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 .
CLAIM STATUS
Claims 1-17 were originally filed.
Claims 10-12, 14-15, and 17 are canceled.
Claims 1-9, 13, and 16 are currently pending and have been examined herein.
INITIAL REMARKS
Applicant is reminded that in order to be entitled to reconsideration or further examination, the Applicant or patent owner must reply to the Office action. The reply by the Applicant or patent owner must be reduced to a writing which distinctly and specifically points out the supposed errors in the examiner' s action and must reply to every ground of objection and rejection in the prior Office action. The reply must present arguments pointing out the specific distinctions believed to render the claims, including any newly presented claims, patentable over any applied references. If the reply is with respect to an application, a request may be made that objections or requirements as to form not necessary to further consideration of the claims, be held in abeyance until allowable subject matter is indicated. The Applicant's or patent owner's reply must appear throughout to be a bona fide attempt to advance the application or the reexamination proceeding to final action. A general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references does not comply with the requirements of this section.
Should the Applicant believe that a telephone conference would expedite the prosecution of the instant application, Applicant is invited to call the Examiner.
RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS
Re the rejections under §102 and 103, the Examiner appreciates the Applicant’s efforts and is persuaded to withdraw the rejections of record, in light of the substantial amendments the claims and Applicant’s arguments.
Re the rejections under §101, the Examiner appreciates the amendments to claim 13, making the claim allowable and encourages the same to be done for claims 1 and 7, as indicated by the acknowledgement that claims 6 and 9 are allowable. More specifically re claim 1-5 and 7-8, while the Examiner agrees with the Applicant that the claim is generally integrated into a water balance system, it is not sufficiently integrated. Accordingly, 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 1-5 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Following the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence (89 FR 58128 and MPEP § 2106, hereinafter 2024 GUIDANCE), the claim(s) appear to fall into one of the enumerated statutory categories and recites at least one judicial exception, as explained in the Step 2A, Prong I analysis below. Furthermore, the judicial exception(s) does/do not appear to be integrated into a practical application as explained in the Step 2A, Prong II analysis below. Further still, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s) as explained in the Step 2B analysis below.
STEP 2A, PRONG I:
Step 2A, prong I, of the 2024 GUIDANCE, first looks to whether the claimed invention recites any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activities such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes).
Re claim 1, Applicant recites the following limitations:
identifying water nodes in the water cycle based on water flow;
determining a difference in water balance for each water node wherein determining the difference in water balance comprises determining a water mass imbalance to be a difference between make-up water and estimated water consumption of the industrial water consumption device, wherein the estimated water consumption comprises evaporated water, blowdown water, and drift water;
identifying a leak at a particular water node among the water nodes based on the difference in water balance at the particular water node being higher than a predetermined threshold value;
These steps are directed to a mental process and/or mathematical concept, such as determining a mathematical relationship or performing a mathematical calculation. The 2024 GUIDANCE expressly recognizes such mental processes and mathematical relationships as constituting patent-ineligible abstract ideas. Accordingly, these limitations can reasonably be characterized as reciting a patent-ineligible abstract idea.
STEP 2A, PRONG II:
Step 2A, prong II, of the 2024 GUIDANCE, next analyzes whether the claimed invention recites additional elements that individually or in combination integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. In particular, the 2024 GUIDANCE identifies various considerations indicative of whether an additional element or combination of elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, such as an additional element reflecting an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field.
Re claim 1, in addition to reciting the above-noted abstract idea(s), the judicial exception recited in the claim is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements recited, namely “A computer-implemented method for detecting water leak in a facility, comprising: receiving real-time water cycle data in the facility, wherein the real-time water cycle data includes water flow of a water cycle of an industrial water consumption device, wherein the industrial water consumption device is a cooling system or boiler system; and rendering a visualization comprising a representation of the leak at the particular water node on a display device”, fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Specifically, these additional elements merely reflect insignificant extra-solution activity. Examples of such activity are data gathering, data selection, and insignificant applications (i.e., a general output). Here, the “receiving” step merely represents data gathering while the “rendering” step merely represents an insignificant application, merely outputting the results of the judicial exception. Furthermore, nothing in the claim reasonably indicates that anything other than a generic computer (i.e., “computer-implemented”) needs to be used to carry out the abstract idea.
STEP 2B:
Step 2B of the 2024 GUIDANCE, next analyzes whether the claimed invention adds any specific limitations beyond the judicial exception that, either alone or as an ordered combination, amount to more than “well-understood, routine, conventional” activity in the field.
Re claim 1, the additional limitation(s) recited above only generally link the judicial exception to a particular technological field. Furthermore, these additional elements do not appear to be sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they again merely reflect insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., receiving and outputting data) while only generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological field (i.e., “computer-implemented” water leak detection). Further still, this/these additional limitation(s) does/do not, as an ordered combination, amount to more than “well-understood, routine, conventional” activity in the field.
Accordingly, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter for at least these reasons.
Re claims 2-5, these claims do not appear to cure the deficiencies noted above with regard to claim 1, from which they depend, as they merely add further mathematical processing steps, mental processes, and/or other extra-solution activity. Accordingly, they are rejected under the same or substantially similar analysis, as outlined above.
Re claims 7-8, Applicant recites language similar to claims 1-5, as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, and for reasons similar to those discussed above, claims 7-8 are also rejected under 35 USC § 101 as failing to recite patent-eligible subject matter.
ALLOWABLE SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 13 and 16 are allowed. More specifically, Applicant recites a water treatment monitoring system with a particular repair mechanism. As best understood within the context of Applicant' s claimed invention as a whole, these features do not appear to be disclosed, taught, nor otherwise rendered obvious by the prior art.
Claims 6 and 8 are objected to as being allowable over the prior art, but dependent on a rejected claim, namely claim 2 and 8. Appropriate correction is required that may require further search and/or consideration.
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 extension fee 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 THOMAS M HAMMOND III whose telephone number is (571)272-2215. The Examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 0800-1700.
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached on 571-272-2375. 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. 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. For more information about the PAIR system, see: https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair.
Respectfully,
/Thomas M Hammond III/Primary Examiner, GAU 2855
