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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status
This instant application No. 18/200,275 has Claims 1-20 pending.
Priority / Filing Date
Applicant claimed priority from U.S. provisional application no. 63/421,466, filed on November 1, 2022, application no. 63/423,362, filed on November 7, 2022, application no. 63/427,146, filed on November 22, 2022, and application no. 63/434,291, filed on December 21, 2022.
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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
3. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,315,357. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the ‘357 Patent include all the limitations of this Application as well as additional limitations.
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.
4. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 2A Prong One:
Independent Claims 1, 15, and 20 recite
detecting or predicting, water intrusion into the structure by analyzing at least the data indicative of the one or more factors associated with the external environment;
The aforesaid step is a process that covers mental processes including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. Said limitation in Claims 1, 15 and 20 are a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Other than reciting “one or more processors”, “one or more memories storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors” and “one or more tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors” in the claims nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. 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. As such Claims 1, 15, and 20 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite the additional element of “one or more processors”, “one or more memories storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors” and “one or more tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors” to perform the claimed steps at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. This additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The additional element of receiving data indicative of one or more factors associated
with the external environment is a data gathering step and is merely an insignificant pre-solution activity. Additionally, the post-processing steps of presenting the result to the user is data output/display step and is also an insignificant post-solution activity. As such these additional elements also do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
Finally, the pre-processing step of receiving data and outputting results are categorized as insignificant extra solution activity under 2106.05(g). Claims 1, 15 and 20 only recite “one or more processors”, “one or more memories storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors” and “one or more tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors” to perform the claimed steps and therefore only recite a general purpose computer rather than a specific machine under MPEP 2106.05(b), and are directed to mere instructions to apply the exception under MPEP 2106.05(f), and do not result in anything significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements have been considered both individually and as an ordered combination in the significantly more consideration. The inclusion of the computer or memory and controller to perform the receiving, detecting and causing steps amount to nor more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Claims 1, 15, and 20 are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims include the same abstract ideas recited in the independent claims, and merely incorporate additional details that narrow the abstract ideas and fail to add significantly more to the claims.
Dependent Claims 2, 4-8, 16, 18-19 disclose the types of data indicative of the factors associated with the external environment, which is data representation and is merely insignificant extra-solution activities.
Dependent Claims 3 and 17 disclose generate the data indicative of the one or more factors associated with the external environment. This is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is a process step that covers mental processes including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. Thus, the claims are directed to the abstract idea of a mental process performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper.
Dependent Claim 9 discloses detecting or predicting the water intrusion into the structure includes jointly analyzing (i) the data indicative of the one or more factors associated with the external environment, and (ii) the data indicative of the one or more factors associated with the interior of the structure. This is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is a process step that covers mental processes including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. Thus, the claims are directed to the abstract idea of a mental process performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper. Receiving data indicative of one or more factors associated with an interior of the structure is a data gathering steps and is merely insignificant extra-solution activities.
Dependent Claims 10-13 discloses the types of data indicative of the factors associated with the interior of the structure, which is data representation and is merely insignificant extra-solution activities.
Dependent Claim 14 discloses using a machine learning model to analyze the one or more factors associated with the external environment, This analysis could be done mentally and or using simple pen and paper and generic machine learning model is used as a tool here.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
5. Claims 1, 4-15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hayward et al., hereafter Hayward (Patent No.: US 10,497,250 B1).
Regarding Claim 1, Hayward discloses a computer-implemented method of detecting or predicting water intrusion into a structure from an external environment (Hayward: abstract), the method comprising:
receiving, by one or more processors, data indicative of one or more factors associated with the external environment (Hayward: Figure 1 (162): processor, column 19, lines 53-57: sensors 112 detect or sense various dynamic characteristics and/or conditions of the building 130 and/or of its internal and/or external environment, and in some cases, a degree or amount of the dynamic characteristic (e.g., temperature, flow, density, etc.); Also see Figure 3, column 21 line 59- column 22 line 10);
detecting or predicting, by the one or more processors, water intrusion into the structure by analyzing at least the data indicative of the one or more factors associated with the external environment (Hayward: Figure 1 (162): processor, column 4 lines 10-18: The method may also include applying, e.g., by the information processor, the trained, analytics model to at least one of the dynamic characteristic data corresponding to the building or additional characteristic data corresponding to the building, thereby discovering or predicting at least one of the one or more conditions associated with the building, one of which may be particular damage to the building that is associated with the event); and
causing, by the one or more processors, an indication of the detected or predicted water intrusion to be presented to a user (Hayward: Figure 1 (162): processor, column 22 lines 45-59: Generally, the dynamic characteristic data is indicative of detected, various dynamically occurring physical conditions inside of, outside of, on, at, or near the building 130, and/or respective measurements, amounts, or other indication of magnitudes of the dynamically occurring, physical conditions associated with the building 130……..the foundation of the building may be subjected to rising ground waters (a detectable dynamic condition associated with the building), and the foundation itself may suffer structural damage due to the exposure to rising ground waters (another detectable dynamic condition associated with the building; column 25 lines 57-60: the method 300 may include transmitting an indication of the discovered condition(s), e.g., the discovered particular damage of the building 130, to the remote computing device and/or to a user interface).
Regarding Claims 15 and 20, the claims recite the same substantive limitations as Claim 1 and are rejected using the same teachings.
Regarding Claim 4, Hayward further discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the data indicative of the one or more factors associated with the external environment includes data indicative of snow, rain, and/or standing water outside the structure (Hayward: column 23 lines 26-30; column 42 lines 45-46).
Regarding Claim 18, the claim recites the same substantive limitations as Claim 4 and is rejected using the same teachings.
Regarding Claim 5, Hayward further discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the data indicative of the one or more factors associated with the external environment includes data indicative of irrigation of land outside the structure (Hayward: column 14 lines 8-12; column 42 lines 65-67: sprinkler system).
Regarding Claim 19, the claim recites the same substantive limitations as Claim 5 and is rejected using the same teachings.
Regarding Claim 6, Hayward further discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 5, wherein the data indicative of irrigation of land outside the structure comprises a programmed irrigation schedule (Hayward: column 13 lines 47-52, column 14 lines 8-12; column 42 lines 65-67: turning 50 on or turning off sprinkler- intelligent monitoring system controller 106 to adjust the flow of water in and around the building 130).
Regarding Claim 7, Hayward further discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the data indicative of the one or more factors associated with the external environment includes weather and/or climate data (Hayward: column 23 lines 26-30; column 42 lines 45-46).
Regarding Claim 8, Hayward further discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the data indicative of the one or more factors associated with the external environment includes data indicative of known water intrusions, or lack thereof, in one or more other structures in a same area as the structure (Hayward: column 22 lines 45-59; column 25 lines 57-60).
Regarding Claim 9, Hayward further discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving, by the one or more processors, data indicative of one or more factors associated with an interior of the structure (Hayward: Figure 1 (162): processor, column 19, lines 53-57: sensors 112 detect or sense various dynamic characteristics and/or conditions of the building 130 and/or of its internal and/or external environment, and in some cases, a degree or amount of the dynamic characteristic (e.g., temperature, flow, density, etc.); Also see Figure 3, column 21 line 59- column 22 line 10,
wherein detecting or predicting the water intrusion into the structure includes jointly analyzing (i) the data indicative of the one or more factors associated with the external environment (Hayward: Figure 1 (162): processor, column 4 lines 10-18: The method may also include applying, e.g., by the information processor, the trained, analytics model to at least one of the dynamic characteristic data corresponding to the building or additional characteristic data corresponding to the building, thereby discovering or predicting at least one of the one or more conditions associated with the building, one of which may be particular damage to the building that is associated with the event; column 23 lines 20-41: Some types of impacting events may be caused or precipitated by an actor and/or other factors that are external to and independent of the building 130), and (ii) the data indicative of the one or more factors associated with the interior of the structure (Hayward: Figure 1 (162): processor, column 4 lines 10-18: The method may also include applying, e.g., by the information processor, the trained, analytics model to at least one of the dynamic characteristic data corresponding to the building or additional characteristic data corresponding to the building, thereby discovering or predicting at least one of the one or more conditions associated with the building, one of which may be particular damage to the building that is associated with the event; column 19 lines 25525: dynamic, physical characteristics and/or conditions associated with the building 130, e.g., of the building 130 and/or of its internal and/or external environment; manual or automatic adjustment of a thermostat).
Regarding Claim 10, Hayward further discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 9, wherein the data indicative of one or more factors associated with the interior of the structure includes data indicative of one or more characteristics of a foundation of the structure (Hayward: column 22 lines 54-59).
Regarding Claim 11, Hayward further discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 9, wherein the data indicative of one or more factors associated with the interior of the structure includes data indicative of standing water within the structure (Hayward: column 22 lines 54-59).
Regarding Claim 12, Hayward further discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 9, wherein the data indicative of one or more factors associated with the interior of the structure includes data indicative of a configuration of the structure (Hayward: column 24 lines 49-60).
Regarding Claim 13, Hayward further discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 9, wherein the data indicative of the one or more factors associated with the interior of the structure includes data indicating an amount of time or a percentage of time that (i) at least a portion of a foundation of the structure is wet and/or (ii) water is entering the structure through the foundation (Hayward: column 22 lines 54-59).
Regarding Claim 14, Hayward further discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein detecting or predicting water intrusion into the structure includes using a machine learning model to analyze the one or more factors associated with the external environment (Hayward: column 30 lines 1-15).
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 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 of this title, 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.
6. Claims 2-3, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Hayward et al., hereafter Hayward (Patent No.: US 10,497,250 B1), in view of Shayne et al. hereafter Shayne (Pub. No.: US 2022/0254004 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Hayward discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1
Hayward further discloses wherein the data indicative of the one or more factors associated with the external environment (Hayward: column 10 lines 30-32; column 19, lines 53-57).
However, Hayward do not explicitly disclose:
data indicative of one or more of:
water capacity of soil;
conductivity of soil; or
saturation of soil
Shyane discloses:
data indicative of one or more of:
water capacity of soil;
conductivity of soil; or
saturation of soil (Shyane: [0058], [0059], [0060]).
Hayward and Shyane are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They both relate to property damage monitoring.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above building damage monitoring application, as taught by Hayward, and incorporating the use of soil moisturizing content levels detection, as taught by Shyane.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to identify environmental conditions in potentially problematic areas of the property, as suggested by Shyane (Shyane: abstract).
Regarding Claim 16, the claim recites the same substantive limitations as Claim 2 and is rejected using the same teachings.
Regarding Claim 3, the combinations of Hayward and Shyane further disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 2, further comprising:
generating, by one or more soil sensors, the data indicative of the one or more factors associated with the external environment (Shyane: [0058]).
Motivation to combine Hayward and Shyane is same as Claim 2.
Regarding Claim 17, the claim recites the same substantive limitations as Claim 3 and is rejected using the same teachings.
Conclusion
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Picardi et al. (Pub. No.: US 2020/0378860 A1) teaches performing leak detection which includes actions of obtaining water consumption data that is based on sensor data generated by a connected water meter that is installed at a property.
. Rudd et al. (Pub. No.: US 2022/0026305 A1) teaches performing dynamic water leak detection by determining water usage criteria and in response to determining that the water usage at the property satisfies the water usage criteria, determining that a water leak exists at the property.
Kenneth Young (Pub. No.: US 2021/0164860 A1) teaches a water monitoring system has aback-end system comprising an authentication module, a machine learning module, an alerts module, and a third-party module.
Shabbir et al. (Pub. No.: US 2021/0125486 A1) conceptually presents a water-leak-detection and -monitoring system for a building to be communicatively coupled to a water-flow sensor coupled to a pipe in the first area, at least one of a humidity sensor, a temperature sensor, or a liquid-water sensor configured to sense information indicative of a presence of water in the first area.
Scharf et al. (Pub. No.: US 2024/0011917 A1) disclose a method for detecting damage in a geographical area that includes receiving a first image of the geographical area, with the first image having a first resolution, and detecting damage to at least one object appearing in the first image in response to applying a trained learning engine to the first image.
8. Examiner’s Remarks: Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their 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. In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Correspondence Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IFTEKHAR A KHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5699. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 9:00AM-6:00PM (CST). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Emerson Puente can be reached on (571)272-3652. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/IFTEKHAR A KHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2187
Prosecution Insights