DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/16/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This is in reply to the claim amendments and remarks of the RCE filed 3/16/2026.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 8-12, 15-18, and 20 have been amended, claims 7 and 14 have been cancelled and claim 21 has been added new.
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The previously pending 35 USC 112 rejection is withdrawn in response to Applicant’s claim amendments.
Applicant’s amendments have been fully considered, but do not overcome the previously pending 35 USC 103 and 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). 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). Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims amount to significantly more, but provides no reasoning. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
With regard to the limitations of claims 1-6, 8-13, and 15-21, Applicant argues that the claims are allowable over 35 USC 103 because the claim amendments overcome the current art rejection. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Please see the updated rejection below since amendments by Applicant require additional reference to the Examiner’s art rejection.
Applicant argues the matching step is not taught by the cited prior art. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner asserts that Shirazi teaches 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 a tolerance specified by the set of water characterizations, wherein the treatment parameters include operational levels and operational constraints of the one or more treatments (See Figure 1, Paragraph 0069 – “optionally treat (e.g. add chlorine, fluoride or other supplements)”, Paragraph 0097-0100 – “pH of domestic water must not be too low … domestic water should not be too hard … drinking water standards do not allow high TDS”, Table 2, Paragraph 0118 – “Toxins must be within drinking water standards”, and Paragraph 0163 – “matching each of at least one water quality category in a plurality of water quality categories with at least one root commodity of the plurality of root commodities. The matching or associating may be such that a quality of water (i) that is used in production of the root commodity and/or (ii) that is constituent in the root commodity, meets (or in other preferred embodiments is related to) water quality standards of the respective water quality category”). Applicant does not argue what is deficient in the teachings of Shirazi, but rather merely generically states its not taught. The Examiner further notes that there is no actual treatment being performed in Applicant’s claims, but rather generic analysis of potential treatments, which is taught by Shirazi. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues operational characteristics of the one or more treatments is not taught by the cited prior art. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Shirazi Paragraphs 0069, 0097-0100, 0118, and 0163 at least teach this limitation word for word. The Examiner notes how broad the limitation “operational characteristics” actually is. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
The Examiner notes that Applicant’s claims only recite use of the valve when the water level is low, which is exactly what Mauter is doing. The limitation is taught word for word. The Examiner further notes that Applicant’s specification makes no mention of any specifics of how the valve is controlled and does not even recite opening and closing, which is just inherent that control of a valve is opening and closing. The Examiner has applied prior art based on BRI of Applicant’s claims and specification. 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; 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 a tolerance specified by the set of water characterizations, wherein the treatment parameters include operational levels and operational constraints of the one or more treatments; 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, and data characterizing one or more expenditures of water treatment and transportation for each alternative water resource, the determined levelized value being used to cause one or more of the set of alternative water resources 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 enable or disable flow of the at least one water resource to the project when the determined levelized value is less than the threshold level (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, 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 enable or disable flow of the at least one water resource to the project (claim 1)”; “controlling, via a valve controller, one or valves supplying water resources to the project by opening or closing the one or more valves to enable or disable flow of the at least one 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 valves supplying water resources to the project by opening or closing the one or more valves to enable or disable flow of the at least one 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 enable or disable flow of the at least one water resource to the project (claim 1)”; “controlling, via a valve controller, one or valves supplying water resources to the project by opening or closing the one or more valves to enable or disable flow of the at least one 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 valves supplying water resources to the project by opening or closing the one or more valves to enable or disable flow of the at least one 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.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-6, 10-13, and 16-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shirazi (US 2021/0118057 A1) in view of Mauter et al. (US 2024/0010537 A1).
Regarding Claim 1: Shirazi teaches a water resource management (WRM) tool comprising (See Figure 6A and Paragraph 0162):
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 (See Figure 1, Figure 3, and Paragraph 0162 – “determining, using a computer processor, current prices of at least one root commodity other than water (all root commodities being other than water), each root commodity of the at least one root commodity having at least one of (i) water as a constituent in said each root commodity and (ii) water utilized in production of said each root commodity”);
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 a tolerance specified by the set of water characterizations, wherein the treatment parameters include operational levels and operational constraints of the one or more treatments (See Figure 1, Paragraph 0069 – “optionally treat (e.g. add chlorine, fluoride or other supplements)”, Paragraph 0097-0100 – “pH of domestic water must not be too low … domestic water should not be too hard … drinking water standards do not allow high TDS”, Table 2, Paragraph 0118 – “Toxins must be within drinking water standards”, and Paragraph 0163 – “matching each of at least one water quality category in a plurality of water quality categories with at least one root commodity of the plurality of root commodities. The matching or associating may be such that a quality of water (i) that is used in production of the root commodity and/or (ii) that is constituent in the root commodity, meets (or in other preferred embodiments is related to) water quality standards of the respective water quality category”);
and 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, and data characterizing one or more expenditures of water treatment and transportation for each alternative water resource (See Figure 1, Paragraph 0118, and Paragraph 0165 – “determining, using a computer processor, for each water quality category of the at least one water quality category, a current index value for fresh water meeting said each water quality category, the index value determined based on a current price of said each root commodity that was matched with said each water quality category and based on at least one of (i) a quantity of fresh water constituent in said each root commodity that was matched with said each water quality category and (ii) a quantity of fresh water used in production of said each root commodity that was matched with said each water quality category”);
the determined levelized value being used to determine transportation costs for water treatment (See Paragraph 0145 – “Packaging infrastructure, distance from markets and transportation routes may also have to be taken into account when formulating a final price for the fresh water”).
Shirazi does not specifically disclose cause one or more of the set of alternative water resources to be delivered to the project and to replace the water resource, wherein the water resource is scarce for having a quantity or quality of water that is less than the one or more of the set of alternative water resources. However, Mauter et al. further teach:
cause one or more of the set of alternative water resources 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 (See Paragraph 0030 – “optimizing water system management by calculating marginal attributes of water delivered at specific locations and times … stabilize the water grid against low pressure under periods of excessively high demand (e.g., fire, drought, among other situations) by not consuming water at that specific location and time”, Paragraph 0056, Paragraph 0074 – “volume of delivered water”, and claim 1 – “managing the water supply system based on at least the set of marginal values”);
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 enable or disable flow of the at least one water resource to the project when the determined levelized value is less than the threshold level (See Figure 1, Figure 3, Figure 5, Figure 9, See Paragraph 0030 – “optimizing water system management by calculating marginal attributes of water delivered at specific locations and times … stabilize the water grid against low pressure under periods of excessively high demand (e.g., fire, drought, among other situations) by not consuming water at that specific location and time”, Paragraph 0038 – “identify energy-consuming devices (e.g., pumps, treatment processes, pipes, valves, etc.)”, Paragraph 0059 – “solve for near-optimal operation schedules”, Paragraph 0092 – “optimizes the pumping schedule”, and Paragraph 0100 – “managing and operating a water supply system”).
The teachings of Shirazi and Mauter et al. are related because both are analyzing water resource usage to make optimization choices. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the water analysis system of Shirazi to incorporate the delivery of liquid of Mauter et al. in order to ensure the results from the analysis can be implemented for optimization purposes.
Regarding Claim 2: Shirazi in view of Mauter et al. teach the limitations of claim 1. Shirazi further teaches determine a treatment cost of treatments such that each alternative water resource is to have a set of water characterizations within a specified range of the set of water characterizations for the water resource; and determine a cost of each alternative water resource (See Paragraph 0061 – “determine current prices of at least one root commodity (the root commodities being other than water)”, Paragraph 0135, Paragraph 0140, Paragraph 0145, Paragraph 0167 – “an updateable current price of one or more root commodities and an updateable current price of fresh water of a particular (i) water quality category, (ii) water quality grade or (iii) water quality category and water quality grade, wherein the current price of the fresh water of the particular water quality is dependent on the current price of the one or more root commodities”, Paragraph 0175, and Paragraph 0188).
Shirazi do not specifically disclose wherein the levelized value engine is further configured to: determine a pumping cost for each alternative water resource based on a distance and an elevation from a treatment location to a location of the project. However, Mauter et al. further teach wherein the levelized value engine is further configured to: determine a pumping cost for each alternative water resource based on a distance and an elevation from a treatment location to a location of the project (See Paragraph 0034 – “elevation-specific variable water prices”, Paragraph 0040 – “a local groundwater source, a local surface water source, and a distant source that involves inter-basin water transfer”, and Paragraph 0057 – “MEI can be an informative metric when choosing locations to utilize alternative water sources (e.g., rainwater) or to initiate infrastructure retrofit (e.g., pipe replacement)”).
The teachings of Shirazi and Mauter et al. are related because both are analyzing water resource usage to make optimization choices. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the water analysis system of Shirazi to incorporate the delivery cost of liquid of Mauter et al. in order to ensure the results from the analysis can be implemented for optimization purposes.
Regarding Claim 3: Shirazi in view of Mauter et al. teach the limitations of claim 1. Shirazi further teaches wherein the determined levelized value is a first levelized value, and is used to cause a first alternative water resource of the set of alternative water resources to be delivered to the project, and wherein the levelized value engine is configured to determine a second levelized value for the first alternative water resource based on data identifying the set of alternative water resources, data characterizing the one or more treatments, and data characterizing one or more expenditures of water treatment and transportation for each alternative water resource, the second levelized value being used to cause a second alternative water resource of the set of alternative water resources to be delivered to the project to replace and/or supplement the first alternative water resource (See Paragraph 0061 – “determine current prices of at least one root commodity (the root commodities being other than water)”, Paragraph 0135, Paragraph 0140, Paragraph 0145, Paragraph 0167 – “an updateable current price of one or more root commodities and an updateable current price of fresh water of a particular (i) water quality category, (ii) water quality grade or (iii) water quality category and water quality grade, wherein the current price of the fresh water of the particular water quality is dependent on the current price of the one or more root commodities”, Paragraph 0175, and Paragraph 0188).
Shirazi do not specifically disclose water resources delivered to the project. However, Mauter et al. teach water resources delivered to the project (See Paragraph 0030 – “optimizing water system management by calculating marginal attributes of water delivered at specific locations and times”, Paragraph 0074 – “volume of delivered water”, and claim 1 – “managing the water supply system based on at least the set of marginal values”).
The teachings of Shirazi and Mauter et al. are related because both are analyzing water resource usage to make optimization choices. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the water analysis system of Shirazi to incorporate the delivery cost of liquid of Mauter et al. in order to ensure the results from the analysis can be implemented for optimization purposes.
Regarding Claim 4: Shirazi in view of Mauter et al. teach the limitations of claim 1. Shirazi further teaches wherein the set of water characterizations includes at least one of a total dissolved solid, a turbidity, a carbonate level, a potential of hydrogen (pH) level, a hardness, a sodium level, a chloride level, a nitrate level, a microorganism presence, a heavy metal content, a toxin content, a pollutant content, a sodium absorption rate (See Paragraph 0061 – “measuring fresh water of at least one water source with respect to chemical or physical criteria such as at least one of TDS, carbonate content, pH, hardness, sodium, chloride, nitrate, toxins and sodium absorption ratio to determine the water quality category and/or the water quality grade of fresh water from that water source”).
Regarding Claim 5: Shirazi in view of Mauter et al. teach the limitations of claim 1. Shirazi does not specifically disclose the following. However, Mauter et al. further teach wherein the levelized value engine is further configured to generate a water usage plan based on the levelized value for the water resource, the set of alternative water resources, the one or more treatments, and the one or more costs of water treatment and transportation (See Figure 1, Figure 5, Paragraph 0059 – “solve for near-optimal operation schedules”, and Paragraph 0092 – “optimizes the pumping schedule”).
The teachings of Shirazi and Mauter et al. are related because both are analyzing water resource usage to make optimization choices. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the water analysis system of Shirazi to incorporate the scheduling of Mauter et al. in order to ensure the results from the analysis can be implemented for optimization purposes.
Regarding Claim 6: Shirazi in view of Mauter et al. teach the limitations of claim 5. Shirazi does not specifically disclose the following. However, Mauter et al. further teach wherein the levelized value engine is further configured to generate at least one water resource selection command based on the water usage plan, wherein the at least one water resource selection command is to select for use by the project at least one water resource from the water resource and the set of alternative water resources (See Figure 1, Figure 5, Figure 9, Paragraph 0059 – “solve for near-optimal operation schedules”, Paragraph 0092 – “optimizes the pumping schedule”, and Paragraph 0100 – “managing and operating a water supply system”).
The teachings of Shirazi and Mauter et al. are related because both are analyzing water resource usage to make optimization choices. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the water analysis system of Shirazi to incorporate the scheduling of Mauter et al. in order to ensure the results from the analysis can be implemented for optimization purposes.
Regarding Claim 10: Shirazi in view of Mauter et al. teach the limitations of claim 1. Shirazi further teaches a technology costs database configured to receive the data characterizing the one or more treatments, wherein the data includes one or more of a plurality of water resources, water characterizations of each water resource of the plurality of water resources, a set of treatments, costs associated with each treatment of the sets of treatments, a set of technologies, or costs associated with each technology of the set of technologies (See Paragraph 0061 – “determine current prices of at least one root commodity (the root commodities being other than water)”, Paragraph 0135, Paragraph 0140, Paragraph 0145, Paragraph 0167 – “an updateable current price of one or more root commodities and an updateable current price of fresh water of a particular (i) water quality category, (ii) water quality grade or (iii) water quality category and water quality grade, wherein the current price of the fresh water of the particular water quality is dependent on the current price of the one or more root commodities”, Paragraph 0175, and Paragraph 0188).
Regarding Claims 11-13 and 16-20: Claims 11-13 and 16-20 recite limitations already addressed by the rejections of claims 1-6 and 10 above; therefore the same rejections apply.
Regarding Claim 21: Shirazi in view of Mauter et al. teach the limitations of claim 4. Shirazi further teaches wherein the one or more treatments include at least one of adsorption, air stripping, chemical oxidation and reduction, ultraviolet oxidation, photocatalysis, filtration, membrane separation, ion exchange, metal sequestration, oil water separation, pH control, precipitation, coagulation, flocculation, reclamation, disinfection, softening, reverse osmosis, electrodialysis, nano-filtration, or distillation (See Paragraphs 0068-0069, Paragraph 0118, and claims 8-9).
Claims 8-9 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shirazi (US 2021/0118057 A1) in view of Mauter et al. (US 2024/0010537 A1) and further in view of CN117236788B.
Regarding Claims 8 and 15: Shirazi in view of Mauter et al. teach the limitations of claim 1. Shirazi in view of Mauter et al. do not specifically disclose the following. However, CN117236788B further teach wherein the matching model is provided by a trainer, and wherein the trainer is configured to train the matching model based on one or more performance curves of the one or more treatments (See Paragraph 58 and Paragraph 118 – “train the model”).
The teachings of Shirazi, Mauter et al., and CN117236788B are related because all are analyzing water resource usage to make optimization choices. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the water analysis system of Shirazi in view of Mauter et al. to incorporate the artificial intelligence of CN117236788B in order to ensure the system can properly analyze new data to keep the results optimized.
Regarding Claim 9: Shirazi in view of Mauter et al. and further in view of CN117236788B teach the limitations of claim 8. Shirazi further teaches wherein the trainer is further configured to update the matching model based on the levelized value for the water resource, a set of project parameters, data associated with the one or more treatments, or a combination thereof (See Figure 1, Paragraph 0163 – “matching each of at least one water quality category in a plurality of water quality categories with at least one root commodity of the plurality of root commodities. The matching or associating may be such that a quality of water (i) that is used in production of the root commodity and/or (ii) that is constituent in the root commodity, meets (or in other preferred embodiments is related to) water quality standards of the respective water quality category”, and Paragraph 0167 – “an updateable current price of one or more root commodities and an updateable current price of fresh water of a particular (i) water quality category, (ii) water quality grade or (iii) water quality category and water quality grade, wherein the current price of the fresh water of the particular water quality is dependent on the current price of the one or more root commodities”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, but not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure is listed on the attached PTO-892 and should be taken into account / considered by the Applicant upon reviewing this office action.
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.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, BRIAN EPSTEIN can be reached on (571)-270-5389. 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.
/MATTHEW D HENRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights