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 .
Claims 1-10 are cancelled.
Claims 11-23 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 21 start with “the method of claim 11, ……………………………………...a computer connected to a computer- readable storage medium having computer-readable program code portions embedded therein, the computer-readable program code portions when executed by the computer configured to cause the computer to perform the method steps of claim 11”. If it depends on claim 11, then why in the last line it recites “computer to perform the method steps of claim 11”. Claim also uses “a computer- readable storage medium” but should be written as “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” like claim 20. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
6. 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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
At step 1, the claim recites a method comprising a combination of “determining…”, “determining…”, “determining…” and “determining…” is a process, which is a statutory category of invention.
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “determining a Precipitation Inflow character (IN-RAIN) of the pump station representative of the inflow of the influent liquid to the pump station originating from the theoretical or actual Precipitation Event in the area of the pump station”, “determining a Dry Inflow character (IN-DRY) of the pump station representative of the inflow of the influent liquid to the pump station not originating from the theoretical or actual Precipitation Events, determining the Pump Station Max Capacity (PSMC) value representative of a maximum output capacity of the pump station”, and “determining the Pump Station Capacity Measure (PSCM) value based on: a maximum value of the Precipitation Inflow character MAX(IN-RAIN), a maximum value of the Dry Inflow character MAX(IN-DRY), and the Pump Station Max Capacity (PSMC)”. These limitations - recite a mental process – that is a concept which may be performed in the human mind, such as an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion. (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).) These claims may also be a recitation of a mathematical concept, i.e. a mathematical calculation. Specification page 3-4 discloses mathematical equation to determine a pump station capacity. Notwithstanding the recitation of generic computer components, the Courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained, "[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind." (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “a tank for temporary storage of a liquid, an inlet for influent liquid, an outlet, and at least one pump configured for transporting the liquid away from the tank via the outlet”.
The determining a Pump Station Capacity Measure (PSCM) value comprising tank, inlet, outlet of tank and pump are recited in the claim is an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). The limitation determining is a high level of generality. Therefore, it is insignificant extra-solution activity (see 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, 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 “determining a Pump Station Capacity Measure (PSCM) value” no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 12, recites the limitations “wherein: the maximum value of the Precipitation Inflow character MAX(IN-RAIN) corresponds to a Precipitation Value (RAIN) representative of a period having heaviest precipitation during the theoretical or actual Precipitation Event in the area of the pump station, using a predetermined correlation function; and the maximum value of the Precipitation Inflow character MAX(IN-RAIN) is proportional to the Precipitation Value (RAIN)”. It’s a mathematical or mental process and an insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP § 2106.07(a) and 2106.04(a).
Claim 13, recites the limitations “wherein:the correlation function includes correlation factors a, b, and c, and a correlation formula MAX(IN-RAIN) = a * (RAIN) ^ b - c, and;the correlation factors a, b and c are predetermined, and based on historical Precipitation Events in the area of the pump station”. Which is a mathematical concept and can be done using pen and paper ((see MPEP § 2106.07(a) and 2106.04(a).
Claim 14, recites the limitations “wherein the Precipitation Value (RAIN) is equal to a time segment having the heaviest precipitation during the theoretical or actual Precipitation Event, or is equal to an average time segment value determined from a plurality of time segments including the time segment having the heaviest precipitation during the theoretical or actual Precipitation Event”, it’s an insignificant extra solution activity (data gathering). Thus, this claim recites an abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Claim 15, recites the limitations “wherein the Precipitation Inflow character (IN-RAIN) during the Precipitation Event is determined per time segment using a formula:(IN-RAIN) = (IN) - NORM(IN-DRY), wherein the normal Dry Inflow character NORM(IN-DRY) is representative of a normal inflow of the influent liquid to the pump station per time segment, during periods lacking the theoretical or actual Precipitation Event in the area of the pump station, and wherein the Inflow value (IN) is representative of a total inflow of the influent liquid to the pump station per time segment during the Precipitation Event”, it’s an insignificant extra solution activity (data gathering). Thus, this claim recites an abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Claim 16, recites the limitations “wherein the Inflow value (IN) is determined by sub-steps of: determining a rest-time (REST) required for a liquid level in the tank to rise from a pump stop liquid level (STOP) to a pump start liquid level (START) when all pumps of the at least one pump are inactive, and determining the Inflow value (IN) by dividing the volume value (V) by the determined rest-time (REST), [V / REST], wherein the volume value (V) is a liquid volume in the tank between the pump start liquid level (START) and the pump stop liquid level (STOP)”. It’s a mathematical or mental process and an insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP § 2106.07(a) and 2106.04(a).
Claim 17, recites the limitations “wherein the maximum value of the Dry Inflow character MAX(IN-DRY) is representative of a time segment having the expected highest inflow of the influent liquid to the pump station originating outside Precipitation Events”. It’s a mathematical or mental process and an insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP § 2106.07(a) and 2106.04(a).
Claim 18, recites the limitations “wherein the Pump Station Capacity Measure (PSCM) is determined using a PSCM formula:PSCM = 100 * MAX(IN) / PSMC, wherein the maximum Inflow MAX(IN) is representative of a total inflow of the influent liquid to the pump station in response to the determined maximum value of the Precipitation Inflow character MAX(IN-RAIN) coinciding with the maximum value of the Dry Inflow character MAX(IN-DRY) using a maximum Inflow formula:MAX(IN) = MAX(IN-RAIN) + MAX(IN-DRY)”. It’s a mathematical or mental process and an insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP § 2106.07(a) and 2106.04(a).
Claim 19, recites the limitations “wherein the step of determining the Pump Station Max Capacity (PSMC) comprises sub-steps of:determining a run-time (RUN) required for a liquid level in the tank to lower from a pump start liquid level (START) to a pump stop liquid level (STOP) when all pumps of the at least one pump in the pump station are active concurrently and operated at maximum operational speed, and determining the Pump Station Max Capacity data (PSMC) representative of the maximum output capacity of the pump station by dividing a volume (V) by the determined run-time (RUN) and adding Inflow (IN) that is representative for the total inflow of liquid to the pump station per time segment, using a PSMC expression (V / RUN) + IN, wherein the volume (V) is a liquid volume in the tank between the pump start liquid level (START) and the pump stop liquid level (STOP)”. It’s a mathematical or mental process and an insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP § 2106.07(a) and 2106.04(a).
Claim 20, has similar limitation as of claim 11 with non-transitory, computer-readable medium which is an insignificant extra solution activity. Thus, this claim recites an abstract idea (see claim rejection 11).
Claim 21, recites the limitations “ wherein the pump station further comprises a control unit connected to the plurality of pumps and to at least one sensor operatively mounted on the pump station, the at least one sensor selected from the group consisting of: one or more liquid level sensors configured to measure a liquid level in the tank, a flowmeter configured to measure the inflow, and a flowmeter configured to measure outflow, the control unit comprising or connected to a computer connected to a computer- readable storage medium having computer-readable program code portions embedded therein, the computer-readable program code portions when executed by the computer configured to cause the computer to perform the method steps of claim 11”, it’s an insignificant extra solution activity (data gathering). Thus, this claim recites an abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) (see claim 11 also).
Claim 22, recites the limitations “further comprising monitoring and comparing the PSCM value over time for a plurality of pump stations and determining from the monitoring and comparison if any of the pump stations has an output capacity shortage risk”, it’s an insignificant extra solution activity (data gathering). Thus, this claim recites an abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Claim 23, recites the limitations “further comprising monitoring and comparing the PSCM value over time for a plurality of pump stations in a pumping network, and prioritizing investments in the pumping network based upon the monitoring and comparison”, it’s an insignificant extra solution activity (data gathering). Thus, this claim recites an abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-23 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and listed on the attached PTO Form 892 but not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tamura et al USPGPUB 20090291337 A1 an apparatus including a reformer which performs a reforming reaction using a material and steam to generate hydrogen-containing gas; a water evaporator which generates the steam supplied to the reformer; a first water pathway through which reforming water to be supplied to the water evaporator flows; a pump which supplies the reforming water to the water evaporator 1a; a second water pathway 7 branching from the first water pathway on the downstream side of the pump; a first water tank to which the water flowing through the second water pathway flows; a first flow rate controller provided on the second water pathway; and a controller which operates the pump and controls the first flow rate controller so that water flows through the second water pathway, thereby stably generating hydrogen and preventing degradation of the reformer thereof is realized.
Kreiselmaier USPGPUB 20130287943 A1 teaches a device for the internal treatment of pipes, in particular for coolant tubes of steam condensers and heat exchangers, comprising a supply unit (V) for feeding and conveying treatment media, an application unit (A) to apply the treatment media fed in by the supply unit, as well as a control unit to monitor and control the supplied treatment media and the application of treatment media to the inner wall of the pipes, wherein the application unit (A) is provided with a guiding hose (21) through which an application hose (18) extends designed so as to be inserted into the pipe to be treated, said application hose (18) terminating in a nozzle, wherein the application hose (18) can be wound up in a single layer on a driven reel (17) and secured on the reel (17) by means of tensioning belts, the application hose (18) is capable of moving forward and back via guide rollers (27) arranged on a traversing carriage (55), the guide rollers (27) are powered by a drive operating synchronously with the drive (19) of the reel (17), and the traversing carriage (55) moves parallelly to the reel axis relative to the extended position of the application hose (18).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZIAUL KARIM whose telephone number is (571)270-3279. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8:00-4:00 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mohammad Ali can be reached on 571 272 4105. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ZIAUL KARIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2119