abstract/conceptual process that is directed to data gathering; generating data/information; data manipulations; and generating outputs. There is nothing that can be considered “significantly more” recited in the claims 1 -10 . Note: 2106.05(b) Particular Machine [R-07.2022] When determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception, into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two and whether a claim recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B, examiners should consider whether the judicial exception is applied with, or by use of, a particular machine. "The machine-or-transformation test is a useful and important clue, and investigative tool” for determining whether a claim is patent eligible under § 101. Bilski v. Kappos , 561 U.S. 593, 604, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1007 (2010). It is noted that while the application of a judicial exception by or with a particular machine is an important clue, it is not a stand-alone test for eligibility. Id. All claims must be evaluated for eligibility using the two-part test from Alice/Mayo. If a claim passes the Alice/Mayo test (i.e., is not directed to an exception at Step 2A, or amounts to significantly more than any recited exception in Step 2B), then the claim is eligible even if it fails the machine-or-transformation test ("M-or-T test"). Bilski v. Kappos , 561 U.S. 593, 604, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1007 (2010) (explaining that a claim may be eligible even if it does not satisfy the M-or-T test); McRO , Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1315, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1102 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[T]here is nothing that requires a method ‘be tied to a machine or transform an article’ to be patentable”). ** And if a claim fails the Alice/Mayo test (i.e., is directed to an exception at Step 2A and does not amount to significantly more than the exception in Step 2B), then the claim is ineligible even if it passes the M-or-T test. DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1104 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“[I]n Mayo, the Supreme Court emphasized that satisfying the machine-or-transformation test, by itself, is not sufficient to render a claim patent-eligible, as not all transformations or machine implementations infuse an otherwise ineligible claim with an 'inventive concept.'”). II. WHETHER THE MACHINE OR APPARATUS IMPLEMENTS THE STEPS OF THE METHOD Integral use of a machine to achieve performance of a method may integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more, in contrast to where the machine is merely an object on which the method operates, which does not integrate the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, 654 F.3d 1366, 1370, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("We are not persuaded by the appellant's argument that the claimed method is tied to a particular machine because it ‘would not be necessary or possible without the Internet.’ . . . Regardless of whether "the Internet" can be viewed as a machine, it is clear that the Internet cannot perform the fraud detection steps of the claimed method"). For example, as described in MPEP § 2106.05(f), additional elements that invoke computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process will generally not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception. See, e.g., Versata Development Group v. SAP America, 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (explaining that in order for a machine to add significantly more, it must “play a significant part in permitting the claimed method to be performed, rather than function solely as an obvious mechanism for permitting a solution to be achieved more quickly”). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 1- 10 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Regarding claim 1 (the provide clauses); claim 6 (the control clauses); and claim 9 (the providing steps) , the “wh en ” phrases are unclear. It is not clear if the limitation s following and preceding the phrases “when…” are part of the invention. The "when phrases” render much of : ( i ) the provide clauses (claim 1); the control clauses (claim 6); and the providing steps (claim 9), optional. The examiner suggests applicant amend claim 1 (the provide clauses); claim 6 (the control clauses); and claim 9 (the providing steps) and recite, for instance: “in response to determining that...” instead of “when…” to positively set forth active process steps. Prior Art The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The examiner considered the references cited in the ISR. The examiner uncovered several patent documents that are considered closest prior art of record with respect to the instant claims. They are listed in the attached PTOL-892. They are all related to fluid dispenser including imaging device and coded cups. None of the uncovered documents appear to disclose the system and the process recited in claims 6-10. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT SHOGO SASAKI whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7071 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Thursday 10:00-6:00 . 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 Maris Kessel can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 5712707698 . 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. FILLIN "Examiner Stamp" \* MERGEFORMAT SHOGO . SASAKI Primary Examiner Art Unit 1798 /SHOGO SASAKI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1758 12/9/2025