DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant's arguments received 05/06/2026 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. Detailed response is given in sections 4-7 as set forth below in this Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 101 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
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.
5. Claims 1-2, 8, 10-14, 17-18 and 21-28 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.
Under the 2019 PEG (now been incorporated into MPEP 2106), the revised procedure for determining whether a claim is "directed to" a judicial exception requires a two-prong inquiry into whether the claim recites: (1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human interactions such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes); and (2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h)).
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look to whether the claim: (3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not "well-understood, routine, conventional" in the field (see MPEP § 2106.0S(d)); or (4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Claims 1-2, 8, 10-14, 17-18 and 21-28 are directed to an abstract idea of monitoring water usage within a structure.
Specifically, representative claim 1 recites:
A computer-implemented method of monitoring location-specific water usage, the method comprising:
S1: generating, at least in part by a plurality of sensors that are each associated with a respective one of a plurality of locations, first water usage data indicating a first plurality of water usage events associated with a structure, wherein each of the first plurality of water usage events is associated with a respective one of the plurality of locations, and wherein the plurality of sensors includes a plurality of flow sensors that are (i) installed within different fixtures within the structure and (ii) powered by water flow;
S2: receiving, by one or more processors, the first water usage data;
S3: generating, by the one or more processors and based upon the first water usage data, a baseline water usage model representing water usage over time for a plurality of locations;
S4: generating, at least in part by the plurality of sensors, second water usage data indicating a second plurality of water usage events associated with the structure, wherein each of the second plurality of water usage events is associated with a respective one of the plurality of locations;
S5: detecting, by the one or more processors and based upon the second water usage data and the baseline water usage model, anomalous water usage associated with a particular location, wherein detecting the anomalous water usage includes comparing measured flow rates from specific ones of the plurality of flow sensors to corresponding location-specific thresholds or ranges of the baseline model; and
S6: causing, by the one or more processors, an indication of the anomalous water usage to be presented to a user;
S7: wherein generating the first water usage data and generating the second water usage data includes, for each of at least some water usage events, determining a respective amount of water used during the water usage event.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
The highlighted portion of the claim constitutes an abstract idea under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance and the additional elements are NOT sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions, as analyzed below:
Step
Analysis
1. Statutory Category ?
Yes.
Method
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes.
See the bolded portion listed above.
Under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), each of the limitations S3 and S7 encompasses mathematical concepts, namely a series of calculations leading to one or more numerical results of a respective amount of water used during the water usage event, which can be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper. Although it does not spell out any particular equation or formula being used, the lack of specific equations for individual steps merely indicates that the claim would monopolize all possible calculations in performing the steps.
The phrase “generating, by the one or more processors and based upon the first water usage data” reads on performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen/paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “by the one or more processors,” nothing in the claim precludes this step from practically being performed in the mind or with pen/paper. According to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes except for the mention of generic computer components performing computing activities via basic function of the computer, then the claim is likely considered to be directed to an ineligible abstract idea, as it essentially describes a mental process that could be performed by a human without the computer components adding any significant practical application beyond the abstract concept itself.
Under its BRI, the limitation S5 encompasses a data analysis/evaluation step, but for the recitation of generic computer components, that can be performed by a human using mental steps or basic critical thinking.
The data characterization such as “water usage over time for a plurality of locations”, “water usage events associated with the structure”, and “anomalous water usage associated with a particular location” recited in the bolded portion can be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of monitoring water usage within a structure.
As such, the limitations S3, S5 and S7 recited in the bolded portion amount to a series of mental and/or mathematical steps, making these limitations amount to an abstract idea. Nothing in the claim precludes these limitations from practically being performed by a human using pen/paper and/or a generic computer processor.
The bolded portion of instant claim 1 therefore falls within a combination of the “Mathematical Concepts” and “Mental Process” Groupings of Abstract Ideas defined by the 2019 PEG.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No.
The claim as a whole does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The limitations S1 and S2 and S4 encompass merely a processes of gathering/acquiring the data/information (e.g., the first water usage data and the second water usage data) necessary for performing the identified abstract. According to MPEP 2106.05(g)(3): … that were described as mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea. As such, each of the limitations S1 and S2 and S4 represents an extra-solution activity to the judicial exception which can be performed in any manner known to those of ordinary skill in the art but does not impose any meaningful limit on practicing the abstract idea. See, for example, the USPTO’s July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples (e.g., Example 46, Claim 3, discussions of the limitations regarding a plurality of sensors that are each associated with a respective one of a plurality of entities …).
The extra-solution activity S1 now recites the newly added limitation: wherein the plurality of sensors includes a plurality of flow sensors that are (i) installed within different fixtures within the structure and (ii) powered by water flow, Under the BRI, this limitation encompasses the field use of a conventional technique or means of acquiring the data/information necessary for performing the abstract idea. The claim does not include details whatsoever of how the plurality of flow sensors operate as a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. Put it differently, the recited abstract idea (math + mental) of instant claim 1 accepts inputs of the required data/information from any tool or means as long as it is capable of providing measurements of flow rates at corresponding locations in the structure (see Specification, para. [0031]). Nothing in the Applicant’s originally filed disclosure supports that the newly added limitation of the flow sensors is essential to the function or operation of the identified judicial exception, in the sense that it is not an optional or incidental feature, and without it, the claimed invention would not work as described. Therefore, it is deemed that the amendment to S1 does not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea itself under Step 2A.
The limitation S6 is considered merely an insignificant post-solution activity to the judicial exception. It does not amount to be meaningful to integrate the identified judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g).
In general, the claim as a whole does not meet any of the following criteria to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
An additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses 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.
Various considerations are used to determine whether the additional elements are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. However, in all of these respects, the claim fails to recite additional elements which might possibly integrate the claim into a particular practical application. Instead, based on the above considerations, the claim would tend to monopolize the algorithm across a wide range of applications.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No.
At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activities takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well-known. Here, under the BRI, all the additional elements as recited in the limitations S1, S2, S4 and S6 of instant claim 1 are considered well-understood, routine, or conventional (see discussion of the prior art as set forth in sections 6-7 below). The claim does not recite any additional limitation/element that can be treated as “significantly more” or an “inventive concept”. See MPEP 2106.05.
The claim is therefore ineligible under 35 USC 101.
The dependent claims 2, 8 and 10-12 inherit attributes of independent claim 1, but do not add anything which would render the claimed invention a patent eligible application of the abstract idea. These claims merely extend (or narrow) the abstract idea which do not amount for "significantly more" because they merely add details to the algorithm which forms the abstract idea as discussed above.
Claims 13-14, 17-18 and 21-28 are treated as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for the same reasons as for claims 1-2, 8 and 10-12 discussed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-2, 8, 10-14, 17-18 and 21-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Rudd et al. (US 20220026305 A1) in view of Zhou (US 20200300664 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 13 and 17, Rudd discloses a computer-implemented method/system, including computer programs encoded on a storage device, for monitoring location-specific water usage (para. 0012: “… one or more sensors that are located throughout a property that is monitored by a monitoring system … determining, based on the sensor data, a water usage mode of the property”; para. 0063: “Based on the sensor data, the monitoring server may select a medium or high activity mode, resulting in a higher water usage threshold. Thus, if the occupant uses water fixtures, e.g., in a kitchen or bathroom …”), the method comprising:
generating, at least in part by a plurality of sensors (106 of Fig. 1) that are each associated with a respective one of a plurality of locations (para. 0012, 0045: “sensors 106 located throughout the property 102 … the sensors 106 can include motion detectors that detect movement at a location of the property 102”; Rudd also teaches: using first group of sensors in the kitchen area to capture activities of the resident 124, see Fig. 1B, para. 0045 and 0109; and using a second group of sensors in the upstairs bedroom/bathroom to capture activities of the resident 122, see Fig. 1B, para. 0053 and 0158), first water usage data (e.g., historical water usage data) indicating a first plurality of water usage events (e.g., “high activity”, “low activity”, “sleep” mode/event, etc.; see also para. 0130: “historical water usage data at the property can indicate that when the occupancy of the property is three people, and when the three people are not sleeping, average water usage at the property is 4.0 gallons per minute …”) associated with a structure (para. 0008, 0012: “… determining, based on the sensor data, a water usage mode of the property”; see also para. 0037-0038, 0045-0047, 0130-0131, and discussion of Fig. 1A), wherein each of the first plurality of water usage events is associated with a respective one of the plurality of locations (para. 0053, 0061 and 0063: e.g., the “sleep” mode/event is associated with a respective one of the plurality of locations such as the bedroom, while the “high activity” mode/event may be associated with the kitchen or bathroom);
receiving, by one or more processors (120 Fig. 1), the first water usage data, and generating, by the one or more processors and based upon the first water usage data, a baseline water usage model (water usage criteria) representing water usage over time for a plurality of locations (para. 0043, 0130-0131);
generating, at least in part by the plurality of sensors, second water usage data (e.g., current water usage data) indicating a second plurality of water usage events associated with the structure, wherein each of the second plurality of water usage events is associated with a respective one of the plurality of locations (para. 0012, 0025-0026, 0028, 0091, 0117);
detecting, by the one or more processors and based upon the second water usage data and the baseline water usage model, anomalous water usage associated with a particular location (para. 0043-0044, 0063, 0093, 0117, 0137); and
causing, by the one or more processors, an indication of the anomalous water usage to be presented to a user (para. 0006, 0102);
wherein generating the first water usage data and generating the second water usage data includes, for each of at least some water usage events, determining a respective amount of water used during the water usage event (para. 0008, 0010: “… causing the water usage threshold to adjust to a higher amount of water usage”; para. 0040: “the water meter 150 can transmit, to the monitoring server 120, the amount of water that is flowing to the property 102 at any given time”; see also para. 0043, 0130-0131).
Rudd does not mention explicitly: wherein the plurality of sensors includes a plurality of flow sensors that are (i) installed within different fixtures within the structure and (ii) powered by water flow; wherein detecting the anomalous water usage includes comparing measured flow rates from specific ones of the plurality of flow sensors to corresponding location-specific thresholds or ranges of the baseline model.
Zhou discloses a computer-implemented method/system for monitoring location-specific water usage (Abstract; para. 0026), comprising: a plurality of sensors including a plurality of flow sensors (102) that are (i) installed within different fixtures within the structure (para. 0026, 0046) and (ii) powered by water flow (para. 0076: “When water flows through the water input port 202 to the water output port 204 via the water throughput 206, the micro hydropower generator 208 generates electricity. The micro hydropower generator 208 can also act as a flow sensor that outputs sensor signals indicating that water is flowing, as well as the flow rate of the water”); generating, at least in part by the plurality of sensors, water usage data indicating a plurality of water usage events, wherein each of the plurality of water usage events is associated with a respective one of the plurality of locations (para. 0042: “… the waterflow notification data can indicate to the user that a plumbing fixture of the user utilizes more water on average than plumbing fixtures of that type of other users”; see also para. 0113); and detecting, by one or more processors and based upon the water usage data, anomalous water usage associated with a particular location, wherein detecting the anomalous water usage includes comparing measured flow rates from specific ones of the plurality of flow sensors to corresponding location-specific thresholds or ranges of the baseline model (para. 0027: “The waterflow monitoring data can include flow rates of the water through the one or more plumbing fixtures during the times that water flowed through the one or more plumbing fixtures”; para. 0090: “the waterflow analysis system 104 receives waterflow monitoring data 354 from the waterflow monitoring device 102”; para. 0111: “The analysis model 326 can generate waterflow notification data 356 indicating that there is a leak”; para. 0095: “The plumbing fixture profile data 324 can also include data generated by the waterflow analysis system 104 related to the plumbing fixture based on analysis of the waterflow monitoring data 354. In one embodiment, the plumbing fixture profile data 324 can include short leakage threshold data 362 and long leakage threshold data 364, as will be described in more detail below”; para. 0111: “The analysis model 326 can determine a leak by comparing one or more recent observed flush durations to the short leakage threshold and the long leakage threshold”; para. 0113: “monitoring device 102 and the analysis model 326 can analyze water usage and generate waterflow notification data 356 for other types of plumbing fixtures … the analysis model 326 can learn the behaviors and characteristics of other plumbing fixtures, identify leaks in other plumbing fixtures, identify wasteful use of other plumbing fixtures, identify abnormal use of other plumbing fixtures”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Zhou’s technique of monitoring location-specific water, usage using a plurality of locally deployed flow sensors each associated with a specific plumbing fixture, into the Rudd system/method to arrive the claimed invention. Doing so would allow for providing individualized water conservation assistance based on the unique circumstances of each home and the people within it (Zhou, para. 0007, 0040: “the waterflow notification data can include an amount of waterflow through the plumbing fixture in particular instances”).
Regarding claims 2, 14 and 18, Rudd discloses: wherein the respective locations are respective rooms within the structure (para. 0039, 0050).
Regarding claims 8, 21 and 25, Rudd discloses: wherein generating the first water usage data and generating the second water usage data includes, for each of at least some water usage events: generating water usage data using data generated by one or more appliances within the structure (para. 0039, 0147).
Regarding claims 10, 22 and 26, Rudd discloses: wherein the baseline water usage model represents water usage patterns specific to particular times of day and/or particular days of the week (para. 0067, 0129-0131).
Regarding claims 11, 23 and 27, Rudd discloses: generating, by the one or more processors, a report apportioning water usage associated with the structure to particular locations, and transmitting, by the one or more processors, the report to a device of the user (para. 0006, 0029, 0106, 0138).
Regarding claims 12, 24 and 28, Rudd discloses: wherein causing the indication of the anomalous water usage to be presented to the user includes: generating, by the one or more processors, an alert; and transmitting, by the one or more processors, the alert to a device of the user (para. 0006, 0029, 0106, 0138).
Contact Information
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIUQIN SUN whose telephone number is (571)272-2280. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am-6:00pm.
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, Shelby A. Turner can be reached on (571) 272-6334. 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.
/X.S/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/MOHAMMAD K ISLAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
