DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments, filed 23 December 2025, with respect to claims 60 and 74 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 60-66, 68-72, 74-75, and 77-82 under 35 USC 112(a) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments, filed 23 December 2025, with respect to claims 60, 74, and 81 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 60-66, 68-72, 74-75, and 77-82 under 35 USC 112(b) has been withdrawn.
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 60-66, 68-72, 74-75, and 77-82 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.
Claim 60 recites in step (g) performing a leak probability analysis using data including measuring time, data, duration, flow rate, and occupancy status, to predict a potential problem before the potential problem happens. Applicant argues that page 19, line 5-11 provides support for the limitation, which is correct; but, the specification fails to provide any discussion of how this leak probability analysis is generated and/or what algorithms or models are being utilized. Moreover, the specification fails to discuss how a prediction of a potential problem is performed before the potential problem happens. If information about measuring time, duration, flow rate, and occupancy status are utilized to determine that water is flowing for too long a period of time at an unexpected hour; or during an unoccupied status, then one would surmise that a leak is present in the system, so it is unclear how gathering this information predicts a leak before the leak can happen if the actual results are indicative of a leak that is already occurring. These types of systems to monitor a water consuming unit are numerous and well-known, such that one considering various Wands factors, such as the nature of the invention, the state of the prior art, and the level of predictability in the art, the Examiner argues that undue experimentation is necessary to make and or use the invention given that no teaching regarding predicting a potential leak before it happens is explained. Since one of ordinary skill in the art would need to develop their own models and algorithms, additional factors such as the amount of direction provided by the inventor, and the quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure lead the Examiner to conclude that the claims contain 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.
NOTE: Claims 61-66, 68-72, and 80-82 are also rejected under 35 USC 112(a) as these claims depend from rejected independent claim 60.
Claim 74 recites in step (h) performing a leak probability analysis using data including measuring time, data, duration, flow rate, and occupancy status, to predict a potential problem before the potential problem happens. Applicant argues that page 19, line 5-11 provides support for the limitation, which is correct; but, the specification fails to provide any discussion of how this leak probability analysis is generated and/or what algorithms or models are being utilized. Moreover, the specification fails to discuss how a prediction of a potential problem is performed before the potential problem happens. If information about measuring time, duration, flow rate, and occupancy status are utilized to determine that water is flowing for too long a period of time at an unexpected hour; or during an unoccupied status, then one would surmise that a leak is present in the system, so it is unclear how gathering this information predicts a leak before the leak can happen if the actual results are indicative of a leak that is already occurring. These types of systems to monitor a water consuming unit are numerous and well-known, such that one considering various Wands factors, such as the nature of the invention, the state of the prior art, and the level of predictability in the art, the Examiner argues that undue experimentation is necessary to make and or use the invention given that no teaching regarding predicting a potential leak before it happens is explained. Since one of ordinary skill in the art would need to develop their own models and algorithms, additional factors such as the amount of direction provided by the inventor, and the quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure lead the Examiner to conclude that the claims contain 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.
NOTE: Claims 75 and 77-79 are also rejected under 35 USC 112(a) as these claims depend from rejected independent claim 74.
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 60-66, 68-72, 74-75, and 77-82 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.
Re claim 60, claim lines 20-21: It is unclear how information about measuring time, duration, flow rate, and occupancy status are utilized to predict a potential problem before the potential problem happens as claimed. Monitoring a water consuming unit, and identifying that water is first flowing at an unusual time, flowing for too long a period of time (duration) at an unexpected hour (time); or during an unoccupied status is a common feature of monitoring systems. When these conditions are met, it is common for the system to surmise that a leak is present in the system. Thus, it is unclear how gathering this information predicts a leak before the leak can happen if the actual condition/results being monitored/identified/measured are indicative of a leak that is already occurring.
NOTE: Claims 60-66, 68-72, and 80-82 are also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) as these claims depend from rejected independent claim 60.
Re claim 74, claim lines 23-24: It is unclear how information about measuring time, duration, flow rate, and occupancy status are utilized to predict a potential problem before the potential problem happens as claimed. Monitoring a water consuming unit, and identifying that water is first flowing at an unusual time, flowing for too long a period of time (duration) at an unexpected hour (time); or during an unoccupied status is a common feature of monitoring systems. When these conditions are met, it is common for the system to surmise that a leak is present in the system. Thus, it is unclear how gathering this information predicts a leak before the leak can happen if the actual condition/results being monitored/identified/measured are indicative of a leak that is already occurring.
NOTE: Claims 75 and 77-79 are also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) as these claims depend from rejected independent claim 74.
NOTE: Prior art was not applied to reject the claims of this application because the Examiner is unclear what is actually being claimed; and if this subject matter is enabled. Additionally, the Examiner is not making any indications of allowable subject matter at this time until the claims are clearly understood.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL SEAN LARKIN whose telephone number is 571-272-2198. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 5:30 PM.
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, Laura Martin can be reached at 571-272-2160. 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.
/DANIEL S LARKIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855