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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 6, 10-13, 15, 17, 19-21, 23, 25, 33-34, 37, 39, 43-46, 48, 50, 52-54, 56, and 58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Edwards (US 2016/0041565 A1) (hereinafter Edwards).
Regarding claims 1 and 33, Edwards teaches a building facility water management system and method for controlling at least one operational parameter associated with a volume of water used by a water control device of a plurality of water control devices during a device operation of the water control device in a building facility [control over water usage within a building; water use appliances] (Para [0028-0029, 0039], see Abstract), wherein the plurality of water control devices are arranged in a mesh network [mesh network technology] (Para [0023]), the system comprising at least one water control device and at least one controller [sub-modules and control unit] (Para [0024-0025], see Fig. 1A), wherein the controller is arranged to perform a method comprising the steps of:
obtaining a water operation value associated with a volume of water for the water control device during the operation [flow sensor, temperature sensor, water quality sensor] (Para [0010-0011]);
determining whether the water operation value is outside a defined threshold associated with the device operation [compared the detected one or more water flow characteristics with a database of water flow fingerprints; determining that the detected one or more water flow characteristics do not fall within or outside a threshold] (Para [0031-0032]);
upon a determination that the water operation value is outside of the defined threshold, adjust an operational parameter associated with the water control device during the device operation [shut the valve such that the flow of water is stopped or configured to adjust the valve to thereby adjust the pressure and/or flow rate of the water] (Para [0048]) to enable the water control device to be effectively operated to provide a defined volume of water [control water usage; control unit programmed with specific volume limits to be applied to a particular sub-module] (Para [0036, 0067]),
wherein the water operation value is based on one or more previous device operations [processing unit 310 configured to learn and evolve fingerprints over time] (Para [0062]), and
adjusting the operational parameter associated with the volume of water to be used by the water control device in one or more subsequent operations in dependence on a selected mode of operation from a plurality of modes of operation to enable the water control device to be effectively operated to provide a defined volume of water [user can adjust settings and preferences; user can adjust thresholds; for example, user may set that a variance of 25%, 10%, or 5% is allowable; control unit 100 may automatically adjust a threshold based upon normal fluctuations in water usage] (Para [0039]).
Regarding claims 4 and 37, Edwards as applied to claims 1 and 33 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to wherein the water operation value is one or more of an inlet water pressure at the water control device, a water supply pressure value associated with a water supply for the water control device, a water level of the volume of water associated with the device operation, an inlet flow rate associated with the device operation, an outlet flow rate associated with the device operation, a water volume associated with the device operation, a measured real-time water operation value and a stored water operation value [flow sensor, temperature sensor, water quality sensor] (Para [0010-0011]).
Regarding claims 6 and 39, Edwards as applied to claims 1 and 33 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to wherein the at least one operational parameter comprises at least one water regulating value of an inlet water valve associated with the device operation, the water regulating value is a time value associated with the device operation comprising one or more of an inlet water valve on-time, an inlet water valve off-time, a sequence of an inlet water valve on-time and off-time, or wherein the water regulating value is a flow rate value of the inlet water valve associated with the device operation [shut the valve such that the flow of water is stopped or configured to adjust the valve to thereby adjust the pressure and/or flow rate of the water] (Para [0048]).
Regarding claims 10 and 43, Edwards as applied to claims 1 and 33 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to wherein the adjusting of the operational parameter adjusts the volume of water available to the water control device to complete the device operation and/or subsequent device operation [limit volume of water] (Para [0067]).
Regarding claims 11 and 44, Edwards as applied to claims 1 and 33 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to wherein the adjusting of the operational parameter comprises the step of controlling at least one inlet water valve associated with the water control device, wherein the controlling of the inlet water valve is based on the obtained water operation value [shut the valve such that the flow of water is stopped or configured to adjust the valve to thereby adjust the pressure and/or flow rate of the water] (Para [0048]).
Regarding claims 12 and 45, Edwards as applied to claims 11 and 34 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to wherein the operational parameter comprises one or more of a time period that the inlet water valve is open, a time period that the inlet water valve is closed, a sequence of time periods in which the inlet water valve is open and closed, a flow rate of the inlet water valve, or any combination thereof [shut the valve such that the flow of water is stopped or configured to adjust the valve to thereby adjust the pressure and/or flow rate of the water] (Para [0048]).
Regarding claims 13 and 46, Edwards as applied to claims 11 and 34 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to wherein the adjusting of the operational parameter comprises the step of controlling the at least one inlet water valve to perform a maintenance device operation [shut the valve such that the flow of water is stopped or configured to adjust the valve to thereby adjust the pressure and/or flow rate of the water] (Para [0048]).
Regarding claims 15 and 48, Edwards as applied to claims 11 and 34 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to wherein a water outlet of the inlet water valve [440] is in direct fluid communication with the water control device and a water inlet of the inlet water valve is connected to a header [main water supply] (Para [0040], see Figs. 1A and 4).
Regarding claims 17 and 50, Edwards as applied to claims 11 and 34 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to wherein the water outlet of the inlet water valve [440] is in indirect fluid communication with the water control device and the water outlet of the inlet water valve is connected to an inlet of a cistern, wherein the cistern provides the volume of water for the water control device during the device operation [laundry machine, bathroom faucet, toilet, or any other exit point of water from the plumbing system; toilets utilize a cistern to provide the volume of water during device operation] (Para [0055]).
Regarding claims 19 and 52, Edwards as applied to claims 1 and 33 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to wherein the step of obtaining the water operation value comprises detecting a volume of water that was previously used by the water control device during one or more previous device operations [processing unit 310 configured to learn and evolve fingerprints over time; fingerprints can include information relating to the water volume] (Para [0056, 0062]).
Regarding claims 20 and 53, Edwards as applied to claims 1 and 33 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to wherein the step of obtaining the water operation value comprises obtaining a water pressure value of water associated with the device operation, obtaining a water flow rate value of water associated with the device operation, or obtaining a water level value of water associated with the device operation [flow sensor, temperature sensor, water quality sensor; devices that detect water pressure, water volume, water purity, etc.] (Para [0010-0011, 0047]).
Regarding claims 21 and 54, Edwards as applied to claims 20 and 53 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to wherein the method further comprise the steps of: obtaining a previous water pressure; comparing the obtained water pressure value with the obtained previous water pressure value; and determining whether the water pressure value is outside of the defined threshold based on a calculated pressure difference value based on a difference in water pressure between the water pressure value and the previous water pressure value [devices that detect water pressure; comparing water flow characteristics with fingerprints; the processing unit 310 can be configured to learn and evolve the fingerprints over time] (Para [0047, 0062, 0075]).
Regarding claims 23 and 56, Edwards as applied to claims 20 and 53 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to wherein the water flow rate value is based on one or more water flow rate values and obtained during one or more previous device operations [flow sensor; comparing water flow characteristics with fingerprints; the processing unit 310 can be configured to learn and evolve the fingerprints over time] (Para [0010-0011, 0062, 0075]).
Regarding claims 25 and 58, Edwards as applied to claims 1 and 33 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to wherein enabling the water control device to be effectively operated comprises: the step of operating in accordance with one or more manufacture specifications associated with the water control device so that the volume of water during the device operation is in accordance with the one or more manufacture specifications, or operating in accordance with one or more technical standards associated with the water control device so that the volume of water during the device operation is in accordance with the one or more technical standards, or operating in accordance with one or more legal standards associated with the water control device so that the volume of water during device operation is in accordance with the one or more legal standards [database of generic fingerprints that are associated with pre-defined average water use characteristics of water-use appliances] (Para [0053]).
Regarding claim 34, Edwards as applied to claim 33 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to wherein the controller is a water control device controller, a computer system controller, an electronic device controller, a building management system controller, or a server controller [water device, computer system, electronic device, building management, and/or server controller] (see Fig. 1A).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 28, 31-32, 61, and 64-65 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edwards, as applied to claims 1 and 33 above, and further in view of Cummings et al. (WO 2016/040989 A1) (hereinafter Cummings).
Regarding claims 28 and 61, Edwards as applied to claims 1 and 33 above teaches the claimed invention, except for wherein the adjusting of the operational parameter comprises selecting, obtaining, adjusting, or applying a profile associated with the device operation based on the obtained water operation value and the profile defines at least one relationship between the operational parameter and the water operation value. Cummings teaches methods and systems of controlling at least one parameter associated with a volume of water used by a water control device, wherein a mode of operation is selected based on real time and historical information gathered from various sensors to determine if a water saving “performance profile” or mode of operation needs to be activated for one or more water control devices under control of the system (Para [0096]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Edwards with Cummings such that adjusting of the operational parameter comprises selecting, obtaining, adjusting, or applying a profile associated with the device operation based on the obtained water operation value and the profile defines at least one relationship between the operational parameter and the water operation value, in order to allow for various modes of operation.
Regarding claims 31 and 64, Edwards in view of Cummings as applied to claims 28 and 61 above teaches the claimed invention, except for wherein the profile is associated with one or more of a water control device mode of operation, water control device code, a water control device type, a water control device group, a unique water control device ID, or a location of a water control device. Cummings additionally teaches wherein the profile is associated with a water control device mode of operation (Cummings Para [0096]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to further modify Edwards in view of Cummings such that the profile is associated with one or more of a water control device mode of operation, water control device code, a water control device type, a water control device group, a unique water control device ID, or a location of a water control device, in order to allow various modes of operation of controlling each water control device.
Regarding claims 32 and 65, Edwards as applied to claims 1 and 33 above teaches the claimed invention, except for wherein the device operation comprises a plurality of modes of operation, and the adjusting of the operational parameter for the device operation is dependent on a selected mode of operation selected from the modes of operation. Cummings teaches methods and systems of controlling at least one parameter associated with a volume of water used by a water control device, wherein a mode of operation is selected based on real time and historical information gathered from various sensors to determine if a water saving “performance profile” or mode of operation needs to be activated for one or more water control devices under control of the system (Para [0096]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Edwards with Cummings such that the device operation comprises a plurality of modes of operation, and the adjusting of the operational parameter for the device operation is dependent on a selected mode of operation selected from the modes of operation, in order to allow for various modes of operation.
Claims 14 and 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edwards, as applied to claims 13 and 46 above, and further in view of Halimi (US 2018/0136673 A1) (hereinafter Halimi).
Regarding claims 14 and 47, Edwards as applied to claims 13 and 46 above teach the claimed invention, except for wherein the maintenance device operation is determined using artificial intelligence and/or machine learning based on a plurality of water operation values obtained from a plurality of water control devices. Halimi teaches a fluid monitoring and control system wherein machine learning utilizes a plurality of water operational values obtained from a plurality of water control devices for determining normal operating conditions (Para [0015, 0050-0051]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Edwards with Halimi such that the maintenance device operation is determined using artificial intelligence and/or machine learning based on a plurality of water operation values obtained from a plurality of water control devices, in order to determine normal safe operating conditions.
Claims 30 and 63 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edwards in view of Cummings, as applied to claims 28 and 61 above, and further in view of Halimi.
Regarding claims 30 and 63, Edwards in view of Cummings as applied to claims 28 and 61 above teach the claimed invention, except for wherein further comprising the step of adjusting the profile using artificial intelligence and/or machine learning based on the at least one relationship over time. Halimi teaches a fluid monitoring and control system wherein machine learning utilizes a plurality of water operational values obtained from a plurality of water control devices for determining normal operating conditions (Para [0015, 0050-0051]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Edwards in view of Cummings with Halimi to further comprise the step of adjusting the profile using artificial intelligence and/or machine learning based on the at least one relationship over time, in order to determine normal safe operating conditions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the prior art rejections, Applicant argues that the newly amended limitation regarding a selected mode of operation from a plurality of modes of operation is not taught by Edwards or the other cited references. Applicant argues that Edward’s teaching of a user being able to adjust settings and preferences associated, such as a variance of 25%, 10%, or 5% is allowable within the plumbing system before the control unit identifies a problem fails to teach a “mode of operation”. In contrast, Applicant argues that the present application provides modes of operations such as standard mode, cleansing mode, maintenance mode, etc. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed limitations “in dependence on a selected mode of operation from a plurality of modes of operation” is taught by Edwards (see updated 102 rejection above). The example given by Edwards of a user selecting an acceptable variance percentage can be interpreted as a plurality of modes of operation - a mode of operation where 25% variance is acceptable, a mode of operation where 10% variance is acceptable, or a mode of operation where 5% is acceptable. The claimed limitation does not specifically define the plurality of modes of operation as a standard mode, cleansing mode, maintenance mode, etc. As such, the prior art still teaches the amended limitations.
Additionally, it is noted that water management systems configured for selecting from a standard mode, cleansing mode, maintenance mode, calibration mode, or other such modes are well known in the art - see previously cited Cummings, as well as Canfield et al. (US 2018/0135285 A1) (presented in IDS filed on 06 February 2026).
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 DAVID Z HUANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5360. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
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, Kristina Deherrera can be reached at 303-297-4237. 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.
/DAVID Z HUANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855