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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/8/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 9, 11-13 and 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacob (10,579,028) in view of Cai (CN 108043832A).
With respect to claim 1, Jacob teaches a computer-implemented method of measuring water pressure (Col. 19 line 66 to Col. 20 line 2; 452) on a foundation (452), the method comprising: receiving, by one or more processors (1505; Fig. 15) and from one or more sensors (moisture sensors 508f, as read in the Abstract and seen in Fig. 1 and Col. 19 line 66 to Col. 20 line 2), foundation environment data (i.e. moisture data around the foundation) for an environment (100 as seen in Fig. 1) surrounding the foundation (452) of a structure (150); analyzing, by the one or more processors (1505), the foundation environment data (i.e. moisture data) to determine one or more properties (i.e. for example hydrostatic pressure properties) of the foundation environment (100), wherein the one or more properties of the foundation environment include at least a foundation water pressure (i.e. hydrostatic pressure; Col. 19 line 66 to Col. 20 line 2; 452); generating, by the one or more processors (1505) and based at least upon a determination of whether the foundation water pressure (as sensed by sensors 508f) reaches a predetermined threshold (as Jacob teaches taking sensed data and comparing that data to a threshold; Col. 2 lines 33-42), a likelihood of damage to the foundation (as the taught method in Jacob teaches comparing collected data to thresholds to detect an abnormal condition indicative of damage to the building and its foundation; Col. 29 lines 3-27); and generating, by the one or more processors (1505), an alert (i.e. a moisture alert) based at least upon the likelihood of damage to the foundation (as detected; Col. 29 lines 3-27) and identifying, by the one or more processors (1505), a corrective action to reduce the foundation water pressure (as Jacob teaches the system, including the processor, detects an issue, like potential damage, and identifies corrective actions for the home owner to perform; Col. 4 lines 62-65).
Jacob remains silent regarding performing, by the one or more processors, the corrective action by evacuating excess water and preforming the corrective action by controlling a robot ball to evacuate the excess water.
Cai teaches regarding performing, by a processor (i.e. a central processor in communication with a robot seen in Fig. 7; [0046]) a corrective action (as Cai teaches a corrective action being grinding and/or suctioning of a blockage [0053] [0068] [0071-0072]) causing an excess water buildup), by evacuating excess water (as after grinding and/or suctioning the blockage, the excess water is evacuated), and preforming the corrective action by controlling a robot ball (seen in Fig. 7) to evacuate the excess water (as the robot ball seen in Fig. 7 evacuates the excess water by removing the blockage causing the blockage through the grinding and/or suction process).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the instant invention to modify the system of Jacobs to include the control logic and controllable robot ball such that when inserted into a pipe, the robot ball of Cia can evacuate excess water within the pipe. Such a modification allows for direct corrections in real time when a preventative action is determined without the need for a operator to perform the task themselves.
With respect to claims 2 and 16, Jacob teaches the computer-implemented method/system (Col. 19 line 66 to Col. 20 line 2) wherein the foundation environment (452) includes the foundation (as read in the Abstract).
With respect to claim 3, Jacob teaches the computer-implemented method (Col. 19 line 66 to Col. 20 line 2) further comprising: communicating, from the one or more sensors (508f) to the one or more processors (1505), the foundation environment data wirelessly (as read in the Abstract).
With respect to claims 4 and 17, Jacob teaches the computer-implemented method/system (Col. 19 line 66 to Col. 20 line 2) further comprising: analyzing, by the one or more processors (1505), the foundation environment data (i.e. moisture as it relates to hydrostatic pressure) to determine one or more properties including a humidity (Col. 20 lines 45-52), a level (Col. 2 lines 33-42), a temperature (Abstract), and a pressure (Col. 19 lines 20-35).
With respect to claims 5 and 18, Jacob teaches the computer-implemented method/system (Col. 19 line 66 to Col. 20 line 2) wherein the one or more sensors (508f) include a moisture sensor (Col. 19 line 66 to Col. 20 line 2).
With respect to claims 6 and 19, Jacob teaches the computer-implemented method/system (Col. 19 line 66 to Col. 20 line 2) further comprising: generating, by the one or more processors (1505), a determination a leak (i.e. a leak from a crack in the foundation; Col. 5 lines 16-25).
With respect to claim 9, Jacob teaches the computer-implemented method (Col. 19 line 66 to Col. 20 line 2) wherein the one or more sensors include an odor sensor (Jacob teaches using smart sensors that include odor detection, Col. 5 lines 32-43, where the odor sensors are able to be collect data indicative of an abnormality, and further comprising: generating, by the one or more processors (1505), a determination of a sewage pipe structural abnormality (as the claimed “sewage pipe structural abnormality” does not further define the computer implemented method, as the sewage pipe structurally abnormality does not structurally differentiate the prior art over the claimed invention, as the pipe is not part of the claimed combination) based at least upon determining an odor in a foundation environment atmosphere (as the taught odor sensor is capable of allowing odor detection in a foundation environment, as the claimed environment is not part of the claimed combination).
With respect to claim 11, Jacob teaches the computer-implemented method (Col. 19 line 66 to Col. 20 line 2) wherein determining a likelihood of damage to the foundation includes determining one or more of an impending, a potential or an actual damage to the foundation (as Jacob teaches in Col. 3-29, the method determines abnormal or unexpected conditions indicative of damage occurring to the foundation of a building).
With respect to claim 12, Jacob teaches the computer-implemented method (Col. 19 line 66 to Col. 20 line 2) wherein generating the alert includes generating a visual alert or electronic alert (as Jacob teaches an alert message is generated and sent to a mobile device of a user, Col. 3 lines 7-16).
With respect to claim 13, Jacob teaches the computer-implemented method (Col. 19 line 66 to Col. 20 line 2) wherein the alert is received by a mobile device (Col. 3 lines 7-16).
With respect to claim 15, Jacob teaches a computer system (Fig. 14) for measuring water pressure (Col. 19 line 66 to Col. 20 line 2; 452) on a foundation (452), the computer system (Fig. 14) comprising: one or more processors (1505); and one or more sensors ; the one or more processors (1505) configured to: receive from the one or more sensors (moisture sensors 508f, as read in the Abstract and seen in Fig. 1 and Col. 19 line 66 to Col. 20 line 2), foundation environment data (i.e. moisture data around the foundation) for an environment (100 as seen in Fig. 1) surrounding the foundation (452) of a structure (150); analyze, by the one or more processors (1505), the foundation environment data (i.e. moisture data) to determine one or more properties (i.e. for example hydrostatic pressure properties) of the foundation environment (100), wherein the one or more properties of the foundation environment include at least a foundation water pressure (i.e. hydrostatic pressure; Col. 19 line 66 to Col. 20 line 2; 452); generate, by the one or more processors (1505) and based at least upon a determination of whether the foundation water pressure (as sensed by sensors 508f) reaches a predetermined threshold (as Jacob teaches taking sensed data and comparing that data to a threshold; Col. 2 lines 33-42), a likelihood of damage to the foundation (as the taught method in Jacob teaches comparing collected data to thresholds to detect an abnormal condition indicative of damage to the building and its foundation; Col. 29 lines 3-27); generate, by the one or more processors (1505), an alert (i.e. a moisture alert) based at least upon the likelihood of damage to the foundation (as detected; Col. 29 lines 3-27) and identify a corrective action to reduce the foundation water pressure (as Jacob teaches the system detects an issue, like potential damage, and identifies corrective actions for the home owner to perform; Col. 4 lines 62-65).
Jacob remains silent regarding performing, by the one or more processors, the corrective action by evacuating excess water and preforming the corrective action by controlling a robot ball to evacuate the excess water.
Cai teaches regarding performing, by a processor (i.e. a central processor in communication with a robot seen in Fig. 7; [0046]) a corrective action (as Cai teaches a corrective action being grinding and/or suctioning of a blockage [0053] [0068] [0071-0072]) causing an excess water buildup), by evacuating excess water (as after grinding and/or suctioning the blockage, the excess water is evacuated), and preforming the corrective action by controlling a robot ball (seen in Fig. 7) to evacuate the excess water (as the robot ball seen in Fig. 7 evacuates the excess water by removing the blockage causing the blockage through the grinding and/or suction process).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the instant invention to modify the system of Jacobs to include the control logic and controllable robot ball such that when inserted into a pipe, the robot ball of Cia can evacuate excess water within the pipe. Such a modification allows for direct corrections in real time when a preventative action is determined without the need for a operator to perform the task themselves.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacob (10,579,028) in view of Cai (CN 108043832A), as applied to claim 6, further in view of Courtney et al. (2018/0238772).
With respect to claim 7, Jacob teaches the computer-implemented method (Col. 19 line 66 to Col. 20 line 2) further comprising: generating, by the one or more processors (1505), a determination of an abnormal pump operation (i.e. a Jacob teaches an integrity of a sump pump; Col. 5 lines 51-58) but remains silent regarding being based upon correlating a sump pump evacuation rate with a historical pump evacuation rate under various conditions.
Courtney et al. teaches a similar method that includes generating an abnormal pump [0004] operation being based upon correlating a sump pump evacuation rate (i.e. a flow rate; [0020]) with a historical pump evacuation rate under various conditions [0041].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the instant invention to modify the method of Jacob to include the sump pump abnormal detection process using historical data as taught in Courtney et al. because Courtney et al. teaches such a modification provides a more accurate determination of mechanical failure in sump pumps [0046-0047], thereby improving the overall abnormal water level detection taught in Jacob.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacob (10,579,028) in view of Cai (CN 108043832A), as applied to claim 1, further in view of Wilfer (DD 236396A1).
With respect to claim 8, Jacob teaches all that is claimed in the above rejection of claim 1, but remains silent regarding generating, by the one or more processors, a determination of a water table level by determining one or more of a capacitance or resistance between conductive materials.
Wilfer teaches a similar method involving moisture detection using sensor seen in Fig. 1 that uses a determination of a water table level by determining a capacitance between conductive materials (1; Fig .1; as materials 1 are separated between a non-conductive material to determine a moisture level).
Because both Jacob and Wilfer teach sensors for sensing moisture levels, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the instant invention to substitute a sensor in Jacob with the capacitance sensor in Wilfer to perform the predictable result of detecting moisture. Further, such a modification provides accurate moisture detection even when there is an abundance of surface irregularities, thereby improving the detection results in Jacob.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacob (10,579,028) in view of Cai (CN 108043832A), as applied to claim 1, further in view of Mills et al. (2014/0008296).
With respect to claim 10, Jacob teaches all that is claimed in the above rejection of claim 1, but remains silent regarding further comprising: determining, by the one or more processors, a fill level of a septic tank.
Mills et al. teaches a similar method that include sensing structure that allows a processor to determine a fill level of a septic tank [0017].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the instant invention to modify the method of Jacob to include the steps of determining a level of a septic tank as taught by Mills et al. because Mills et al. teaches such a modification aids in preventing sewage back up to a building [0002], thereby improving the versatility of the method of Jacob.
Claim(s) 14 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacob (10,579,028) in view of Cai (CN 108043832A), as applied to claims 1 and 15, further in view of Hayward et al. (10,947,250).
With respect to claims 14 and 20, Jacob teaches all that is claimed in the above rejection of claims 1 and 15, but remains silent regarding wherein one or more of: analyzing the foundation environment data includes analyzing the foundation environment data based upon one or more of artificial intelligence, machine learning, a neural network, or deep learning to determine the one or more properties of the foundation environment; or generating the likelihood of damage to the foundation includes generating the likelihood of damage to the foundation based upon one or more of artificial intelligence, machine learning, a neural network, or deep learning.
Hayward teaches a similar method that includes analyzing the foundation environment data includes analyzing the foundation environment data based upon machine learning (Col. 2 lines 47-59), to determine properties of a foundation environment (a Hayward teaches using machine learning to determine damage to foundations).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the instant invention to modify the method of Jacob to include the method steps of analyzing foundation data using machine learning techniques as taught in Hayward et al. because Hayward et al. teaches such a modification allows for damage to be detected hidden from human view, thereby improving the detection accuracy of Jacob.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jacob (10,042,341) teaches a similar method that includes monitoring a building health.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW G MARINI whose telephone number is (571)272-2676. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Stephen Meier can be reached at 571-272-2149. 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.
/MATTHEW G MARINI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights