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 Amendment
The following is a FINAL Office action in reply to the Amendments and Arguments received on July 13, 2026.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 12 and 17 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-11 are drawn to methods while claim(s) 12-20 is/are drawn to an apparatus. As such, claims 1-20 are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A - Prong One:
Claim 1 (representative of independent claim(s) 12 and 17) recites the following steps:
scraping, for sampling data for each of a plurality of compliance requirements for a particular public water system;
for each of the plurality of compliance requirements:
comparing the sampling data for the respective compliance requirement with sampling criteria associated defined under the respective compliance requirement; and
determining whether there are sampling results that satisfy the requirement for the monitoring period in question, and returning a validated result when there are sampling results that satisfy the requirement for the monitoring period in question and a not validated result when there are no or not enough samples to satisfy the given requirement;
determining a time-to-sample value for the respective compliance requirement; wherein for not validated results the time-to-sample value comprises a number of days past due, or a number of days until the test is due;
generating a sorted sampling list for the particular public water system, the sorted sampling list comprising a plurality of entries, each entry comprising at least an indication of a different compliance requirement of the plurality of compliance requirements and the time-to-sample value for the respective compliance requirement, wherein the entries in the sorted sampling list are sorted by the time-to-sample values; and
outputting, at least a portion of the sorted sampling list
These steps, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass a human manually (e.g., in their mind, or using paper and pen) testing for water compliance (i.e., one or more concepts performed in the human mind, such as one or more observations, evaluations, judgments, opinions), but for the recitation of generic computer components. If one or more claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "mental processes" subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
As such, the Examiner concludes that claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A - Prong One: YES).
Independent claim(s) 12 and 17 are determined to recite an abstract idea under the same analysis.
Step 2A - Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim(s) recite the additional elements/limitations of:
one or more processors,
a server hosting a state water regulatory website
output via a display device,
a graphical user interface
A computing device comprising one or more processors ‘
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored thereon instructions that, when executed, cause one or more processors of a computing device to:
The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions listed above is equivalent to adding the words ''apply it'' on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on producing the abstract idea and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Additionally, “Step 2A - Prong 2”, the recited additional element(s) of "from results posted on the state water regulatory website" serve merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. These limitations therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A -Prong Two: NO).
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above in "Step 2A - Prong 2", the requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions listed above is equivalent to adding the words "apply it" on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. These limitations therefore do not qualify as "significantly more" (see MPEP 2106.05 (f)).
As discussed above in “Step 2A - Prong 2”, the recited additional element of "from results posted on the state water regulatory website" serve merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. These limitations therefore do not qualify as “significantly more5' (see MPEP 2106.05(g, h)).
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claim(s) amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above (Step 2B: NO).
Regarding Dependent Claims:
Dependent claims 4-9, 13-16, and 18-20 fail to include any additional elements and are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner.
Dependent claims 2, 3, 10 and 11 include additional limitations that are part of the abstract idea except for:
one or more processors
a graphical user interface
The additional elements of the dependent claims are equivalent to adding the words ''apply it'' on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are ineligible.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higgins (2011/0304475) in view of Lynch (2024/0005338).
Claims 1, 12 and 17
Higgins discloses monitoring water quality.
scraping, by one or more processors, a server hosting a state water regulatory website for sampling data for each of a plurality of compliance requirements for a particular public water system from results posted on the state water regulatory website; (Higgins [0144]); See at least “Some embodiments of the present invention also provide a system and method for remotely monitoring (see [0046] where remote refers to collaboration with a website), storing,… information and data relating to water quality and/or treatment derived from raw data obtained from a plurality of sensors of a water treatment system, which may be strategically placed to gather data or information necessary for analysis or manipulation.” See also “Such information and data may be remotely stored, manipulated, etc., on one or more servers, and/or stored on one or more removed databases, which may be associated with the one or more servers.” See also [0135][0152] for results on a webpage.
for each of the plurality of compliance requirements: comparing, by the one or more processors, the sampling data for the respective compliance requirement with sampling criteria associated defined under the respective compliance requirement, (Higgins [0157]); See at least “the data may be analyzed and compared to federal and/or state regulatory requirements for water quality and environmental protections.”
determining whether there are sampling results that satisfy the requirement for the monitoring period in question, and returning a validated result when there are sampling results that satisfy the requirement for the monitoring period in question and a not validated result when there are no or not enough samples to satisfy the given requirement (Higgins [0040]); Where the reference teaches that if the sample is not taken, the status is label “set [not validated]” and when the sample is taken it is labeled “cleared [validated]”
determining, by the one or more processors, a time-to-sample value for the respective compliance requirement, (Higgins [0005]); See at least “a server monitor of a communication server continuously querying a server database for tasks that are scheduled to be run by each of one or more environmental instruments based on a task schedule and a current time..” See also [0058].
wherein for not validated results the time-to-sample value comprises a number of days past due, or a number of days until the test is due (Higgins [0040]); Where the reference teaches storing the number of missed calls/ connections. The functional limitation is tracking the period of time samples are not taken, the reference teaches this. See also [0096] “If a period of time passes that exceeds the primary call interval for a particular environmental instrument, the server monitor determines that the environmental instrument missed its scheduled connection to the communication server.”
generating, by the one or more processors, a sorted sampling list for the particular public water system, the sorted sampling list comprising a plurality of entries, each entry comprising at least an indication of a different compliance requirement of the plurality of compliance requirements and the time-to-sample value for the respective compliance requirement, wherein the entries in the sorted sampling list are sorted by the time-to-sample values (Higgins [0131]); See “An output may also be used to present scheduled and predicted maintenance reports… the output may provide or present… scheduling for preventive maintenance, troubleshooting, etc.”
Higgins teaches an interface does not explicitly disclose the sorted sampling list. Lynch teaches:
outputting, by the one or more processors, and for output via a display device, at least a portion of the sorted sampling list in a graphical user interface (Lynch [Figures 6, 7, and 8]). See also [0073] “FIG. 8 shows an example of the task template view 800, which includes a listing of task templates 802, which can be filtered using a plurality of template filters 804. New tasks may be created from the selected templates, the details 806 of which are shown besides the listing 802.” See also [0069] for sorted sampling list.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included in the method of monitoring water quality, as taught by Higgins, to teach the sorted information details of the interface, as taught by Lynch, to improve the management of the compliance process (Lynch [0003]).
Claims 2, 13 and 18
Modified Higgins and Lynch disclose the above limitations. Modified Lynch further teaches:
for each of the plurality of compliance requirements, based on the comparing of the sampling data with the sampling criteria, determining, by the one or more processors, a status for the respective compliance requirement (Lynch [0079]). See “Each task on the calendar view 1402 may have a status indicator.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included in the method of monitoring water quality, as taught by Higgins, to teach the above limitations, as taught by Lynch, to improve methods for automatically evaluating compliance requirements for water related entities (Lynch [0007]).
Claim 3
Modified Higgins and Lynch disclose the above limitations. Modified Lynch further teaches:
color-coding, by the one or more processors, each entry of the plurality of entries based on the status for the respective compliance requirement (Lynch [0079]). See “Each task on the calendar view 1402 may have a status indicator. The legend 1406 indicates which color is applied to a task based on its status. These may include, for example, different colors for being closed, open, overdue, or if the task is a recurring task. Future recurring tasks may be shown in light gray or similar to indicate that these tasks are due to populate the calendar view 1402 in the future.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included in the method of monitoring water quality, as taught by Higgins, to teach the above limitations, as taught by Lynch, to improve methods for automatically evaluating compliance requirements for water related entities (Lynch [0007]).
Claim 4
Modified Higgins and Lynch disclose the above limitations. Modified Lynch further teaches:
wherein the status comprises one or more of: past due [overdue]; sampling due within a first predetermined time period; sampling due within a second predetermined time period; and sampling not due within a third predetermined time period (Lynch [0079]). See “The legend 1406 indicates which color is applied to a task based on its status. These may include, for example, different colors for being closed, open, overdue, or if the task is a recurring task.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included in the method of monitoring water quality, as taught by Higgins, to teach the above limitations, as taught by Lynch, to improve methods for automatically evaluating compliance requirements for water related entities (Lynch [0007]).
Claims 5 and 14
Modified Higgins and Lynch disclose the above limitations. Modified Lynch further teaches:
wherein the sampling data comprises one or more of: a type of test conducted; a date of a most recent test; a time span of a most recent sequence of tests; a pass/fail indication of a most recent test; an amount of water tested; and a location within the particular public water system tested (Lynch [Figure 26][0098]). See “FIG. 27 shows an example of the Compliance dashboard view 2700. This allows the user to rapidly view if any compliance requirements have failed, and to see the overall performance of the water-related systems.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included in the method of monitoring water quality, as taught by Higgins, to teach the above limitations, as taught by Lynch, to improve methods for automatically evaluating compliance requirements for water related entities (Lynch [0007]).
Claim 6
Modified Higgins and Lynch disclose the above limitations. Modified Lynch further teaches:
wherein the sampling criteria comprises one or more of: a testing frequency for the compliance requirement; a test procedure for the compliance requirement; a location to be tested for the compliance requirement; a component to be tested; pass/fail criteria; and a due date for the compliance requirement (Lynch [Figure 26][0098]). See “FIG. 27 shows an example of the Compliance dashboard view 2700. This allows the user to rapidly view if any compliance requirements have failed, and to see the overall performance of the water-related systems.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included in the method of monitoring water quality, as taught by Higgins, to teach the above limitations, as taught by Lynch, to improve methods for automatically evaluating compliance requirements for water related entities (Lynch [0007]).
Claims 7, 15 and 19
Modified Higgins and Lynch disclose the above limitations. Modified Lynch further teaches:
wherein the time-to-sample value comprises a number of days until a next due date for the compliance requirement based on a date of the most recent test recorded in the sampling data for the compliance requirement and the sampling criteria of the compliance requirement (Lynch [0113][Figure 41]). See at least “boxes are used to clearly show the total number on inspections that are due today, in the current week, current month or in the current quarter.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included in the method of monitoring water quality, as taught by Higgins, to teach the above limitations, as taught by Lynch, to improve methods for automatically evaluating compliance requirements for water related entities (Lynch [0007]).
Claim 8
Modified Higgins and Lynch disclose the above limitations. Modified Lynch further teaches:
wherein the time-to-sample value comprises a negative value when the sampling data indicates that the respective compliance requirement is past due (Lynch [0079]). Where the reference teaches color coding but a negative value symbol is merely a rearrangement of parts or design choice.
See MPEP 2144.04 VI C Rearrangement of Parts
In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included in the method of monitoring water quality, as taught by Higgins, to teach the above limitations, as taught by Lynch, to improve methods for automatically evaluating compliance requirements for water related entities (Lynch [0007]).
Claim 9
Modified Higgins and Lynch disclose the above limitations. Modified Lynch further teaches:
wherein the sorted sampling list is sorted by the time-to-sample values in ascending order (Lynch [Figure 18, 1808]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included in the method of monitoring water quality, as taught by Higgins, to teach the above limitations, as taught by Lynch, to improve methods for automatically evaluating compliance requirements for water related entities (Lynch [0007]).
Claims 10, 16 and 20
Modified Higgins and Lynch disclose the above limitations. Modified Higgins further teaches:
determining, by the one or more processors, based on the plurality of compliance requirements and the sampling data for each respective compliance requirement, whether the particular public water system is in compliance with state regulations (Higgins [0158]). See at least “quality assurance personnel may be able to monitor the quality and quantity of the treated water to confirm compliance with specifications and standards.”
Claim 11
Modified Higgins and Lynch disclose the above limitations. Modified Lynch further teaches:
wherein the graphical user interface further includes an indication of whether the particular public water system is in compliance with the state regulations (Lynch [Figure 27][0098]). See [0098] “This allows the user to rapidly view if any compliance requirements have failed, and to see the overall performance of the water-related systems.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included in the method of monitoring water quality, as taught by Higgins, to teach the above limitations, as taught by Lynch, to improve methods for automatically evaluating compliance requirements for water related entities (Lynch [0007]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with regard to the rejection under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant Argues: When the claims are considered as a whole under the Alice/Mayo framework, the claims are not directed merely to a mental process, and any alleged abstract idea is integrated into a practical application.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that as stated in the updated 101 rejection above, the particular “scaping…comparing…determining…list generation…outputting" features of the claims are SO broad that they could reasonably be done mentally in the human mind as part of an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion. There is nothing in the claim language nor in the specification that would prohibit such an implementation. In fact, there is no limiting technology tied to these features at all other a generic processor. The scaping of the website could easily be done by a person searching the website for sampling data. Therefore, contrary to applicant's assertion, these claimed features can and should be deemed part of a recited abstract idea categorized in Mental Process. Therefore, the argument is not persuasive.
Applicant Argues: Here, the claimed state-website scraping, validation-status determination, time-to-sample calculation, and sorted graphical list impose such meaningful limits because they provide a specific improved interface for reviewing public water system sampling compliance, rather than merely displaying generic information.
Applicant’s alleged improvement is not directed to an improvement to computer functionality/capabilities, an improvement to a computer-related technology or technological environment, and do not amount to a technology-based solution to a technology-based problem. A showing that a claim is directed to any improvement does not automatically mean a claim is patent eligible (e.g., an improved business function or an improved idea itself is not patent eligible). In this case, outputting a sorted list of compliance requirements is an abstract idea, and an “improved” way of outputting a sorted list of compliance requirements is, if anything, an improvement to the idea itself.
Applicant Argues: Like the claims found eligible in Enfish because they were directed to an improvement in computer functionality, the present claims use a specific data structure and ordering technique-the sorted sampling list generated from validation status and time-to-sample values-to improve the operation and usability of the computer interface for retrieving, reviewing, and acting on public water system compliance information.
Applicant claims that the instant application provides for improvement in computer functionality. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner contends that this allegation at best amounts to an improvement to the abstract idea itself. The Applicant essentially alleges that a specific data structure and ordering technique is their technical improvement. However, more organized data is simply an improvement to the data (i.e., improvement to the abstract idea itself). The claimed subject matter fails to recite any technically improved way in which this data is being leveraged. The claimed invention simply takes publicly available data on sampling requirements and compares that data to results posted on the State Regulatory Website. Such an implementation does not amount to a technical improvement. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Applicant Argues: The claims also recite significantly more under Step 2B. The ordered combination of claim elements is not routine computer implementation of a result-oriented idea.
In combination, the steps disclose a sequence of operations that include searching for data, comparing data; evaluating data; generating a list from the data and sharing/outputting data. The only arguable inventive aspect of this set of steps is the particulars of the information processed. Apart from such particulars as is known of those of ordinary skill , the claimed combination of operations amounts to a generic, routine and conventional sequence of generic, routine and conventional operations of a computer system.
None of the claims (independent or dependent) effects an improvement to another technology or technical field; nor do any of the claims amount to an improvement to the function of the computing device.
Accordingly, Examiner concludes that there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Applicant's arguments with regard to the rejection under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant Argues: Higgins does not teach scraping results posted on a State Regulatory Website for a particular public water system.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. See Higgins [0152] “Embodiments of the present invention may easily be used to provide a readily understandable presentation output of the current performance of a municipal water treatment system. Such an output may be made accessible to the public, such as via the Internet by uploading onto a web page, thus allowing interested members of the public to monitor the operation of their own drinking water plants, as desired.”
Applicant Argues: Those features concern managing or displaying tasks and compliance-related information within Lynch's system. They do not disclose deriving validation status from sampling results posted on a State Regulatory Website, determining that a compliance requirement is not validated when posted results do not include sufficient samples for a monitoring period, or generating the claimed sorted sampling list based on days past due or days until due for those not-validated compliance requirements.
Examiner agrees and has relied on Higgins for the teaching.
Applicant Argues: Those disclosures still do not teach or suggest the amended validation-based sorting workflow using results posted on a State Regulatory Website for a particular public water system.
Examiner agrees and has relied on Higgins for the teaching.
Conclusion
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 RASHIDA R SHORTER whose telephone number is (571)272-9345. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday from 9am- 5:30pm.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at (571) 270-3445. 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.
/RASHIDA R SHORTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights