DETAILED ACTION
In view of the Appeal Brief filed on 28 May 2026, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. New grounds of rejection are set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
/ESSAMA OMGBA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-20 are pending.
In the response date 21 January 2026, applicant confirmed election without traverse to prosecute the invention of Species of fig 16, claims 9 and 10. Claim 5-8 and 11-18 withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4, 9-10 and 19-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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, 2, 9, 10, 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recitation “a method for assessing scroll pump tip seal wear” is a mental process which requires “determining that tip seal maintenance for the scroll pump and/or further diagnosis of the scroll pump is required.” Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the “determining” encompasses evaluations that are practically performed in the human mind (Applicant explicitly discloses that the user assess the condition of the scroll pump, Applicant’s Specification, par 0018; or the method waits for the user to make a determination, par 0019). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claimed “determining” does not apply the determination to the scroll pump and effect some change to the pump (See MPEP 2106.05). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there are no further method steps recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception.
Therefore, claim 1 constitutes judicial exception of an abstract idea which is not integrated into a practical application and is rejected under 101 subject matter eligibility. Dependent claims 2-19 are correspondingly rejected.
Claim 2 is dependent on the method of claim 1, which is a mental process that has not been integrated into practical application, as shown above. Claim 2 constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity and is also subject to a 101 rejection.
Claim 2 further requires “[a] providing of historical data comprises at least one of: [b] operating the scroll pump under assessment and measuring the pump inlet pressure to acquire the historical values; [c] accessing a database comprising the historical values of pump inlet pressure over the historical time period, [d] wherein the historical values were acquired by operating one or more scroll pumps other than the scroll pump under assessment.”
The steps of [a] providing data and [c] accessing a database do not amount to significantly more (MPEP 2106.05) because the additional activity of receiving or transmitting data over a network, and storing and retrieving information in memory have been recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, conventional activity in particular fields (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362; Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
The steps of [b] operating the scroll pump and measuring to acquire values and [d] acquire value by operating one or more scroll pumps do not amount to significantly more (MPEP 2106.05) because the “measuring” or “acquiring” of an operating pump is an insignificant extra-solution activity that amounts to mere conventional data gathering by a well-understood, routine, conventional measurement activity (MPEP 2106.05(d); Determining the level of a biomarker in blood by any means, Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; Cleveland Clinic Foundation v. True Health Diagnostics, LLC, 859 F.3d 1352, 1362, 123 USPQ2d 1081, 1088 (Fed. Cir. 2017)).
Therefore, claim 2 constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity on the method of claim 1, and is rejected under 101 subject matter eligibility.
Claim 9 is dependent on the method of claim 1, which is a mental process that has not been integrated into practical application, as shown above. Claim 9 constitutes a mathematical process that has not been integrated into practical application, and is also subject to a 101 rejection.
Claim 9 further requires “calculating a first slope value of inlet pressure over time, wherein the first slope value is based on values of pump inlet pressure acquired during a most recent time-slice of the recent time period; calculating a second slope value of inlet pressure over time, wherein the second slope value is based on values of pump inlet pressure acquired during a historical time-slice of the historical time period; and determining that the first slope value exceeds the second slope value by a threshold value.”
Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the “calculating” and “determining” steps encompasses mathematical concepts such as the calculation of slope values and the determination of whether a first slope value exceed a second slope value. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claimed “determining” or “calculating” does not apply the determination or calculation to the scroll pump and effect some change to the pump (See MPEP 2106.05). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there are no further method steps recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception.
Claim 10 is dependent on the method of claim 9, which is a mental process that has not been integrated into practical application, as shown above. Claim 10 constitutes a mathematical concepts that has not been integrated into practical application, and is also subject to a 101 rejection. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements amounts to mere data gathering which constitute well -understood, routine, conventional activity in particular fields.
Claim 10 further requires “ [a] wherein the threshold value is a difference between the first slope value and the second slope value; [b] wherein the threshold value is a ratio of the first slope value and the second slope value; [c] wherein the historical time-slice and the most recent time-slice have the same duration; [d] wherein the historical time-slice immediately precedes the most recent time-slice.”
Claim 10 is incidental to the mathematical calculation of claim 9. Claim 10 further defines the mathematical relationships as “[a] a difference” “[b] a ratio” and “[d] a same duration.”
The steps of [d] under its broadest reasonable interpretation “the historical time-slice immediately precedes the most recent time-slice” characterizes claim 1 “providing historic pump data” and “acquire recent pump data”. The limitation is mere data gathering as it is necessary to acquire the data in order to use the recited judicial exception for the calculations of claim 1. The limitation does not provide any other meaningful limitation which integrates the exception into a practical application that affects a change on the scroll compressor as a result of the determining in claim 1.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claimed “determining” or “calculating” does not apply the determination or calculation to the scroll pump and effect some change to the pump (See MPEP 2106.05). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there are no further method steps recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception.
Claim 19 is dependent on the method of claim 1, which is a mental process that has not been integrated into practical application, as shown above. Claim 19 is also a mental process that has not been integrated into practical application, and is also subject to a 101 rejection.
Claim 19 further requires “wherein the determining that the tip seal maintenance and/or the further diagnosis is required is based on determining that a threshold value corresponding to at least one of the plurality of calculated values has been exceeded, or determining that threshold values respectively corresponding to at least two of the plurality of calculated values have been exceeded.”
Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the “determining” encompasses evaluations that are practically performed in the human mind (Applicant explicitly discloses that the user assess the condition of the scroll pump, Applicant’s Specification, par 0018; or the method waits for the user to make a determination, par 0019). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claimed “determining” does not apply the determination to the scroll pump and effect some change to the pump (See MPEP 2106.05). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there are no further method steps recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception.
Therefore, claim 19 constitutes judicial exception of an abstract idea which is not integrated into a practical application and is rejected under 101 subject matter eligibility.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 9, 10 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kaiser (US 2023/0392600) in view of Tang (US 2016/0208595).
Claim 1, Kaiser discloses a method for assessing scroll pump tip seal wear (wear on the seals is inferred on the basis of pressure, par 0016, 0017, 0039), the method comprising:
providing a dry scroll pump comprising (scroll pump includes replaceable scroll tip seals, par 0004, 0005; this meets applicant’s definition of a dry scroll pump, See Applicant’s Spec, par 0006): a pump inlet (12, par 0055); a pump outlet (14); a pumping stage (scrolls 16/18, transport of fluid from inlet to outlet conventionally constitutes a stage, par 0003) comprising a first scroll (18) and a second scroll (16) nested together, wherein the first scroll is configured to orbit about a drive axis (common axis 34, par 0055) relative to the second scroll to pump fluid from the pump inlet to the pump outlet (scroll 18 is rotated by a motor, par 0055), and the second scroll is fixedly positioned (scroll 16 acts as a stator, par 0003, 0055) in an axial direction relative to the drive axis (fig 1A, shows scrolls 16 are integral to the outer housing and therefore do not move axially relative to the housing, scroll 16 acts as a stator, par 0003, 0055); a first scroll tip seal mounted to the first scroll (fig 2, seal 42 of surface 42 on scroll 18, par 0059); and a second scroll tip seal mounted to the second scroll (seal 42 in wall 28 of scroll 16, par 0058);
providing historical pump data comprising historical values of pump inlet pressure (a first pressure taken at the inlet, par 0026-0027) over a historical time period (a first pressure at a first time point, par 0015);
operating the scroll pump to pump the fluid (operating a pump under the same pumping conditions at a first time point and a later point, par 0015), wherein the operating is done during a recent time period preceded by the historical time period (operating at a later time point after a first time point, par 0015);
during the operating, determining pump inlet pressure to acquire recent pump data comprising recent values of pump inlet pressure over the recent time period (second pressure at a later time point, par 0015; data is transferred from pressure sensor to control device 62, par 0037, 0066);
comparing the recent pump data and the historical pump data (comparing the first pressure and the second pressure, par 0015, 0027); and
based on the comparing, determining that tip seal maintenance for the scroll pump (second threshold passed and servicing is required, par 0018; service planning based on detected wear, par 0019) and/or further diagnosis of the scroll pump is required (id.).
Kaiser is silent on the historical time period and recent time period being compared to each other, because both the historical time period and recent time period are compared to a threshold (Kaiser, “it can also be a pressure that is recorded under the same pumping conditions, so that there is comparability between the pressure determined at a first time point and the pressure determined at a later time point,” par 0015).
Tang teaches a method for historical data analysis for a measured condition and the automatic control of a pump based on that analysis (par 0033, 0043), wherein historical data is compared to current measurement data (historical data, par 0033, real time data, par 0039), then the operations are adjusted based on the comparison (par 0003, such as pump pressure and flow rate, par 0011), in order to detect problem situations with equipment and control operations to avoid problems (par 0001) and control automatic operation of the pump so that the undesirable conditions can be immediately and quickly remedied (par 0043).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pressure monitoring method of Kaiser by adding the historical time period comparison to the current measurement data taught by Tang in order to enable automatic control of the pump and a response in real time to avoid undesirable conditions and optimize the control process (par 0043).
Claim 2, Kaiser in view of Tang makes obvious the method of claim 1, wherein the scroll pump is a scroll pump under assessment (Kaiser, par 0015), and the providing of the historical pump data comprises at least one of: operating the scroll pump under assessment and measuring the pump inlet pressure to acquire the historical values (Kaiser, measuring pressure with pressure sensor 68 at the inlet, par 0023, 0038, 0066; Tang, historic data compared to current data of a pump, par 0042-0043, THE FIRST OF TWO ALTERNATIVES;); accessing a database comprising the historical values of pump inlet pressure over the historical time period, wherein the historical values were acquired by operating one or more scroll pumps other than the scroll pump under assessment (THE SECOND OF TWO ALTERNATIVES; Tang, retrieve historic data from a database, par 0028, 0047).
Claim 3, Kaiser in view of Tang makes obvious the method of claim 1, comprising, after the determining that tip seal maintenance for the scroll pump and/or further diagnosis of the scroll pump is required, at least one of:
shutting down the scroll pump and replacing the first scroll tip seal (first of three alternates, Kaiser, seals are replaced during servicing after the alarm indicates seal ear to the user, par 0005, 0016, 0032, 0065, 0066) and/or the second scroll tip seal with a new first scroll tip seal (second of three alternates, seals are replaced during servicing after the alarm indicates seal ear to the user, par 0005, 0016, 0032, 0065, 0066) and/or a new second scroll tip seal (third of three alternatives, seals are replaced during servicing after the alarm indicates seal ear to the user, par 0005, 0016, 0032, 0065, 0066); producing a user-interpretable output indicating that the tip seal maintenance and/or the further diagnosis is required (warning signal to user, par 0016; condition of signal to user is indicated, par 0018, 0021, 0032, 0044, 0066).
Claim 4, Kaiser in view of Tang makes obvious the method of claim 1, comprising, after the determining that further diagnosis of the scroll pump is required, outputting a communication to a user that directs the user to perform diagnostics on the scroll pump to determine whether tip seal replacement or other maintenance on the scroll pump is required (Kaiser, warning signal to user, par 0016; condition of signal to user is indicated, par 0018, 0021, 0032, 0044, 0066).
Claim 9, Kaiser in view of Tang makes obvious the method of claim 1, wherein the determining that the tip seal maintenance and/or the further diagnosis is required comprises:
calculating a first slope value of inlet pressure over time (Tang, a pressure change over time gradient which causes a negative affect is detected and an alert given or shutdown, par 0040), wherein the first slope value is based on values of pump inlet pressure acquired during a most recent time-slice of the recent time period (Tang, if the levels are detected during current operations the system is adjusted or shutdown, par 0040);
calculating a second slope value of inlet pressure over time, wherein the second slope value is based on values of pump inlet pressure acquired during a historical time-slice of the historical time period (Tang, the previous operation gradients of pressure over time which cause negative effects are used as a basis of comparison, par 0040).
Tang is silent on the determining that the first slope value exceeds the second slope value by a threshold value. This is because Tang determines whether “such levels or gradients are detected” (par 0040). This phrase can reasonably be interpreted as determining whether the first slope and second slope value are substantially equal.
Nevertheless, in light of applicant’s specification the limitation “determining that the first slope value exceeds the second slope value by a threshold value” is equivalent to Tang’s disclosure of detecting the gradient which negatively affects operation because, Tang implicitly has exceeded the upper threshold of normal operation that does not cause negative effects in order to reach a gradient that causes negative effects. Therefore, Kaiser in view of Tang meets the limitation “determining that the first slope value exceeds the second slope value by a threshold value,” implicitly.
Claim 10, Kaiser in view of Tang makes obvious the method of claim 9, comprising at least one of:
wherein the threshold value is a difference between the first slope value and the second slope value (FIRST ALTERNATE OF FOUR);
wherein the threshold value is a ratio of the first slope value and the second slope value (SECOND ALTERNATE OF FOUR);
wherein the historical time-slice and the most recent time-slice have the same duration (Tang, determine whether the previous operation and current operations have the same gradient pressure changes over time; par 0040, reasonably an equal gradient has the same change in pressure over the same period of time, indicate that their duration is the same THIRD ALTERNATE OF FOUR);
wherein the historical time-slice immediately precedes the most recent time-slice (FOURTH ALTERNATE OF FOUR ).
Claim 19, Kaiser in view of Tang makes obvious the method of claim 1, comprising:
calculating a plurality of calculated values comprising two or more of the following values:
…
a slope value of inlet pressure over time, wherein the slope value is based on values of pump inlet pressure acquired during a set duration of the recent time period (Combination of Kaiser in view of Tang; Tang, Historic data, par 0042; Kaiser, inlet pressure, par 0055; the THIRD ALTERNATE OF EIGHT);
a first slope value of inlet pressure over time, wherein the first slope value is based on values of pump inlet pressure acquired during a most recent time-slice of the recent time period (Combination of Kaiser in view of Tang; Tang, current real time monitored data which are compared to historic operations, par 0039-0042; Kaiser, inlet pressure, par 0055; FOURTH ALTERNATE OF EIGHT);
…
wherein the determining that the tip seal maintenance and/or the further diagnosis is required is based on determining that a threshold value corresponding to at least one of the plurality of calculated values has been exceeded (Tang, operating in the gradient of negative affects indicates that implicitly the pump has exceeded the upper limit threshold of normal operation without negative effects, par 0040; FIRST ALTERNATE OF TWO).
Claim 20, Kaiser discloses a dry scroll pump (scroll pump includes replaceable scroll tip seals, par 0004, 0005; this meets applicant’s definition of a dry scroll pump, See Applicant’s Spec, par 0006), comprising:
a pump inlet (12, par 0055); a pump outlet (14); a dry pumping stage (transport of fluid from inlet to outlet conventionally constitutes a stage, par 0003) comprising a first scroll (18) and a second scroll (16) nested together, wherein the first scroll is configured to orbit about a drive axis (common axis 34, par 0055) relative to the second scroll to pump fluid from the pump inlet to the pump outlet (scroll 18 is rotated by a motor, par 0055), and the second scroll is fixedly positioned in an axial direction relative to the drive axis (scroll 16 acts as a stator, par 0003, 0055); a first scroll tip seal mounted to the first scroll (fig 2, seal 42 of surface 42 on scroll 18, par 0059); a second scroll tip seal mounted to the second scroll (seal 42 in wall 28 of scroll 16, par 0058); a sensor (fig 4, pressure sensor 68 at inlet, par 0038, 0066) configured to measure pump inlet pressure (inlet pressure , par 0038; first of two alternatives) or to measure an operating parameter from which the pump inlet pressure can be calculated (second of two alternatives); and
a controller (control device 62, par 0021, 0037, 0066) configured to assess tip seal wear, by controlling or performing an operation comprising:
providing historical pump data comprising historical values of pump inlet pressure (a first pressure taken at the inlet, par 0026-0027) over a historical time period (a first pressure at a first time point, par 0015); operating the scroll pump to pump the fluid (operating a pump under the same pumping conditions at a first time point and a later point, par 0015), wherein the operating is done during a recent time period preceded by the historical time period (operating at a later time point after a first time point, par 0015); during the operating, determining pump inlet pressure to acquire recent pump data comprising recent values of pump inlet pressure over the recent time period (second pressure at a later time point, par 0015; data is transferred from pressure sensor to control device 62, par 0037, 0066); comparing the recent pump data and the historical pump data (comparing the first pressure and the second pressure, par 0015, 0027); and based on the comparing, determining that tip seal maintenance for the scroll pump (second threshold passed and servicing is required, par 0018; service planning based on detected wear, par 0019) and/or further diagnosis of the scroll pump is required (id.).
Kaiser is silent on the historical time period and recent time period being compared to each other, because both the historical time period and recent time period are compared to a threshold (Kaiser, “it can also be a pressure that is recorded under the same pumping conditions, so that there is comparability between the pressure determined at a first time point and the pressure determined at a later time point,” par 0015).
Tang teaches a method for historical data analysis for a measured condition and the automatic control of a pump based on that analysis (par 0033, 0043), wherein historical data is compared to current measurement data (historical data, par 0033, real time data, par 0039), then the operations are adjusted based on the comparison (par 0003, such as pump pressure and flow rate, par 0011), in order to detect problem situations with equipment and control operations to avoid problems (par 0001) and control automatic operation of the pump so that the undesirable conditions can be immediately and quickly remedied (par 0043).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pressure monitoring method of Kaiser by adding the historical time period comparison to the current measurement data taught by Tang in order to enable automatic control of the pump and a response in real time to avoid undesirable conditions and optimize (par 0043).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEOFFREY S LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-5354. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 0900-1800.
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, Essama Omgba can be reached at (469) 295-9278. 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.
/GEOFFREY S LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights