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 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. C laims 1 - 1 5 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 1-1 5 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 (claims 14-15 are directed to a program which is not a statutory category) . Step 2A – Prong One - Abstract Idea Analysis Exemplary claim 1 (and similarly claims 12 and 14) recite s 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, 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 a parameter measured by the respective sensor, wherein the same parameter is measured by each of the sensors; based on the measured values and the parameter values determining and providing parameter compensated measurement results of each measurand; based on the parameter values determined by all sensors determining at least one parameter property exhibited by the parameter at the measuring point; monitoring 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; and providing a corresponding 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,” 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” language, “ contin uously or repeatedly determining … measured values of at least one of the measurands of the medium and parameter values of a parameter measured … , wherein the same parameter is measured … ; based on the measured values and the parameter values determining … parameter compensated measurement results of each measurand; 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 ” 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 each measurand… ” 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 , t he claim s only recite a few additional element s – “sensors”, “computing means” (claim 12), “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) ) . 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 element of “ 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” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, the background does not provide any indication that 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 anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer component s . For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Independent claim s 1 4 and 15 are directed to a computer program as described in the preamble. It is not clear what structure is included or excluded by the claim language. The claimed invention could be purely software. Software per se is not patentable under § 101; therefore, the claimed invention does not fall within a statutory class of patentable subject matter. See MPEP 2106.01. Examiner recommends cancelling claim 15 and amending claim 14 to: “A computer program product comprising a computer program and at least one non-transitory computer readable medium, wherein at least the computer program is stored on the non-transitory computer readable medium, and wherein the computer program comprises comprising instructions which, when the program is executed by a computer, cause the computer to carry out a method, based on data given by or including [[the]] measured values of [[the]] measurands of a medium and [[the]] parameter values of [[the]] parameter provided by [[the]] sensors and their time of measurement within a water supply network , wherein the method includes:” . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. Claim s 1 - 8 and 10 - 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0190673 A1 to Vaissiere et al . (“Vaissiere”) in view of German Publication No. 10 2021 116 962 A1 to Rolver et al . (“Rolver”) . As per claims 1 , 12 , 14 and 15 , the claimed subject matter that is met by Vaissiere includes: 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, the method comprising the steps of ( Vaissiere: ¶¶ 0010 “ said exposure of said surface(s) to said product(s) each object is susceptible to an impairment caused by at least one of: accretion, abrasion and/or corrosion, and said piping system is operable in a first mode, wherein said pipe is filled with a first medium, ”, 0042-0044 “ at least one sensor … a temperature sensor …. a pressure sensor ” , 0110-0111 and 0174 and Abstract ) : 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 a parameter measured by the respective sensor, wherein the same parameter is measured by each of the sensors ( Vaissiere: ¶¶ 0011 and 0093-0094 “ said degree of impairment of at least one of said object(s) is determined at least once, continuously or repeatedly based on a comparison of at least one property and/or an average of measured frequencies comprised in a first set of measurement data comprising most recently measured frequencies each measured during one of the first time intervals and a reference value predetermined for the property ” and 0145-0146) ; based on the measured values and the parameter values determining and providing parameter compensated measurement results of each measurand ( Vaissiere: ¶¶ 0045-0046 “ based on at least one of the measured variables, performing a compensation of a dependency of the measured frequencies measured by the vibratory device on the respective variable(s) ” and 0174 “ The measured variables p(t), T(t) measured by the sensors 19, 21 are preferably applied to compensate a dependency of the measured frequencies f(t) measured by the vibratory device 3 on the respective variable p(t), T(t). These compensations are preferably performed based on calibration data determined for the vibratory device 3 representing a dependency of the measured frequency f(t) on the respective variable p(t), T(t). They are e.g. performed by the measurement unit 9 of the vibratory device 3 connected to the respective sensor 19, 21, or by the super-ordinated unit 13, the edge device 15 or the calculating unit 11 provided with the measured frequencies f(t) and the measured variables p(t), T(t). In this case, the compensated measured frequencies are applied as measured frequencies f(t) throughout the monitoring method ”) ; based on the parameter values determined by all sensors determining at least one parameter property exhibited by the parameter at the measuring point ( Vaissiere: ¶¶ 0093 and 0142-0144) ; monitoring 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 ( Vaissiere: ¶¶ 0010 and 0173-0175 ; and providing a corresponding monitoring result ( Vaissiere: ¶¶ 0018 “ determining and providing at least one of the monitoring results ”, 0028 and 0176) . Vaissiere fails to specifically teach at least two sensors installed in proximity to each other at a measuring point . The Examiner provides Rolver to teach and disclose this claimed feature. The claimed subject matter that is met by Rolver includes: 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, the method comprising the steps of ( Rolver: ¶ 0019 “one or more sensors of the sensor arrangement can be located in the immediate vicinity of the active centrifugal separator. This arrangement of one or more sensors in the sensor array also allows for the detection of condition parameters that may lead to a functional impairment or damage to the centrifugal separator” ) 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 a parameter measured by the respective sensor, wherein the same parameter is measured by each of the sensors ( Rolver: ¶¶ 0019-0020) Vaissiere teache s a system and method for monitoring a medium in a piping system . Rolver teaches a comparable system and method for monitoring a medium in a piping system that was improved in the same way as the claimed invention. Rolver offers the embodiment of a set of at least two sensors installed in proximity to each other at a measuring point . One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the adaptation of the set of at least two sensors installed in proximity to each other at a measuring point as disclosed by Rolver to the stem and method for monitoring a medium in a piping system as taught by Vaissiere for the predicted result of improved systems and methods for monitoring a medium in a piping system . No ad ditional findings are seen to be necessary. As per claim 2 , the claimed subject matter that is met by Vaissiere and Rolver includes: wherein: monitoring the parameter measurements includes for at least one or each detected impairment identifying the sensor performing impaired parameter measurements that caused the detection of the respective impairment as an impaired sensor; and/or providing the monitoring result includes for at least one or each detected impairment issuing a warning or an alarm, providing and/or indicating a general notification, that the parameter measurements are impaired, providing and/or indicating a notification, that the parameter measurements performed by the identified impaired sensor(s) are impaired, and/or indicating the identified impaired sensor(s); and/or a replacement or repair of the identified impaired sensor(s) is scheduled to be performed and/or performed immediately or at a later point in time ( Vaissiere: ¶¶ 0048-0049 and 0175 ) . The motivation for combining the teachings of Vaissiere and Rolver are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and are incorporated herein. As per claim 3 , the claimed subject matter that is met by Vaissiere and Rolver includes: wherein: the at least one parameter property includes a first parameter property given by a parameter reference value continuously or repeatedly determined as or based on a median or an average of the parameter values simultaneously determined by all sensors; and the method step of monitoring the parameter measurements includes for each sensor determining an impairment of the parameter measurements performed by the respective sensor when the parameter values determined by the respective sensor deviate from the corresponding parameter reference values by more than a predetermined tolerance ( Vaissiere: ¶¶ 0074, 0093, 0143 , 0149 and 0173 ) . The motivation for combining the teachings of Vaissiere and Rolver are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and are incorporated herein. As per claim 4 , the claimed subject matter that is met by Vaissiere and Rolver includes: wherein: the at least one parameter property includes a second parameter property given by a reference distribution exhibited by the values of the parameter at the locations of the sensors at the measuring point; the second parameter property is determined based on training data including the parameter values provided by the sensors during a training time interval; and during monitoring an impairment of the parameter measurements is detected when a vector or a time series of vectors formed by the parameter values simultaneously measured by all sensors occurs outside the reference distribution ( Vaissiere: ¶¶ 0145-0149 ) . The motivation for combining the teachings of Vaissiere and Rolver are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and are incorporated herein. As per claim 5 , the claimed subject matter that is met by Vaissiere and Rolver includes: wherein: the reference distribution is determined as or based on a cluster consisting of cluster points given by vectors formed by the parameter values simultaneously measured by all sensors at a multitude of different points in time during the training time interval; and/or for at least one or each impairment detected based on the second parameter property at least one of the sensors performing impaired parameter measurements that cause the vector(s) to occur outside the reference distribution is identified as an impaired sensor based on a direction in which the vector(s) exceed the reference distribution. The motivation for combining the teachings of Vaissiere and Rolver are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and are incorporated herein. As per claim 6 , the claimed subject matter that is met by Vaissiere and Rolver includes: wherein: the at least one parameter property includes third parameter properties given by reference correlations between the values of the parameter at the locations of the sensors; the third parameter properties are determined based on training data including the parameter values provided by the sensors during a training time interval by determining the reference correlations as or based on the correlations between the parameter values measured by the sensors during the training time interval; and based on the third parameter properties an impairment of the parameter measurements is detected when correlations between the parameter values measured by the sensors deviate from the corresponding reference correlations by more than a predetermined threshold ( Vaissiere: ¶¶ 0062-0067, 0144-0149, 0152-0156 and 0162-0167 ) . The motivation for combining the teachings of Vaissiere and Rolver are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and are incorporated herein. As per claim 7 , the claimed subject matter that is met by Vaissiere and Rolver includes: wherein at least one sensor performing impaired parameter measurements that cause the correlations between the parameter values measured by the sensors to deviate from the corresponding reference correlations by more than the predetermined threshold is identified as an impaired sensor based on correlations between the parameter values of individual sub-groups or pairs of the sensors and the corresponding reference correlations ( Vaissiere: ¶¶ 0040, 0074, 0157 and 0173 ) . The motivation for combining the teachings of Vaissiere and Rolver are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and are incorporated herein. As per claim 8 , the claimed subject matter that is met by Vaissiere and Rolver includes: wherein the parameter-compensated measurement result of the measurand(s) are determined: by for each measurand performing a compensation of a parameter-dependent measurement error of the measured values of the respective measurand based on parameter reference values determined as or based on a median or an average of the parameter values simultaneously determined by all sensors; based on and/or in a manner accounting for the monitoring result; by for each measurand, that is measured by one of the sensors, that has been identified as an impaired sensor performing impaired parameter measurements, determining the parameter-compensated measurement results based on the parameter reference values and by for each other measurand determining the parameter-compensated measurement results based on the parameter values provided by the sensor measuring the respective measurand; by during time intervals during which no impairment of the parameter measurements is detected, determining the parameter-compensated measurement results of each measurand based on the parameter values provided by the sensor measuring the respective measurand and during time intervals during which an impairment of the parameter measurements is detected, determining the parameter-compensated measurement results of each measurand based on the parameter reference values; or determining the parameter-compensated measurement result of each measurand that is measured by an impaired sensor based on the parameter values measured by at least one or each presently unimpaired sensor, in particular based on mean parameter values given by a mean or an average of the parameter values simultaneously determined by the unimpaired sensors, or based on extrapolated parameter values of the parameter at the location of the respective impaired sensor, wherein the extrapolated parameter values are determined based on the positions of the sensors and the parameter values measured by the unimpaired sensor(s), and wherein each presently impaired sensor is provided by or determined based on the monitoring result and each unimpaired sensor is given by one of the sensors that is presently not identified as an impaired sensor ( Vaissiere: ¶¶ 0045-0046 “ based on at least one of the measured variables, performing a compensation of a dependency of the measured frequencies measured by the vibratory device on the respective variable(s) ” and 0174 “ The measured variables p(t), T(t) measured by the sensors 19, 21 are preferably applied to compensate a dependency of the measured frequencies f(t) measured by the vibratory device 3 on the respective variable p(t), T(t). These compensations are preferably performed based on calibration data determined for the vibratory device 3 representing a dependency of the measured frequency f(t) on the respective variable p(t), T(t). They are e.g. performed by the measurement unit 9 of the vibratory device 3 connected to the respective sensor 19, 21, or by the super-ordinated unit 13, the edge device 15 or the calculating unit 11 provided with the measured frequencies f(t) and the measured variables p(t), T(t). In this case, the compensated measured frequencies are applied as measured frequencies f(t) throughout the monitoring method ”) . The motivation for combining the teachings of Vaissiere and Rolver are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and are incorporated herein. As per claim 11 , the claimed subject matter that is met by Vaissiere and Rolver includes: further including the method step of: with a measurement device determining and providing parameter values of the parameter of the medium entering or exiting the measuring point; based on training data including the parameter values of the parameter determined by the measurement device and the parameter values determined by the sensors determining reference correlations between the values of the parameter at the different locations of the sensors at the measuring point and the values of the parameter at the position of the measurement device; based on the refence correlations detecting a correlation impairment when the correlations between the parameter values determined by the measurement device and the parameter values measured by the sensors deviate from the corresponding reference correlations by more than a predetermined threshold; and performing at least one of: issuing a warning or an alarm when a correlation impairment is detected, indicating at least one or each detected correlation impairment and/or providing a notification informing about the detected correlation impairment ( Vaissiere: ¶¶ 0021 and 014 3-0146 ) . The motivation for combining the teachings of Vaissiere and Rolver are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and are incorporated herein. As per claim 13 , the claimed subject matter that is met by Vaissiere and Rolver includes: wherein: the measurement system is a liquid analysis system; the sensors include a chlorine sensor, a pH-sensor, an oxidation reduction potential sensor, a conductivity sensor, a spectral absorption sensor, and/or a sensor measuring a pressure, a density, a turbidity, a concentration of an analyte comprised in the medium, an oxygen content, an ammonium content, a phosphor content or at least one other measurand; the sensors are installed or configured to be installed next to each other on a flow through cell conducting the medium; the computing means is entirely or at least partially included in a transmitter, a superordinate unit, an edge device and/or in the cloud; the computing means is configured to determine the compensated measurement results of the measurands based on and/or in a manner accounting for the monitoring result, and/or the measurement system includes: a transmitter, a superordinate unit and/or an edge device connected to and/or communicating with each sensor and/or configured to determine and/or to provide the measurement results and/or the monitoring result; a least one interface providing the measurement results and/or at least parts of the monitoring result; at least one display displaying the measurement results and/or at least parts of the monitoring result; and/or at least one measurement device configured to continuously or repeatedly determine and to provide parameter values of the parameter of the medium entering or exiting the measuring point ( Vaissiere: ¶¶ 0146-0147 and 0174 ) . The motivation for combining the teachings of Vaissiere and Rolver are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and are incorporated herein. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 9 is 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 and amended to overcome the rejection under 35 USC 101. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Hunter Wilder whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7948 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Florian Zeender can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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