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 .
This office action is a response to an amendment filed 02/23/2026, with a request for continued examination filed 02/23/2026.
Claims 1, 2, and 4-10 are pending.
Claim 1 is amended.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/23/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
At step 1, claim 1 recites “A computer implemented method for generating parameters associated with at least one consumption event within a domicile…”, and therefore is a process, which is a statutory category.
At Step 2A, prong one, claim 1 recites a series of limitations that involve identifying at least one consumption event within a domicile that is consumption of a consumer product and selected from a group such as water usage, energy usage, and product usage, then processing (generated, gathered) data to calculate parameters associated with the at least one consumption event, wherein the parameters comprise consumption event parameters defining when the consumer product will be depleted based on the (gathered) data, and preparing a recommendation that comprises alternative ways to use water, energy, and products to minimize the cost or amount of water, energy, or products used based on the parameters. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because they are directed to the abstract ideas of mental limitations capable of being performed in the mind and mathematical concepts, and thus directed to the mental processes grouping and mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas.
Specifically, the abstract idea include the limitations of:
“…generating parameters associated with at least one consumption event within a domicile, the method comprising the steps of: identifying at least one consumption event defining (1) consumption of a consumer product, and (2) consumption selected from the group consisting of water usage and energy usage, and product usage that occurs when the consumption of the consumer product occurs; …processing the data … to calculate the parameters associated with the at least one consumption event, wherein the parameters comprise consumption event parameters defining when the consumer product will be depleted based on the energy usage or the water usage of the digitally enabled device or appliance; and preparing a recommendation that comprises alternative ways to use water, energy, and products to minimize the cost or amount of water, energy, or products used based on the parameters.” in claim 1.
As noted earlier, the limitations in question can essentially be interpreted to include a mental observation to identify a consumption event, such as observing water usage, a product being consumed, or energy being consumed, then mentally processing gathered the data to mentally calculate (or by the use of an aid) parameters associated with the consumption, where the calculation of the parameters is done with the aim of calculating/determining depletion, and finally, mentally preparing based on the parameters, recommendations on different ways to better use water, energy, and products to minimize cost or amount used of these elements. These limitations can essentially include a human consultant hired to asses consumption in a home by performing a calculation based on gathered data, and formulating a recommendation. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
At step 2A, prong 2, claim 1 recites “generating data by at least one input data source within the domicile, wherein the input data source is a digitally enabled device or appliance; collecting the data “ and “a computer.”
At Step 2B, while the claims include additional elements as noted above in Step 2A prong 2, they are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In particular, the recitation of computer, processors, or controllers, amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. These are recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that the represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer (see MPEP2106.05(h)). Furthermore, the limitations generating data from specified intended use/field of use sources, and collecting the data, amount to necessary data gathering, which the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
The dependent claims 2 and 4-10, similarly recite an abstract idea of mental limitations capable of being performed in the mind and mathematical concepts, without significantly more. Claim 2 recites an intended use/field of use data source that does not impose meaningful limits on the claim because this aspect contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed subject matter. Claims 3-7 and 10 also recite an intended use/field of use limitations and necessary data gathering. Claims 8 and 9 recite mere information output, which the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution application activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
The claims are not patent eligible.
Applicant’s amendment overcame the rejection under 35 USC § 112(b) to claim 8 made in the previous Office action.
Applicant’s amendment overcame the 35 USC § 101 made in the previous Office action.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1, 2, and 4-10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-3 and 5-11 of co-pending Application No. 18119415 (as outlined below). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of the co-pending application encompass the limitations of the instant application as outlined further below.
This is a provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Instant Application
Co-Pending Application no. 18119415
1. A computer implemented method for generating parameters associated with at least one consumption event within a domicile, the computer implemented method comprising the steps of:
collecting the data; identifying at least one consumption event defining (1) consumption of a consumer product, and (2) consumption selected from the group consisting of water usage and energy usage, and product usage that occurs when the consumption of the consumer product occurs; generating data by at least one input data source within the domicile, wherein the input data source is a digitally enabled device or appliance;
and, processing the data with the computer to calculate the parameters associated with the at least one consumption event,
wherein the parameters comprise consumption event parameters defining when the consumer product will be depleted based on the energy usage or the water usage of the digitally enabled device or appliance;
and
preparing a recommendation that comprises alternative ways to use water, energy, and products to minimize the cost or amount of water, energy, or products used based on the parameters.
1. A computer implemented method comprising the steps of:
selecting a domicile and identifying the inhabitants of the domicile;
collecting data related to the inhabitant's individual and collective consumption events, defined by (1) consumption of a consumer product, and (2) consumption selected from the group of water usage and energy usage,
that occurs when the consumption of the consumer product occurs, wherein the data collected comes from an input data source, wherein the input data source is a digitally enabled device or appliance; (Collected data has to be generated and obtained from some source)
calculating parameters associated with the inhabitant's consumption events;
comparing the calculated parameters to a predetermined set of optimal parameters for the same consumption events;
…
wherein the parameters comprise consumption event parameters defining when the consumer product will be depleted based on the energy usage or the water usage of the digitally enabled device or appliance;
and controlling the digitally enabled device or appliance to operate to reduce its energy usage or its water usage based on the event parameters defining when the consumer product will be depleted.
…preparing a recommendation that comprises alternative ways to use water, energy, and the consumer product to minimize the cost or amount of water, energy or the consumer products used..
2. The computer implemented method according to claim 1, wherein the input data source is a Smart Water or Smart Energy Advanced Metering Infrastructure meter located within or adjacent the domicile.
3. The computer implemented method according to claim 1, wherein the input data source is a Smart Water or Smart Energy Advanced Metering Infrastructure meter located within or adjacent the domicile.
4. The computer implemented method according to claim 1, wherein the digitally enabled device or appliance is selected from the group consisting of a washing machine, a refrigerator, a microwave oven, a stove, an oven, a toothbrush, or a razor.
5. The computer implemented method according to claim 1, wherein the digitally enabled device or appliance is selected from the group consisting of a washing machine, a refrigerator, a microwave oven, a stove, an oven, a toothbrush, or a razor.
5. The computer implemented computer implemented method according to claim 1, wherein the input data source further comprises one or more sensors, a digital hub connected to one or more sensors, or an application program interface connected to one or more sensors.
6. The computer implemented method according to claim 1, wherein the input data source is one or more sensors, a digital hub connected to one or more sensors, or an application program interface connected to one or more sensors.
6. The computer implemented method according to claim 1, wherein the input data source is data manually entered by an inhabitant.
7. The computer implemented method according to claim 1, wherein the input data source is data manually entered by an inhabitant.
7. The computer implemented method according to claim 1, wherein product usage parameters within the domicile are calculated by data entered manually by an inhabitant relating to the amount of product used.
8. The computer implemented method according to claim 1, wherein product usage parameters within the domicile are calculated by data entered manually by an inhabitant relating to the amount of product used.
8. The computer implemented method according to claim 7, wherein a notice is sent to an inhabitant when an individual product has reached a level that requires that additional amount of that product must be ordered to insure a new product arrives before an existing product is depleted.
9. The computer implemented method according to claim 8, wherein a notice is sent an inhabitant when an individual product has reached a level that requires that an additional amount of that product must be ordered to ensure the new product arrives before the existing product is depleted.
9. The computer implemented method according to claim 8, wherein the notice sent to the inhabitant includes a recommendation to order a proprietary product.
10. The computer implemented method according to claim 9, wherein the notice sent to the inhabitant includes a recommendation to order a proprietary product.
10. The computer implemented method according to claim 1, where in addition to the at least one input data source, external data is also collected.
11. (Currently Amended) The computer implemented method according to claim 1, where in addition to the input data source, external data is also collected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 02/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of new grounds of rejection. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Rejections based on newly cited references(s) and interpretations of the previously cited prior art follow.
Applicant’s amendment and arguments overcame the rejections under 35 USC § 112(a) and 35 USC § 112(b) to claim 1 made in the previous Office action.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Publication No. 2012/0053740 to Venkatakrishnan et al., (hereinafter Venk), and in further view of US Patent Publication No. 2018/0139069 to Rawlings et al., (hereinafter Rawlings).
Regarding claim 1, Venk teaches a computer implemented method for generating parameters associated with at least one consumption event within a domicile (Parameters such as by energy profile and model associated with consumption, see P19, Venk), the computer implemented method comprising the steps of:
identifying at least one consumption event defining (1) consumption of a consumer product, and (2) consumption selected from the group consisting of water usage and energy usage, and product usage that occurs when the consumption of the consumer product occurs (Consumption identified at least from meter events such as water, electricity, etc., where in at least electricity, water, etc., are consumption of a product such as a utilities product (e.g. as exemplified in Scelzi), see P16-17, Venk);
generating data by at least one input data source within the domicile, wherein the input data source is a digitally enabled device or appliance (Data generated from at least appliances and smart appliances in a home that are sources by their use, and which can be digitally enables at least by use of known digital connections, see P16, 17, Venk);
collecting the data (Data gathered, see P19, 26,17, Venk);
processing the data with a computer to calculate the parameters associated with the at least one consumption event (Parameters such as by energy profile and model calculated from gathered data by controller, see P19, 39, Venk);
and
preparing a recommendation that comprises alternative ways to use water, energy, and products to minimize the cost or amount of water, energy, or products used based on the parameters (Recommendations provided that include alternative ways to use utilities products such as energy and water by, for example, upgraded or repaired appliances in order to reduce (minimize) utility product use (e.g. energy) based on gathered and analyzed data, see P19, 33, 39, 36,Venk).
While Venk does not explicitly teach wherein parameters comprise consumption event parameters defining when a consumer product will be depleted based on energy usage or water usage of a device or appliance.
However, Rawlings from the same or similar field of devices and product consuming devices, teaches wherein parameters comprise consumption event parameters defining when a consumer product will be depleted based on energy usage or water usage of a device or appliance (Data from appliances, such as from an hvac, and which is indicative of energy usage/consumption, is analyzed and can be used to determine parameters such as condition parameters that are indicative of a condition (e.g. remaining life) of a consumable product needing replacement, and thus that a depletion will occur soon. The system also provides a user suggestion, such as to replace a consumable or provide other indications of improving efficiency, and thus constitute recommendations of ways of using energy or other product through adjusted energy consuming appliance with a new consumable or an adjusted operation, so as to increase energy efficiency and thus minimize a cost/amount of said utility use, see p14, P248, p253, P108, P237, 106-107, 250, Rawlings).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the consumption event determination and processing as described by Venk and incorporating consideration of parameters defining product depletion, as taught by Rawlings.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better determine that a replenishment of a consumable will likely be required and which can result more optimal and efficient operation of a device or product (see p14, P248, p253, P108, P237, 106-107, 250, Rawlings).
Regarding claim 2 , the combination of Vanek and Rawlings teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Vanek further teaches wherein the input data source is a Smart Water or Smart Energy Advanced Metering Infrastructure meter located within or adjacent the domicile (Water or energy meter, see p36, 19, Vanek).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Vanek and Rawlings teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Vanek further teaches wherein the digitally enabled device or appliance is selected from the group consisting of a washing machine, a refrigerator, a microwave oven, a stove, an oven, a toothbrush, or a razor (Appliances can include refrigerator, washers, dryers, etc., see p21, p1, Vanek).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Vanek and Rawlings teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Vanek further teaches wherein the input data source comprises one or more sensors, a digital hub connected to one or more sensors, or an application program interface connected to one or more sensors (Sensors, see p17, Vanek).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Vanek and Rawlings teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Vanek further teaches where in addition to the at least one input data source, external data is also collected (External data such as weather data can be used, see p27, Vanek).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vanek, in view of Rawlings, and in further view of US Patent Publication No. 2018/0074468 to Slupik et al., (hereinafter Slupik).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Vanek and Rawlings teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Vanek does not explicitly teach wherein a input data source is data manually entered by an inhabitant.
However, Slupik from the same or similar field of consumable goods and devices, teaches wherein an input data source is data manually entered by an inhabitant (An input sensor in determining consumption can include user manual input, such as a button press, see P131, P121-131, Slupik).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the consumption event determination and processing as described by the combination that includes Venk and incorporating consideration of manual input, as taught by Slupik.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to obtain direct information of a consumable event from a person who is directly impacted and can make an assessment (see P131, P121-131, Slupik).
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vanek, in view of Rawlings, and in further view of US Patent Publication No. 2022/0215339 to Borke et al., (hereinafter Borke).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Vanek and Rawlings teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Vanek does not explicitly teach wherein product usage parameters within a domicile are calculated by data entered manually by an inhabitant relating to an amount of product used.
However, Borke from the same or similar field of consumable goods and devices, teaches wherein product usage parameters within a domicile are calculated by data entered manually by an inhabitant relating to an amount of product used (Parameters related to consumption of a product can be calculated with use of user manual input related to ordering product with the implication of an amount of product used so as to need reordering, see P116, 210, Borke).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the consumption event determination and processing as described by the combination that includes Venk and incorporating consideration of manual input, as taught by Borke.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better obtain direct information of a consumable event from a person who is directly impacted and can make an assessment and can lead to better tailoring of reordering usage parameters and frequency (see P116, 210, Borke).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Vanek, Rawlings, and Borke teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Borke further teaches wherein a notice is sent an inhabitant when an individual product has reached a level that requires that additional amount of that product must be ordered to insure a new product arrives before an existing product is depleted (A user can be notified when a product has a reached a level that a replacement will be needed, see P162, p4, p5, 7, 108, Borke).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the consumption event determination and processing as described by the combination that includes Venk and incorporating user notification, as taught by Borke.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better keep a user informed when a consumable will need replacement (see P162, p4, p5, 7, 108, Borke).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Vanek, Rawlings, and Borke teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Vanek teaches recommendation of products (Recommending upgrades including products, see p33, p19, Vanek)
Borke further teaches wherein the notice sent to the inhabitant includes a recommendation to order a proprietary product (A user can be notified of brand product options (i.e. a recommendation), see P212, 241, 210, 162, Borke).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the consumption event determination and processing as described by the combination that includes Venk and incorporating ordering notification, as taught by Borke.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better keep a user informed when a consumable will need replacement and at least an option of product to order (see P212, 241, P162, p4, p5, 7, 108, Borke).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Levin et al., US. Patent Publication No. 2021/0004771 teaches appliance monitoring by sensors that includes electrical load monitoring for event signature generation, and includes recommendations for servicing, replenishing a dispensed consumable, reducing energy consumption, etc.
Clarke et al., US. Patent Publication No. 2018/0336512 teaches a system of sensors obtaining raw information related to appliances, and which can be used to determine or infer consumption of energy, water, and consumables, and when to reorder consumables.
Floyd et al., US. Patent Publication No. 2021/0035698 teaches appliance monitoring, such as a washing machine, where cycles are counted and after a threshold amount, a consumable item is requested for reorder.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMILIO J SAAVEDRA whose telephone number is (571)270-5617. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30am-5:30pm (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, Robert E Fennema can be reached at (571) 272-2748. 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.
/EMILIO J SAAVEDRA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117