DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission for Application #18/211,897, filed on 12/04/2025, has been entered. The following is a NON-FINAL OFFICE ACTION in response to the request for continued examination.
Claims 1-6, 8-9, 11-12, 14, and 20-23 are now pending and have been examined.
Claims 7, 10, and 13 have been cancelled by the applicant.
Claims 15-19 were withdrawn in the prior office action as the non-elected claims.
Claim Objections
Claims 15-19 are objected to because of a typographical error. These claims were withdrawn in the previous final office action prior to the filing of the RCE. Yet, these claims are still labeled in the claim set as “Previously Presented.” They should be labeled “Withdrawn.” Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-6, 8-9, 11-12, 14, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The rationale for this finding is explained below.
Per Step 1 of the analysis, the claims are analyzed to determine if they are directed to statutory subject matter. Claims 1 and 20 claim a system comprising a plurality of sensors and a controller. Figure 8 and [0065]-[0066] of the filed specification clearly show the controller as comprising at least a processor and memory. Therefore, the claims are interpreted as apparatuses. An apparatus is a statutory category for patentability.
Per Step 2A, Prong 1 of the analysis, the examiner must now determine if the claims are directed to an abstract idea or eligible subject matter. In the instant case, the independent claims are directed towards an abstract idea. Specifically, the independent claims 1 and 20 are directed to “receive the supply properties from the sensors, compare the supply properties to a plurality of detection metrics, in response to a comparison of the supply properties relative to the detection metrics, identify an anomaly of a fluid supply communicated through the supply line or at least one consumption device of a plurality of consumption devices in fluid communication with the supply line, identify a corrective action in response to the anomaly, wherein the corrective action includes at least one of a repair of the at least one consumption device, a replacement of the at least one consumption device, an installation or replacement of a conditioning device configured to condition the fluid supply, and a treatment of the fluid supply.” Claim 20 adds “output a professional service contact to facilitate the corrective action in a local region of the supply line.” Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea, namely a mental process. A human operator with access to the sensor information and the detection metrics could receive a request for diagnosis, compare the incoming data to the metrics, detect an anomaly based on their analysis and comparison, and make a judgment based on the identification of the anomaly of initiating either manually, verbally, or by some other form of communication a corrective action such as dispatching a repair person or other such action. The sensor data is only received and taking an action such as “outputting” a professional service contact are still well within what could be performed in the human mind as an analysis followed by the making a judgment which can include a decision or determination of an action. The controller only automates the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to a mental process.
Per Step 2A, Prong 2 of the analysis, the examiner must now determine if the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements of the claims include a “system,” “a plurality of sensors,” and a “controller.” However, these recited elements are considered generic recitations of technical elements as they are recited at a high level of generality. These elements are being used as “tools to automate the abstract idea” (see MPEP 2106.05 (f)), and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. They are not recitations of a special purpose computer or transformation (see MPEP 2106.05 (b) and (c)). The claims also include the actual “receiving” of the supply properties from the sensors, which is presumed to be received over some kind of electronic network, although this is not recited in the claims, the “transmitting” of the supply properties to a controller, and the communicating a message to a user requesting feedback, wherein the feedback includes a verification of the supply properties based on an observation by the user of a supply property not directly detected by the plurality of sensors” and “receiving a response from a user.” The limitation added by amendment is considered insignificant extra-solution activity as it simply describes a user response that describes their observations. The other additional elements, absent further detail, are considered “receiving and/or transmission of data over a network,” which is listed in the MPEP 2106.05 (d) (II) (i) as an example of conventional computer functioning- see “receiving or transmitting data over a network” citing TLI Communications, OIP Techs v Amazon.com, buySAFE v Google. Therefore, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims also include “the plurality of sensors are configured to continuously monitor the supply properties and detect supply properties comprising at least one of a water quality, temperature, flow rate, and a pressure of the supply line.” The sensors are being used in a well-understood, conventional manner, namely as data gathering devices. The examiner takes Official Notice that it is old and well known in the mechanical arts at the time of the effective filing date of this application to use sensors to gather supply properties such as water quality, temperature, flow rate, and pressure from fluid systems. Therefore, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Per Step 2B of the analysis, the examiner must now determine if the claims include limitations that are “significantly more” than the abstract idea by demonstrating an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The additional elements of the claims include a “system,” “a plurality of sensors,” and a “controller.” However, these recited elements are considered generic recitations of technical elements as they are recited at a high level of generality. These elements are being used as “tools to automate the abstract idea” (see MPEP 2106.05 (f)), and are not considered significantly more than the abstract idea itself. They are not recitations of a special purpose computer or transformation (see MPEP 2106.05 (b) and (c)). The claims also include the actual “receiving” of the supply properties from the sensors, which is presumed to be received over some kind of electronic network, although this is not recited in the claims, the “transmitting” of the supply properties to a controller, and the communicating a message to a user requesting feedback, wherein the feedback includes a verification of the supply properties based on an observation by the user of a supply property not directly detected by the plurality of sensors” and “receiving a response from a user.” The limitation added by amendment is considered insignificant extra-solution activity as it simply describes a user response that describes their observations. The other additional elements, absent further detail, are considered “receiving and/or transmission of data over a network,” which is listed in the MPEP 2106.05 (d) (II) (i) as an example of conventional computer functioning- see “receiving or transmitting data over a network” citing TLI Communications, OIP Techs v Amazon.com, buySAFE v Google. Therefore, this additional element is not considered significantly more. The claims also include “the plurality of sensors are configured to continuously monitor the supply properties and detect supply properties comprising at least one of a water quality, temperature, flow rate, and a pressure of the supply line.” The sensors are being used in a well-understood, conventional manner, namely as data gathering devices. The examiner takes Official Notice that it is old and well known in the mechanical arts at the time of the effective filing date of this application to use sensors to gather supply properties such as water quality, temperature, flow rate, and pressure from fluid systems. Therefore, this additional element is not considered significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
When considered as an ordered combination, the claim is still considered to be directed to an abstract idea as the claims in the ordered combination simply recite the logical steps for receiving the data, analyzing and comparing the data, determining an anomaly, and deciding on corrective action. Therefore, the ordered combination does not lead to a determination of significantly more.
When considering the dependent claims, claims 2 and 3 are considered part of the abstract idea, as reporting a corrective action can be done as part of a mental process. The use of an interface or audio/video assistant is considered conventional computer functioning, and the examiner takes Official Notice that it is old and well known in the computer arts at the time of the effective filing date of this application to communicate a report via an interface or audio/video assistant. Therefore, this additional element is not considered significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Claims 4-5 are considered part of the abstract idea, as the type of supply property or device does not change the analysis, and more specific comparison technique is still the equivalent of a mental process or calculation. Claims 6-9 are considered part of the abstract idea as identifying a financial cost, identifying an estimate from a provider, and identifying a service provider are considered steps that can be done as part of the mental process. Claim 10 is considered “receiving and/or transmission of data over a network,” which is listed in the MPEP 2106.05 (d) (II) (i) as an example of conventional computer functioning- see “receiving or transmitting data over a network” citing TLI Communications, OIP Techs v Amazon.com, buySAFE v Google. Therefore, this additional element is not considered significantly more. Claim 11 is considered part of the abstract idea, as calculating a term for return on investment and reporting the term are considered steps that can be performed as a mental process. Claims 12 and 13 are considered part of the abstract idea, as identifying a property value can be done as a mental process and “accessing” a database or server, to identify a value, absent further detail, is considered part of a mental process, and the database or server being accessed are considered generic recitations of technical elements as they are recited at a high level of generality. These elements are being used as “tools to automate the abstract idea” (see MPEP 2106.05 (f)), and are not considered significantly more than the abstract idea itself. They are not recitations of a special purpose computer or transformation (see MPEP 2106.05 (b) and (c)). Claim 14 is considered part of the abstract idea, as the type of supply property or the type of corrective action does not change the analysis of the steps of claim 1 being able to be performed as a mental process. ” (see MPEP 2106.05 (f)), and are not considered significantly more than the abstract idea itself. They are not recitations of a special purpose computer or transformation (see MPEP 2106.05 (b) and (c)). Claim 21 is considered “receiving and/or transmission of data over a network,” which is listed in the MPEP 2106.05 (d) (II) (i) as an example of conventional computer functioning- see “receiving or transmitting data over a network” citing TLI Communications, OIP Techs v Amazon.com, buySAFE v Google. Therefore, this additional element is not considered significantly more.
Therefore, claims 1-6, 8-9, 11-12, 14, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. Vs. CLS Bank International et al., 2014 (please reference link to updated publicly available Alice memo at http://www.uspto.gov/patents/announce/alice_pec_25jun2014.pdf as well as the USPTO January 2019 Updated Patent Eligibility Guidance.)
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, and 21 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Mason, Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0051351 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Mason teaches:
A water supply monitoring system in connection with a supply line, the system comprising:
a plurality of sensors configured to detect supply properties comprising at least one of a water quality, temperature, flow rate, and a pressure in the supply line, wherein the plurality of sensors are configured to monitor the supply properties and transmit the supply properties to a controller (see [0036]-[0037], [0065]-[0066], and [0079]-[0080] in which a plurality of sensors detect supply line properties like flow rate, fluid pressure, and temperature; see also Figures 9-10 and [0056]-[0058] which shows the sensors monitoring the supply lines)
a controller configured to:
receive the supply properties from the sensors (see at least [0037] and [0057])
compare the supply properties to a plurality of detection metrics (see [0039]-[0040] and [0065]-[0066] in which the current supply properties are compared to historic metrics and thresholds)
initiate an interactive communication subroutine, comprising communicating a message to a user requesting feedback, wherein the feedback includes a verification of the supply properties based on an observation by the user of a supply property not directly detected by the plurality of sensors (see at least Figure 12B, [0065]-[0066] and [0076] in which the user is asked for feedback based on their own observation of a supply property such as a flow event; as it states [0076] this can be “the method 200 may optionally request inputs identifying or verifying classifications or identification of flow rate events in relation to specific consumption implements 30.” While verification would imply verifying supply properties already detected by the sensors, so more of a confirmation, the “identifying” and “identification” would rely on the requested user feedback to actually identify those properties)
receiving a response from the user providing the feedback (see at least [0076])
in response to the user feedback and a comparison of the supply properties relative to the detection metrics, identify an anomaly of a fluid supply communicated through the supply line or at least one consumption device of a plurality of consumption devices in fluid communication with the supply line (see [0037]-[0041] and [0072]-[0073] in which an anomaly in the fluid supply is detected and see also [0037]-[0041] in which an anomaly in the consumption device is detected)
identify a corrective action in response to the anomaly, wherein the corrective action includes at least one: a repair of the at least one consumption device, a replacement of the at least one consumption device, an installation or replacement of a conditioning device configured to condition the fluid supply, and a treatment of the fluid supply (see [0066] in which an automated connection to a plumber or service technician is initiated, which is considered the equivalent of identifying a corrective action that is needed, namely a repair of the consumption device, as a leak has been detected; see also [0072]-[0073] in which it is determined that a toilet, which is a consumption device, has a leak and needs repair)
Mason, however, does not appear to specify:
continuously monitor the supply properties
Mason does however teach in [0056] that “in each of the flow rate profiles 130 demonstrated in FIG. 9, the flow rate and associated consumption occurs as a result of continuous or non-periodic use.” Further, the charts in Figure 9 and 10 clearly chart supply line use at all times, which would constitute the equivalent of continuous monitoring.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing of the application to combine continuously monitor the supply properties with Mason because Mason already teaches monitoring of non-periodic supply line levels and show charts of use during continuous periods, and therefore a plurality of sensors continuously monitoring a supply line would allow for detection of anomalies even at the most important and risky times such as at night or while owners are away from their home.
Regarding claim 2, Mason teaches:
the monitoring system according to claim 1
report the corrective action via a user interface in communication with the controller (see [0066] and [0072]-[0073])
Regarding claim 4, Mason teaches:
the monitoring system according to claim 1
wherein the supply properties include the flow rate in the supply line (see at least [0036], [0039], [0048], and [0056]-[0057])
the controller is further configured to determine a consumption classification or a specific consumption device associated with the anomaly (see at least [0038]-[0040], [0056]-[0057], and [0072]-[0073])
Regarding claim 5, Mason teaches:
the monitoring system according to claim 4
wherein the specific consumption device is determined by the controller by comparing the flow rate to a flow rate profile of the specific consumption device (see at least [0038]-[0040], [0056]-[0061], and [0070]-[0075])
wherein the flow rate model defines a plurality of flow rate characteristics of the specific consumption device (see Abstract, [0004]-[0005], [0039]-[0041], and [0056]-[0060])
Regarding claim 21, Mason teaches:
the monitoring system according to claim 1
wherein the interactive communication subroutine includes communicating a message prompting the user to proceed through a troubleshooting process see at least Figure 12B, [0065]-[0066] and [0076]; the examiner notes that the limitation “a troubleshooting process” is very broadly claimed and so the broadest reasonable interpretation is taken in the examination of the claim)
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mason, Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0051351 A1 in view of McConnell, Pre-Grant Publication No. 2021/0278006 A1.
Regarding claim 3, Mason teaches:
the monitoring system according to claim 1
wherein the corrective action is reported via a device configured to audibly communicate the anomaly and the corrective action
Mason, however, does not appear to specify:
wherein the corrective action is reported via a voice assistant or simulated humanoid video assistant configured to audibly communicate the anomaly and the corrective action
McConnell teaches:
wherein the corrective action is reported via a voice assistant configured to audibly communicate the anomaly and the corrective action (see [0046] in which a notification of a leak and actions to be taken are sent to the user by being output on a speaker of the user device)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing of the application to combine McConnell with Mason because Mason already teaches a similar notification at [0066] and [0072]-[0073], but only as a visible notification, and using an audible notification such as a voice output on a speaker would ensure the user quickly receives the notification even when they cannot see their device or might not be proximate to it, especially with time sensitive alerts such as a water leak in a home.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mason, Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0051351 A1 in view of Walker, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2012/0239211 A1.
Regarding claim 6, Mason teaches:
the monitoring system according to claim 1
Mason, however, does not appear to specify:
identify a financial cost associated with the anomaly over a predetermined period based on the flow rate, wherein the financial cost is calculated by the controller based on a utility rate of the fluid supply in a geographic region of the supply line
Walker teaches:
identify a financial cost associated with the anomaly over a predetermined period based on the flow rate (see [0257] in which the financial cost of the water leak over a period of time is calculated based on the cost per unit volume and the flow rate)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing of the application to combine Walker with Mason because Mason already teaches measuring of flow rates and detecting leaks, and measuring leak loss based on flow rate and using it to calculate a cost would allow for a user to understand what the potential loss is over time, giving them more information to make an informed decision on actions to be taken.
Mason and Walker, however, does not appear to specify:
utility rate in a geographic region of the supply line
Walker does, however, teach in [0257] in which cost is calculated based on flow rate and cost per unit volume. Further, the examiner points out that the cost per unit volume would inherently have to be for that geographic region, as all costs for utilities are region specific, so there would be no reason to think that the teachings of Walker would include calculating cost based on a cost per unit volume for some other region that the leak is not taking place in. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art a the time of filing of the application to combine utility rate in a geographic region of the supply line with Mason and Walker because Walker already teaches in [0257] in which cost is calculated based on flow rate and cost per unit volume, and the cost per unit volume would inherently be the cost per unit volume for that location, and using the correct utility rate would allow for an accurate calculation.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mason, Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0051351 A1 in view of Picard, Pre-Grant Publication No. 2009/0062978 A1.
Regarding claim 8, Mason teaches:
the monitoring system according to claim 1
Mason, however, does not appear to specify:
identify or request an estimate from a provider for a corrective action that remediates the anomaly
Picard teaches:
identify or request an estimate from a provider for a corrective action that remediates the anomaly (see Figure 2C-2D, [0011]-[0012], [0041]-[0043] in which in response to an identified problem, the system automatically identifies local professionals that can repair the problem and gathers estimates from them to present to the user for selection)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing of the application to combine Picard with Mason because Mason already teaches connecting the user to a professional such as a plumber in response to detecting the anomaly, and getting estimates would allow the user to have options for addressing the anomaly and also to be able to consider the estimated cost for each option rather than only using other factors.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Mason and Picard teaches:
the monitoring system according to claim 8
Mason further teaches:
wherein the corrective action is communicated to the service provider in response to a confirmation to request the corrective action via the user interface (see Figure 12B in which the user first engages the button “Contact Preferred Plumber” prior to the system contacting the plumber)
Picard further teaches:
identify a service provider associated with the corrective action in a geographic region of the supply line (see Figure 2C-2D, [0011]-[0012], [0041]-[0043] in which in response to an identified problem, the system automatically identifies local professionals that can repair the problem and gathers estimates from them to present to the user for selection, and the local professionals are in the same geographic location such as the same city)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing of the application to combine Picard with Mason because Mason already teaches connecting the user to a professional such as a plumber in response to detecting the anomaly, and presenting several options in the same geographic region would allow the user to have options for addressing the anomaly that are close by and can therefore likely address the problem more quickly and with more local expertise.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mason, Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0051351 A1 in view of Picard, Pre-Grant Publication No. 2009/0062978 and in further view of Li, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2024/0077864 A1.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Mason and Picard teaches:
the monitoring system according to claim 8
Mason and Picard, however, does not appear to specify:
calculate a term for a return on investment for the estimate to meet or exceed financial cost
report the term of the return on investment via user interface in communication with the controller
Li teaches:
calculate a term for a return on investment for the estimate to meet or exceed financial cost and report the term of the return on investment via user interface in communication with the controller (see Figure 7A and [0070] in which the ROI for the investment into electric utility equipment upgrades is displayed on the interface to the user)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing of the application to combine Li with Mason and Picard because Mason already teaches addressing of an anomaly such as a leak with a local professional and Picard already teaches getting estimates for addressing repair of a problem, and the user being able to see the ROI of the estimated investment allows them to make a more informed decision and understand the impact of their potential investment in addressing the issue.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mason, Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0051351 A1 in view of McKenna IV, Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0215492 A1 and in further view of Shao, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2023/0281720 A1.
Regarding claim 12, Mason teaches:
the monitoring system according to claim 1
Mason, however, does not appear to specify:
identify a property value for a corrective action that remediates the anomaly
McKenna IV teaches:
identify a property value for a corrective action that remediates the anomaly (see Figures 3A-3B , [0043]-[0047], and [0050]-[0052] in which corrective actions such as AC updates, roof replacement, and other such actions are calculated into their effect on a property value)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing of the application to combine McKenna IV with Mason because Mason already teaches addressing of an anomaly such as a leak with a local professional and the user being able to see the property value difference as affected by the corrective action allows them to make a more informed decision and understand the impact of their potential investment in addressing the issue.
Mason and McKenna IV, however, does not appear to specify:
wherein the value is identified by accessing a database or server comprising real estate information for a geographic region of the supply line
Shao teaches:
wherein the value is identified by accessing a database or server comprising real estate information for a geographic region of the supply line (see at least Abstract, [0005], and [0017]-[0018] in which and index/database is accessed that includes geographically organized real estate information and this is used to arrive at a return on investment and property value effect of renovation projects, repairs, and improvements.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing of the application to combine Shao with Mason and McKenna IV because Mason already teaches addressing of an anomaly such as a leak with a local professional and McKenna IV already teaches the user being able to see the property value difference as affected by the corrective action and referencing geographic databases of comparables and statistics to calculate property value allows for region specific current data so that the user can make a more informed decision and understand the impact of their potential investment in addressing the issue and their overall property value.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mason, Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0051351 A1 in view of Official Notice.
Regarding claim 14, Mason teaches:
the monitoring system according to claim 1
wherein the supply properties comprise the temperature of the fluid supply at the supply line (see [0036] and [0042])
Mason, however, does not appear to specify:
the corrective action comprises at least one of an installation of a heater in connection with the supply line, a disinfection system configured to treat the fluid supply, and a thermostatic mixing apparatus
The Examiner, however, takes Official Notice that it is old and well known in the mechanical arts to correct a fluid temperature issue in a supply line with corrective actions such as installation of a heater, a disinfection system, or a thermostatic mixing apparatus. Infrastructure and building companies have done so for at least a decade prior to the effective filing date of the application.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing of the application to combine the corrective action comprises at least one of an installation of a heater in connection with the supply line, a disinfection system configured to treat the fluid supply, and a thermostatic mixing apparatus with Mason because Mason already teaches corrective actions having to do with fluid supply lines and also teaches detecting an anomaly that can include temperature and then getting a professional to correct the anomaly, and the corrective measure being installation of a heater in connection with the supply line, a disinfection system configured to treat the fluid supply, or a thermostatic mixing apparatus would allow the supply line issue to be adequately addressed.
Claims 20 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mason, Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0051351 A1 in view of Picard, Pre-Grant Publication No. 2009/0062978 A1 and in further view of Rudd, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2020/0393324 A1.
Regarding claim 20, Mason teaches:
A water supply monitoring system in connection with a supply line, the system comprising:
a plurality of sensors configured to detect supply properties comprising at least one of a water quality, temperature, flow rate, and a pressure in the supply line (see [0036] in which a plurality of sensors detect supply line properties like flow rate, fluid pressure, and temperature)
a controller configured to:
receive the supply properties from the sensors (see at least [0037] and [0057])
compare the supply properties to a plurality of detection metrics (see [0039]-[0040] and [0065]-[0066] in which the current supply properties are compared to historic metrics and thresholds)
in response to a comparison of the supply properties relative to the detection metrics, identify an anomaly of a fluid supply communicated through the supply line or at least one consumption device of a plurality of consumption devices in fluid communication with the supply line (see [0037]-[0041] and [0072]-[0073] in which an anomaly in the fluid supply is detected and see also [0037]-[0041] in which an anomaly in the consumption device is detected)
in response to the anomaly being identified, identify a corrective action configured to correct the anomaly (see [0066] in which an automated connection to a plumber or service technician is initiated, which is considered the equivalent of identifying a corrective action that is needed, namely a repair of the consumption device, as a leak has been detected; see also [0072]-[0073] in which it is determined that a toilet, which is a consumption device, has a leak and needs repair)
output a professional service contact to facilitate the corrective action (see [0066] in which an automated connection to a plumber or service technician is initiated, which is considered the equivalent of identifying a corrective action that is needed, namely a repair of the consumption device, as a leak has been detected)
Mason, however, does not appear to specify:
output a professional service contact to facilitate the corrective action in a local region of the supply line
Picard teaches:
output a professional service contact to facilitate the corrective action in a local region of the supply line (see Figure 2C-2D, [0011]-[0012], [0041]-[0043] in which in response to an identified problem, the system automatically identifies local professionals that can repair the problem and gathers estimates from them to present to the user for selection)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing of the application to combine Picard with Mason because Mason already teaches connecting the user to a professional such as a plumber in response to detecting the anomaly, and getting estimates would allow the user to have options for addressing the anomaly and also to be able to consider the estimated cost for each option rather than only using other factors.
Mason and Picard, however, does not appear to specify:
wherein the message includes a request to activate at least one consumption device in fluid communication with the supply line
receiving an activation supply property from at least one of the sensors
Rudd teaches:
wherein the message includes a request to activate at least one consumption device in fluid communication with the supply line and receiving an activation supply property from at least one of the sensors (see [0078] and [0090]-[0091] in which the user is prompted through interface messaging to either observe and give feedback on verifying a leak or other anomaly or in response to a potential leak is prompted to adjust a device associated with the supply line such as a ball valve in response to a flow rate being above a threshold, and then further measurements are taken)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing of the application to combine Rudd with Mason and Picard because Mason already teaches alerting a user and sending messages in response to detecting the anomaly, and communicating actions to the user could allow for both verification in case a sensor reading is faulty and quick action that could prevent further damage prior to other action that could only be taken less quickly by someone not in the facility such as a home.
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Mason, Picard, and Rudd teaches:
the monitoring system according to claim 20
Mason further teaches:
wherein the interactive communication subroutine includes communicating a message prompting the user to proceed through a troubleshooting process (see at least Figure 12B, [0065]-[0066] and [0076]; the examiner notes that the limitation “a troubleshooting process” is very broadly claimed and so the broadest reasonable interpretation is taken in the examination of the claim)
Rudd further teaches:
wherein the interactive communication subroutine includes communicating a message prompting the user to proceed through a troubleshooting process (see [0078] and [0090]-[0091] in which the user is prompted through interface messaging to either observe and give feedback on verifying a leak or other anomaly or in response to a potential leak is prompted to adjust a device associated with the supply line such as a ball valve in response to a flow rate being above a threshold, and then further measurements are taken)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing of the application to combine Rudd with Mason and Picard because Mason already teaches alerting a user and sending messages in response to detecting the anomaly, and communicating actions to the user could allow for both verification in case a sensor reading is faulty and quick action that could prevent further damage prior to other action that could only be taken less quickly by someone not in the facility such as a home.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mason, Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0051351 A1 in view of Rudd, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2020/0393324 A1.
Regarding claim 22, Mason teaches:
the monitoring system according to claim 1
Mason further teaches:
identifying an anomaly in response to at least one of a comparison of the supply properties relative to the detection metrics, the activation supply properties, and the user feedback (see [0039]-[0040] and [0065]-[0066] in which the current supply properties are compared to historic metrics and thresholds; see also [0037]-[0041] and [0072]-[0073] in which an anomaly in the fluid supply is detected and see also [0037]-[0041] in which an anomaly in the consumption device is detected; see also Figure 12B, [0065]-[0066], and [0076])
Mason, however, does not appear to specify:
wherein the interactive communication subroutine includes requesting the user activate at least one consumption device in fluid communication with the supply line, receiving an activated supply property from at least one of the sensors in response to the user activating the at least one consumption device
Rudd teaches:
wherein the interactive communication subroutine includes requesting the user activate at least one consumption device in fluid communication with the supply line, receiving an activated supply property from at least one of the sensors in response to the user activating the at least one consumption device and identifying an anomaly in response to at least one of a comparison of the supply properties relative to the detection metrics, and the user feedback (see [0078] and [0090]-[0091] in which the user is prompted through interface messaging to either observe and give feedback on verifying a leak or other anomaly or in response to a potential leak is prompted to adjust a device associated with the supply line such as a ball valve in response to a flow rate being above a threshold, and then further measurements are taken)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing of the application to combine Rudd with Mason and Picard because Mason already teaches alerting a user and sending messages in response to detecting the anomaly, and communicating actions to the user could allow for both verification in case a sensor reading is faulty and quick action that could prevent further damage prior to other action that could only be taken less quickly by someone not in the facility such as a home.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the Restriction by Original Presentation
The claims were withdrawn in the prior round of prosecution. Further, while the examiner appreciates that claim 22 in conjunction with claim 1 would be considered the equivalent invention as that of withdrawn claim 15, claim 1 still recited an independent invention that includes a different type of feedback. So therefore, the examiner will not rejoin withdrawn claims 15-19 with the rest of the claim set unless claim 22 is incorporated into claim 1.
Regarding the rejections based on 35 USC 101
Regarding the applicant’s argument on page 10-12 of the response that the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
Claim 1 includes a proposed amendment that only further limits the specifics of the feedback as being "based on an observation by the user of a supply property not directly detected by the plurality of sensors." But, this does not add any technical detail to the claims and only describes the type of feedback. The feedback itself could easily be communicated as part of a mental process is which one human operator verbally or using a communication means gives feedback to the another and the receiver of the feedback then uses the feedback to make a judgment or decision. He fact this is an observation and not from a sensor puts it even more squarely in the realm of the abstract.
Therefore, the rejection is sustained.
Claims 20, 22, and 23 are considered eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claim 23 depends from claim 20. Claim 22 would need to be incorporated into claim 1. The addition by amendment to claim 20 which is also captured in claim 22 would make the claims eligible.
Regarding the rejections based on 35 USC 103
Regarding the traversal of Official Notice for claim 14:
As documentary evidence the examiner puts forth the following:
Li, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2024/0077864 A1 at [0035], [0038], [0049], Mason, Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0049478 A1- at [0032], [0038], [0045]-[0046], [0067], [0073], Poojary, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2021/0079630 A1- at [0012]-[0013], [0026]-[0027], [0088]-[0089], [0099], [0111]--- all teach the detected monitored supply property being a temperature of the fluid supply, and Iizuka, Pre-Grant Publication No. 2024/0319018 A1, Miller, Pre-Grant Publication No. 2011/0225721 A1, Jung, Pre-Grant Publication No. 2011/0240144 A1, and Choi, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2023/0341779 A1- all teach identifying the need to install of a heater on a fluid or water supply line for such as prevention of freezing.
All other applicant’s arguments have been considered in light of the applicant’s amendments to the claims, but are MOOT in light of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Luis A. Brown whose telephone number is 571.270.1394. The Examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30am-4:30pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, JESSICA LEMIEUX can be reached at 571.270.3445.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair . Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free).
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
Washington, D.C. 20231
or faxed to 571-273-8300.
Hand delivered responses should be brought to the United States Patent and Trademark Office Customer Service Window:
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314.
/LUIS A BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626