DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the 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.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract does not appear to be a concise statement directed to the invention of the claims. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Interpretation
Content of Specification
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS: See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP § 608.01(m). The claim or claims must commence on a separate sheet or electronic page (37 CFR 1.52(b)(3)). Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation. There may be plural indentations to further segregate subcombinations or related steps. See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP 608.01(i)-(p).
The claimed invention is defined by the positively claimed steps listed on separate indented lines listed in the body of the claim after the transitional phrase, “comprising”.
Here, each of the steps are not listed on separate indented lines.
It is noted that the claims are relatively broad. For example, claim 29 does not provide for the use of any specific structures, water testing means, infectious agents, contaminants, nor specific steps (see also further broad language recited throughout the dependent claims). Furthermore, claim 29 does not provide for what is considered as “sewage”…”sewage water” nor any specific location, source of such sewage water. See also further claims reciting the term “sewage”.
It is noted that the term “particular” does not provide for any specific infectious agent. Any agent can be considered “particular”.
It is noted that the term “wastewater” is not defined in the claims (35, 43, and 51-56) .
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 29-56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 29 is directed to testing the sewage water using a water testing means which is an abstract idea. The dependent claims teaching sensing, transmitting a result, mapping, monitoring, assessing, performing a Corona test and reporting are all directed to routine and conventional steps and/or mental processes. For example, claim 33 may determine when a guest is sick but nothing else is done so this is a mental step. This falls within “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Once the testing is done nothing else happens, therefore there is no application much less a particular practical application in claims 29. For the dependent claims, the teachings of attaching a sensor, transmitting a result, mapping, monitoring and reporting show that only abstract ideas are claimed and not integrated into a particular practical application. Therefore, because the recitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 29 additionally recites detecting the type/nature/variety and or density of the infectious agent. The measurements are insignificant extra solution activities and would not amount to significantly more. Additionally testing the water for these agents is well understood routine and conventional within the sewage water art as disclosed in Douglass US 2023/0335272 (cited herein below).
Dependent claims 30-56 do not solve the issues of above since they appear to claim graphical display, transmitting a result, mapping, assessing monitoring and reporting and to be directed to what can be done by a general purpose computer. The additional steps of then using the computing device to analyze the sensor/probe received data and report whether the transmit results, map, and report, for example are the same as Mere Data Gathering as noted in MPEP 2106.05(g) at “vi. Determining the level of a biomarker in blood, Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968. See also PerkinElmer, Inc. v. Intema Ltd., 496 Fed. App'x 65, 73, 105 USPQ2d 1960, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (assessing or measuring data derived from an ultrasound scan, to be used in a diagnosis)” .
Therefore, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
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 29-56 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 enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. The claims are directed to a method of monitoring sewage water. However, the specification does not provide for sufficient information and guidance so as to use/practice the invention without undue experimentation.
(A) The breadth of the claims – the breath of claims is broad such that any monitoring or testing of “sewage water” for any agent/contaminate by any means (including mental observations and conclusions) would read on the claims.
(B) The nature of the invention and (C) the state of the prior art – the nature of the invention is directed to a conventionally known field of art for monitoring the content of water for the safety and health of living beings as indicated in the “Background of Invention” and as disclosed in the cited prior art reference, Douglas, US 2023/0335272.
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill and (E) the level of predictability in the art – To practice the broad invention of the claims does not require any skills beyond that of one of ordinary skill art because one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention could conclude make determinations of levels of infectious agents, contaminations, pollution within sewage water by conventionally known means in the art and subsequently predict that and/or if consumption and/or exposure to such sewage water would be or/is a cause/factor of humans and/or other living beings being “sick”.
(F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor and (G) the existence of working examples – the instant specification does not provide for any specific guidance as to how and what (structure, testing means) is used to perform the method/practice the invention. Furthermore, the specification does not provide for any working examples nor data so as provide for how any conclusions/determinations of a state of health of a person is based upon/correlated to any determinations of monitoring/testing any sewage water.
(H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure – While the specification appears to provide for thoughts on treatment, the specification does not provide for any detailed guidance nor experimental results/data so as to determine how the invention is practiced nor any indication as to what amount of experimentation is required to perform the method.
Therefore, undue experimentation would be needed to make and use the claimed invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 29-56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. The language in general employed throughout the claims is vague, ambiguous, and confusing.
Claim limitation “testing means” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification does not disclose any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The term “contaminants” in claim 29 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “contaminants” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. There is no indication as what is considered as being contaminants, nor no relative basis to determine such. What may be considered as a contaminant to one person may not be considered as such by another. Furthermore, it is noted that infectious agents and contaminants are not mutually exclusive. There is no distinction provided for in the claim. There is nothing precluding one from considering infectious agents as contaminants.
Claim 29 recites the limitation "their type/nature/variety" and “their density” in the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is noted that nothing has been positively recited as being present. As indicated by the claim, the method provides for testing for infectious agents or contaminants (if any of such are present).
As to claim 29, it is unclear what the pronoun “their” references because the claim previously mentions a number of different nouns (testing means, infections agents, and contaminants). Furthermore, the term/phrase “type/nature/variety” is not defined in the claim. There is no indication of the terms are one in same or different and what is considered as a type, nature, and variety of anything.
Dependent claims 30-56 are rejected via dependency upon a rejected claim. Furthermore, it is unclear what is the nexus of claims 30-56 to the prior steps of claim 29 because each of the claims do not clearly provide for how such steps recited in the claims are relative to the prior recited steps of claim 29 (if the further steps are meant to further define the prior claimed steps or are intended to occur in addition to…when (before or after) relative to each of the prior recited steps of claim 29).
Claim 31 recites the limitation "the detection" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is presumed that phrase is intended to refer to or be related to the prior “detecting” and/or the results of such detecting. If so, the claim should clearly indicate such. Furthermore it is unclear who/what is considered as “authorities” because such are not clearly defined in the claim. Anyone can be subjectively considered an “authority”.
The term “almost immediate” in claim 31 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “almost immediate” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. There is no indications as what variances of time from immediate are considered as “almost immediate”. What may be considered as almost immediate to one person may not be considered as such by another and vice versa.
As to claim 31 it is unclear what is required to an “indication” of and what is required of anything to be considered as “hot spots” and “regions likely to become super spreaders” because the claim does not clearly provide for, define such relative to any definitive determinable basis. Furthermore, it is noted that the “a map” is not recited as being any map of anything specific.
As to claims 32-34, respectively, it is unclear what is the nexus of the recited monitoring, determining, and drawing samples to the prior testing of sewage water and detecting steps of claim 29 because the claim does not provide for such. It is unclear if the claims are intended to provide for additional steps or somehow limit the prior steps of claim 29 because the claim does not clearly indicate such. It is unclear what is nexus of toilets of a building and guests of a hotel to the steps of claim 29 (how such are related to the sewage water) because the claim does not clearly provide for such. (Also applicable to claims 35, 43, 48-49, and 55 that recite “a building”, “hotel”, or “hotels”). Furthermore, it is noted that toilet is not required to contain any water and even if so, such water is not necessarily considered as “sewage water” and claim 32 does not indicate what is considered as direct probe monitoring of individual toilets (what about the toilets is monitored). See also claims 36- 37, 39 and 41 that mention a toilet(s). Furthermore, it is noted that there is no relative, definitive basis provided for to indicate what constitutes “sick”. The term is subjective. Also applicable to claim 49 that recites the term “sick”. Furthermore, it is unclear what is nexus of the testing of sewage water to any guests (not defined in claim, so as determine who are and are not considered as such). There is no requirement for any “guests” to have any contact with any sewage water. See also claim 49.
As to claim 34, it is unclear what is meant by “comprising divided a building into areas…” The phrase appears to be grammatically incorrect. It is presumed that the claim is intended to recite “dividing a building…” However, it is noted that there is no indication how such dividing is accomplished (whether such is done by employing some physical structures). It is noted that one can provide for mental dividing of a building into broad areas (not specifically defined in the claim so as to distinguish any “area” from anything) in one’s mind. Furthermore, there is no indication as to how dividing of the building is dependent on the sewage line.
Claim 34 recites the limitations "the sewage line in the building" and “the areas in the hotel” . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear what is the nexus of the building and the hotel. Furthermore, it is unclear what samples of what are required to be drawn from what and what, is the nexus of such samples to the sewage water of claim 29 because the claim does not provide for such.
As to claims 35-36, it is noted that “automatic sensor measurement” and “electronic monitoring” are not structures that can be attached to a floor of a building, wastewater downpipe or line, room, toilet, and sewage pipe. Therefore, it is unclear what is meant by, required to be done in the claim. Furthermore, it is noted that building is not required to have more than one “floor” nor “room”.
Claim 35 recites the limitation "the wastewater downpipe or line". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 36 recites the limitation "the toilet or sewage pipe". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no requirement for any room to comprise a toilet or sewage pipe.
It is unclear what is further required by claim 37, because it is unclear how the retrofitting of a toilet or pipe relates to the testing of sewage water and detecting of claim 29.
Claim 37 recites the limitation "its pipe". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear what “its” is intended to reference. However, nothing has been established as comprising a pipe.
Claim 37 recites the limitation "the respective sensor technology for sewage monitoring". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. No such “sensor technology” has been previously mentioned nor defined in the claim.
Claim 38 recites the limitation "the monitoring result". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no prior mention of any monitoring result. It is noted that transmitting is not required to be performed by any specific structure nor person.
Claim 39 recites the limitations "the basis" of “the monitoring result”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Furthermore, it is noted that the “automatically drawing conclusions” is not required to be performed by any specific structure nor precluded from being performed mentally. Furthermore, there is no indication as to what is are conclusions “about” (subjective term) a toilet user’s “state of health” and what is considered “state of health” of a toilet user (claim does not define who is considered as, required to be done to be a toilet user) and what is nexus of relationship of the sewage water of claim 29 to a toilet user and state of health of the toilet user.
Claims 40 recites the limitations "the basis" of “the monitoring result”; “the doctor”; and “the user”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Furthermore, it is unclear what is considered as “advising” relative to different food, vitamins, and/or a visit to the doctor and who/what is required to perform such advising. It is unclear what considered “different” food because such is defined in the claim. No relative basis is provided for to determine what is “different”. Furthermore, there is no indication as to how different food, vitamins, a visited to the doctor are related to the sewage water and the user.
Claims 41-42 recite the limitation “the monitoring result”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. As to claim 41, it is unclear if the phrase “by a medical toilet” means a medical toilet performs the storing of data. Furthermore, it is unclear what is required of a toilet to be considered as a “medical” toilet because such is not defined in the claim. Furthermore, it is unclear what is required of data to be considered as “related to” the monitoring result because the claim does not provide for such. The phrase “related to” is subjective. Similarly in claim 42, there is no indication as to what is considered as information “based on” the monitoring result because the claim does not provide for such. It is noted that the displaying is not required to be performed by and specific structure nor person. Furthermore, it is noted the claim does not provide for any nexus, relationship of sewage water testing in claim 29 to an unspecified city or county map.
As to claim 43, it is unclear what is the nexus, relationship of the direct examination of wastewater in a hotel (and wastewater recited in claim 51-56) to sewage water in claim 29 because the claims do not provide for such. There is no distinction between sewage water and wastewater. It is noted that direct examination can be performed mentally via one’s eyes and brain. Furthermore, it is noted that a hotel, a company, worker camp, sewage treatment plant are not mutually exclusive. For example, a hotel can be considered as a company and worker camp. All of a hotel, worker camp, and sewage treatment plant are companies.
As to claim 45, it is unclear what is required meant by the claim and what is the nexus of the claim to steps of claim 29 because “comprising acquired data to chair rehearsal” does not appear to be a process step nor further limits any prior step of claim 29. The phrase appears to be grammatically incorrect. Furthermore, the entire phrase is unclear because it is unclear what is “chair rehearsal” and how any data is related to such. Furthermore, It is noted that the claim does not require, specify anyone nor anything to acquire/obtaining any data (see also claims 44, 46-47).
As to claim 46 see prior rejection of claim 45 above. Furthermore, it is also unclear how the claim relates to the method of claim 29, what is the relationship obtaining some broad information from people to the testing of sewage water. It is noted that no information is specified and furthermore it is unclear what is “registration” of people who buy medication and what is the nexus, relationship of such the steps of claim 29 because the claim does not clearly provide for such.
Claim 47 recites the limitations " the information obtained from data acquisition for marker recognition" and “respective sewers”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is noted that such data acquisition, marker recognition are defined in the claim. Furthermore, no sewers are previously mentioned and there is no indication as to how the recitations claim is related to the steps of claim 29.
As to claim 48-49, it is unclear what required to be done to be considered as daily sampling of hotels how such is performed, what has to be sampled, and how such daily sampling is related to “a hotel corona monitoring” (what constitutes such) and “finding of sick guests” because the claims do not provide for such. It is furthermore as noted above, it is unclear what is the nexus of claims 48-49 to method steps of claim 29 because the claims do not provide for such.
As noted above, it is unclear what is the nexus of claims 50-56 to method steps of claim 29 because the claims do not provide for such.
In claim 50, in presumed that an automatic electronic monitoring is intended to be a step of “automatically electronically monitoring a sewage system….”, if so the claim should clearly recite such. However, it is unclear what is the nexus of such sewage system to the method of claim 29. Furthermore, the claim does not recite what of the sewage system is monitored. (see also claim 55).
As to claims 51-52, 54, and 56, it is noted that it is unclear what is the nexus of wastewater to the prior recited sewage water of claim 29. Furthermore, it is noted that there is no indication as what is considered as “direct analysis of wastewater”.
As to claim 52, it appears as the claim is based upon a condition that is never required to occur as indicated by the phrase “as long as no electronic monitoring system is active”. However, it is noted that no electronic monitoring system is defined in the claim nor what is considered as such system being “active”.
Claims 54 and 56 recites the limitation "the direct examination of the wastewater". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is presumed that the phrase is intended to be “the direct analysis of the wastewater” (previously addressed above). If so the claims should clearly recite such. Furthermore, it is noted that the claims do not provide for what is considered as, required to be performed/done to what that is considered as “a Corona test). See also claims 53 and 55.
Claim 55 recites the limitation "the sewage system" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 55 is a conditional claim. There is nothing required to be performed by the claim because the claim is based upon conditions as indicated the phrase “if either…” no corona test is required to be performed at all nor required to be positive, therefore no respective information (broad, unspecified) is required to be provided to any hotel. Furthermore, it is noted that no respective information is previously mentioned nor there any relationship between the steps of claim 29 and such information and a hotel of claim 55.
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.
Claim(s) 29-56 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Douglas, US 2023/0335272.
Douglass disclose discloses a building management system and method of use in a building and the system includes a plurality of pathogen (infectious agents/contaminants) detectors positioned in the building at a plurality of locations, the plurality of pathogen detectors configured to output pathogen data indicating whether presence of a pathogen has been detected. The pathogen detection system further includes processing circuitry configured to obtain first detection data from a first pathogen detector of the plurality of pathogen detectors positioned at a first location in the building, in response to obtaining the first detection data, analyze second detection data from a second pathogen detector of the plurality of pathogen detectors, determine a responsive action associated with an area or zone of the building based on the first detection data and the second detection data, and perform the responsive action or initiate the responsive action within the area or zone. (Abstract).
The first pathogen detector is a sewage (sewage water/wastewater) sampling system configured to take a sample of sewage from a sewage line or a sewage outlet of the building and sense the presence of the pathogen within the sample of sewage. (paragraph 0016, 85)
As to claims 30, 38, and 50 the pathogen detection system can include pathogen detectors positioned at one or more locations (e.g., throughout) in or near the building that are configured to sense a presence and/or a type of pathogen in the building. A detection controller (central processer to which detection is reported to) can obtain detection results from each of the pathogen detectors. The detection controller can, in some implementations, determine a magnitude or severity of pathogenic outbreak in the building. Additionally, the detection controller can, in various implementations, detect presence of pathogens and/or locations of the detection. In some implementations, the detection controller can determine one or more responsive actions based on any of, or any combination of, pathogen detection, locations of pathogen detection in the building, a type of pathogen detected in the building, a number of instances of pathogen detection, the magnitude or severity of the pathogenic outbreak in the building, etc. The detection controller can communicate with a variety of systems of the building, systems associated with the building, sub-systems, etc., to implement the responsive actions. The responsive actions may differ based on application of the systems and methods (e.g., different types of buildings or facilities in which the systems and methods are implemented). The responsive actions can be applied across the entire building, or may be targeted to specific zones, areas, or locations in the building (based on the locations of pathogen detection in the building). (paragraph 0034, 62, 84-85).
As to claims 31, 41-45, and 47, the detection controller 502 is configured to provide the outputs to the monitoring system 514, according to some embodiments. In some embodiments, the monitoring system 514 includes, or is in communication with, one or more display devices, notification systems, etc. The monitoring system 514 may be a back-end monitoring system for an administrator of the building 10. In some embodiments, the monitoring system 514 communicates with any of the messaging system 508, the control system 510, the analytics system 512, the service application system 516, the alert system 518, the HVAC system 100, a BMS of the building 10, etc., so that the monitoring system 514 can obtain operational data thereof. In some embodiments, the monitoring system 514 is configured to generate dashboards, user-interfaces, graphical user interfaces, graphs, charts, diagrams, tabular data, etc., (mapping) of any of the messaging system 508, the control system 510, the analytics system 512, the service application system 516, the alert system 518, the HVAC system 100, the BMS of building 10, and/or the detection controller 502 based on operational data, sensor data, analytic data, etc., thereof. For example, the monitoring system 514 can generate a dashboard that demonstrates what areas in the building 10 are currently or have previously undergone infection control, what type of pathogen is detected in any areas of the building, time series-data of pathogen detection in building 10, etc. In some embodiments, the monitoring system 514 is configured to use any of the data obtained by or determined by the detection controller 502 in combination with the techniques as described in U.S. application Ser. No. 16/927,281, filed Jul. 13, 2020, to generate visualizations or dashboards, the entire disclosure of which is incorporated by reference herein. (paragraphs 0105, 111, 132).
As to claims 32 and 34-37, sewage sampling sensors can be installed within the drainage pipes of each bathroom in the building. These sensors can be strategically placed to monitor sewage outflow from specific fixtures, such as toilets, urinals, and sinks, allowing for a more precise analysis of pathogen presence in these localized areas. The sewage sampling system within the bathrooms can collect samples at predetermined intervals or upon detecting a sewage flow event. The collected samples are then analyzed for the presence of pathogens, with the results transmitted to the detection controller. (paragraph 0158).
The building 10 may be an airport, an incarceration site, a cruise ship, a hotel, a nursing home, or an assisted living facility, among others. Depending on the type of the building 10 and the application thereof, the responsive actions initiated by the detection controller 502 may differ. (paragraph 0167; 0136 the building is a “hospital”).
As to claims 33 and 39-40, if the building is a hospital, and a particular type of pathogen is detected in a certain area (e.g., a patient's room), the room may be sealed off, or caregivers may be prompted (health determinations made, conclusions drawn, and advise given) to use proper safety precaution (e.g., proper safety attire) before entering the room where the particular type of pathogen is detected. In another example, if the building is an office building, the responsive actions can include notifying employees of the office building (e.g., by providing a message) that a particular type of pathogen has been detected (determination , and that all employees should work from home, or perform self-imposed quarantining. (paragraph 0136).
As to claims 48-49 and 51-56, pathogen detectors 504 can include processing circuitry, various processors, memory, etc., for performing the processing of the samples. One or more of the samples (e.g., each sample) can be time stamped and stored for future analysis. In some embodiments, samples can be time stamped and/or location-tagged by detection controller 502. In various embodiments, the samples can be tagged with an identified of a location from which the sample is received or with an identifier of a pathogen detector from which can be used to determine a location by detection controller 502. For example, the biological sensor (e.g., 504d) can collect daily samples of wastewater to monitor sewage and the biological element can analyze the samples for one or more viruses (e.g., coronaviruses (e.g., COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, SARS-CoV-3), influenza, hepatitis, HIV, chickenpox, etc.), one or more bacteria (e.g., E. coli, listeria, salmonella, etc.), and/or any other pathogen. In various embodiments, if the biological sensor (504d) detects a sample is positive for one or more viruses, bacteria, or pathogen, the processing circuitry may take one or more actions in response. In some such implementations, the processing circuitry of the biological sensor may collect additional samples to re-confirm the presence of the particular virus or bacteria. In some embodiments, the processing circuit (e.g., in parallel) can inform the detection controller 502 of the positive test (e.g., via output detection data including a detected presence of a pathogen). (paragraph 0111).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Risbeck; Michael J. et al.; YANG; Zhugen; Lim; Jiyun et al.; SCHMIDT; Jordan Jeremy et al.; Spurbeck; Rachel R. et al.; and Garcia; Mariana G. Matus et al. disclose sewage water monitoring methods.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN R GORDON whose telephone number is (571)272-1258. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8-5:30pm; off every other Friday..
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, Jill Warden can be reached at 571-272-1267. 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.
/BRIAN R GORDON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798