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 filed on 08/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that claim 1, as currently amended, would be allowable, distinguished from and non-obvious over all of the prior art in view of it now including the limitations of claims 10 and 11, as originally filed.
However, it is submitted that no arguments have been presented against the rejection of claims 1-9 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. 101 and under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b), and that no amendment to the claims has been made to address or overcome these rejections,
In Applicants’ next Response, Applicant should submit arguments under the heading “Remarks” pointing out disagreements with the examiner’s contentions.
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 1-9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because
the claimed invention is directed to 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 judicial exception of Mental Processes without significantly more. The claims recite a system or method for retrieving data and making determinations of parameter values compared with reference parameter values, which is regarded as “mental processes” and thus do not define eligible subject matter, as required in Step 1 of the eligibility analysis described in the MPEP at Section 2106. Such analysis defines mental processes as one category of ineligible subject matter.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because such system features and method steps can be substantially performed in the human mind or alternately using any generic calculator, personal smart phone or computer device. The claims lack recitation of any specific, water treatment method steps or water treatment system components, and lack recitation of any specific computer or controller structure, per Eligibility Step 2A, Prong One, as defined in MPEP, Section 2106.04.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the system and method claims read on any generic, conventional computer, the claimed computer operability to initiate instructions to control concentration of at least one chemical compound and control an output of a first liquid stream lack recitation of particular or specific features regarding computer hardware or software and only specify general, conventional computer operability features and thus do not provide any meaningful limitations to a computer controller, or mechanical, water handling system. Again, the claims lack recitation of any specific, water treatment method steps or water treatment system components, and lack recitation of any specific computer or controller structure, per Eligibility Step 2B, Prong Two, as defined in MPEP, Section 2106.04.
Thus, claims 1-9 and 12 do not recite eligible patent subject matter.
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.
Claims 1-9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
In claim 1, in the 1st clause “a computer-executable instructions” is grammatically inconsistent, are one or more ‘instructions being recited; and
in the last claim clause, it is unclear whether or not “the comparison” refers back to each or all of the compared parameters of the set of parameters recited in the previous clause as “compare at least a first parameter…with a corresponding reference parameter…”.
In claim 2, since the recited “pH”, and “total dissolved solids” (TDS) of the liquid stream are water quality parameters, the scope of “or one or more water quality parameters” is unclear (do “water quality parameters” include or exclude water “pH” and/or “TDS”?).
In claim 4, since the recited “pH”, “total dissolved solids” (TDS), “charge balance” and “chloride ion ratio” of the liquid stream are water quality parameters, the scope of “or one or more water quality parameters” is unclear (do “water quality parameters” include or exclude water “pH”, TDS”, “charge balance” and “chloride ion ratio”?).
In claim 12, “the flow of the first liquid stream” lacks antecedent basis (is such “flow” encompassed in or correspond to “output” in independent claim 1?).
Allowable Subject Matter
Independent Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 and U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action.
Claim 1 would distinguish and be non-obvious over all of the prior art, both of record and newly cited, in view of recitation in claim 1 of the one or more processors are further configured to:
determine whether the saturation index data for the first liquid stream is within a third threshold range, wherein the third threshold range comprises at least: a minimum saturation index value for the first liquid stream, and a maximum saturation index value for the first liquid stream, and wherein the minimum saturation index value and the maximum saturation index value is determined based on the saturation index data included in the set of reference parameters; and control the output of the first liquid stream based on the determination.
Mcleod of record is deemed to constitute the closest prior art; McLeod although teaching determination of saturation indexes, lacks any suggestion of determining a threshold range comprising both minimum and maximum saturation value indexes for a liquid stream, particularly based on saturation index data included in a set of reference parameters.
Newly cited Cunningham PGPUBS Document US 2021/0171362 and Patent Publications AU-2013215520 (Jha et al) also now constitute the closest prior art , and are deemed to recite an automated water treatment system, including a memory storing computer-executable instructions, one or more processors, and configured to execute the retrieving, controlling concentration and comparing parameters with reference parameters as claimed, however, lack teaching or suggestion of: further recitation of the one or more processors are further configured to:
determine whether the saturation index data for the first liquid stream is within a third threshold range, wherein the third threshold range comprises at least: a minimum saturation index value for the first liquid stream, and a maximum saturation index value for the first liquid stream, and wherein the minimum saturation index value and the maximum saturation index value is determined based on the saturation index data included in the set of reference parameters; and control the output of the first liquid stream based on the determination.
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 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 Primary Examiner Joseph Drodge at his direct government formal facsimile phone number telephone number of 571-272-1140. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from approximately 8:00 AM to 1:00PM and 2:30 PM to 5:30 PM.
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 encourage to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner are unsuccessful, the examiner' s supervisor, Benjamin Lebron, of Technology Center Unit 1773, can reached at 571-272-0475.
The telephone number, for official, formal communications, for the examining group where this application is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from the Patent Examiner. 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/apply/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.
JWD
09/15/2026
/JOSEPH W DRODGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
