DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This Final Office Action is responsive to Applicant's reply filed 9/4/2026.
Claims 1, 11, and 17 have been amended.
Claims 1-6, 8-13, and 15-21 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 Amendments
The previously pending 35 USC 103 rejection is withdrawn in response to Applicant’s claim amendments. See below for reasoning.
Applicant’s amendments have been fully considered, but do not overcome the previously pending 35 USC 101 rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the limitations of claims 1-6, 8-13, and 15-21, Applicant argues that the claims are patent eligible under 35 USC 101 because the pending claims are not directed toward an abstract idea. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner has already set forth a prima facie case under 35 USC 101. The Examiner has clearly pointed out the limitations directed towards the abstract idea, what the additional elements are and why they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and why the additional elements and remaining limitations do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The Applicant’s claims are running an analysis (e.g. the abstract idea) on a general purpose computer to allow a human to interpret the analysis and make decisions, where the decisions being made are for commercial purposes, which is Organizing Human Activity (See MPEP 2106.05). The Examiner asserts that the claimed valve controller is recited at such a high level of generality that it merely adds the words apply it with the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.05). The Examiner further points to the specification which makes no mention of opening and closing a valve, but rather generic recitation of control of a valve, which shows how high level and generic the valve control actually is (See Paragraph 0105). The Examiner also notes that the characterizations and tolerances further narrow the abstract idea. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
The Examiner asserts that analyzing water resources to determine operational levels and operational constraints and matching resources based on the analysis is the abstract idea. See rejection below for more details. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner again asserts that the claimed valve controller is recited at such a high level of generality that it merely adds the words apply it with the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.05). The Examiner further points to the specification which makes no mention of opening and closing a valve, but rather generic recitation of control of a valve, which shows how high level and generic the valve control actually is (See Paragraph 0105). The Examiner also asserts that only general purpose computer components are recited, where the claims do not even recite an arrangement of components, but rather generic use of software run using a processor. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are related to Example 45. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Example 45 involved a mathematical relationship that specifically controlled how the rubber mold machine operated. Applicant’s claims recite generic use of a processor and a valve for performing an analysis on water resources and recite no specifics on how the valve is actually controlled. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims amount to significantly more, with reference to Berkheimer. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant does not properly identify the additional elements. The Applicant does not point out what arrangement amounts to significantly more. The Examiner refers to the rejection below, which provides a full analysis and reasoning of why the claims are not eligible. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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 1-6, 8-13, and 15-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter;
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
In the instant case (Step 1), claims 11-13 and 15-16 are directed toward a process, claims 17-20 are directed toward a product, and claims 1-6, 8-10, and 21 are directed toward a system; which are statutory categories of invention.
Additionally (Step 2A Prong One), the independent claims are directed toward a water resource management (WRM) tool comprising: an identifier, executed by a processor, to generate data identifying a set of alternative water resources for a project of a plurality of projects based on data characterizing a location of the project using a water resource and data characterizing a set of water characterizations of the water resource, wherein the set of alternative water resources includes a given alternative water resource having respective water characterizations outside of a tolerance specified by the set of water characterizations of the water resource; a matcher, executed by the processor, to match, using a matching model, one or more treatments to each alternative water resource of the set of alternative water resources by comparing treatment parameters of the one or more treatments to the set of water characterizations to determine whether use of the one or more treatments on each alternative water resource results in the alternative water resource having water characterizations that are within the tolerance, wherein the treatment parameters include operational levels and operational constraints of the one or more treatments, wherein the given alternative water resource is matched to one or more treatments to have the respective water characterizations within the tolerance; a levelized value engine, executed by the processor, to determine a levelized value for the water resource based on the data identifying the set of alternative water resources, data characterizing the one or more treatments matched by the matcher to each alternative water resource, and data characterizing one or more expenditures of respective water treatments and transportation for each alternative water resource, the determined levelized value being used to cause the given alternative water resource to be delivered to the project and to replace the water resource, wherein the determined levelized value of the water resource indicates the water resource has a quantity or quality of water that is less than a threshold level corresponding to the one or more of the set of alternative water resources; and a valve controller, executed by the processor, to control one or more valves supplying water resources to the project by opening or closing the one or more valves to disable flow of the water resource to the project when the determined levelized value is less than the threshold level and enable flow of the given alternative water resource to the project (Organizing Human Activity), which are considered to be abstract ideas (See MPEP 2106.05). The steps/functions disclosed above and in the independent claims are directed toward the abstract idea of Organizing Human Activity because the claimed limitations are analyzing project data and water resource data to compare costs of different treatments of water to a project and usages of alternative water resources for optimization purposes involving costs and transportation, which is a commercial interaction.
Dependent claims 2-10, 12-16, and 18-21 further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, where any additional elements introduced are discussed below.
Step 2A Prong Two: In this application, even if not directed toward the abstract idea, the independent claims additionally recite “a water resource management (WRM) tool comprising: an identifier, executed by a processor; a matcher, executed by the processor; and a levelized value engine, executed by the processor; a valve controller, executed by the processor, to control one or more valves supplying water resources to the project by opening or closing the one or more valves to disable flow of the water resource to the project and enable flow of the given alternative water resource to the project (claim 1)”; “controlling, via a valve controller, one or more valves supplying water resources to the project by opening or closing the one or more valves to disable flow of the at least one water resource to the project and enable flow of the given alternative water resource to the project (claim 11)”; “non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer-executable instructions, which, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to; control, by a valve controller, one or more valves supplying water resources to the project by opening or closing the one or more valves to disable flow of the at least one water resource to the project and enable flow of the given alternative water resource to the project (claim 17)”, which are additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because the claimed structure is recited at such a high level of generality that it merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (See MPEP 2106.05) and are recited at such a high level of generality. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements in the claims do no more than use the computer components as a tool. There is no change to the computer or other technology that is recited in the claim, and thus the claims do not improve computer functionality or other technology.
In addition, dependent claims 2-10, 12-16, and 18-21 further narrow the abstract idea and dependent claims 8, 10, 15, and 19 additionally recite “control one or more valves (claim 19); a trainer (claim 8); to train the matching model (claims 8 and 15); a technology costs database (claim 10)” also do not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because the claimed structure merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (See MPEP 2106.05).
Step 2B: When analyzing the additional element(s) and/or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se the claim limitations amount(s) to no more than: a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment and merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer (See MPEP 2106.05). Further, method; System; and Product Independent claims 1, 11, and 17 recite “a water resource management (WRM) tool comprising: an identifier, executed by a processor; a matcher, executed by the processor; and a levelized value engine, executed by the processor; a valve controller, executed by the processor, to control one or more valves supplying water resources to the project by opening or closing the one or more valves to disable flow of the water resource to the project and enable flow of the given alternative water resource to the project (claim 1)”; “controlling, via a valve controller, one or more valves supplying water resources to the project by opening or closing the one or more valves to disable flow of the at least one water resource to the project and enable flow of the given alternative water resource to the project (claim 11)”; “non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer-executable instructions, which, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to; control, by a valve controller, one or more valves supplying water resources to the project by opening or closing the one or more valves to disable flow of the at least one water resource to the project and enable flow of the given alternative water resource to the project (claim 17)”; however, these elements merely facilitate the claimed functions at a high level of generality and they perform conventional functions and are considered to be general purpose computer components which is supported by Applicant’s specification in Paragraphs 0092-0099 and Figures 10. The Applicant’s claimed additional elements are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a general purpose computer and generally link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. When viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
In addition, claims 2-10, 12-16, and 18-21 further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims. The Examiner notes that the dependent claims merely further define the data being analyzed and how the data is being analyzed. Similarly, claims 8, 10, 15, and 19 additionally recite “control one or more valves (claim 19); a trainer (claim 8); to train the matching model (claims 8 and 15); a technology costs database (claim 10)” which do not account for additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the claimed structure merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer and does not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (See MPEP 2106.05). The additional limitations of the independent and dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The examiner has considered the dependent claims in a full analysis including the additional limitations individually and in combination as analyzed in the independent claim(s). Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Allowable over 35 USC 103
Claims 1-6, 8-13, and 15-21 are allowable over the prior art, but remain rejected under §101 for the reasons set forth above. Independent claims 1, 11, and 17 disclose a system, product, and method for identifying water resources for a project based on tolerances, matching treatments to the water resources to manage operational levels and constraints, determine levelized values for the water resource based on the characterization to determine if the quantity and quality of the water resource are above a threshold, and controlling flow of the water resource to the project.
Regarding a possible 103 rejection: The closest prior art of record is:
Mauter et al. (US 2024/0010537 A1) – which discloses optimization of a water system and management of the water system (See previous OA citations).
Shirazi (US 2021/0118057 A1) – which discloses fresh water price index calculations based on quality (See previous OA citations).
CN117236788B – which discloses water usage analysis (See previous OA citations).
The prior art of record neither teaches nor suggests all particulars of the limitations as recited in claims 1, 11, and 17, such as identifying water resources for a project based on tolerances, matching treatments to the water resources to manage operational levels and constraints, determine levelized values for the water resource based on the characterization to determine if the quantity and quality of the water resource are above a threshold, and controlling flow of the water resource to the project. While individual features may be known per se, there is no teaching or suggestion absent applicants’ own disclosure to combine these features other than with impermissible hindsight and the combination/arrangement of features are not found in analogous art. Specifically the claimed “a water resource management (WRM) tool comprising: an identifier, executed by a processor, to generate data identifying a set of alternative water resources for a project of a plurality of projects based on data characterizing a location of the project using a water resource and data characterizing a set of water characterizations of the water resource, wherein the set of alternative water resources includes a given alternative water resource having respective water characterizations outside of a tolerance specified by the set of water characterizations of the water resource; a matcher, executed by the processor, to match, using a matching model, one or more treatments to each alternative water resource of the set of alternative water resources by comparing treatment parameters of the one or more treatments to the set of water characterizations to determine whether use of the one or more treatments on each alternative water resource results in the alternative water resource having water characterizations that are within the tolerance, wherein the treatment parameters include operational levels and operational constraints of the one or more treatments, wherein the given alternative water resource is matched to one or more treatments to have the respective water characterizations within the tolerance; a levelized value engine, executed by the processor, to determine a levelized value for the water resource based on the data identifying the set of alternative water resources, data characterizing the one or more treatments matched by the matcher to each alternative water resource, and data characterizing one or more expenditures of respective water treatments and transportation for each alternative water resource, the determined levelized value being used to cause the given alternative water resource to be delivered to the project and to replace the water resource, wherein the determined levelized value of the water resource indicates the water resource has a quantity or quality of water that is less than a threshold level corresponding to the one or more of the set of alternative water resources; and a valve controller, executed by the processor, to control one or more valves supplying water resources to the project by opening or closing the one or more valves to disable flow of the water resource to the project when the determined levelized value is less than the threshold level (as required by independent claims 1, 11, and 17)”, thus rendering claims 1, 11, 17 and their dependent claims as allowable over the prior art.
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.
The prior art made of record, but not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is listed on the attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW D HENRY whose telephone number is (571)270-0504. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 9AM-5PM.
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.
/MATTHEW D HENRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
