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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendments to the Claims filed 11/25/2025 have been entered. Claims 1-3, 5-10, and 23-35 are pending in the application. Claims 4 and 11-22 have been canceled and claims 23-35 are new. Applicant’s amendment to the Claims have overcome each and every claim objection and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-final rejection dated 09/24/2025. Due to amendments to the claims new 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections are presented below.
Oath/Declaration
The Declaration under 37 CFR 1.130(a) filed on 11/25/2025 is sufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 1-3 and 5-10 based on City of Coquitlam (City of Coquitlam, by-law No 5273, Stream and Drainage System Protection Amendment Bylaw (2022)). The reference City of Coquitlam Bylaw 5273 is considered not prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1), based on applicants declaration and evidence that the subject matter contained in City of Coquitlam Bylaw 5273 and used in the rejection of claims 1-3 and 5-10 was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor.
Claim Objections
As noted above the previous claim objections previously set forth have been overcome by amendment to the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
As noted above the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections previously set forth have been overcome by amendment to the claims.
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 1-3, 6-10, 23-27, and 29-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an Abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to claim 1 the limitation(s):
a plurality of sensors configured to measure properties of water in real-time;
a rainfall gauge via which location-specific rainfall data is obtained in real-time: and
a processor in communication with the plurality of sensors and said location-specific rainfall data in real-time,
wherein the processor is configured to cause the water so measured to discharge based on whether the water is within a first water quality threshold range, and
wherein the processor is configured to cause the water so measured to discharge based on whether the water is below within a second water quality threshold range less stringent than the first water quality range, upon a rainfall condition having been met, with the rainfall condition comprising whether a rainfall amount has exceeded a predetermined threshold amount over a rolling predetermined period of time.
These limitation(s) highlighted in (bold) is/are directed to an abstract idea and would fall within the “Mental Processes” groupings of abstract ideas. The above portion(s) of the claim(s) constitute(s) an abstract idea because:
The limitation(s) regarding “wherein the processor is configured to cause the water so measured to discharge based on whether the water is within a first water quality threshold range”, as drafted, is an act of observation and evaluation that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind. That is, other than reciting “a processor,” nothing in the claim language precludes the Step(s) from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “a processor” language, “discharge” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually determining when to discharge water based on a water quality threshold range.
The limitation(s) regarding “wherein the processor is configured to cause the water so measured to discharge based on whether the water is below within a second water quality threshold range less stringent than the first water quality range, upon a rainfall condition having been met, with the rainfall condition comprising whether a rainfall amount has exceeded a predetermined threshold amount over a rolling predetermined period of time”, as drafted, is an act of observation and evaluation that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind. That is, other than reciting “a processor,” nothing in the claim language precludes the Step(s) from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “a processor” language, “discharge” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually determining when to discharge water based on a water quality threshold and a rainfall amount threshold.
Further, referring to the MPEP 2106.04, the claim limitations are analogous to a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
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. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the non- abstract additional elements of the claims do not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea(s) recited in the preceding claim(s). In particular, the claims recited the additional elements of:
The limitation(s) regarding “A real-time water monitoring and control system” does/do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, because it is recited at such a high-level of generality that it is viewed as generally linking the use of the judicial exception to water monitoring. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, fails to integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application, because the claim does not specify what practical application the claim is directed to.
The limitation(s) regarding “a plurality of sensors configured to measure properties of water in real-time” and “a rainfall gauge via which location-specific rainfall data is obtained in real-time” does/do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim does not specify what practical application the claim is directed to. Rather the limitation is recited at such a high-level of generality that it amounts to no more than adding insignificant extra- solution activity to the judicial exception, i.e. data gathering. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are regarded as data gathering steps necessary or routine to implement the abstract idea.
The limitation(s) regarding “a processor in communication with the plurality of sensors and said location-specific rainfall data in real-time” does/do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim limitation is a generic computer component performing the generic computer function of receiving, storing, and comparing data such that it amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
As such Examiner does NOT view that the claims:
-Improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field;
-Apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b);
-Effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c); or
-Apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception – see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, or are well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) data gathering functions.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “water monitoring” is/are seen as generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Linking a judicial exception to a technological environment cannot provide an inventive concept. Similarly, with regards to the additional element(s) of “a rainfall gauge,” and “a plurality of sensors” is/are viewed as insignificant extra-solution activity, such as mere data gathering in a conventional way and, therefore, does not provide an inventive concept. Similarly, with regards to the additional element(s) of “a processor” is/are view as a generic computer component performing the generic computer function of receiving, storing, and comparing data such that it amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Examiner further notes that such additional elements are viewed to be well- understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) as evidenced by: Spani (US 20130062288 A1); Finselbach (US 20250059065 A1); City of Coquitlam (City of Coquitlam, by-law No 4403, Stream and Drainage System Protection Bylaw (2013).); Township of Langley (Township of Langley, “Erosion and Sediment Control for Sites Over 2000m2.” ESC Brochure (2018)); Madden et al. (US 20070257806 A1); Wilson et al. (US 20220251817 A1); Horvitz et al. (US 20040002932 A1); Scholpp (US 20100332149 A1); He et al. (CN 114881362 A); Wang et al. (CN 112288127 A); and Kim et al. (US 20140124420 A1).
Considering the claim as a whole, one of ordinary skill in the art would not know the practical application of the present invention since the claims do not apply or use the judicial exception in some meaningful way. As currently claimed, Examiner views that the additional elements do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, because the claims fails to recite clearly how the judicial exception is applied in a manner that does not monopolize the exception because the limitation regarding “water monitoring,” “a rain gauge,” “a plurality of sensors,” and “a processor” can be viewed as a field of use, necessary data gathering, and any device and do not impose a meaningful limitation describing what problem is being remedied or solved.
Independent claim 25 is also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additionally recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an Abstract idea. Claims 25 recites the additional elements of:
The limitation(s) regarding “a weather application programming interface (API) via which location-specific rainfall data is obtained in real-time” does/do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim limitation is a generic computer component performing the generic computer function of receiving, storing, and comparing data such that it amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Dependent claims 1-3, 6-10, 23-27, and 29-35when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additionally recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea, as detailed below: there are no additional element(s) in the dependent claims that adds a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea to make the claims significantly more than the judicial exception (abstract idea).
Claims 3, 9-10, 27, and 32-33 recite limitations regarding data gathering steps and insignificant application necessary or routine to implement the abstract idea and thus are not significantly more than the abstract idea and viewed to be well known routine and conventional as evidenced by the prior art shown above.
Claims 2, 6-8, 23-24, 26, 29-31, and 34-35 further limit the abstract idea with an abstract idea, such as an “Mental Processes”, and thus the claims are still directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 2, 6-10, 26, and 29-33 recite generic computer components performing the generic computer function of receiving, storing, and comparing data such that it amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Claims 5 and 28 are seen as applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. As such, claims 5 and 28 are not rejected under 35 USC 101.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 10, 23-28, and 33-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over City of Coquitlam (City of Coquitlam, by-law No 4403, Stream and Drainage System Protection Amendment Bylaw (2013).), herein Coquitlam’2013, in view of Township of Langley (Township of Langley, “Erosion and Sediment Control for Sites Over 2000m2.” ESC Brochure (2018)), herein Langley’2018, and Spani (US 20130062288 A1).
Regarding Claims 1 and 25, Coquitlam’2013 reaches:
A real-time water monitoring and control system comprising:
wherein the processor is configured to cause the water so measured to discharge based on whether the water is within a first water quality threshold range (See Page 4: A discharge exceeding a Turbidity level of 25 NTU, except during and for 24 hours following a Significant Rainfall Event a discharge exceeding 100 NTU.), and
wherein the processor is configured to cause the water so measured to discharge based on whether the water is below within a second water quality threshold range less stringent than the first water quality range, upon a rainfall condition having been met, with the rainfall condition comprising whether a rainfall amount has exceeded a predetermined threshold amount over a rolling predetermined period of time (See Page 3 – Page 4 and Page C-3: Significant Rainfall Event means any precipitation event, which meets or exceeds the intensity of 25 mm per hour period. A discharge exceeding a Turbidity level of 25 NTU, except during and for 24 hours following a Significant Rainfall Event a discharge exceeding 100 NTU.).
Coquitlam’2013 is silent as to the language of:
a plurality of sensors configured to measure properties of water in real-time;
a rainfall gauge via which location-specific rainfall data is obtained in real-time: and
a processor in communication with the plurality of sensors and said location-specific rainfall data in real-time.
Nevertheless Langley’2018 teaches:
a rainfall gauge via which location-specific rainfall data is obtained in real-time (See Page 4: Rainfall gauge.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Coquitlam’2013 with a rainfall gauge via which location-specific rainfall data is obtained in real-time such as that of Langley’2018. Langley’2018 teaches, “All gauges are listed on the same webpage (pictured at right) If you are allowed to go to 100 NTU, it will look like the “Langley Municipal” gauge does here (red triangle). The red triangle will stay visible for as long as the limit is at 100 NTU, which includes 24 hours after the storm” (See Page 4). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Coquitlam’2013, because using location specific rainfall data would have helped to determine if a significant rainfall event had occurred at a lot, as recognized by Langley’2018.
Langley’2018 is silent as to the language of:
a plurality of sensors configured to measure properties of water in real-time; and
a processor in communication with the plurality of sensors and said location-specific rainfall data in real-time.
Nevertheless Spani teaches:
a plurality of sensors configured to measure properties of the water in real-time (See Fig. 3A, para[0016], para[0019], and para[0043]: A programmable computer control subsystem arranged for continuous real time monitoring of a plurality of sensed parameters from the mechanical subsystem. The fluid medium including the solution of targeted compounds is pumped through the mechanical subsystem to a first flow sensor and to a first bank of parameter sensors. The flow signal and rate of flow of the fluid medium and the sensed parameters including temperature, pH, resistivity and conductivity/total dissolved solids are reported to the programmable computer control subsystem (PCCS). The sensed parameters are measured at several locations throughout the programmable fluid treatment system.); and
a processor in communication with the plurality of sensors and said location-specific rainfall data in real-time (See Fig. 3A, para[0042] - para[0043], and para[0099]: A rainfall totalizer 135 is incorporated into the present invention as shown on FIG. 3B and is utilized to collect rainfall and precipitation falling in the area of the business premises. Further, there are four identical banks of these parameter sensors distributed throughout the programmable fluid treatment system 100 for providing a constant stream of data on a real time basis to the programmable computer control subsystem (PCCS) 106.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Coquitlam’2013 by a plurality of sensors configured to measure properties of the water in real-time; and a processor in communication with the plurality of sensors and said location-specific rainfall data in real-time such as that of Spani. Spani teaches, “This design enables continuous adjusting and reporting in real time to the Regional Water Quality Control Board of the condition of the captured fluid medium and the operation of the programmable fluid treatment system“ (See para[0017]). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Coquitlam’2013, because using real time sensor and rainfall data would have helped to continuously adjust the system and report in real time the condition of captured fluid, as recognized by Spani.
Regarding Claim 25, Langley’2018 teaches the additional limitation of:
a weather application programming interface (API) via which location-specific rainfall data is obtained in real-time (See Page 4: You (or your monitor) can go online and check the rainfall gauge indicated on your permit. http://www.flowworks.com/network/hmiscreens/langley/langley.aspx.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Coquitlam’2013 with a weather application programming interface (API) via which location-specific rainfall data is obtained in real-time such as that of Langley’2018. Langley’2018 teaches, “All gauges are listed on the same webpage (pictured at right) If you are allowed to go to 100 NTU, it will look like the “Langley Municipal” gauge does here (red triangle). The red triangle will stay visible for as long as the limit is at 100 NTU, which includes 24 hours after the storm” (See Page 4). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Coquitlam’2013, because using location specific rainfall data would have helped to determine if a significant rainfall event had occurred at a lot, as recognized by Langley’2018.
Regarding Claims 2 and 26. Coquitlam’2013 teaches:
The real-time water monitoring and control system of claim 1 or the real-time water monitoring and control system of claim 25,
wherein the processor is configured to determine, in parallel or sequentially in any order,
i) water quality of the water based on the plurality of sensors (See Page C-3: Where a significant Rainfall Event has occurred within the preceding 24 hours, water with a turbidity level greater than 25 NTU’s may be discharged into the drainage system during a 24 hour grace period provided that no discharge into the drainage system may exceed 100 NTUs. Water quality monitoring locations.); and
ii) whether the rainfall condition has been met (See Page C-3: Where a significant Rainfall Event has occurred within the preceding 24 hours, water with a turbidity level greater than 25 NTU’s may be discharged into the drainage system during a 24 hour grace period provided that no discharge into the drainage system may exceed 100 NTUs.).
Regarding Claims 3 and 27, Coquitlam’2013 teaches:
The real-time water monitoring and control system of claim 1 or the real-time water monitoring and control system of claim 25,
including water quality sensors via which the processor determines water quality (See Page C-3: Water quality monitoring locations.).
Coquitlam’2013 is silent as to the language of:
one or more flow sensors via which the processor determines water flow.
Nevertheless Spani teaches:
one or more flow sensors via which the processor determines water flow (See Fig. 3A, para[0016], para[0019], and para[0043]: The fluid medium including the solution of targeted compounds is pumped through the mechanical subsystem to a first flow sensor and to a first bank of parameter sensors. The flow signal and rate of flow of the fluid medium and the sensed parameters including temperature, pH, resistivity and conductivity/total dissolved solids are reported to the programmable computer control subsystem (PCCS).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Coquitlam’2013 by one or more flow sensors via which the processor determines water flow such as that of Spani. Spani teaches, “Under these conditions, the sensed parameters of temperature, pH, resistivity, conductivity/total dissolved solids can be constantly monitored as well as flocculant chemical metering levels, pump speeds, fluid medium flow rates and the like. Thus, the rigid standards set by the Regional Water Quality Control Board can be satisfied prior to the discharge of the processed fluid medium into the local municipal storm water drain system“ (See para[0025]). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Coquitlam’2013, because using one or more flow sensors would have helped to determine if regional standards where being satisfied prior to discharging water, as recognized by Spani.
Regarding Claims 5 and 28. Coquitlam’2013 teaches:
The real-time water monitoring and control system of claim 1 or the real-time water monitoring and control system of claim 25,
where the rainfall condition has not been met and the water quality of the water as determined by the plurality of sensors is outside the first water quality threshold range (See Page 3 – Page 4 and Page C-3: Significant Rainfall Event means any precipitation event, which meets or exceeds the intensity of 25 mm per hour period. A discharge exceeding a Turbidity level of 25 NTU, except during and for 24 hours following a Significant Rainfall Event a discharge exceeding 100 NTU.) and
where the rainfall condition has been met and the water quality of the water as determined by the plurality of sensors is outside the second water quality threshold range (See Page 3 – Page 4 and Page C-3: Significant Rainfall Event means any precipitation event, which meets or exceeds the intensity of 25 mm per hour period. A discharge exceeding a Turbidity level of 25 NTU, except during and for 24 hours following a Significant Rainfall Event a discharge exceeding 100 NTU.).
Coquitlam’2013 is silent as to the language of:
wherein the processor recirculates the water through a water treatment system.
Nevertheless Spani teaches:
wherein the processor recirculates the water through a water treatment system (See para[0022] and para[0068]: If the condition of the processed fluid medium fails to satisfy the regulations, then the processed fluid medium is re-circulated through the programmable fluid treatment system.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Coquitlam’2013 wherein the processor recirculates the water through a water treatment system such as that of Spani. Spani teaches, “If the sensed parameters 108 of the discharged fluid medium 102 are not consistent with the design specifications, then, for example, the discharge pump 212 is placed in the re-circulation mode (as described herein above) so that impurities resident within the fluid medium 102 are not discharged into the municipal storm water drain system“ (See para[0098]). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Coquitlam’2013, because recirculating water through a water treatment system would have helped to prevent impurities resident with in the water from being discharged into a municipal storm water system, as recognized by Spani.
Regarding Claims 10 and 33. Coquitlam’2013 is silent as to the language of:
The real-time water monitoring and control system according to claim 1 or the real-time water monitoring and control system of claim 25,
wherein the system includes a remote server comprising a rule engine,
wherein the rule engine has stored and logged on memory thereof the water quality threshold ranges and real time data collection of water quality of the water so measured and flow of the water so discharged or otherwise recirculated.
Nevertheless Spani teaches:
wherein the system includes a remote server (See Fig. 5 and para[0095]: server.) comprising a rule engine (See para[0067]: the final monitoring stage that collects real time data, this data is utilized by the programmable computer control subsystem (PCCS) 106 to determine whether the processed fluid medium 102 is clean.),
wherein the rule engine has stored and logged on memory thereof the water quality threshold ranges and real time data collection of water quality of the water so measured and flow of the water so discharged or otherwise recirculated (See Fig. 6C, para[0088] and para[0107]: One of the functions of the storage memory 276 is to store pre-programmed input data 278 therein to assist in controlling the operation of Programmable Fluid Treatment System 100.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Coquitlam’2013 wherein the system includes a remote server comprising a rule engine, wherein the rule engine has stored and logged on memory thereof the water quality threshold ranges and real time data collection of water quality of the water so measured and flow of the water so discharged or otherwise recirculated such as that of Spani. Spani teaches, “This design enables continuous adjusting and reporting in real time to the Regional Water Quality Control Board of the condition of the captured fluid medium and the operation of the programmable fluid treatment system“ (See para[0017]). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Coquitlam’2013, because using a rules engine would have helped to continuously adjust the system and report in real time the condition of captured fluid, as recognized by Spani.
Regarding Claims 23 and 34, Coquitlam’2013 teaches:
The real-time water monitoring and control system according to claim 1 or the real-time water monitoring and control system of claim 25,
wherein the second water quality threshold range comprises a turbidity level which is higher than that of the first water quality threshold range (See Page 3 – Page 4 and Page C-3: Significant Rainfall Event means any precipitation event, which meets or exceeds the intensity of 25 mm per hour period. A discharge exceeding a Turbidity level of 25 NTU, except during and for 24 hours following a Significant Rainfall Event a discharge exceeding 100 NTU.).
Regarding Claims 24 and 35, Coquitlam’2013 teaches:
The real-time water monitoring and control system according to claim 1 or the real-time water monitoring and control system of claim 25,
wherein the first water quality threshold range comprises a pH value within a predetermined range (See Page 3 and Page C-3: a pH value outside the range of 6.5 to 8.0.) and
a turbidity level less than a first predetermined amount of nephelometric turbidity units (NTU) (See Page 3 – Page 4 and Page C-3: Significant Rainfall Event means any precipitation event, which meets or exceeds the intensity of 25 mm per hour period. A discharge exceeding a Turbidity level of 25 NTU, except during and for 24 hours following a Significant Rainfall Event a discharge exceeding 100 NTU.),
wherein the second water quality threshold range comprises a pH value within said predetermined range (See Page 3 and Page C-3: a pH value outside the range of 6.5 to 8.0.) and
a turbidity level less thana second predetermined amount of NTU, with the second predetermined amount of NTU being higher than the first predetermined amount of NTU (See Page 3 – Page 4 and Page C-3: Significant Rainfall Event means any precipitation event, which meets or exceeds the intensity of 25 mm per hour period. A discharge exceeding a Turbidity level of 25 NTU, except during and for 24 hours following a Significant Rainfall Event a discharge exceeding 100 NTU.), and
wherein the rainfall condition comprises a rainfall amount which is greater than a predetermined amount within a rolling 24-hour period of time (See Page 3 – Page 4 and Page C-3: Significant Rainfall Event means any precipitation event, which meets or exceeds the intensity of 25 mm per hour period. A discharge exceeding a Turbidity level of 25 NTU, except during and for 24 hours following a Significant Rainfall Event a discharge exceeding 100 NTU.).
Claim(s) 6 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over City of Coquitlam (City of Coquitlam, by-law No 4403, Stream and Drainage System Protection Amendment Bylaw (2013).), herein Coquitlam’2013, in view of Township of Langley (Township of Langley, “Erosion and Sediment Control for Sites Over 2000m2.” ESC Brochure (2018)), herein Langley’2018, and Spani (US 20130062288 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 25 above, and further in view of Madden et al. (US 20070257806 A1).
Regarding Claims 6 and 29. Coquitlam’2013 teaches:
The real-time water monitoring and control system according to claim 1 or the real-time water monitoring and control system of claim 25,
including one or more of rainfall conditions (See Pages 3 – 4 and Page C-3: Significant Rainfall Event.),
one or more system state conditions (See Page C-3: The ESC Supervisor is required to conduct visual inspections to ensure that all ESC Facilities are installed in accordance with the approved ESC Plan.),
one or more water quality and flow conditions (See Pages 3 – 4 and Page C-3: A pH value outside the range of 6.5 to 8.0. A discharge exceeding a Turbidity level of 25 NTU, expect during and for 24 hours following a Significant Rainfall Event a discharge exceeding 100 NTU. No person shall obstruct or impede the flow of the Drainage System), and
one or more activation and deactivation conditions (See Pages 3 – 4 and Page C-3: A pH value outside the range of 6.5 to 8.0. A discharge exceeding a Turbidity level of 25 NTU, expect during and for 24 hours following a Significant Rainfall Event a discharge exceeding 100 NTU.) (Examiner note: the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation “activation and deactivation conditions” is interpreted to include discharge or not discharge conditions.),
all of which are required to be satisfied in order to trigger the rule and actions associated therewith (See Pages 3 – 4 and Page C-3: Prohibition of Discharge. Without limiting the generality of s.3.3, no person shall cause or permit to be released… which when mixed with water will result in: …).
Coquitlam’2013 is silent as to the language of:
wherein the system includes a rule engine and a user interface for at least one of creating, adjusting and customizing one or more rules for the rule engine thereof,
wherein the user interface is configured for a plurality of conditions to be combined in creating a rule of the rule engine.
Nevertheless Madden teaches:
wherein the system includes a rule engine and a user interface for at least one of creating, adjusting and customizing one or more rules for the rule engine thereof (See para[0027]: User interface module 13 also provides a keyboard, mouse or other data input means to allow a user to store data in relational database 21 or provide additional (or modified) rules to be applied by decision processor 23.),
wherein the user interface is configured for a plurality of conditions to be combined in creating a rule of the rule engine (See Fig. 1, para[0024] – para[0025], para[0035] – para[0036], and para[0062]: The decision processor 23 analyzes the received signals from each of the sensors 15 and applies rules to this data to determine if an alarm is necessary. Three types of rules must be used: (1) rules to show the relationship between data from sensors 15 and particular contaminant, (2) rules to evaluate the report from the artificial intelligence processor 25 analysis of the sensor 15 signals, interpret it and classify it as different types of problem, and (3) rules for suggesting a particular mitigation plan.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Coquitlam’2013 wherein the system includes a rule engine and a user interface for at least one of creating, adjusting and customizing one or more rules for the rule engine thereof, and wherein the user interface is configured to a plurality of conditions to be combined in creating a rule of the rule engine such as that of Madden. Madden teaches, “The "knowledge" used to construct the artificial intelligence processor 25 is based on expertise provided by experts in the field of water chemistry. The domain knowledge defines the conditional relationships between the outputs of the system's sensors 15 and the presence of given contaminants” (See para[0026]). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Coquitlam’2013, because using a user interface to create, adjust, and customize rules would have helped a user to apply their knowledge when creating a model of a system, as recognized by Madden.
Claim(s) 7 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over City of Coquitlam (City of Coquitlam, by-law No 4403, Stream and Drainage System Protection Amendment Bylaw (2013).), herein Coquitlam’2013, in view of Township of Langley (Township of Langley, “Erosion and Sediment Control for Sites Over 2000m2.” ESC Brochure (2018)), herein Langley’2018, and Spani (US 20130062288 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 25 above, and further in view of Wilson et al. (US 20220251817 A1) and Tozawa (JP 2007301550 A).
Regarding Claims 7 and 30. Coquitlam’2013 is silent as to the language of:
The real-time water monitoring and control system according to claim 1 or the real-time water monitoring and control system of claim 25,
including a rule engine and a rule creation and adjustment interface thereof, the rule creation and adjustment interface enabling:
i) customization of pH thresholds of the water with customization of one or more amounts of time past which pH levels of the water outside of said pH thresholds are unacceptable, triggering the system to recirculate rather than discharge the water;
ii) customization of turbidity thresholds of the water with customization of one or more amounts of time past which turbidity levels of the water outside of said turbidity thresholds are unacceptable, triggering the system to recirculate rather than discharge the water;
iii) customization of the a rainfall amount and rolling time period thresholds which comprise said rainfall condition;
iv) customization of the time period required for a rule to be activated; and
v) customization of the a time period required for a rule to be deactivated.
Nevertheless Wilson teaches:
including a rule engine and a rule creation and adjustment interface thereof (See Fig. 2, Fig. 7, Fig. 15, para[0006], para[0008], para[0049], and para[0058]: a jobsite entry interface where a user can create a jobsite and enter the information needed to create an SCP. ), the rule creation and adjustment interface enabling:
iii) customization of the a rainfall amount and rolling time period thresholds which comprise said rainfall condition (See Fig. 5, Fig. 7, para[0037], para[0042], para[0049], and para[0053]: The user can input… a cumulative rain trigger amount that will trigger a rain event. Tasks are more complex notifications which take into account the details of the rain event—the percent change of rain, the expected rainfall total, the timeframe of arrival and duration, etc.—and then generate specific actions which one or more users need to take in order to maintain compliance with the SCP. The Reports Interface may also include a summary of the reports that have been made and a summary of the report information—such as the number of rain events, the number of samples taken, the number of incidents, actions, exceeded threshold levels, etc. over specified periods of time that align with the regulatory requirements for a particular jobsite);
iv) customization of the time period required for a rule to be activated (See para[0053]: Specified periods of time that align with the regulatory requirements for a particular jobsite.); and
v) customization of the a time period required for a rule to be deactivated (See para[0053]: Specified periods of time that align with the regulatory requirements for a particular jobsite.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Coquitlam’2013 including a rule engine and a rule creation and adjustment interface thereof, the rule creation and adjustment interface enabling: iii) customization of the rainfall amount and rolling time period thresholds which comprise said rainfall condition; iv) customization of the time period required for a rule to be activated; and v) customization of the time period required for a rule to be deactivated such as that of Wilson. Wilson teaches, “The goal of this highly-customized SCP is to prevent erosion and sediment runoff at the jobsite by determining all of the potential site-specific risks, taking preventative steps prior to a storm, and monitoring a site before, during and after a storm to take any necessary corrective actions” (See para[0003]). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Coquitlam’2013, because using an interface to create and customize rules would have helped to create a site-specific compliance plan and help prevent erosion and sediment runoff, as recognized by Wilson.
Wilson is silent as to the language of:
i) customization of pH thresholds of the water with customization of one or more amounts of time past which pH levels of the water outside of said pH thresholds are unacceptable, triggering the system to recirculate rather than discharge the water; and
ii) customization of turbidity thresholds of the water with customization of one or more amounts of time past which turbidity levels of the water outside of said turbidity thresholds are unacceptable, triggering the system to recirculate rather than discharge the water.
Nevertheless Tozawa teaches:
i) customization of pH thresholds of the water with customization of one or more amounts of time past which pH levels of the water outside of said pH thresholds are unacceptable, triggering the system to recirculate rather than discharge the water (See Page 7 and Page 8: The standard raw water at the construction site has a water quality within a predetermined allowable range (for example, SS 25 ppm or less, pH 6.5 to 5.8). If the water quality detected in the water quality detection tank 5 is outside the allowable range for a predetermined time… The voice information is, for example, a voice message such as “The turbid water treatment facility exceeded the discharge standard and the return pump was activated”.); and
ii) customization of turbidity thresholds of the water with customization of one or more amounts of time past which turbidity levels of the water outside of said turbidity thresholds are unacceptable, triggering the system to recirculate rather than discharge the water (See Pages 7 – 8: Thus, when the value detected by the pH meter 17 or the turbidimeter 16 in the water quality detection tank 5 exceeds the allowable range (NO in S6), the controller 25 uses the signal from the float switch 18 to detect the water quality detection tank.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Coquitlam’2013 customization of pH thresholds of the water with customization of one or more amounts of time past which pH levels of the water outside of said pH thresholds are unacceptable, triggering the system to recirculate rather than discharge the water; and customization of turbidity thresholds of the water with customization of one or more amounts of time past which turbidity levels of the water outside of said turbidity thresholds are unacceptable, triggering the system to recirculate rather than discharge the water such as that of Tozawa. Tozawa teaches, “When the water quality in the water quality detection tank falls outside the allowable range for a predetermined time, the quality of the water returned by the return means is not improved depending on the processing in the processing unit. When such a situation occurs, it is considered that an abnormality has occurred in the apparatus” (See Page 5). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Coquitlam’2013, because customizing pH and turbidity thresholds with one or more amounts of time would have helped to determine if an abnormality has occurred in a water treatment apparatus, as recognized by Tozawa.
Claim(s) 8 and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over City of Coquitlam (City of Coquitlam, by-law No 4403, Stream and Drainage System Protection Amendment Bylaw (2013).), herein Coquitlam’2013, in view of Township of Langley (Township of Langley, “Erosion and Sediment Control for Sites Over 2000m2.” ESC Brochure (2018)), herein Langley’2018, and Spani (US 20130062288 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 25 above, and further in view of Wilson et al. (US 20220251817 A1) and Horvitz et al. (US 20040002932 A1).
Regarding Claims 8 and 31. Coquitlam’2013 is silent as to the language of:
A real-time water monitoring and control system according to claim 1 or the real-time water monitoring and control system of claim 25,
including a rule engine and a user interface thereof, with the user interface enabling:
customizable notifications of escalating urgency comprising actions of the system activated in response to whether and to the extent to which the water complies with the water quality threshold ranges;
customization of a frequency within which said notifications are sent; and
customization of persons to receive a given said notification depending on the importance thereof.
Nevertheless Wilson teaches:
including a rule engine and a user interface thereof (See Fig. 2, Fig. 7, Fig. 15, para[0006], para[0008], para[0049], and para[0058]: a jobsite entry interface where a user can create a jobsite and enter the information needed to create an SCP. ), with the user interface enabling:
customizable notifications of escalating urgency comprising actions of the system activated in response to whether and to the extent to which the water complies with the water quality threshold ranges (See Fig. 5, Fig. 7, para[0049]: In this embodiment, a “risk level” can also be input that may determine the level of compliance, reports and other actions that need to be taken at a jobsite based on the risk of stormwater runoff at the site and to the surrounding area.); and
customization of persons to receive a given said notification depending on the importance thereof (See Fig. 3A, Fig. 3B, para[0007], para[0029], and para[0043]: Transmitting the one or more alerts, notifications and tasks to the plurality of users based on their assigned responsibilities. The manager may be able to take actions via the dashboard without needing to access separate SCP GUIs, such as viewing an alert or notification or assigning an inspector to complete a task, form or report.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Coquitlam’2013 including a rule engine and a user interface thereof, with the user interface enabling: customizable notifications of escalating urgency comprising actions of the system activated in response to whether and to the extent to which the water complies with the water quality threshold ranges; and customization of persons to receive a given said notification depending on the importance thereof such as that of Wilson. Wilson teaches, “The real-time data is combined with a site-specific SCP to create a dashboard for continuous management of the SCP, where the system provides data analytics for the generation of events, tasks and notifications for inspectors, managers and other personnel, and automatic generation and completion of electronic forms and reports for complying with all necessary regulatory requirements relating to the SCP” (See para[0006]). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Coquitlam’2013, because using an interface to create and customize notifications would have helped to continuously manage a site and ensure compliance with regulatory requirements, as recognized by Wilson.
Wilson is silent as to the language of:
customization of a frequency within which said notifications are sent.
Nevertheless Horvitz teaches:
customization of a frequency within which said notifications are sent (See para[0030]: adjust how often or when items are delivered.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Coquitlam’2013 with customization of a frequency within which said notifications are sent such as that of Horvitz. Horvitz teaches, “Consequently, in order to satisfy a variety of notification requirements applying to a plurality of different circumstances and recipients, many automated decision-making processes are provided to tailor notification requirements according to a particular user's needs” (See para[0004]). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Coquitlam’2013, because customizing a notification frequency would have helped to provide notifications tailored to a particular user’s needs, as recognized by Horvitz.
Claim(s) 9 and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over City of Coquitlam (City of Coquitlam, by-law No 4403, Stream and Drainage System Protection Amendment Bylaw (2013).), herein Coquitlam’2013, in view of Township of Langley (Township of Langley, “Erosion and Sediment Control for Sites Over 2000m2.” ESC Brochure (2018)), herein Langley’2018, and Spani (US 20130062288 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 32 above, and further in view of Scholpp (US 20100332149 A1).
Regarding Claims 9 and 32. Coquitlam’2013 is silent as to the language of:
The real-time water monitoring and control system according to claim 1 or the real-time water monitoring and control system of claim 25,
including a dashboard interface which displays via visual indicia raw water quality and rainfall data in real-time;
including visual indicia of rainfall amount totals as a function of time,
visual indicia of PH levels of the water as a function time,
visual indicia of turbidity levels of the water as a function of time, and
visual indicia of temperature levels of the water as a function of time.
Nevertheless Langley’2018 teaches:
including a dashboard interface which displays via visual indicia rainfall data in real-time (See Page 4: You (or your monitor) can go online and check the rainfall gauge indicated on your permit.
PNG
media_image1.png
200
216
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.); and
including visual indicia of rainfall amount totals as a function of time (See Page 4: You (or your monitor) can go online and check the rainfall gauge indicated on your permit.
PNG
media_image1.png
200
216
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Coquitlam’2013 with including a dashboard interface which displays via visual indicia rainfall data in real-time; and including visual indicia of rainfall amount totals as a function of time, such as that of Langley’2018. Langley’2018 teaches, “All gauges are listed on the same webpage (pictured at right) If you are allowed to go to 100 NTU, it will look like the “Langley Municipal” gauge does here (red triangle). The red triangle will stay visible for as long as the limit is at 100 NTU, which includes 24 hours after the storm” (See Page 4). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Coquitlam’2013, because using location specific rainfall data would have helped to determine if a significant rainfall event had occurred at a lot, as recognized by Langley’2018.
Langley’2018 is silent as to the language of:
including a dashboard interface which displays via visual indicia raw water quality;
visual indicia of PH levels of the water as a function time,
visual indicia of turbidity levels of the water as a function of time, and
visual indicia of temperature levels of the water as a function of time.
Nevertheless Scholpp teaches:
including a dashboard interface which displays via visual indicia raw water quality (See Fig. 1, para[0029],para[0037] para[0052], para[0056], para[0080], and para[0083] – para[0085]: One or more sensors may include contaminant(s), conductivity, pH, pressure, turbidity. Raw data obtained from a sensor may be stamped or labeled with time and location information. The output may be a report submitted to a regulatory agency in a required format, such as visual graphs. The output may be in any format and may incorporate a tabular or graphical display as may be suitable to facilitate or focus the presentation of the data or analysis or manipulation of the data for a particular user(s).);
visual indicia of PH levels of the water as a function time (See Fig. 1, para[0029],para[0037] para[0052], para[0056], para[0080], and para[0083] – para[0085]: One or more sensors may include contaminant(s), conductivity, pH, pressure, turbidity. Raw data obtained from a sensor may be stamped or labeled with time and location information. The output may be a report submitted to a regulatory agency in a required format, such as visual graphs. The output may be in any format and may incorporate a tabular or graphical display as may be suitable to facilitate or focus the presentation of the data or analysis or manipulation of the data for a particular user(s).),
visual indicia of turbidity levels of the water as a function of time (See Fig. 1, para[0029],para[0037] para[0052], para[0056], para[0080] – para[0081], and para[0083] – para[0085]: One or more sensors may include contaminant(s), conductivity, pH, pressure, turbidity. Raw data obtained from a sensor may be stamped or labeled with time and location information. The output may be a report submitted to a regulatory agency in a required format, such as visual graphs. The output may be in any format and may incorporate a tabular or graphical display as may be suitable to facilitate or focus the presentation of the data or analysis or manipulation of the data for a particular user(s).), and
visual indicia of temperature levels of the water as a function of time (See Fig. 1, para[0029],para[0037] para[0052], para[0056], para[0080], para[0083] – para[0084], and para[0104]: The one or more sensors may include, but are not limited to: water temperature. Raw data obtained from a sensor may be stamped or labeled with time and location information. The output may be a report submitted to a regulatory agency in a required format, such as visual graphs. The output may be in any format and may incorporate a tabular or graphical display as may be suitable to facilitate or focus the presentation of the data or analysis or manipulation of the data for a particular user(s).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Coquitlam by including a dashboard interface which displays via visual indicia raw water quality; and including visual indicia of rainfall amount totals as a function of time, visual indicia of PH levels of the water as a function time, visual indicia of turbidity levels of the water as a function of time, and visual indicia of temperature levels of the water as a function of time such as that of Scholpp. Scholpp teaches, “a system for remotely monitoring the operation and equipment of a non co-located water treatment system or the water quality in, toward, or from a non-collocated water treatment system using sensors to collect data that is transmitted to a remote computer for analysis, manipulation, and communication to a remote viewing device for a user” (See para[0025]). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Coquitlam, because using a visual indicia of sensor data would have helped a user to analysis and manipulate the data collected by the sensors, as recognized by Scholpp.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that: Nonetheless, in the interests of expediting proceedings, it is submitted that the amended claims filed herewith render the above objection moot.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of the amended independent claims 1 and 25 under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. After consultation with TQAS Karl Tamai claims 1 and 25 are viewed as reciting a judicial exception and are not integrated into a practical application. Referring to the MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Step 2A: whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception, “Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry, in which examiners determine in Prong One whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then determine in Prong Two if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception.” As described in further detail under the 35 USC 101 rejection above, the non-abstract additional elements of the independent claims are seen as either generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use; adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, i.e. necessary data gathering; or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. Further, the non-abstract additional elements are not seen as integrating the claim as a whole into a practical application because the non-abstract additional elements are well understood, routine, and conventional activity that as shown by the recited references is widely prevalent or in common use in the relevant industry. As the amended claims 1 and 25 both recite a judicial exception and are not integrated into a practical application the 35 USC 101 rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues that: Thus Spani discloses requiring that its rain fall totalizer fill up prior to measuring properties of water via its sensors. From this it follows that Spani as understood does not in fact disclose a rainfall gauge via which location-specific rainfall data is obtained in real-time as claimed in amended claim 1 and similarly claimed in new claim 25 filed herewith.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 25 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.
Applicant argues that: Rather, Spani requires a set rainfall amount (filling up of the rainfall totalizer) in order to operate regardless of period of time.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, during patent examination, the pending claims must be "given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification." The Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
As shown is further detail in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection above Spani teaches: “This design enables continuous adjusting and reporting in real time to the Regional Water Quality Control Board of the condition of the captured fluid medium and the operation of the programmable fluid treatment system” (See para[0017]) and “Further, there are four identical banks of these parameter sensors distributed throughout the programmable fluid treatment system 100 for providing a constant stream of data on a real time basis to the programmable computer control subsystem (PCCS) 106” (See para[0043]).
Claims 1 and 25 recite the limitation “a plurality of sensors configured to measure properties of the water in real-time”. In view of the state of the art, the examiner understands a broadest reasonable interpretation of “configured to measure properties of the water in real-time” to include sensors capable of measuring properties of water in real-time. Applicant’s specification does not rebut the presumption that the term “configured” is to be given its broadest reasonable interpretation by clearly setting forth a different definition of the term. Spani discloses a broadest reasonable interpretation of the recited limitation, because Spani teaches sensors capable of providing a constant stream of data on a real time basis. Accordingly, applicant’s arguments regarding the recited limitation are not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
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 CARTER W FERRELL whose telephone number is (571)272-0551. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10 am - 8 pm.
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, Catherine T. Rastovski can be reached at (571) 270-0349. 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.
/CARTER W FERRELL/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/Catherine T. Rastovski/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857