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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed 01/13/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-11 and 13-21 remain pending. The amendment to claim 2 overcomes the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of Claim 2.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 6-12, filed 01/13/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-11 and 13-21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of previously disclosed prior art Mahaffey (US20200332499) in view of newly disclosed prior art Canfield (US20130125625) and previously disclosed prior art Kim (KR101827949) under 35 U.S.C. 103. Newly discovered prior art Canfield (US20130125625) teaches in Figure 6A a vibration sensor attached to the tank (i.e. water cistern) of a toilet.
Applicant argues on Page 8 that the claimed systems and methods are structurally and functionally incompatible with Kim’s and Mahaffey’s systems with details towards the sensor placement as taught by Kim being inside or immediately adjacent to a commercial water meter housing. Applicant further argues that Kim’s system cannot function if the accelerometer is moved to a toilet cistern because the vibration signatures Kim analyzes arise from pipe-born vibration, not from a cistern’s structural response and the control unit correlates readings of vibration, noise, and pressure from the same pipe segment to detect leakage and that moving the sensor to a cistern destroys this correlation.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Independent Claim 1 and 10 detail “the vibration sensor is attached to the water cistern or to a structure attached to the water cistern”. That is, the claim language does not explicitly restrict the sensor as being attached directly to the water cistern as it gives the option of either attaching to the water cistern or to a structure that is attached to the water cistern. Examiner points out in the instant application, Figure 1 shows the vibration sensor 2 attached not to the cistern, but to inlet pipe 2 and that inlet pipe 2 is attached to cistern 10. This would correspond to the claimed limitation of “structure attached to the water cistern”. Figure 13B details the vibration sensor 2 attached to the water cistern 10. The claim limitation gives the position of the vibration sensor as either being a) attached to the water cistern (as disclosed with Figure 13B) or a structure attached to the water cistern (as disclosed with Figure 1). Newly discovered prior art newly disclosed prior art Canfield (US20130125625) teaches in Figure 6 the structural association of the vibration sensor directly to the water tank (i.e. water cistern). Previously disclosed prior art Kim teaches the use of an acceleration sensor as a vibration sensor, along with communication from vibration sensors that Mahaffey in view of Canfield are silent with regards to. Previously disclosed prior art Mahaffey teaches in [0034] the evaluation of the flow rate of water with a threshold in [0034]. Thus the analysis as detailed in the claims is taught by previously disclosed prior art Mahaffey and does not rely on the analysis as taught by previously disclosed prior art Kim.
Applicant argues on Page 9 that the claimed cistern-mounted accelerometer yields a different technical effect from both Mahaffey and Kim, as the claimed systems detect microleakage in cistern inlet valves, and attaching the accelerometer to the cistern body allows the system to detect very low-flow, long-duration leakage that produces long, barely perceptible refill vibrations in the cistern and the absence of vibration below a threshold over a predefined time period to identify silent leaks. Applicant argues that Mahaffey’s system uses correlation logic and not vibration waveform analysis and that Mahaffey nor Kim renders obvious the technical benefit arising from mounting a vibration sensor directly on a cistern.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As detailed above, independent Claim 1 and 10 do not restrict the vibration sensor to be directly mounted to the cistern, but instead places the option to either mount it to the cistern direction or to a structure that is connected to the cistern. Furthermore, newly discovered prior art Canfield teaches the direct attachment of the vibration sensor to the cistern in Figure 6. Previously disclosed prior art Mahaffey teaches in [0034] the evaluation of the flow rate of water with a threshold in [0034]. Furthermore, previously disclosed prior art Mahaffey details a water flow measurement device that measures the flow of water. Thus the incorporation of the newly discovered prior art Canfield teaching the water flow measurement device as being a vibration sensor along with the teaching from previously disclosed prior art Kim to transmit the vibration sensor data would thus teach the claimed limitation towards performing a determination with respect to the vibration data compared to a threshold to determine the existence of a leak.
Applicant argues on Pages 9-10 that the combination of Mahaffey and Kim would require major redesign and it is not a simple substitution. Applicant argues on Page 10 that to arrive at the claimed configured one would need to abandon Kim’s water meter based architecture, abandon Kim’s sensor placement in a pipe, insert a vibration sensor onto a cistern and redesign the processing logic to evaluate absence of vibration amplitude for leakage detection.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As Examiner has detailed above, independent Claim 1 and 10 do not restrict the vibration sensor as being directly attached to the water cistern, as it gives the option with an “or” to either be attached to the water cistern or to a structure attached to the water cistern. Furthermore dependent Claim 20 details the vibration sensor as not directly connected to the cistern but instead attached to the inlet pipe which would be a structure that is attached to the water cistern. As the rejection relies about the teaching of Mahaffey in view of Canfield and Kim, with Kim teaching the utilization of an accelerometer as the vibration sensor, the full water meter based architecture as detailed in Kim is not utilized in the rejection. Furthermore, as the claimed limitation details in Claim 1 and 10, the computer unit receives data from the vibration sensor, determines when no vibration amplitude below a predefined amplitude level has been detected by the vibration sensor in a predefined time period, and transmit a communication signal indicating existence of a leak when no vibration amplitude below the predefined amplitude level has been detected is taught by the previously disclosed prior art Mahaffey in view of Canfield and Kim, thus no redesign of the processing logic is needed as Mahaffey details leakage detection based off comparing to a threshold as detailed in [0034]-[0035].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 10-11, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahaffey (US20200332499) in view of Canfield (US20130125625) and Kim (KR101827949)
In regards to Claim 1, Mahaffey teaches “a sensor arranged in a position in which the sensor can detect signals caused by water flowing through the pipe (water flow measurement device [i.e. sensor] that measures/determines the flow of water [i.e. signals] through a pipe or other conduit [i.e. inlet pipe] – [0021]); and
a computer unit (data processing apparatus [i.e. computer] – [0024]) arranged and configured to:
receive data from the sensor (data processing apparatus [i.e. computer] receives the water flow measurement from the water flow measurement device 109 – [0024]);
determine when no amplitude below a predefined amplitude level has been detected by the sensor in a predefined time period (if the flow rate for the water flow fault is below the threshold [i.e. predefined amplitude level], the data processing apparatus can send a non-emergency services message to the technician – [0034]; the monitoring occurs for a time period – [0035]); and
transmit a communication signal indicating existence of a leak when no vibration amplitude below the predefined amplitude level has been detected by the vibration sensor in the predefined time period (upon determination indication a water leak, the data processing apparatus 102 sends a service message to the technician – [0034]; data processing apparatus includes input/output device that include network interface devices – [0028]; data processing apparatus includes a communication device 260 to communicate output data/information/indicators to users – [0029]).”
Mahaffey is silent with regards to the language of “a vibration sensor arranged in a position in which the vibration sensor can detect vibration signals caused by water flowing through the inlet pipe or through the water cistern, wherein the vibration sensor is attached to the water cistern or to a structure attached to the water cistern”
Canfield teaches “a vibration sensor arranged in a position in which the vibration sensor can detect vibration signals caused by water flowing through the inlet pipe or through the water cistern, wherein the vibration sensor is attached to the water cistern or to a structure attached to the water cistern (“FIG. 6A shows a cross-section of the fully assembled exemplary non-limiting device L, whereby the resulting physical response of printed circuit board 312 attached piezo 300 is highly sensitive to the vibration and sound produced as a result of fill valve 66 action [i.e. vibration sensor]. To better illustrate this, FIGS. 9-15B show an example modern conventional toilet 50 comprising a tank 52 [i.e. water cistern] of the type device L can be vibrationally coupled to, and a bowl 54 . The tank 52 holds a quantity of water W. Pulling on flush handle 56 causes lever 58 to lift chain 60 , which in turn raises flapper 62 at the bottom of tank 52 . Flapper 62 is a kind of valve that flaps open (up) and closed (down). When chain 60 raises flapper 62 off of the flush valve seat 65 (see FIGS. 10 and 11), water W from the tank 52 rushes downward through an opening into the bowl 54 . This inrush of water flows through rim holes 55 a and siphon hole 55 b (see FIG. 12). This water inrush increases the water pressure within the bowl, forcing water through exhaust port 63 and past vapor trap 55 c beneath the bowl and down into waste pipe 57 . This flow of water and waste into the waste pipe 57 creates a strong siphon that evacuates the bowl through exhaust port 63 , producing the characteristic flushing “whoosh” sound familiar to most people. In most toilets, the bowl 54 is molded so that the water enters the rim, and some of it drains out through rim holes 55 a . In many modern toilets, a good portion of the water flows down to a larger siphon hole 55 b at the bottom of the bowl as shown in FIG. 12. This hole is known as the siphon jet. It releases most of the water directly into the siphon tube. Because all of the water in the bowl enters the tank in a very short time (e.g., three to five seconds), it is enough to fill and produce the siphon effect, and all of the water and waste in the bowl is sucked out into waste pipe 57 .” – [0093])”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Mahaffey to incorporate the teaching of Canfield to utilize a vibration sensor attached to a tank to detect the flow of water. By utilizing a vibration sensor to monitor the flow of water in a tank, this is an improvement that yields predictable results in the monitoring of the water flow and the determination of leaks associated with the water flow.
Mahaffey in view of Canfield is silent with regards to the language of “the vibration sensor comprises an accelerometer; receive data from the vibration sensor; vibration amplitude; transmit a communication signal indicating existence of a leak to a first external receiver”
Kim teaches “wherein the vibration sensor comprises an accelerometer (acceleration sensor mounted on the water pipe to detect vibration of water flowing inside the water pipe – [0011]); receive data from the vibration sensor (control unit receives the measurement values of the acceleration sensor – [0011]); vibration amplitude (control unit continuously receives vibration signals, i.e. vibration amplitude – [0032]); transmit a communication signal indicating existence of a leak to a first external receiver (transmits an abnormal signal to a waterworks management server, i.e. external receiver, through a low-power wide area communication network when the vibration of the tap water deviates from a preset normal range, i.e. existence of a leak – [0023]).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mahaffey in view of Canfield to incorporate the teaching of Kim to utilize an accelerometer as a vibration sensor to detect the vibration signals caused by fluid flow. By utilizing a vibration sensor to monitor the water flow, this is an improvement to detecting water leakage without visually checking the meter.
In regards to Claim 10, Mahaffey teaches “attaching a sensor in a position in which the sensor can detect signals caused by water flowing through the pipe (water flow measurement device [i.e. sensor] that measures/determines the flow of water [i.e. signals] through a pipe or other conduit [i.e. inlet pipe] – [0021]);
detecting signals caused by water flowing through the pipe or through the water cistern by the sensor (data processing apparatus [i.e. computer] receives the water flow measurement from the water flow measurement device 109 – [0024]);
determining when no signals having a amplitude below a predefined amplitude level have been detected by the sensor in a predefined time period (if the flow rate for the water flow fault is below the threshold [i.e. predefined amplitude level], the data processing apparatus can send a non-emergency services message to the technician – [0034]; the monitoring occurs for a time period – [0035]); and
transmitting a communication signal indicating existence of a leak when no amplitude below the predefined amplitude level has been detected by the vibration sensor in the predefined time period (upon determination indication a water leak, the data processing apparatus 102 sends a service message to the technician – [0034]; data processing apparatus includes input/output device that include network interface devices – [0028]; data processing apparatus includes a communication device 260 to communicate output data/information/indicators to users – [0029]).”
Mahaffey is silent with regards to the language of “attaching a vibration sensor to the water cistern or to a structure attached to the water cistern in a position in which the vibration sensor can detect vibration signals caused by water flowing through the inlet pipe or through the water cistern; detecting vibration signals caused by water flowing through the inlet pipe or through the water cistern by the vibration sensor.”
Canfield teaches “attaching a vibration sensor to the water cistern or to a structure attached to the water cistern in a position in which the vibration sensor can detect vibration signals caused by water flowing through the inlet pipe or through the water cistern (“ FIG. 6A shows a cross-section of the fully assembled exemplary non-limiting device L, whereby the resulting physical response of printed circuit board 312 attached piezo 300 is highly sensitive to the vibration and sound produced as a result of fill valve 66 action [i.e. vibration sensor]. To better illustrate this, FIGS. 9-15B show an example modern conventional toilet 50 comprising a tank 52 [i.e. water cistern] of the type device L can be vibrationally coupled to, and a bowl 54 . The tank 52 holds a quantity of water W. Pulling on flush handle 56 causes lever 58 to lift chain 60 , which in turn raises flapper 62 at the bottom of tank 52 . Flapper 62 is a kind of valve that flaps open (up) and closed (down). When chain 60 raises flapper 62 off of the flush valve seat 65 (see FIGS. 10 and 11), water W from the tank 52 rushes downward through an opening into the bowl 54 . This inrush of water flows through rim holes 55 a and siphon hole 55 b (see FIG. 12). This water inrush increases the water pressure within the bowl, forcing water through exhaust port 63 and past vapor trap 55 c beneath the bowl and down into waste pipe 57 . This flow of water and waste into the waste pipe 57 creates a strong siphon that evacuates the bowl through exhaust port 63 , producing the characteristic flushing “whoosh” sound familiar to most people. In most toilets, the bowl 54 is molded so that the water enters the rim, and some of it drains out through rim holes 55 a . In many modern toilets, a good portion of the water flows down to a larger siphon hole 55 b at the bottom of the bowl as shown in FIG. 12. This hole is known as the siphon jet. It releases most of the water directly into the siphon tube. Because all of the water in the bowl enters the tank in a very short time (e.g., three to five seconds), it is enough to fill and produce the siphon effect, and all of the water and waste in the bowl is sucked out into waste pipe 57 .” – [0093]); detecting vibration signals caused by water flowing through the inlet pipe or through the water cistern by the vibration sensor (“whereby the resulting physical response of printed circuit board 312 attached piezo 300 is highly sensitive to the vibration and sound produced as a result of fill valve 66 action” – [0093])”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Mahaffey to incorporate the teaching of Canfield to utilize a vibration sensor attached to a tank to detect the flow of water. By utilizing a vibration sensor to monitor the flow of water in a tank, this is an improvement that yields predictable results in the monitoring of the water flow and the determination of leaks associated with the water flow.
Mahaffey in view of Canfield is silent with regards to the language of “transmit a communication signal indicating existence of a leak to an external receiver; wherein the vibration sensor comprises an accelerometer; vibration amplitude.”
Kim teaches “transmit a communication signal indicating existence of a leak to an external receiver (transmits an abnormal signal to a waterworks management server, i.e. external receiver, through a low-power wide area communication network when the vibration of the tap water deviates from a preset normal range, i.e. existence of a leak – [0023]), wherein the vibration sensor comprises an accelerometer (acceleration sensor mounted on the water pipe to detect vibration of water flowing inside the water pipe – [0011]); vibration amplitude (control unit continuously receives vibration signals, i.e. vibration amplitude – [0032]);.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mahaffey in view of Canfield to incorporate the teaching of Kim to utilize an accelerometer as a vibration sensor to detect the vibration signals caused by fluid flow. By utilizing a vibration sensor to monitor the water flow, this is an improvement to detecting water leakage without visually checking the meter.
In regards to Claim 11, Mahaffey in view of Canfield and Kim discloses the claimed invention as detailed above. Mahaffey further teaches “generating an alert when no vibration signals having a vibration amplitude below the predefined amplitude level have been detected by the vibration sensor in the predefined time period (upon determination indication a water leak, the data processing apparatus 102 sends a service message [i.e. alert] to the technician – [0034]).”
In regards to Claim 20, Mahaffey in view of Canfield and Kim discloses the claimed invention as detailed above. Mahaffey is silent with regards to the language of “the accelerometer is attached to the inlet pipe.”
Kim further teaches “the accelerometer is attached to the inlet pipe (acceleration sensor mounted on the water pipe to detect vibration of water flowing inside the water pipe – [0011]).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mahaffey in view of Canfield to incorporate the teaching of Kim to utilize an accelerometer as a vibration sensor to detect the vibration signals caused by fluid flow. By utilizing a vibration sensor to monitor the water flow, this is an improvement to detecting water leakage without visually checking the meter.
Claims 2-4, 8-9, 13-14, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahaffey in view of Canfield and Kim as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Salomon (US20140174186).
In regards to Claim 2, Mahaffey in view of Canfield and Kim discloses the claimed invention as detailed above. Mahaffey further teaches “the sensor comprises a communication to transmit signals to a second external receiver (water flow measurement devices communicates the measurements to the data processing apparatus – [0039]).”
Mahaffey is silent with regards to the language of “the vibration sensor comprises a communication module configured to transmit signals to a second external receiver.”
Salomon teaches “the vibration sensor comprises a communication module configured to transmit signals to a second external receiver (the vibration detector 6a with transceiver 17a [i.e. communication module] to communicate over the communication network 14 [i.e. external receiver] – Figure 1a).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mahaffey in view of Canfield and Kim to incorporate the teaching of Salomon to utilize a sensor with a communication module incorporated therein. By incorporating a communication module with the sensor this yields predictable results for the gathering of data from the sensor.
In regards to Claim 3, Mahaffey in view of Canfield and Kim discloses the claimed invention as detailed above. Mahaffey in view of Canfield and Kim is silent with regards to the language of “the vibration sensor comprises a satellite-based radio navigation unit.”
Salomon teaches “the vibration sensor comprises a satellite-based radio navigation unit (vibration detector receive signal from a common clock including a GPS [i.e. satellite-based radio navigation unit] – [0051]).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mahaffey in view of Canfield and Kim to incorporate the teaching of Salomon to utilize a sensor with a communication module with GPS incorporated therein. By incorporating a communication module with the sensor this yields predictable results for the gathering of data from the sensor.
In regards to Claim 4, Mahaffey in view of Canfield and Kim discloses the claimed invention as detailed above. Mahaffey in view of Canfield and Kim is silent with regards to the language of “the vibration sensor comprises a unique identification that is linked to the position of the toilet to which the vibration sensor is installed.”
Salomon teaches “the vibration sensor comprises a unique identification that is linked to the position of the toilet to which the vibration sensor is installed (communication is sent with the sensor ID and time stamp and each sensor is associated with the geographical position according to its installation – [0055]).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mahaffey in view of Canfield and Kim to incorporate the teaching of Salomon to utilize a sensor with a sensor ID. By incorporating a utilizing a sensor ID with the timestamp to communicate the sensor data, this is an improvement that yields predictable results for the monitoring and evaluation of sensor data.
In regards to Claims 8 and 18, Mahaffey in view of Canfield and Kim discloses the claimed invention as detailed above. Mahaffey in view of Canfield and Kim is silent with regards to the language of “the sensor comprises a setting unit by which a sampling rate of the sensor and/or a frequency with which the sensor sends signals can be set and/or changed.”
Salomon teaches “the sensor comprises a setting unit by which a sampling rate of the sensor and/or a frequency with which the sensor sends signals can be set and/or changed (the server can configure the sensor modules to measure vibration at a higher sensitive and lower frequency band by changing the sampling rate – [0044]).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mahaffey in view of Canfield and Kim to incorporate the teaching of Salomon to be able to configure the sensor modules sampling rate. By adjusting the sampling rate, this is an improvement that yields predictable results to detect the operating conditions of fluid flow in a pipe.
In regards to Claim 9, Mahaffey in view Canfield and Kim discloses the claimed invention as detailed above. Mahaffey in view of Canfield and Kim is silent with regards to the language of “the system comprises a plurality of vibration sensors each arranged to detect vibration signals caused by water flowing through the inlet pipe or through the water cistern of different toilets.”
Salomon teaches “the system comprises a plurality of vibration sensors each arranged to detect vibration signals caused by water flowing through the inlet pipe or through the water cistern of different toilets (plurality of vibration detectors 6a, 6b, and 6c to detect vibration signals where each vibration meter is adapted to be attached to a pipe – [0038], Figure 1A).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mahaffey in view of Canfield and Kim to incorporate the teaching of Salomon to utilize a system that contains a plurality of vibration sensors, with each sensor associated with a pipe. By utilizing multiple vibration sensors this is an improvement that yields predictable results to narrow down the specific source of the leak.
In regards to Claim 13, Mahaffey in view of Canfield and Kim discloses the claimed invention as detailed above. Mahaffey in view of Canfield and Kim is silent with regards to the language of “the vibration sensor applies satellite-based radio navigation to detect and send its position.”
Salomon teaches “the vibration sensor applies satellite-based radio navigation to detect and send its position (vibration detector receive signal from a common clock including a GPS [i.e. satellite-based radio navigation unit] – [0051]).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mahaffey in view of Canfield and Kim to incorporate the teaching of Salomon to utilize a sensor with a communication module with GPS incorporated therein. By incorporating a communication module with the sensor this yields predictable results for the gathering of data from the sensor.
In regards to Claim 14, Mahaffey in view of Canfield and Kim discloses the claimed invention as detailed above. Mahaffey in view of Canfield and Kim is silent with regards to the language of “the vibration sensor comprises a unique identification that is linked to the position of the toilet to which the vibration sensor is installed and the unique identification is included in the signals.”
Salomon teaches “the vibration sensor comprises a unique identification that is linked to the position of the toilet to which the vibration sensor is installed (communication is sent with the sensor ID and time stamp and each sensor is associated with the geographical position according to its installation – [0055]).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mahaffey in view of Canfield and Kim to incorporate the teaching of Salomon to utilize a sensor with a communication module with GPS incorporated therein. By incorporating a communication module with the sensor this yields predictable results for the gathering of data from the sensor.
In regards to Claim 19, Mahaffey in view of Canfield and Kim discloses the claimed invention as detailed above. Mahaffey further teaches “wherein the method for each toilet determines when no vibration signals having a vibration amplitude below the predefined amplitude level have been detected by the plurality of vibration sensors in the predefined time period (if the flow rate for the water flow fault is below the threshold [i.e. predefined amplitude level], the data processing apparatus can send a non-emergency services message to the technician – [0034]; the monitoring occurs for a time period – [0035]).”
Mahaffey in view of Canfield and Kim is silent with regards to the language of “applying a plurality of vibration sensors each arranged to detect vibration signals caused by water flowing through the inlet pipe or through the water cistern of different toilets”
Salomon teaches “applying a plurality of vibration sensors each arranged to detect vibration signals caused by water flowing through the inlet pipe or through the water cistern of different toilets (plurality of vibration detectors 6a, 6b, and 6c to detect vibration signals where each vibration meter is adapted to be attached to a pipe – [0038], Figure 1A).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mahaffey in view of Canfield and Kim to incorporate the teaching of Salomon to utilize a system that contains a plurality of vibration sensors, with each sensor associated with a pipe. By utilizing multiple vibration sensors this is an improvement that yields predictable results to narrow down the specific source of the leak.
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahaffey in view of Canfield and Kim as applied to claim 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Wilt (US20170254685).
In regards to Claims 5 and 15, Mahaffey in view of Canfield and Kim discloses the claimed invention as detailed above. Mahaffey is silent with regards to the language of “the predefined amplitude level corresponds to a flow of 5-1000 ml/min through the inlet pipe.”
Wilt teaches ““the predefined amplitude level corresponds to a flow of 5-1000 ml/min through the inlet pipe (minimum flow rate is 5 ml/min, low flow is 15 ml/min, high flow is 65 ml/min, and maximum flow of 79 ml/min – [0165]).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mahaffey in view of Canfield and Kim to incorporate the teaching of Wilt to utilize a range of flow rates for the predefined amplitude. It has been held where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Thus it would yield predictable results to use the a value within the range (as detailed in Wilt) as the threshold as taught by Mahaffey.
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahaffey in view of Canfield and Kim as applied to claim 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Sudy (US20090224927).
In regards to Claims 6 and 16, Mahaffey in view of Canfield and Kim discloses the claimed invention as detailed above. Mahaffey in view of Canfield and Kim is silent with regards to the language of “the predefined time period is within a range of 10-600 minutes.”
Sudy teaches “the predefined time period is within a range of 10-600 minutes (when leak detection is running, the timer is preset with a time out of T1, normally about 20 minutes, although any other predetermined time can be selected – [0070]).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mahaffey in view of Wilt and Dinardo to utilize a time period between 10 and 600 minutes. It has been held where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Thus it would yield predictable results to use the a value within the range (as detailed in Sudy) as the time period taught by Mahaffey.
Claims 7, 17, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahaffey in view of Canfield and Kim as applied to claim 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Yang (TW201341777A).
In regards to Claims 7 and 17, Mahaffey in view of Canfield and Kim discloses the claimed invention as detailed above. Mahaffey in view of Canfield and Kim is silent with regards to the language of “the sensor comprises a setting unit by which the predefined time period and/or the predefined amplitude level can be set and/or changed.”
Yang teaches “the sensor comprises a setting unit by which the predefined time period and/or the predefined amplitude level can be set and/or changed (“The detection time period and detection value can be set according to the water ecology. For example, for home users who are generally at home during the day, the detection period can be set to late at night (for example, 02:00-04:00) and the detection value can be set to a lower level. For office users who are generally not at home during the day, the detection period can be set to daytime (for example, 10:00-12:00) and the detection value can also be set to a lower level. Under the same working principle and function, the detection period set is not limited to only one, but can also be more than one. For example, for regular working users, the detection period can be set to once in the morning (e.g., 10:00-12:00), once in the afternoon (e.g., 14:00-16:00), and once late at night (e.g., 02:00-04:00)” – [0004]).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mahaffey in view of Canfield and Kim to incorporate the teaching of Yang to utilize time periods that are associated with different time of day. By utilizing the time periods associated with different time of days, this is an improvement that allows for the detection of leaks even during times no one is using water.
In regards to Claim 21, Mahaffey in view of Canfield and Kim discloses the claimed invention as detailed above. Mahaffey in view of Canfield and Kim is silent with regards to the language of “the predefined time period has a first value for a first part of a day and a second value for a second part of the day.”
Yang teaches “the predefined time period has a first value for a first part of a day and a second value for a second part of the day (“The detection time period and detection value can be set according to the water ecology. For example, for home users who are generally at home during the day, the detection period can be set to late at night (for example, 02:00-04:00) and the detection value can be set to a lower level. For office users who are generally not at home during the day, the detection period can be set to daytime (for example, 10:00-12:00) and the detection value can also be set to a lower level. Under the same working principle and function, the detection period set is not limited to only one, but can also be more than one. For example, for regular working users, the detection period can be set to once in the morning (e.g., 10:00-12:00), once in the afternoon (e.g., 14:00-16:00), and once late at night (e.g., 02:00-04:00).” – [0004]).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mahaffey in view of Canfield and Kim to incorporate the teaching of Yang to utilize time periods that are associated with different time of day. By utilizing the time periods associated with different time of days, this is an improvement that allows for the detection of leaks even during times no one is using water.
Examiner’s Note
While the following prior art are not used in conjunction with the rejection, the teaching of the following prior art is of interest to the instant application.
Dinardo (Giuseppe Dinardo et al, “Fluid Flow Rate Estimation using Acceleration Sensors”, 01/30/2014, 2013 Seven International Conference on Sensing Technology, https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=6727646) teaches the utilization of an acceleration sensor for the measurement of water flow rate, and relates the vibrations as measured by the acceleration sensor to the water flow rate.
Knauss (US20200225110) teaches a water supply line to a toilet having a sensor where the sensor includes a vibration detection device.
Sudy (US20090224927) provides further teaching of a toilet with a microphone [i.e. vibration sensor] attached to the tank of a toilet to monitor the flow of water and alert for leak detection.
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 YOSSEF KORANG-BEHESHTI whose telephone number is (571)272-3291. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am - 6:30 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, Catherine Rastovski can be reached at (571) 270-0349. 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.
/YOSSEF KORANG-BEHESHTI/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights