Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 11 and 12 in the reply filed on 7/6/26 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The subject matter of this application admits of illustration by a drawing to facilitate understanding of the invention. Applicant is required to furnish a drawing under 37 CFR 1.81(c). No new matter may be introduced in the required drawing. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d).
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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 11 and 12 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.
Claim 11 recites “forecasting wetness” in line 11. The term “wetness” is not defined as to be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The Specification fails to offer any guidance as to what is meant by the term; even going as far as to use quotes around the term (page 6, line 16), increasing the vagueness of the term.
Claim 12 is dependent on claim 11 and thus inherits the deficiency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
USPTO’s determines eligibility under section 101 with a two step analysis. The claims fail the analysis.
Step 1 of the USPTO’s eligibility analysis entails 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.
In this application, the claims are directed to a method. As such, the claims are directed to statutory categories of invention. Therefore, the claims satisfy step 1 and the analysis proceeds to step 2.
Step 2A of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance is a two-prong inquiry. Step 2A, prong 1 first evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception such as an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon.
Claim 11 recite abstract limitations including (or substantially similar to): forecasting wetness within the mining operation… based on said forecasted wetness.
These limitations, as drafted and under the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover an abstract idea. The forecasting is an analysis of the data, which is a mathematical operation or automating human activity as the Specification teaches using machine learning to handle the task. Therefore, the claims recite the judicial exception of an abstract idea.
As the claims recite a judicial exception, the claims require further analysis in prong 2 of Step 2A. Prong 2 evaluates if the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 11 recites additional elements such as: providing a plurality of sensors, and the sensors reporting data.
These limitations are insufficient. The sensors are only invoked in a high level, generic manner (“water level sensors” and “flow sensors”). They perform routine and conventional functions. The reporting of the data is mere data gathering. The limitation “adjusting water pumping rates…” is vague and does not describe any specific action to be taken based on the results of the forecast. Therefore, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
As the claims recite a judicial exception and fail to integrate that exception into a practical application, the claims must be analyzed under Step 2B. Step 2B examines whether the claims provide an inventive concept, or whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself.
Claim 12 merely adds an additional step of data gathering which does not materially change the scope of claim 11.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng (CN 103226732) in view of Coppola, Jr. et al. (US 7254564).
CLAIM 11: Deng discloses a method for mining operation water management comprising: providing a plurality of water level sensors and positioning each respective one water level sensor in a water source associated with a mining operation; providing a plurality of water flow sensors and positioning each respective one water flow sensor at a location along a water flow route and measuring flow rate and volume of water at said location; said sensors reporting water volume and water flow data from the mining operation to a control system (see “Step 1: Get data”, which includes sensors in a monitoring network covering flow and gets water level data as described in step 4; the data is reported in Step 3 when the data is imported into the software). Said control system forecasting wetness within the mining operation by projecting water volumes within specific water sources (see Steps 4-6 using the data for calculations of water features in the selected area.
Deng does not disclose selecting locations for water pumping and adjusting water pumping rates based on said forecasted wetness.
Coppola discloses a groundwater predication and optimization system.
Coppola discloses computer models of water systems and then optimizing the pumping rate of the relevant pumps (see, for example, col. 14, lines 13-29).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Deng to use the data to optimize the pumping based on the results of the forecast with a reasonable expectation of success as Coppola teaches such optimization is cost effective (see col. 1, lines 33-43).
CLAIM 12: The control unit receives weather forecast data, historical data and local trends (see Deng, teaching sending historical data related to the relevant aquifers; Coppola teaching using historical data, col. 4, lines 40-45, and weather data, col. 5, lines 48-52).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited art shows similar methods of water management using sensors.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK F LAMBE whose telephone number is (571)270-1932. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10-4.
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, Tara Schimpf can be reached at (571)270-7741. 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.
/PATRICK F LAMBE/Examiner, Art Unit 3676
/TARA SCHIMPF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3676
