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 .
Status of the Application
This final office action is in response to the amendment filed on 1/21/2026. Claims 1 and 8 are currently amended. Claims 4-7 are cancelled. Claims 10-24 have been added. Claims 1-3 and 8-24 are currently pending and have been examined below.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 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 1-3 and 8-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Per step 1 of the eligibility analysis set forth in MPEP § 2106, subsection III, the claims are directed towards a process, machine, or manufacture.
Per step 2A Prong One, Claim 1 recites specific limitations which fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) as follows:
receiving known attribute information for each component of a network system, the components of the network system including a first plurality of pipes, a second plurality of pipes different from the first plurality of pipes, and a plurality of supply-side structures, wherein
at least one component of the network system is connected to another component of the network system;
the network system comprises physical infrastructure for distribution of a utility resource;
the known attribute information for the first plurality of pipes includes, for each respective pipe in the first plurality of pipes;
respective location information for the respective pipe;
a respective value for a first characteristic for the first respective pipe, wherein the first characteristic is a characteristic other than location, wherein the first characteristic describes a
physical property of the respective pipe;
the known attribute information for the second plurality of pipes includes, for each respective pipe in the second plurality of pipes, respective location information for the respective pipe;
the known attribute information for the second plurality of pipes does not include values for the first characteristic for pipes in the second plurality of pipes;
the known attribute information for the plurality of supply-side structures includes, for each respective supply-side structure of the plurality of supply-side structures, respective location information for the respective supply-side structure;
analyzing a network structure by determining adjacency for network components, including:
calculating distances between physical locations of network components based on the location information; and
associating adjacent supply-side structures to adjacent pipes based at least in part on the known attribute information for the plurality of supply-side structures and location information for pipes
determining, for each respective pipe of the second plurality of pipes, unknown attribute information, including:
determining, based at least in part on the known attribute information for the plurality of supply-side structures and location information for the respective pipe of the second plurality of pipes, a first adjacent pipe, wherein the first adjacent pipe is a pipe of the first plurality of pipes or the second plurality of pipes, and wherein the first adjacent pipe is physically connected to the respective pipe of the second plurality of pipes; and
determining, based at least in part on a respective value for the first characteristic for the first adjacent pipe, a first value for the first characteristic for the respective pipe of the second plurality of pipes.
As noted above, these limitations fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Specifically, these limitations fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. That is – the limitations describe a method of determining unknown attribute information for pipes based on received known attribute information for adjacent pipes. At the level of generality claimed, a human being could perform the claimed mental process of determining unknown pipe attributes based on the received information in the human mind or using a pen and paper. For example, a human being can mentally (or with pen and paper) calculate distances between physical locations of network components based on location information; associate adjacent supply side structures to adjacent pipes based at least in part on the known attribute information and determine unknown attribute information. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. Accordingly claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Per step 2A Prong 2, the Examiner finds that the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites the additional limitations of:
[performing the steps of the method] at an electronic device with an input mechanism and a display;
storing the determined first value for the first characteristic for the respective pipe of the second plurality of pipes in a database, wherein the determined first value enables assessment of a physical condition of the respective.
The additional limitations when viewed individually and when viewed as an ordered combination, and pursuant to the broadest reasonable interpretation, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because each of the additional elements are recited at high level of generality implementing the abstract idea on a computer (i.e. apply it) or generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Specifically, the recitation of a generic electronic device with a generic input mechanism and display merely generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e., a generic device to receive input and display information) or merely applies the abstract idea on a generic computer. Similarly, the recitation of a generic database to store a determined value is recited at a high level of generality and merely generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e., a generic database to store information) or merely applies the abstract idea on a generic computer.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are recited at high level of generality and only generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception in a particular technological environment cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Dependent claims 2-3 and 8-24 are rejected on a similar rational to the claims upon which they depend and merely generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e., a generic device to receive input and display information in dependent claims 8, 9, and 21-23; a generic color display to display information in claim 15) or further narrow the abstract idea by specifying additional details pertaining to the received information (dependent claims 2-3, 10-20, and 24).
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. 101
Applicant's arguments, see 8-10, filed 1/21/2026 with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-3 and 8-24 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
First Applicant argues that:
The present embodiments are directed to an imputed virtual pipe. The imputed virtual pipe combines the heuristics of field-based physical pipe infrastructure analysis into an algorithm. The execution of the present embodiments is performed on a time scale and at a quality level that could not be performed by manual human activity (e.g., avoiding manual human errors).
As amended, claim 1 now recites "calculating distances between network components based on the location information" and determining adjacency "based at least in part on the calculated distances." These amendments add concrete computational operations that transform the claimed method from a mental process into a technological solution.
The specification describes that "the computer system calculates distances between network components (e.g., distances between different pipes, and/or between a supply-side structure and a pipe), and determines adjacency based at least in part on a shortest distance between two network components." As-Filed Specification, paragraph [0040]. For infrastructure networks containing hundreds or thousands of pipes as described in the specification, such distance calculations across multiple network components require computational processing power that exceeds human mental capabilities (remarks pages 8-9).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted by Applicant, the claims have been amended to recite "calculating distances between network components based on the location information" and determining adjacency "based at least in part on the calculated distances.” However, Examiner disagrees with Applicant that these are computational operations that transform the method from a mental process into a technological solution. Specifically, at the level of generality claimed, calculating distances between two components based on location information of the components is a very simple calculation that can be performed mentally by a human or with pen and paper. For example, Applicant’s specification notes that the location information can be geographic coordinates (see paragraph [0019]). A human being can easily calculate the distance between two geographic coordinates and determine pipe adjacency based on this distance. Further, with respect to Applicant’s argument that “[f]or infrastructure networks containing hundreds or thousands of pipes as described in the specification, such distance calculations across multiple network components require computational processing power that exceeds human mental capabilities”, Examiner respectfully notes that Applicant’s specification does not explicitly state that the infrastructure networks have hundreds or thousands of pipes. Moreover, even if the method can be performed for a large network of thousands of pipes, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims does merely requires a first plurality of pipes, a second plurality of pipes, and a plurality of supply side structures which could encompass a network of pipes in the single digits or dozens.
Second Applicant argues that:
Amended claim 1 further recites "storing the determined first value for the first characteristic for the respective pipe of the second plurality of pipes in a database." This storage limitation is an inherently technological function that requires database hardware components and cannot be performed in the human mind. The specification supports this limitation, stating that "the computer system stores the imputed attribute information (e.g., in memory of the computer system, which is optionally a server or database)." As-Filed Specification, paragraph [0028]. Claims do not recite a mental process when they do not contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, for instance when the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitations. SRI Int'l, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 930 F.3d 1295, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (remarks page 9).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. A claim can recite a mental process without every limitation in the claim reciting that mental process. Here, the storing limitation is an additional element that must be analyzed under Step 2A, prong 2. The recitation of a generic database to store a determined value is recited at a high level of generality and merely generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e., a generic database to store information) or merely applies the abstract idea on a generic computer. Therefore, this limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Third Applicant argues that:
Amended claim 8 now recites "displaying a probability value associated with the determined value for the first characteristic." This limitation provides a specific technological improvement to infrastructure management interfaces by displaying probability information that assists users in verifying imputed attribute information. The specification describes that "the compute system also displays a probability user interface 514, which includes probability value for each possible material. .. to assist the user in making corrections to the imputed material and/or verifying the selected material." As-Filed Specification, paragraph [0057]. This display of probability values represents a practical application of the computational analysis in a user interface context (remarks page 9).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Displaying a determined probability value on a generic user interface at most generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e. a display with a generic user interface to display information). Simply displaying information on a user interface does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See e.g., Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016) holding that a claim to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis”, where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind recites an abstract idea.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent Application Publication Number 20220057367 (“Claudio”) discloses taking samples of pipe sections, inspecting and scoring the samples, training a model on pipe conditions based on the scores, and estimating the pipe conditions of pipes that have not been inspected based on the model
US Patent Application Publication Number 20200124494 (“Solomon”) discloses estimating the pipe condition of various different sections of a pipe network using collected failure rate records of other pipes
US Patent Publication Number 9183527 (“Close”) discloses performing a statistical estimate of pipe conditions for a network of pipes based on statistical sampling
US Patent Application Publication Number 20190303791 (“Yoshikawa”) discloses a method of predicting a likelihood of pipe segments leaking in an underground pipe network based on a model
However, the prior art fails to teach each and every limitation as claimed, and would involve hindsight reasoning to arrive at the claimed invention. Therefore, the claims are considered allowable over the prior art.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLAN J WOODWORTH, II whose telephone number is (571)272-6904. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:30.
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, Ilana Spar can be reached on (571) 270-7537. 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.
/ALLAN J WOODWORTH, II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622