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 June 1, 2026 has been considered.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 1, 2026 has been entered.
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 continuous 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; 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)), 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);
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 collector unit (107) is further configured to generate a stateful data window associated with the updated first set of data (generate a collection of water usage data, where the water usage data can be used to predict anomalies caused by leaks, paragraph 0032, lines 18-21, paragraph 0011, lines 1-6; paragraph 0026, lines 3-7),
wherein if 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).
It is noted that “if the leak is detected upon receiving the leak prediction request,
the system processor (109) notifies the user electronic device” is a contingent limitation (see MPEP 2111.04). The claim does not require “the leak is detected upon receiving the leak prediction request”. Therefore, “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” is not required.
Poojary et al. further discloses no leak is present (while detecting leak, paragraph 0011), the system processor (109) updates the user signature and the stateful data window (system processor continuously updates water usage and collection/set of data while detecting leak, paragraph 0011, lines 1-6).
While Poojary et al. does not disclose generate/receive a leak prediction request based on the stateful data window to trigger leak detection, Poojary et al. discloses generating a collection of water usage data, where the water usage data can be used to predict anomalies caused by leaks (paragraph 0032, lines 18-21). Thus, it would have been obvious to generate/receive a leak prediction request based on the stateful data window to predict anomalies caused by leaks.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Poojary et al. with generate/receive a leak prediction request based on the stateful data window to trigger leak detection as suggested by Poojary et al. for the purpose of predicting anomalies caused by leaks.
Poojary et al. further does not disclose altering a leak detection threshold value to avoid future false positives.
Farrell discloses 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 filed 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 June 1, 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments and amendment with respect to the rejection under 35 UC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection under 35 USC 112(b) has been withdrawn.
With respect to the rejections under 35 USC 103, Applicants argue “Poojary CANNOT achieve the SIGNIFICANT function of a stateful data window for continuous leak prediction and detection. Because Poojary does not possess a stateful data window for continuous leak prediction and detection, it cannot achieve robust prediction and detection of leaks and water system anomalies.”
Examiner’s position is that Poojary discloses the collector unit (107) is further configured to generate a stateful data window associated with the updated first set of data (generate a collection of water usage data, where the water usage data can be used to predict anomalies caused by leaks, paragraph 0032, lines 18-21). Examiner interprets the stateful data window is disclosed by Poojary as a collection of water usage data to predict anomalies caused by leaks (paragraph 0032, lines 18-21). The state data window is interpreted in light of the specification as associated with a collection of continuous output from water meters (instant specification, paragraph 0137).
Applicants further argue “[i]t should be noted that the term "stateful data window" is defined as a portion of continuous data comprising past and present events, keeping track of state changes and past interactions, deriving from the definition of "stateful" meaning "capable of retaining information about transactions or sessions" (Collins Dictionary), and "data window" meaning "an object you use to retrieve, present, and manipulate data from a relational database or other data source," (Appeon Documentation Center). Implementing and updating this data window for leak prediction allows for robust leak prediction by identifying the state changes that lead up to a leak or another anomaly in a water system.”
Examiner’s position is that the definitions related to “stateful data window” have not been submitted on an IDS. Please submit the definitions. Further, as discussed above, the "stateful data window" can be interpreted in light of the instant specification (see paragraph 0137).
Applicants further argue “Poojary only records time-based data, such as usage by time; this is a static data point and is not equivalent to maintaining a stateful data window comprising past and present events, state changes, and prior interactions for predictive leak detection.”
Examiner’s position is that Poojary maintains past and present events, state changes, and prior interactions for predictive leak detection (generate a collection of water usage data, where the water usage data can be used to predict anomalies caused by leaks, paragraph 0032, lines 18-21, paragraph 0011, lines 1-6, paragraph 0026, lines 3-7, where water usage data may be saved in remote databases, paragraph 0032, lines 15-16).
Applicant’s remaining arguments have been considered but are traversed in view of the discussions and grounds of rejection above.
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 June 10, 2026
Prosecution Insights