DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is a FINAL office action in response to the Applicant’s response filed 13 April 2026.
Claims 1, 2, 5-7, 10, 11, 14, 15 have been amended.
The 112 (b) rejections for claims 10 and 11 have been overcome by amendments.
The 103 rejections for claims 1-3 and 5-15 have been overcome by amendments.
Claim 4 has been cancelled.
Claims 1-3 and 5-15 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8 June 2026 was filed after the mailing date of the Non-Final Rejection on 14 January 2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 13 April 2026 regarding the objection to the title have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the previous objection, the Applicant argues on page 7 of their response, “The Office Action objected to the title of the invention as not descriptive but the Examiner did not suggest an alternative title. Hence, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of this objection. Should the Examiner maintain the objection, Applicant respectfully requests that the Examiner provide a suitably descriptive title that would overcome the objection.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s premise for withdrawal. In this case, the Applicant has argued that the Examiner did not suggest an alternative title, however the Examiner notes that this is not the requirement for making the objection, nor is it a requirement for practice when filing a patent application with the USPTO. Notably, MPEP 606 states, “The title of the invention should be placed at the top of the first page of the specification unless it is provided in the application data sheet (see 37 CFR 1.76 ). The title should be brief but technically accurate and descriptive and should contain fewer than 500 characters.” Further see MPEP 606.01, “Where the title is not descriptive of the invention claimed, the examiner should require the substitution of a new title that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. Form paragraphs 6.11 and 6.11.01 may be used.” As shown here, the Applicant is required to have a brief but technically accurate and descriptive title for their application, and that the Examiner should required a substitution of a new title that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. In this case, the Applicant has titled the invention, “Information Processing Apparatus, Method, and System,” which is not descriptive of the claimed invention, and thus, a new title is required. Notably, an “Information Processing Apparatus, Method, and System,” could refer to any processing apparatus, method, or system; which is not descriptive of the claims. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that this objection is proper and that the Applicant must title the invention appropriately.
Applicant's arguments filed 13 April 2026 with respect to the 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the claims, the Applicant argues on page 8 of their response, “Not a Mental Process: By specifying that the proportions are determined ‘using a trained model’ (Proportion Determination Model), it becomes clear that this step is not a ‘Mental Process’ or a mere application of a mathematical formula that can be performed in the human mind.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s interpretation of the requirements under 35 USC 101, the bounds of the claimed invention, and the grounds of the previous and current rejection. In this case, the Applicant has amended the claim to state, “estimate a usage quantity of water by a consumer in a predetermined period based on a past usage quantity of water by the consumer; determine proportions between water obtained from a water source and supplied water that is artificially supplied, including water conveyed by a conveyance vehicle, using a trained model that has been trained using the estimated usage quantity, a season, and quality of the water as inputs to output proportions of water that minimize the charge, in such a manner as to minimize, while satisfying the estimated usage quantity, a charge based on expense of purifying the water obtained from the water source and a charge for the supplied water; determine, based on the determined proportions of water, a control schedule of equipment that treats the water obtained from the water source; and dynamically adjust operation of the equipment based on the control schedule and a real-time status of water storage tank to secure a buffer capacity for receiving the supplied water that is artificially supplied.” (Emphasis added). In this case, as shown and emphasized above, the Applicant’s claims have been amended to recite estimating a usage quantity of water source and supplied water, determining proportions between water obtained from a water source and supplied water that minimize the charge while satisfying the estimated usage quantity, determining a control schedule of equipment based on the determined proportions of water, and dynamically adjust operation of the equipment based on the control schedule and a real-time status of water storage tank. Notably, estimating a usage quantity of water source and supplied water, determining proportions between water obtained from a water source and supplied water that minimize the charge while satisfying the estimated usage quantity, and determining a control schedule of equipment based on the determined proportions of water; are all elements that can be performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion. It is further noted that the recited element, “determine proportions between water obtained… using a trained model that has been trained using the estimated usage quantity, a season, and quality of the water as inputs to output proportions of water,” does not prevent the element from reciting an abstract idea into the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. In this case, the Applicant does not recite any elements directed to actually training the model, merely that is has been trained to output proportions of water based on inputs, and as such, the Applicant has merely made a recitation of “apply it,” which does not particularly remove the overall element from the abstract grouping. It is noted that MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(c) states, “Using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process. An example of a case in which a computer was used as a tool to perform a mental process is Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d. at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699. The patentee in Mortgage Grader claimed a computer-implemented system for enabling borrowers to anonymously shop for loan packages offered by a plurality of lenders, comprising a database that stores loan package data from the lenders, and a computer system providing an interface and a grading module. The interface prompts a borrower to enter personal information, which the grading module uses to calculate the borrower’s credit grading, and allows the borrower to identify and compare loan packages in the database using the credit grading. 811 F.3d. at 1318, 117 USPQ2d at 1695. The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to the concept of "anonymous loan shopping", which was a concept that could be "performed by humans without a computer." 811 F.3d. at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699. Another example is Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 125 USPQ2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 2018), in which the patentee claimed methods for parsing and evaluating data using a computer processing system. The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to mental processes of parsing and comparing data, because the steps were recited at a high level of generality and merely used computers as a tool to perform the processes. 881 F.3d at 1366, 125 USPQ2d at 1652-53.” (Emphasis added). In this case, the trained model of the Applicant’s claim is merely being invoked as a tool to calculate the proportions of water obtained, which can be performed in the human mind. Notably, the steps of how trained model is used to determine the proportion is merely recited at a high level of generality, specifically, that is “trained using the estimated usage quantity, a season, and quality of the water as inputs to output proportions of water,” which does not explain how the model is trained, or how the model is used to perform acts that are not merely “mental processes.” Thus, the Applicant has failed to show that the claims do not recite elements that fall into the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, and the Examiner maintains that this rejection is proper. It is further noted that the previous and current rejection did not state that the claims recited an abstract idea in only the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas; however also that it recited elements that fall into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. In this case, the Applicant’s argument has failed to rebut this rejection, and merely argued against the former point, and thus, the Examiner notes that the Applicant’s argument fails to address each element of the previous rejection. Therefore, for this further reason, the Examiner maintains that this rejection is proper.
The Applicant continues on page 8 of their response, “In response to the Examiner's comment that no details were recited regarding how the model was trained, Applicant has explicitly added the inputs (the estimated usage quantity, a season, and quality of the water) and the output (proportions of water that minimize the charge). This clarifies that the step is not a generic mental process.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s interpretation of the requirements under 35 USC 101, the bounds of the claimed invention, and the grounds of the previous and current rejection. With respect to the Applicant’s argument that the claims have been amended with details regarding how the model was trained, the Examiner is not persuaded. In this case, the Applicant has merely recited the type of data inputted into a model to have it be trained, the output the model generates. The Applicant has not, as discussed above, recited any steps of actively training the model, nor has the Applicant recited any steps of how the model determines proportions of water obtained from different sources, merely that this is the case, which is merely claiming the solution, and does not prevent the recited element from reciting a “Mental Process,” as noted above. Further, MPEP 2106.05(f) states, “Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, claiming a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1356, 119 USPQ2d at 1743.” (Emphasis added). In this case, the mere recitation of reciting the idea of a solution (i.e. determining proportions of water from different sources), without identifying how the solution is accomplished (i.e. how the model determines the proportions), renders this recitation merely “apply it;” and thus does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or add significantly more to the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that this rejection is proper.
The Applicant continues on page 8 of their response, “Integration into a Practical Application: By explicitly adding the post-determination processing (determining a control schedule and actually controlling the physical equipment), the claim demonstrates a clear integration of the concept into a ‘Practical Application.’ The Examiner noted that ‘dynamic alteration of function could be seen as a practical application.’ Applicant has added: ‘dynamically adjust operation of the equipment based on the determined control schedule and a real-time status of a water storage tank….’ This is not merely post-solution activity or execution of a fixed schedule. It is a dynamic, physical control of the system to actively secure a buffer capacity in the physical tank to accommodate the incoming supplied water. This demonstrates a clear improvement in the functioning of the technology and integration into a practical application.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s interpretation of the requirements under 35 USC 101, the bounds of the claimed invention, and the grounds of the previous and current rejection. With respect to the Applicant’s argument that the amended claim element, “dynamically adjust operation of the equipment based on the determined control schedule and a real-time status of a water storage tank….” is not merely post-solution activity or execution of a fixed schedule; and that it is a clear improvement in the functioning of the technology and integration into a practical application; the Examiner is not persuaded. With respect to the Applicant’s argument of an improvement, it is noted that MPEP 2106.05(a) states, “If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art. For example, in McRO, the court relied on the specification’s explanation of how the particular rules recited in the claim enabled the automation of specific animation tasks that previously could only be performed subjectively by humans, when determining that the claims were directed to improvements in computer animation instead of an abstract idea. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313-14, 120 USPQ2d at 1100-01. In contrast, the court in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC relied on the specification’s failure to provide details regarding the manner in which the invention accomplished the alleged improvement when holding the claimed methods of delivering broadcast content to cellphones ineligible. 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016).” (Emphasis added). As shown here, if the Applicant asserts the claims reflect an improvement in the functioning of some technology, the specification is to be evaluated to determine if it sets forth any improvement. In this case, the Applicant’s has asserted that the improvement is in “the technology,” but did not identify the specific technology that is improved upon, or what the particular improvement would even be. Further the Applicant’s argument recites that the claims recite adjusting operation of the equipment based on the control schedule and real-time status of a water storage tank; however, the Examiner notes that the specification lacks any details on these aspects, nor does it explain how adjusting operation in accordance with a schedule and the real-time status of a storage tank, improves the functioning of a any technology (presumably the generic “equipment”). It is noted that paragraphs 85, 104, and 147-149 of the Applicant’s specification have described setting a schedule to control water treatment equipment; however, none of these sections specifically describe how this schedule setting improves any of the equipment functionality, or improves some other technology. Notably, these and the rest of the specification do not set forth any specific details of how the equipment being ran according to a schedule improves it’s functionality or some other technology, nor does it provide any details of how the equipment functions either. Instead, the Applicant’s disclosure merely describes setting a schedule to run water treatment equipment and control the equipment according to the schedule, which is deemed not sufficient to disclose an improvement in technology. Further, it is noted that paragraph 3 of the Applicant’s specification states, “In the world, for example, there are areas without piped water supply. In an area without piped water supply, water obtained from a plurality of water sources such as rainwater, surface water, and groundwater may be used. Conventional system proposes a technique that reduces, in a state with piped water supply, use of service water by using rainwater efficiently.” Further paragraph 4 states, “For example, some areas without piped water supply have small-scale equipment that obtains water from surface water such as a stream and purifies the obtained water for use. However, upkeep of the equipment is difficult because of little available water, labor required by management of old-type equipment by human effort, a water leakage, or not good water quality, and the like. Thus, there is a demand for providing, in an area without piped water supply, water to a consumer at appropriate expense while satisfying a demand.” (Emphasis added). As shown and emphasized here, the Applicant’s specification describes the conventional water supply systems that purifies and supplies water to consumers, and the problem in the systems is providing it at an appropriate expense while satisfying demand, which is a commercial problem, and not technological problem. As such, the Applicant has failed to set forth and describe a technological problem, and the Applicant has failed to show the Applicant’s claims reflect any improvement in a technology. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that this rejection is proper.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. In this case, the Applicant has titled the invention, “Information Processing Apparatus, Method, and System,” which is not descriptive of the claimed invention, and thus, a new title is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3 and 5-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
With respect to claim 1, the Applicant has amended the claim to state, “estimate a usage quantity of water by a consumer in a predetermined period based on a past usage quantity of water by the consumer; determine proportions between water obtained from a water source and supplied water that is artificially supplied, including water conveyed by a conveyance vehicle, using a trained model that has been trained using the estimated usage quantity, a season, and quality of the water as inputs to output proportions of water that minimize the charge, in such a manner as to minimize, while satisfying the estimated usage quantity, a charge based on expense of purifying the water obtained from the water source and a charge for the supplied water; determine, based on the determined proportions of water, a control schedule of equipment that treats the water obtained from the water source; and dynamically adjust operation of the equipment based on the control schedule and a real-time status of water storage tank to secure a buffer capacity for receiving the supplied water that is artificially supplied.” The Applicant has failed to provide support in their original written description that would convey to one skilled in the art that they were in possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing. First, the Applicant has failed to provide written description support for the amendment stating that the trained model has been trained using the estimated usage quantity and quality of the water as inputs. Notably, paragraph 68 states, “Training data for training the proportion determination model includes, for example, input data including usage quantities of water by a plurality of communities, a usage quantity of the supplied water, information about an environment in a period on which proportions are determined, and usage quantities of water of water sources, and includes ground truth data on usage charges of water to the communities in the season. The usage quantities of water by the plurality of communities, the usage quantity of the supplied water, and the usage quantities of water of the water sources relate to, for example, information items about the numbers of consumer households in the communities, family compositions of the consumers, living patterns of consumers, water using patterns of consumers, stay-at-home statuses of consumers, absence-from-home statuses of consumers, contract details with consumers for using water, and contract renewal statuses. For example, it is assumed that surface water and rainwater are abundant in a rainy season and a typhoon season. In contrast, for example, in the area on the Pacific side, there is little rain in winter, and thus it is assumed that surface water and rainwater are not much. By training the proportion determination model with an input of the information item about the environment in the period on which the proportions are determined, it is possible to determine proportions of water in accordance with the environment. As training data for training the proportion determination model, sensing data that represents water qualities of the water sources may be used as an input.” (Emphasis added). As shown and emphasized here, the Applicant has disclosed training a proportion determination model with input data including the usage quantity of water by communities over a period of time, and the quality of water; however, this disclosure does not state that the estimated usage quantity is used to train the model, as now claimed. Second, with respect to the element, “dynamically adjust operation of the equipment based on the control schedule and a real-time status of water storage tank to secure a buffer capacity for receiving the supplied water that is artificially supplied,” it is noted that the Applicant’s disclosure fails to provide any disclosure regarding dynamically adjusting the operation of equipment, or adjusting the operation based a real-time status of water storage tank to secure a buffer capacity for receiving the supplied water that is artificially supplied. Notably, paragraphs 85-89 and 143-150 describe setting the operation schedule of the equipment to treat and supply water; however, this disclosure does not set forth dynamically adjusting the operation, or adjusting it based on a real-time status of water storage tank to secure a buffer capacity for receiving the supplied water that is artificially supplied. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 14 and 15 are independent claims that recite similar subject matter, and are rejected for similar reasons. Claims 2, 3, and 5-13 depend on claim 1 and therefore are rejected via dependency.
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 1-3 and 5-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite estimate a usage quantity of water by a consumer in a predetermined period based on a past usage quantity of water by the consumer; determine proportions between water obtained from a water source and supplied water that is artificially supplied, including water conveyed by a conveyance vehicle, using a trained model that has been trained using the estimated usage quantity, a season, and quality of the water as inputs to output proportions of water that minimize the charge, in such a manner as to minimize, while satisfying the estimated usage quantity, a charge based on expense of purifying the water obtained from the water source and a charge for the supplied water; determine, based on the determined proportions of water, a control schedule of equipment that treats the water obtained from the water source; and dynamically adjust operation of the equipment based on the control schedule and a real-time status of water storage tank to secure a buffer capacity for receiving the supplied water that is artificially supplied.
The limitations of estimating a usage quantity of water by a consumer in a predetermined period based on a past usage quantity of water by the consumer, determining proportions between water obtained from a water source and supplied water that is artificially supplied using a trained model to output proportions of water that minimize the charge while satisfying the estimated usage quantity, a charge based on expense of purifying the water obtained from the water source and a charge for the supplied water, and determining a control schedule of equipment that treats the water obtained from the water source based on the determined proportions of water; as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass the management of commercial activities (business relations, sales activities), elements that can be performed in the human mind, and mathematical concepts. That is, other than reciting the use of generic computer elements (processing circuitry), the claims recite an abstract idea. In this case, estimating the quantity of water a consumer will used in a future time period, and determining proportions of water to be obtained from a plurality of water sources that satisfies the estimated quantity and minimizes the cost of purifying and supplying the water, using a trained model; encompass the managing of business relations between a consumer and water suppliers, wherein a customer’s future usage is estimated, and an operation plan is generated to supply water from different sources that minimize the cost of the water and satisfy the expected needs. In addition, determining a control schedule for equipment that treats water; encompasses determining commercial operating schedules in order to satisfy consumer and commercial goals, which is the management of commercial activity. Thus, the claims recite elements that fall into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. In addition, the claims recite estimating the quantity of water a consumer will used in a future time period, and determining proportions of water to be obtained from a plurality of water sources that satisfies the estimated quantity and minimizes the cost of purifying and supplying the water, using a model; which are elements that can be performed in the human mind (observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion). Thus, the claims recite elements that fall into the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. In addition, the claims recite the use of a trained model that was trained using various variables; however, the Applicant’s specification states in paragraph 78, “Using an existing mathematical optimization algorithm, the determining module 2034 determines the proportions among the surface water, rainwater, and supplied water in such a manner, for example, as to minimize a charge based on a usage charge for the supplied water and maintenance costs of the first water treatment channel 30 and the second water treatment channel 40 while satisfying usage quantities by consumers.” As shown here, the Applicant has defined the algorithm used to determine the proportions of supplied water is an existing mathematical optimization, and as such, the claims recite elements that fall into the ”Mathematical concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. The claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not recite additional elements, when taken individually and in an ordered combination with the abstract idea, that improve the functioning of a computer, another technology, or technical field. The claims do not recite the use of, or apply the abstract idea with, a particular machine, the claims do not recite the transformation of an article from one state or thing into another. Finally, the claims do not recite additional elements, taken individually and in an ordered combination, that apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Instead, the claims recite the use of generic computer elements (processing circuitry, equipment) as tools used to carry out the abstract idea. In addition, the claims recite the variables used to train a model, which are considered merely narrowing of the field of use. In addition, the claims recite dynamically adjusting operation of equipment based on a control schedule and status of storage, which is deemed merely a recitation of “apply it,” as the claims are merely reciting using equipment in its normal operation, and is further deemed extrasolution activity. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements, when taken individually and in an ordered combination with the abstract idea, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using generic computer elements and machines to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. In addition, the claims recite dynamically adjusting operation of equipment based on a control schedule and status of storage, which is deemed extrasolution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (See at least paragraph 4 which describes conventional equipment used to supply water; and see at least paragraphs 85, 86, and 145-150 which generally describe setting the control schedule for the equipment and controlling equipment; however these portions describe the acts at such a high level of generality, that one of ordinary skill would view them as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in order to satisfy 112a). The claims are directed to non-patent eligible subject matter.
The dependent claims 2, 3, 5-13, when taken individually and in an ordered combination with the abstract idea, do not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or add significantly more to the abstract idea. In particular, the claims further recite determining the proportions of water using the trained model; which further encompass reciting the type of algorithm used to make determination of proportions of water, which merely narrows the field of use, and thus does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or add significantly more to the abstract idea (claim 2). In addition, the claims further recite determining the proportions of water with consideration given to a water quantity of the water source; which further recite managing business relations and mental activity (evaluation, judgement); and thus, further recite elements that fall into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and “Mental Processes” groupings of abstract ideas (claim 3). In addition, the claims further recite determining the control schedule based on a water quantity of the water source; which further recite managing human behavior and mental activity (evaluation, judgement); and thus, further recite elements that fall into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and “Mental Processes” groupings of abstract ideas (claim 5). In addition, the claims further recite determining the control schedule based on a charge for electricity used in the equipment; which further recite managing business relations, managing human behavior, and mental activity (evaluation, judgement); and thus, further recite elements that fall into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and “Mental Processes” groupings of abstract ideas (claim 6). In addition, the claims further recite ordering artificial supply of water based on the control schedule; which further recite managing business relations and sales activities, managing human behavior, and mental activity (evaluation, judgement); and thus, further recite elements that fall into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and “Mental Processes” groupings of abstract ideas (claim 7). In addition, the claims further recite calculating a usage charge of water based on the charge for the supplied water and the expense of purifying the water obtained from the water source; which further recite managing business relations and sales activities, and mental activity (evaluation, judgement); and thus, further recite elements that fall into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and “Mental Processes” groupings of abstract ideas (claim 8). In addition, the claims further recite giving a privilege based on the calculated usage charge to a consumer; which encompasses providing a rebate or discount to a user based on the calculated charge; which further recite managing business relations and sales activities, and mental activity (evaluation, judgement); and thus, further recite elements that fall into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and “Mental Processes” groupings of abstract ideas (claim 9). In addition, the claims further recite estimating proportions of water for groundwater plant; which further recite managing business relations (forming an operation plan based on different parameters) and mental activity (evaluation, judgement); and thus, further recite elements that fall into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and “Mental Processes” groupings of abstract ideas (claim 10). In addition, the claims further recite performing a simulation of amortizing construction expense of the groundwater plant; which further recite managing business relations and sales activities (planning pricing based on costs) and mental activity (evaluation, judgement); and thus, further recite elements that fall into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and “Mental Processes” groupings of abstract ideas (claim 11). In addition, the claims further recite determining proportions a plurality of water sources in such a manner as to minimize a charge based on expense of purifying water discharged from the consumer, expense of purifying the water obtained from the water source, and the charge for the supplied water, while satisfying the estimated usage quantity; which further recites the abstract idea recited in the independent claims; and thus, further recite elements that fall into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and “Mental Processes” groupings of abstract ideas (claim 12). In addition, the claim further defines the types of sources of water; which merely narrows the field of use, and thus does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or add significantly more to the abstract idea (claim 12). In addition, the claims further recite the consumer is an assemblage consisting of one entity or a plurality of consumers; which merely narrows the field of use, and thus does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or add significantly more to the abstract idea (claim 13).
Novelty/Non-Obviousness
Claims 1-3 and 4-15 are allowed. With respect to claim 1, the closest prior art, taken individually and in an ordered combination, does not, explicitly or implicitly, teach or suggest, the specific ordered combination of elements including, “estimate a usage quantity of water by a consumer in a predetermined period based on a past usage quantity of water by the consumer; determine proportions between water obtained from a water source and supplied water that is artificially supplied, including water conveyed by a conveyance vehicle, using a trained model that has been trained using the estimated usage quantity, a season, and quality of the water as inputs to output proportions of water that minimize the charge, in such a manner as to minimize, while satisfying the estimated usage quantity, a charge based on expense of purifying the water obtained from the water source and a charge for the supplied water; determine, based on the determined proportions of water, a control schedule of equipment that treats the water obtained from the water source; and dynamically adjust operation of the equipment based on the control schedule and a real-time status of water storage tank to secure a buffer capacity for receiving the supplied water that is artificially supplied.” Claims 14 and 15 are independent claims that recite similar subject matter, and are found novel and non-obvious for similar reasons. Claims 2, 3, and 5-13 depend on claim 1 and therefore novel and non-obvious via dependency.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kirch (US 2021/0222689 A1) – Which describe a water pump controller which is trained using a neural network, wherein the pump is programed to operate based on various parameters, including maintaining a threshold amount of water in a storage tank, such that the storage tank does not drop below a threshold.
An et al. (US 202380024753 A1) – Which describe a system and method of generating water treatment plans for producing water, wherein a machine learning model is utilized to analyze water samples and determine operational plans for equipment.
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 MICHAEL P HARRINGTON whose telephone number is (571)270-1365. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5.
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, Jeffrey Zimmerman can be reached at (571)-272-4602. 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.
Michael Harrington
Primary Patent Examiner
23 June 2026
Art Unit 3628
/MICHAEL P HARRINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights