DETAILED ACTION Non-Final Rejection 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 Objections Claims 3 - 14 are objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation, i.e. “ a centrifugal pump ” should be change to “ the centrifugal pump ” . Appropriate correction is required. Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation, i.e. “A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium on which computer software is stored, the computer software comprising instructions to implement the method according to claim 2 when the software is executed by a processor.” should be change to “the non-transitory computer-readable recording medium according to claim 16 further comprising to implement the method according to claim 2 when the software is executed by the processor. ” . Appropriate correction is required. 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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites the limitation " the measured flow rate, the measured mechanical power, the actual Pump Head, the loss of Head due to the wear-ring clearance, the loss of head due to the impeller wear ; said theoretical Pump ". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Similar to claim 2-14. The remaining claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), for being dependent upon a rejected base claim. 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- 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1 Each of claims 1- 16 falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP § 2106.03. For example, each of claims 1- 14 fall within category of process and each of claims 15–16 are directed to a “non-transitory computer-readable recording medium” and therefore falls within category of manufacture Regarding Claims 1- 14 Step 2A – Prong 1 Exemplary claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea of calculating at least one of a wear-ring clearance effect and an impeller wear effect . The abstract idea is set forth or described by the following italicized limitations: 1 . A method for determining mechanical degradation of parts of a centrifugal pump having a fluid inlet, an impeller and a fluid outlet, comprising : calculating at least one of a wear-ring clearance effect and an impeller wear effect where: calculating said wear-ring clearance effect is done through: measuring an actual pump flow rate Op and actual pump power Pwp , calculating an internal flow rate of the pump Qp Pwp through projecting said actual pump power Pwp on a theoretical Pump Mechanical power versus Pump Flow rate curve at iso mechanical power, calculating the mechanical power Pw Qp that should be used if the pump worked as specified in the theoretical curve through projecting said actual pump flow rate on said theoretical Pump Mechanical Power versus Pump Flow rate curve at iso flow rate, applying the measured flow rate Op on a theoretical Pump Head versus Pump Flow rate curve to obtain a theoretical Head Hp th , applying the internal flow rate of the pump Qp Pwp on said theoretical Pump Head versus Pump Flow rate curve to obtain an internal Head Hp Pwp , calculating a difference between said theoretical Head and said internal Head Hp th −Hp Pwp to obtain the loss of Head due to the wear-ring clearance; and where: calculating said impeller wear effect is done through: measuring an actual input pressure pin, an actual output pressure pout and an actual pump power Pwp , calculating a theoretical flow rate Qp Pwp corresponding to the measured mechanical power Pwp on a theoretical pump characteristic Pump Power versus Pump Flow rate curve, projecting such theoretical flow rate QpPwp on a theoretical Pump Head versus Pump Flow rate curve at iso-pump flow rate ΔQ=0 to obtain a theoretical Pump Head HpPwp , calculating the actual Pump Head Hp from the actual input pressure p in , and the actual output pressure p out and a pumped fluid density, calculating a difference between said theoretical pump head and said actual pump Head HpPwp −Hp to obtain the loss of head due to the impeller wear. The italicized limitations above represent mathematical concepts (i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships or rules or idea). Therefore, the italicized limitations fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. For example, the limitations “ determining mechanical degradation [..]: calculating at least one of a wear-ring clearance effect and an impeller wear effect where: calculating said wear-ring clearance effect is done through, calculating an internal flow rate of the pump QpPwp through projecting said actual pump power Pwp on a theoretical Pump Mechanical power versus Pump Flow rate curve at iso mechanical power, calculating the mechanical power PwQp that should be used if the pump worked as specified in the theoretical curve through projecting said actual pump flow rate on said theoretical Pump Mechanical Power versus Pump Flow rate curve at iso flow rate, applying the measured flow rate Op on a theoretical Pump Head versus Pump Flow rate curve to obtain a theoretical Head Hpth , applying the internal flow rate of the pump QpPwp on said theoretical Pump Head versus Pump Flow rate curve to obtain an internal Head HpPwp,calculating a difference between said theoretical Head and said internal Head Hpth−HpPwp to obtain the loss of Head due to the wear-ring clearance; and where: calculating said impeller wear effect is done through: calculating a theoretical flow rate QpPwp corresponding to the measured mechanical power Pwp on a theoretical pump characteristic Pump Power versus Pump Flow rate curve, projecting such theoretical flow rate QpPwp on a theoretical Pump Head versus Pump Flow rate curve at iso-pump flow rate ΔQ=0 to obtain a theoretical Pump Head HpPwp , calculating the actual Pump Head Hp from the actual input pressure pin, and the actual output pressure pout and a pumped fluid density, calculating a difference between said theoretical pump head and said actual pump Head HpPwp −Hp to obtain the loss of head due to the impeller wear ;” are of mathematical concepts (i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships or rules or idea), see 2106.04(a)(2). Limitations (are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (discussing Bilski v. Kappos , 561 U.S. 593 (2010)). Step 2A – Prong 2 Claims 1 does not include additional elements (when considered individually, as an ordered combination, and/or within the claim as a whole) that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. For example, additional first element is “ measuring an actual pump flow rate Op and actual pump power Pwp ; measuring an actual input pressure pin, an actual output pressure pout and an actual pump power Pwp ” to be performed, at least in-part, these additional elements appear to only add insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering) and only generally link the abstract idea to a particular field. Therefore, this element individually or as a whole does not provide a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g) For example, additional 2 nd element is “ a centrifugal pump having a fluid inlet, an impeller and a fluid outlet ” to be performed, at least in-part, by use of a generic pump system. Therefore, this element individually does not provide a practical application. see MPEP 2106.05(d). In view of the above, two “additional elements” individually do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. Furthermore, the two “additional elements” in combination amount to a plurality of generic devices associated with computer with software, where such generic data colleting device with computers and software amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer(s) and/or mere use of a generic computer component(s) as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, these elements in combination do not provide a practical application. The combination of additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, i.e., an environment of computer hardware/software in communication with one another (a network of computing devices), and for this additional reason, the combination of additional elements does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. Step 2B Claims1 does not include additional elements, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. For example, the limitation of “ centrifugal pump ”, generic system, which is well understood, routine and convention (see background of current discloser, IDS and the Examiner cited prior arts) and MPEP 2106.05(d)) The reasons for reaching this conclusion are substantially the same as the reasons given above in § Step 2A – Prong 2. For brevity only, those reasons are not repeated in this section. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(g) and MPEP §§2106.05(II). Dependent Claims 2- 14 Dependent claims 2- 14 fail to cure this deficiency of independent claim 1 (set forth above) and are rejected accordingly. Particularly, claims 2- 14 recite limitations that represent (in addition to the limitations already noted above) either the abstract idea or an additional element that is merely extra-solution activity, mere use of instructions and/or generic computer component(s) as a tool to implement the abstract idea, and/or merely limits the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. For example, the limitation s of Claims 2- 8, 10-12 and 14 : mathematical concepts (i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships or rules or idea). Therefore, the italicized limitations fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. For example, the limitation s of Claims 9, 13: to be performed, at least in-part, these additional elements appear to only add insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering) and only generally link the abstract idea to a particular field . Regarding Claim 15-16 Claims 15-16 contains language similar to claims 1-2 as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, and for reasons similar to those discussed above, claims 15-16 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101(abstract idea). Examiner Notes Three is no prior art rejection over claim 1, however there is 101 rejection . However, closets prior arts fail to teach the limitations of claim 1 , e.g. “calculating said wear-ring clearance effect is done through: calculating an internal flow rate of the pump QpPwp through projecting said actual pump power Pwp on a theoretical Pump Mechanical power versus Pump Flow rate curve at iso mechanical power, calculating the mechanical power PwQp that should be used if the pump worked as specified in the theoretical curve through projecting said actual pump flow rate on said theoretical Pump Mechanical Power versus Pump Flow rate curve at iso flow rate, applying the measured flow rate Op on a theoretical Pump Head versus Pump Flow rate curve to obtain a theoretical Head Hpth , applying the internal flow rate of the pump QpPwp on said theoretical Pump Head versus Pump Flow rate curve to obtain an internal Head HpPwp , calculating a difference between said theoretical Head and said internal Head Hpth−HpPwp to obtain the loss of Head due to the wear-ring clearance; and where: calculating said impeller wear effect is done through: calculating a theoretical flow rate QpPwp corresponding to the measured mechanical power Pwp on a theoretical pump characteristic Pump Power versus Pump Flow rate curve, projecting such theoretical flow rate QpPwp on a theoretical Pump Head versus Pump Flow rate curve at iso-pump flow rate ΔQ=0 to obtain a theoretical Pump Head HpPwp , calculating the actual Pump Head Hp from the actual input pressure pin, and the actual output pressure pout and a pumped fluid density, calculating a difference between said theoretical pump head and said actual pump Head HpPwp −Hp to obtain the loss of head due to the impeller wear” . Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. a) Zhang et al. ( Investigation of the Integrated Model of Side Chamber, Wear- Rings Clearance, and Balancing Holes for Centrifugal Pumps, 2019 ) Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT MOHAMMAD K ISLAM whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-0328 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. . 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 Shelby A Turner can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-6334 . 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. /MOHAMMAD K ISLAM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857