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 .
The amendment filed on February 19, 2026 has been considered.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on February 19, 2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US patents 11,066,813 and 11,530,531 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-16 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.
Claim 1, “the system processor (109) dynamically updates the user signature and parameters of the updated first set of data is updated to autonomously alter a leak detection threshold value to avoid future false positives” (last paragraph) is unclear because the specification does not describe “the system processor (109) dynamically updates” and “to autonomously alter”. Examiner interprets the limitations to read as
-- the system processor (109) [[dynamically]] updates” and “to [[autonomously]] alter --.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poojary et al. (US 20180230681) in view of Farrell (US 2007/0112528).
Regarding claim 1, Poojary et al. (‘681) discloses a leak monitoring system (100) (100, Fig. 1) effective for detecting and stopping a water leak and detecting water anomalies (paragraph 0085, lines 1-3), the system comprising:
a. a water meter (103) (103) inline to a main water valve (101) (101), wherein the water meter (103) (103) is configured to provide water usage data to a collector unit (107) (107) (Fig. 1);
b. the collector unit (107) (107), wherein the collector unit (107) (107) aggregates said water usage data into a first set of data (paragraph 0008, lines 6-7), the collector unit (107) comprising
a system processor (109) (109) (the collector unit 107 comprises the
system processor 109 in the respect that the system processor 109 is coupled to the collector unit, Fig. 1), wherein the first set of data is transmitted to the system processor (109) where the first set of data is organized and synthesized resulting in a second set of data (paragraph 0008, lines 11-14);
Furthermore, it has been held that forming in one piece an article which
has formerly been formed in two pieces (107, 109, Fig. 1, Poojary et al. ‘681), then put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 US 164 (1893).
c. a remote database (111) (111) wirelessly coupled to the system processor (109) for storing the first set of data and the second set of data (paragraph 0009, lines 1-3),
wherein upon installation, the collector unit (107) performs an initial calibration (paragraph 0009, lines 4-5),
wherein the initial calibration is a continuous collection of information received from the water meter (103) describing a water usage, wherein the continuous collection of data lasts for a predetermined time period resulting in the first set of data, which is transmitted by the collector unit (107) to the system processor (109), wherein the first set of data is organized and synthesized by the system processor (109) to produce the second set of data, wherein the second set of data is used to create a user signature characterizing the water usage of a user, wherein the user signature is stored in the remote database (111) (paragraph 0009);
d. a valve actuator (105) (105) operatively coupled to the main water valve (101) (101), wherein the valve actuator (105) is configured to open or close the main water valve (101), wherein the valve actuator (105) is wirelessly coupled to the system processor (109) (paragraph 0010); and
e. a user electronic device (113) (113) configured to access the system processor (109), wherein communication between the user electronic device (113) and the system processor (109) is accomplished via a telecommunications network (paragraph 0010),
wherein after the initial calibration produces the user signature, a continuous calibration monitors water usage and the first set of data is continuously updated, wherein the updated first set of data is compared to the user signature by the system processor (109) to detect a leak (paragraph 0011),
wherein when the leak is detected, the system processor (109) notifies the user electronic device (113), wherein the user indicates to the system processor (109) via the user electronic device (113) whether or not to close the main water valve, wherein the user may optionally shut off a source of the leak manually or permit the system processor (109) to remotely shut off the main water valve (101) via the valve actuator (105), thereby stopping the leak (paragraph 0011).
However, while Poojary et al. does not disclose when the leak is detected but no leak is
present, the system processor (109) dynamically updates the user signature and parameters of the updated first set of data is updated to autonomously alter a leak
detection threshold value to avoid future false positive, Poojary et al. discloses the system processor (109) dynamically updates the user signature (calibration updates a user signature, paragraph 0026, lines 8-9, paragraph 0011, lines 1-2) and parameters of the updated first set of data is updated (paragraph 0011, lines 1-6) to alter a leak detection threshold (by updating user signature, a leak can be detected (paragraph 0011, lines 1-6; hence a user signature can indicate a leak threshold).
Farrell discloses the leak is detected but no leak is present (false leak detection, paragraph 0170, lines 13-14), and altering a leak detection threshold value to avoid future false positives (paragraph 0170, lines 11-19).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide Poojary et al. with altering a leak detection threshold value as suggested by Farrell for the purpose of avoiding future false positives.
Regarding claim 2, Poojary et al. discloses the collector unit (107) logs a day and a time of day to water usage data measured by the water meter (103) such that the first set of data, the second set of data and the user signature are time-based (paragraph 0012).
Regarding claim 3, Poojary et al. discloses a plurality of sensors are integrated into the water meter (103), wherein the plurality of sensors may comprise a temperature sensor, a pressure sensor, and a water quality sensor (paragraph 0087, lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 4, Poojary et al. discloses the user signature comprises a volume of water flow, an amount of water consumption, a water temperature, and a water pressure for a given day and time of day (paragraph 0013).
Regarding claim 5, Poojary et al. discloses the user signature further comprises one or more sets of data each tied to a node in a user home, wherein information detailed in each set of data is time-based and comprises the volume of water flow, the amount of water consumption, the water temperature, and the water pressure for the given day and time of day at a particular node, wherein each node in the user home comprises an appliance having a water source fluidly connected to the main water valve (101) of the user home (paragraph 0013).
Regarding claim 6, Poojary et al. discloses the system processor (109) generates an appliance signature for each set of data gathered by each node (paragraph 0013, lines 4-5, 10-11).
Regarding claim 7, Poojary et al. discloses the system processor (109) detects a leak at a node when a current measurement of the volume of water flow or change in the water pressure detected by the water meter (103) or pressure sensor for a given day and time of day at the node deviates beyond a given threshold from a measurement stored by the user signature for that given day and time of day at the node (paragraph 0014).
Regarding claim 8, Poojary et al. discloses the system processor (109) sends an alert to the user electronic device (113) indicating a leak has been detected and advising the user to shut off the main water valve (101) or one or more valves associated with the node at which the leak is occurring (paragraph 0015).
Regarding claim 9, Poojary et al. discloses the system processor (109) sends an alert to the user electronic device (113) indicating a leak has been detected and requesting permission to remotely shut off the main water valve (101), wherein the user may permit or deny the shutting off of the main water valve (101) (paragraph 0015).
Regarding claim 10, Poojary et al. discloses the system processor (109) sends an alert to the user electronic device (113) indicating a leak has been detected and automatically shuts off the main water valve (101), remotely, after a set time interval has passed, wherein the set time interval is preset by the user (paragraph 0015).
Regarding claim 11, Poojary et al. discloses during continuous calibration, a usage pattern deviating from the user signature, indicating overconsumption, is identified by the system processor (109), wherein the system processor (109) sends an alert to the user electronic device (113) describing the deviation allowing the user to preemptively address a potential problem (paragraph 0016).
Regarding claim 12, Poojary et al. discloses the system processor (109) notifies the user, via the user electronic device (113), when a drop in water temperature above a preset threshold is detected by the temperature sensor (paragraph 0016).
Regarding claim 13, Poojary et al. discloses the system processor (109) sends a reminder to the user, via the user electronic device (113), to turn on one or more faucets associated with the one or more nodes of the user home when the drop in water temperature above the preset threshold is detected (paragraph 0016).
Regarding claim 14, Poojary et al. discloses a smoke detector system is integrated into the water meter (103) such that when the smoke detector system is activated, the valve actuator (105) does not close the main water valve (101) if a significant increase in the volume of water flow occurs (paragraph 0017).
Regarding claim 15, Poojary et al. discloses the system further comprises a contact sensor operatively coupled to the collector unit (107), wherein the contact sensor is disposed within a predetermined distance from an appliance requiring water, wherein the contact sensor is in contact with a region of a surface upon which the appliance sits, wherein the contact sensor is configured to detect when the region is wet, wherein if the region is wet then the contact sensor notifies the collector unit (107) via a signal, wherein the collector unit (107) notifies the system processor (109) to shut off a valve delivering water to the appliance via a second valve actuator (paragraph 0017).
Regarding claim 16, Poojary et al. discloses the user receives a report from the system processor (109) comprising time-based water consumption information, information describing one or more detected leaks, or information on one or more overconsumption events (paragraph 0018).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on February 19, 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments and amendment with respect to the objection to the specification have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to the specification has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments and amendment with respect to the objection to the drawing have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to the drawing has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments and terminal disclaimer with respect to the nonstatutory double patenting rejections been fully considered and are persuasive. The nonstatutory double patenting rejections have been withdrawn.
With regard to the rejection under 35 USC 103, Applicants argue “Poojary '681 does not have the feature of "dynamic autonomous adjustment of system parameters for false positive avoidance." “Farrell cannot achieve the inventive feature of "dynamic autonomous adjustment of system parameters for false positive avoidance".
Examiner’s position is that "dynamic autonomous adjustment of system parameters for false positive avoidance” is not recited in the claims. Instead, claim 1 recites “the system processor (109) dynamically updates the user signature and
parameters of the updated first set of data is updated to autonomously alter a leak detection threshold value to avoid future false positives”.
As discussed above with regard to 35 USC 112(b), the specification does not discuss the terms “the system processor (109) dynamically updates” and “to autonomously alter”. Accordingly, examiner interprets the limitations to read as -- the system processor (109) [[dynamically]] updates” and “to [[autonomously]] alter --.
Poojary et al. discloses the system processor (109) dynamically updates the user signature (calibration updates a user signature, paragraph 0026, lines 8-9, paragraph 0011, lines 1-2) and parameters of the updated first set of data is updated (paragraph 0011, lines 1-6) to alter a leak detection threshold (by updating user signature, a leak can be detected (paragraph 0011, lines 1-6; hence a user signature can indicate a leak threshold), while
Farrell discloses the leak is detected but no leak is present (false leak detection, paragraph 0170, lines 13-14), and autonomously altering a leak detection threshold value to avoid future false positives (paragraph 0170, lines 11-19).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide Poojary et al. with autonomously altering a leak detection threshold value as suggested by Farrell for the purpose of avoiding future false positives.
Accordingly, Poojary et al. in view of Farrell discloses “the system processor (109) dynamically updates the user signature and parameters of the updated first set of data is updated to autonomously alter a leak detection threshold value to avoid future false positives”.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Nghiem whose telephone number is (571) 272-2277. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Schechter can be reached at (571) 272-2302. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/MICHAEL P NGHIEM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857 March 2, 2026