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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed 03/20/2026, are accepted and appreciated by the
Examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 03/20/2026, with respect to the rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims 21 and 26 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 21 and 26 include the limitation “a data acquisition system via which is obtained data indicative in real-time of valve positioning, a flow rate of fluid outputted from the worksite and an incremental volume of fluid outputted from the worksite;” which is grammatically unclear. For the purposes of examination, it will be read as “a data acquisition system via which data is obtained ”
Claim 26 recites the limitation "i) the total volume and the current flow rate of the fluid entering into the valve assembly, ii) the current position of the valve assembly." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, it will be read as “i) a current total volume and a current flow rate of the fluid entering into the valve assembly, ii) "
Claim 26 recites the limitation "a processor which receives said data and determines therefrom i) the change in volume between the current and previous total volume of said fluid, ii) the current discharge flow rate, iii) the change in discharge volume, iv) the current recirculation flow rate, and v) the change in recirculation volume.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, it will be read as “a processor which receives said data and determines therefrom i) "
Appropriate correction is required.
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 12-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to claim 21,
Step 2A Prong One:
The following bold limitations are considered abstract:
“A water monitoring and control system comprising: a valve assembly via which fluid outputted from a worksite is received and either recirculated or discharged based on whether the fluid satisfies one or more predetermined conditions;
a data acquisition system via which is obtained data indicative in real-time of valve positioning, a flow rate of fluid outputted from the worksite and an incremental volume of fluid outputted from the worksite; and
a processor which via said data, correlates said flow rate of fluid with said valve positioning to determine discharge and recirculation flow rates as a function of time.
and correlates said incremental volume of fluid with said valve positioning as a function of time and sums said incremental volume of fluid so correlated to determine total discharge and recirculation volumes for a given time period, wherein the processor formulates or receives an equation describing a valve closure pattern of the valve assembly and shifts said equation horizontally to match a start time at which the valve assembly transitions from a discharge position to a recirculation position or vice versa, and wherein the volume of fluid passing through the valve assembly during a transition between said positions is determined based on the valve closure pattern, an actuation duration of the valve assembly, a determination of the start time of said transition, and said shifting of the valve closure pattern to match the start time.”
The above bolded limitations are directed to abstract ideas and would fall within the “Mathematical Concept” and “Mental Process” groupings of abstract ideas. Formulating an equation describing a valve closure pattern and shifting the equation to match a starting time mathematical concepts as they are done using mathematical methods. According to MPEP 2106.04(C) “A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word "calculating" in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of "determining" a variable or number using mathematical methods or "performing" a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation.” Determining a start time of a transition of a valve assembly is a mental process as it can be done in the human mind using observation, judgement, and opinion.
Step 2A Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements –
“A water monitoring and control system comprising: a valve assembly via which fluid outputted from a worksite is received and either recirculated or discharged based on whether the fluid satisfies one or more predetermined conditions;
a data acquisition system via which is obtained data indicative in real-time of valve positioning, a flow rate of fluid outputted from the worksite and an incremental volume of fluid outputted from the worksite;
and a processor. ”
Examiner views these limitations amount to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
As such Examiner does NOT view that the claims
-Improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field
-Apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP
2106.05(b)
-Effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing -
see MPEP 2106.05(c)
-Apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally
linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the
claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP
2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo.
Moreover, Examiner views the claims to be merely generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a generic valve assembly which amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment as seen in MPEP 2106.05. Furthermore, the data acquisition system is viewed as mere data gathering as data about the valve assembly is just obtained. Lastly, using a processor to perform the calculations is considered using a computer as a tool. Therefore, the additional elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Considering the claim as a whole, one of ordinary skill in the art would not know the practical application of the present invention since the claims do not apply or use the judicial exception in some meaningful way. As currently claimed, Examiner views that the additional elements do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, because the claim fails to recite clearly how the judicial exception is applied in a manner that does not monopolize the exception because the limitations “A water monitoring and control system comprising: a valve assembly via which fluid outputted from a worksite is received and either recirculated or discharged based on whether the fluid satisfies one or more predetermined conditions;
a data acquisition system via which is obtained data indicative in real-time of valve positioning, a flow rate of fluid outputted from the worksite and an incremental volume of fluid outputted from the worksite;
and a processor” just tie the claim to a valve assembly. Examiner further notes that such additional elements are viewed to be well known routine and conventional as evidenced by Brown (US 20230105634 A1) and Sendelius (US 20220305441 A1).
With respect to claim 26,
Step 2A Prong One:
The following bold limitations are considered abstract:
“A water monitoring and control system comprising: a valve assembly via which fluid outputted from a worksite is received and either recirculated or discharged based on whether the fluid satisfies one or more predetermined conditions;
a data acquisition system via which is obtained data indicative in real-time of valve positioning, a flow rate of fluid outputted from the worksite and an incremental volume of fluid outputted from the worksite, with the data acquisition system outputting data indicative in real-time of i) the total volume and the current flow rate of the fluid entering into the valve assembly, ii) the current position of the valve assembly, and iii) a start time at which of the valve assembly changed from a prior position to the current position thereof;
and a processor which receives said data and determines therefrom i) the change in volume between the current and previous total volume of said fluid, ii) the current discharge flow rate, iii) the change in discharge volume, iv) the current recirculation flow rate, and v) the change in recirculation volume.”
The above bolded limitations are directed to abstract ideas and would fall within the “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas. Determining the values listed from the acquired data involves using algorithms and other mathematical concepts as described in Para(s). [0049-0060] of the specification. According to MPEP 2106.04(C) “A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word "calculating" in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of "determining" a variable or number using mathematical methods or "performing" a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation.”
Step 2A Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements –
“A water monitoring and control system comprising: a valve assembly via which fluid outputted from a worksite is received and either recirculated or discharged based on whether the fluid satisfies one or more predetermined conditions;
a data acquisition system via which is obtained data indicative in real-time of valve positioning, a flow rate of fluid outputted from the worksite and an incremental volume of fluid outputted from the worksite, with the data acquisition system outputting data indicative in real-time of i) the total volume and the current flow rate of the fluid entering into the valve assembly, ii) the current position of the valve assembly, and iii) a start time at which of the valve assembly changed from a prior position to the current position thereof; and a processor.”
Examiner views these limitations amount to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
As such Examiner does NOT view that the claims
-Improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field
-Apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP
2106.05(b)
-Effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing -
see MPEP 2106.05(c)
-Apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally
linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the
claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP
2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo.
Moreover, Examiner views the claims to be merely generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a generic valve assembly which amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment as seen in MPEP 2106.05. Furthermore, the data acquisition system is viewed as mere data gathering as data about the valve assembly is just obtained. Lastly, using a processor to perform the calculations is considered using a computer as a tool. Therefore, the additional elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Considering the claim as a whole, one of ordinary skill in the art would not know the practical application of the present invention since the claims do not apply or use the judicial exception in some meaningful way. As currently claimed, Examiner views that the additional elements do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, because the claim fails to recite clearly how the judicial exception is applied in a manner that does not monopolize the exception because the limitations “A water monitoring and control system comprising: a valve assembly via which fluid outputted from a worksite is received and either recirculated or discharged based on whether the fluid satisfies one or more predetermined conditions; a data acquisition system via which is obtained data indicative in real-time of valve positioning, a flow rate of fluid outputted from the worksite and an incremental volume of fluid outputted from the worksite, with the data acquisition system outputting data indicative in real-time of i) the total volume and the current flow rate of the fluid entering into the valve assembly, ii) the current position of the valve assembly, and iii) a start time at which of the valve assembly changed from a prior position to the current position thereof; and a processor.” just tie the claim to a valve assembly. Examiner further notes that such additional elements are viewed to be well known routine and conventional as evidenced by Brown (US 20230105634 A1) and Sendelius (US 20220305441 A1).
Dependent claims 12-20, 22-25, and 27-29 when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, as detailed below:
The dependent claims are directed to a further analysis of the obtained data using mathematical concepts and abstract ideas. Claims 22 and 26 include an additional element of a flow meter, claim 23 includes a totalizer, and claim 24 includes a high-speed digital input counter. However, they are just generic sensors and are viewed as tools for necessary data gathering. Lastly, claims 28 and 29 includes the type of the fluid running through the valve assembly and different methods for storing data, but these elements are viewed as insignificant extra solution activity.
Therefore, dependent claims 12-20, 22-25, and 27-29 further limit the abstract idea with an abstract idea and thus the claims are still directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because a computer product is directed to a computer program per se and/or to a transitory signal per se. Paragraph [0093] of the specification states that the computer “program product” is intended to be non-limiting in scope and may comprise any transmission-type media. The examiner suggests the claim be amended to recite something like “A computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium…” in order to exclude a computer program per se and a transitory signal per se from the scope of the claim.
Claims 9 and 10 qualify as eligible subject matter under 36 U.S.C. 101 because they include additional elements that integrate the claims into a practical application. Claim 9 includes transforming the valve closure pattern based on an increasing actuation duration which amounts to using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment as seen in MPEP 2106.05. Claim 10 includes determining whether to recycle or discharge fluid based on measured fluid properties which also amounts to using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Prior Art Analysis
Claims 12-29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, however, none of the known prior art could be applied to the claims for the following reasons.
With respect to claim 21,
Brown (US 20230105634 A1) teaches,
A multiphase flowmeter may include a circuit including a pressure sensor and a position sensor that determines the position of a movable element. (Abstract) Where the movable element is a valve. (Para. [0025]) They further teach measuring fluid volume and flow rates based on the position of the movable element. (Para. [0005]) However, they do not explicitly teach a valve closure pattern or finding the volume of a fluid specifically during the transition of a valve.
Sendelius (US 20220305441 A1) teaches,
A method for controlling water purification, and a water purification apparatus. (abstract) They further teach a recirculation and a drain path. Where they find a flowrate for both the drain and the recirculation path and the flow rate is dependent upon the degree that the valve is opened. (Para. [0056]) However, they do not explicitly teach a closure pattern.
Aughton (US 20170153132 A1) teaches,
A method of measuring the flow rate of fluid through a gate member. (Abstract) Where they teach a function that models the flowrate that depends on the movement of the gate. (Para(s). 8 and 37) However, they do not explicitly teach shifting the equation horizontally to match a start time of the valve transitioning from a discharge position to a recirculation position. Furthermore, they do not explicitly teach including an actuation duration in their calculation of flow rate nor do they teach finding a volume.
Holbrook (US 20240068098 A1) teaches,
A flow control arrangement includes a source conduit, a supply conduit, a shutoff valve, and a slow-close actuator. (Abstract) Where they further teach a closing function that is continuous between a start time and an end time and where the start time to the end time represents a slow-closing interval where the actuator is actuating. (Para. [0058]) However, they do not explicitly teach shifting the function horizontally to match the start time and they do not teach a discharge position and a recirculation position.
As seen above none of the known prior art teaches and it would not be obvious to combine the known prior at to teach,
“wherein a processor formulates or receives an equation describing a valve closure pattern of the valve assembly and shifts said equation horizontally to match a start time at which the valve assembly transitions from a discharge position to a recirculation position or vice versa, and wherein the volume of said fluid passing through the valve assembly during a transition between said positions is determined based on the valve closure pattern, an actuation duration of the valve assembly, a determination of the start time of said transition, and said shifting of the valve closure pattern to match the start time.”
Therefore, prior art cannot be applied to claim 21. Prior art cannot be applied to claims 22-25 because they are dependent upon claim 21.
With respect to claim 26,
Brown (US 20230105634 A1) teaches,
A multiphase flowmeter may include a circuit including a pressure sensor and a position sensor that determines the position of a movable element. (Abstract) Where the movable element is a valve. (Para. [0025]) They further teach measuring fluid volume and flow rates based on the position of the movable element. (Para. [0005]) However, they do not explicitly teach a start time at which the valve assembly changed from a prior to a current position, finding a change in discharge and recirculation flow rate, volume between the current and previous total volume, the change in discharge volume, and the change in recirculation volume based on the position of the valve.
Sendelius (US 20220305441 A1) teaches,
A method for controlling water purification, and a water purification apparatus. (abstract) They further teach a recirculation and a drain path. Where they find a flowrate for both the drain and the recirculation path and the flow rate is dependent upon the degree that the valve is opened. (Para. [0056]) However, they do not explicitly teach a start time at which the valve assembly changed from a prior to a current position, volume between the current and previous total volume, the change in discharge volume, and the change in recirculation volume based on the position of the valve.
Aughton (US 20170153132 A1) teaches,
A method of measuring the flow rate of fluid through a gate member. (Abstract) Where they teach a function that models the flowrate that depends on the movement of the gate. (Para(s). 8 and 37) However, they do not explicitly teach a start time at which the valve assembly changed from a prior to a current position, volume between the current and previous total volume, the change in discharge volume, and the change in recirculation volume based on the position of the valve.
Holbrook (US 20240068098 A1) teaches,
A flow control arrangement includes a source conduit, a supply conduit, a shutoff valve, and a slow-close actuator. (Abstract) Where they further teach a closing function that is continuous between a start time and an end time and where the start time to the end time represents a slow-closing interval where the actuator is actuating. (Para. [0058]) However, they do not explicitly teach a start time at which the valve assembly changed from a prior to a current position, volume between the current and previous total volume, the change in discharge volume, and the change in recirculation volume based on the position of the valve.
As seen above none of the known prior art teaches and it would not be obvious to combine the known prior at to teach,
“with the data acquisition system outputting data indicative in real-time of iii) a start time at which of the valve assembly changed from a prior position to the current position thereof; and wherein a processor is configured to receive said data and determine therefrom: i) the change in volume between the current and previous total volume of said fluid; ii) the current discharge flow rate; iii) the change in discharge volume; iv) the current recirculation flow rate; and v) the change in recirculation volume.”
Therefore, prior art cannot be applied to claim 26. Prior art cannot be applied to claims 12-20 and 27-29 as they are dependent upon claim 26.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 9 and 10 include allowable subject matter as they are dependent on claims 21 and 26 respectively and are eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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 JOSHUA L FORRISTALL whose telephone number is 703-756-4554. The examiner
can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 AM- 5 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 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, Andrew Schechter can be reached on 571-272-2302. 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.
/JOSHUA L FORRISTALL/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/ALEXANDER SATANOVSKY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights