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 .
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant's arguments received 12/23/2025 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. Detailed response is given in sections 3-6 as set forth below in this Office action.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the subject matter eligibility in reference to the amended claims have been fully addressed by the updated analyses as set forth in sections 3-4 below in this Office Action.
Regarding the rejection under 35 USC 102, Applicant argues that:
PNG
media_image1.png
488
810
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner reminds to the Applicant that during patent examination, the pending claims must be given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time. See MPEP 2111.01. Moreover, although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
With these principles in mind, Examiner asserts that Rudd does disclose or anticipate the invention recited in instant claims 1, 13 and 17, including the limitations in question.
Specifically, with the BRI to the claim, Examiner considers that Rudd teaches explicitly: a plurality of sensors and/or controllers that are each associated with a respective one of a plurality of locations and/or entities, e.g., a first group of sensors in the kitchen area to capture activities of the resident 124, (Fig. 1B, para. 0045 and 0109), and a second group of sensors in the upstairs bedroom/bathroom to capture activities of the resident 122 (Fig. 1B, para. 0053, 0158), respectively. Rudd further teaches: generating, at least in part (emphasis added) by said plurality of sensors and/or controllers, first water usage data indicating a first plurality of water usage events (e.g., “high activity”, “low activity”, “sleep”, etc.) associated with a structure (para. 0008: “Based on the sensor data, a water usage mode can be selected. Water usage at the property can then be compared to water usage criteria for the selected water usage mode”; para. 0012: “receiving, from one or more sensors that are located throughout a property that is monitored by a monitoring system, sensor data; determining, based on the sensor data, a water usage mode of the property”; see also para. 0037-0038, 0045-0047, 0130-0131, and Fig. 1A and related text), wherein each of the first plurality of water usage events is associated with a respective one of the plurality of locations and/or entities (para. 0053, 0061, 0063: “ … The camera data may include images of the resident 122 turning off lights throughout the property 102 and entering the bedroom”, i.e., the “sleep” mode/event is associated with a respective one of the plurality of locations and/or entities such as the bedroom, while the “low activity” mode/event is associated with one person or entity at the property, and “high activity” mode/event may be associated with the kitchen or bathroom). Examiner asserts Rudd further teaches: wherein generating the first water usage data and generating the second water usage data includes, for each of at least some water usage events (e.g., “high activity” mode/event, “low activity” mode/event, “sleep” mode/event, etc.), determining a respective amount of water used during the water usage event (para. 0008: “Based on the sensor data, a water usage mode can be selected. Water usage at the property can then be compared to water usage criteria for the selected water usage mode”, that is to say: Based on the sensor data, a water usage event, e.g. “sleep” mode/event, is identified, and the corresponding water usage at the property during that mode/event must be related to bedroom; see also para. 0040, 0043, 0130-0131).
The rest of the Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection under 35 USC 102 are reliant upon the issues discussed above, and are deemed to be unpersuasive as well for the reasons provided above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-8 and 10-20 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.
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 1-8 and 10-20 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 and/or entity-specific water usage, the method comprising:
S1: generating, at least in part by a plurality of sensors and/or controllers that are each associated with a respective one of a plurality of locations and/or entities, 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/or entities;
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 and/or entities;
S4: generating, at least in part by the plurality of sensors and/or controllers, 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 and/or entities;
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 and/or entity; 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.
Under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the step S3 encompasses mathematical concepts, namely a series of calculations leading to one or more numerical results or answers, 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” covers 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 element precludes the 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, each of the steps S5 and S7 encompasses a data analysis/evaluation step, but for the recitation of generic computer components, that can be performed by the human mind using mental steps or basic critical thinking.
The limitations recited in the bolded portion therefore amount to a series of mental and/or mathematical steps, making these limitations amount to an abstract idea. Nothing in these steps precludes said “generating, … a baseline water usage model …”, “detecting, …” and “determining …” from practically being performed in the mind and/or using a pen and paper.
As such, the bolded portion of instant claim 1 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.
Each of the steps S1, S2 and S4 reads on merely a process of gathering the data/information 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 them represents an extra-solution activity to the judicial exception which can be performed in any way known to those of ordinary skill in the art but does not impose any meaningful limit on practicing the abstract idea. See 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 step S6 is considered 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.
See analysis given in 2A - Prong 2 above.
It is deemed that the focus of the invention recited in claim 1 is on a mental process of determining anomalous water usage with in a structure in reference to a historical baseline. The limitations of “a plurality of sensors and/or controllers that are each associated with a respective one of a plurality of locations and/or entities” are nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the particular field of monitoring location-specific and/or entity-specific water usage, by indicating that the claimed method is intendedly applied to a structure such as a residential home comprising a plurality of locations and/or entities. The limitations of “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/or entities” and “a second plurality of water usage events associated with a structure, wherein each of the second plurality of water usage events is associated with a respective one of the plurality of locations and/or entities” are merely data characterization which represents only a mere token acquiescence to limiting the reach of the claim to the field of monitoring location-specific and/or entity-specific water usage. Furthermore, under the BRI, the limitations in question are all well-understood, routine, conventional in the art (see the prior art references cited in sections 5-6 below in this Office Action), they do not provide any inventive concepts or reflect a qualified improvement. See MPEP 2106.05.
The claim is therefore ineligible under 35 USC 101.
The dependent claims 2-8 and 10-12 inherit attributes of the 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 "significant more" because they merely add details to the algorithm which forms the abstract idea as discussed above.
Claims 13-20 are treated as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for the same reasons as for claims 1-8 and 10-12 discussed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. 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; or
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
6. Claims 1-8 and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Rudd et al. (US 20220026305 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 and/or entity-specific water usage (Abstract, para. 0003-0004: water consumption by, e.g. respective appliance, reads on “entity-specific water usage”), 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 and/or entities (para. 0012, 0045; Rudd also teaches explicitly: 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, 0158, respectively), first water usage data (e.g., historical water usage data) indicating a first plurality of water usage events (e.g., “high activity” mode/event, “low activity” mode/event, “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: “Based on the sensor data, a water usage mode can be selected. Water usage at the property can then be compared to water usage criteria for the selected water usage mode”; para. 0012: “receiving, from one or more sensors that are located throughout a property that is monitored by a monitoring system, sensor data; determining, based on the sensor data, a water usage mode of the property”; see also para. 0037-0038, 0045-0047, 0130-0131, and Fig. 1A and related text), wherein each of the first plurality of water usage events is associated with a respective one of the plurality of locations and/or entities (para. 0053, 0061 and 0063: “ … The camera data may include images of the resident 122 turning off lights throughout the property 102 and entering the bedroom”, i.e., the “sleep” mode/event is associated with a respective one of the plurality of locations and/or entities such as the bedroom, while the “low activity” mode/event is associated with one person or entity at the property, and “high activity” mode/event may be associated with the kitchen or bathroom); receiving, by one or more processors (e.g., 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 and/or entities (para. 0043, 0130-0131); generating, at least in part by the plurality of sensors and/or controllers, 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 and/or entities (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 and/or entity (para. 0043-0044, 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: “Based on the sensor data, a water usage mode can be selected. Water usage at the property can then be compared to water usage criteria for the selected water usage mode”, that is to say: Based on the sensor data, a water usage event, e.g. “sleep” mode/event, is identified, and the corresponding water usage at the property must be related to the bedroom location/entity; see also para. 0040, 0043, 0130-0131).
Regarding claims 2, 14 and 18, Rudd discloses: wherein at least some of first plurality of water usage events and at least some of the second plurality of water usage events are associated with respective locations, and wherein the respective locations are respective rooms within the structure (para. 0039, 0050).
Regarding claims 3, 15 and 19, Rudd discloses: wherein at least some of first plurality of water usage events and at least some of the second plurality of water usage events are associated with respective entities (sinks, showers, bathtubs, appliances (e.g., a washing machine, a dishwasher), faucets, spigots, sprinklers, or any other fixture in the property 102), and wherein the respective entities are respective appliances or fixtures within the structure (para. 0039, 0050).
Regarding claims 4, 16 and 20, Rudd discloses: wherein at least some of first plurality of water usage events and at least some of the second plurality of water usage events are associated with respective entities, and wherein the respective entities are respective people (para. 0039, 0050, 0061-0062, 0112, 0118).
Regarding claim 5, 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: determining that a particular person is in a particular location associated with the water usage event; and attributing the water usage event to the particular person (para. 0052, 0061, 0111).
Regarding claim 6, 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: receiving home security system data (e.g., motion detectors) indicating a presence or absence of one or more people within the structure, correlating the water usage data with the home security system data (para. 0045, 0047, 0052, 0061, 0111).
Regarding claim 7, 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 flow sensors associated with different locations, fixtures, and/or appliances within the structure (para. 0027-0028, 0038).
Regarding claim 8, 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 claim 10, 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 claim 11, Rudd discloses: generating, by the one or more processors, a report apportioning water usage associated with the structure to particular locations and/or entities; and transmitting, by the one or more processors, the report to a device of the user (para. 0006, 0029, 0106, 0138).
Regarding claim 12, 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).
Conclusion
7. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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
/SHELBY A TURNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857