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, see Response to Non-Final Office Action (“Response”), filed 30 June 2026, with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection under 35 USC 103 has been withdrawn. However, Applicant's arguments filed in the Response with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Using sensors or computers to apply commonplace ideas-such as measuring measurands that the sensors were designed to measure or monitoring, determining and providing information-is not a patentable invention, even if the sensors/computers are able to handle volumes and complexity at levels impossible for humans. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2350 ("Neither stating an abstract idea while adding the words 'apply it,' nor limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (chlorine, pH, oxidations reduction potential, conductivity, spectral absorption, pressure, density, turbidity, concentration of an analyte, oxygen content, ammonium content or phosphor content), is enough for patent eligibility." (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Mayo,132 S. Ct. at 1294; Bilski, 561 U.S. at 610-611). Simply utilizing a generic sensor to retrieve, send, or display information and to perform conventional calculations faster and more efficiently is not enough to transform a patentineligible claim into a patent-eligible invention. See Bancorp Servs. LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada, 687 F.3d 1266, 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (finding a claim not patent-eligible when “the computer simply performs more efficiently what could otherwise be accomplished manually”); SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int' l Trade Comm' n, 601 F.3d 1319, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“In order for the addition of a machine to impose a meaningful limit on the scope of a claim, 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 . . . .”). Nearly every computer has the capability of performing the basic calculation, storage, and transmission functions. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2360. At most, the sensors implementation involved in the claims at issue here is an attempt to limit use of the abstract concept to a particular technological environment. That, however, is insufficient to transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. See id. at 2358; Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294; Bilski, 561 U.S. at 610–11; Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191 (1981). Further, the sensors are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Since the sensors amount to no more than mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, they cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without “significantly more.” Claims 1-14 are directed to determining and providing measured values, parameter compensated measurement results and at least one parameter property, monitoring the parameter measurements and providing a corresponding monitoring result, which is considered an abstract idea. Further, the claim(s) as a whole, when examined on a limitation-by-limitation basis and in ordered combination do not include an inventive concept.
Step 1 – Statutory Categories
As indicated in the preamble of the claims, the examiner finds the claims are directed to a process and machine.
Step 2A – Prong One - Abstract Idea Analysis
Exemplary claim 1 (and similarly claims 12 and 14) recites the following abstract concepts, in italics below, which are found to include an “abstract idea”:
A method of measuring measurands of a medium with a set of at least two sensors installed in proximity to each other at a measuring point, wherein the set of at least two sensors includes at least two of: a chlorine sensor, a pH-sensor, an oxidation reduction potential sensor, a conductivity sensor, a spectral absorption sensor, and a sensor measuring a pressure, a density, a turbidity, a concentration of an analyte comprised in the medium, an oxygen content, an ammonium content or a phosphor content; and wherein each sensor includes a temperature sensing element measuring a parameter given by a temperature of the medium, the method comprising the steps of:
with each sensor continuously or repeatedly determining and providing measured values of at least one of the measurands of the medium and parameter values of the parameter measured by the temperature sensing element of the respective sensor,
based on the parameter values determined by all sensors, by a computer determining at least one parameter property exhibited by the parameter at the measuring point;
monitoring, by the computer the parameter measurements performed by the sensors based on the parameter values determined by the sensors by for each parameter property detecting an impairment of the parameter measurements when the parameter values provided by the sensors become non-compliant to at least one criterium defined for the parameter values based on the respective parameter property;
providing, by the computer a corresponding monitoring result; and
determining and providing, by the computer parameter compensated measurement results of the measurands based on the measured values and the parameter values in a manner accounting for the monitoring result.
The claim features in italics above as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, are mental processes and/or certain methods of organizing human activity performed by generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a set of at least two sensors, wherein the set of at least two sensors includes at least two of: a chlorine sensor, a pH-sensor, an oxidation reduction potential sensor, a conductivity sensor, a spectral absorption sensor, and a sensor, wherein each sensor includes a temperature sensing element” and “a computer” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or a method of organized human activity. For example, but for the “sensors” and “computer” language, “A method of measuring measurands of a medium … measuring a pressure, a density, a turbidity, a concentration of an analyte comprised in the medium, an oxygen content, an ammonium content or a phosphor content; and ….measuring a parameter given by a temperature of the medium, the method comprising the steps of: … continuously or repeatedly determining … measured values of at least one of the measurands of the medium and parameter values of the parameter measured … based on the parameter values determined … determining at least one parameter property exhibited by the parameter at the measuring point; monitoring… the parameter measurements performed … based on the parameter values determined … by for each parameter property detecting an impairment of the parameter measurements when the parameter values provided … become non-compliant to at least one criterium defined for the parameter values based on the respective parameter property… determining …parameter compensated measurement results of the measurands based on the measured values and the parameter values in a manner accounting for the monitoring result” in the context of this claim encompasses mental processes. If the claim limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers steps which could be performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement of opinion but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “mental process” grouping of abstract ideas. Further, “providing measured values … providing a corresponding monitoring result… providing parameter compensated measurement results of the measurands… ” in the context of this claim encompasses certain methods of organizing human activity. If the claim limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers fundamental economic practice, commercial or legal interaction or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two - Abstract Idea Analysis
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite a few additional elements – “a set of at least two sensors, wherein the set of at least two sensors includes at least two of: a chlorine sensor, a pH-sensor, an oxidation reduction potential sensor, a conductivity sensor, a spectral absorption sensor, and a sensor, wherein each sensor includes a temperature sensing element” (claims 1, 12 and 14), “a computer comprising computing means” (claims 1, 12 and 14), “the cloud” (claim 13), “the measurement system includes: a transmitter, a superordinate unit and/or an edge device connected to and/or communicating with each sensor” (claim 13), “at least one display” (claim 13) and “at least one measurement device” (claim 13). The “sensors”, “computing means”, “cloud”, “measurement system includes: a transmitter, a superordinate unit and/or an edge device connected to and/or communicating with each sensor”, “at least one display” and “at least one measurement device” are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f), i.e. the determining, providing and monitoring steps), data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g), i.e. the measuring steps) and/or linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h), i.e. the different types of sensors). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B - Significantly More Analysis
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “a set of at least two sensors, wherein the set of at least two sensors includes at least two of: a chlorine sensor, a pH-sensor, an oxidation reduction potential sensor, a conductivity sensor, a spectral absorption sensor, and a sensor, wherein each sensor includes a temperature sensing element”, “computer comprising computing means”, “cloud”, “measurement system includes: a transmitter, a superordinate unit and/or an edge device connected to and/or communicating with each sensor”, “at least one display” and “at least one measurement device” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components, data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity and/or linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components, data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity and/or linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, the background does not provide any indication that the “set of at least two sensors, wherein the set of at least two sensors includes at least two of: a chlorine sensor, a pH-sensor, an oxidation reduction potential sensor, a conductivity sensor, a spectral absorption sensor, and a sensor, wherein each sensor includes a temperature sensing element”, “computer comprising computing means”, “cloud”, “measurement system includes: a transmitter, a superordinate unit and/or an edge device connected to and/or communicating with each sensor”, “at least one display” and “at least one measurement device” are anything other than generic, off-the-shelf computer components. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
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 Hunter Wilder whose telephone number is (571)270-7948. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5:30PM.
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, Florian Zeender can be reached at (571)272-6790. 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.
/A. Hunter Wilder/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
