DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 filed on 02/20/2025 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-8, 11-15, and 18-25 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 2, line 7, “water consumption data” should be --the water consumption data-- to avoid creating another antecedent basis.
In claim 2, lines 8-9, “each indicate” should be --each indicates-- to correct a grammatical error.
In claim 14, line 8, “water consumption data” should be --the water consumption data-- to avoid creating another antecedent basis.
In claim 14, lines 9-10, “each indicate” should be --each indicates-- to correct a grammatical error.
In claim 21, line 8, “water consumption data” should be --the water consumption data-- to avoid creating another antecedent basis.
In claim 21, lines 9-10, “each indicate” should be --each indicates-- to correct a grammatical error.
The other claim(s) not discussed above are objected to for inheriting the issue(s) from their linking claim(s).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 2-8, 11-15, and 18-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2, it recites “in response to determining that the particular water consuming appliance of the plurality of water consuming appliances is operating while the property is unoccupied, automatically controlling the operation of the particular water consuming appliance.”
This is not supported by the disclosure as filed. In fact, specification ¶¶ [0055], [0058], and [0108] all indicate that the user may re-enter the property to turn off the particular water consuming appliance upon receiving a notice. Therefore, the act of turning off the appliance is not automatically. Also, the specification does not indicate that the water consuming appliances are smart devices or remote controllable such that they can be autumnally controlled. Therefore, the limitation lacks supports of written description.
Claims 14 and 21 are rejected by analogy to claim 2.
The other claim(s) not discussed above are rejected for inheriting the issue(s) from their linking claim(s).
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.
After 2019 PEG
MPEP 2106 outlines a two-part analysis for Subject Matter Eligibility as shown in the chart below.
PNG
media_image1.png
930
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Step 1, the claimed invention must be to one of the four statutory categories. 35 U.S.C. 101 defines the four categories of invention that Congress deemed to be the appropriate subject matter of a patent: processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter.
Step 2, the claimed invention also must qualify as patent-eligible subject matter, i.e., the claim must not be directed to a judicial exception unless the claim as a whole includes additional limitations amounting to significantly more than the exception.
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry, as shown in the chart below.
PNG
media_image2.png
681
881
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Prong One asks does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? In Prong One examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e. whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. If the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea enumerated in MPEP § 2106.04(a), a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon), the claim requires further analysis in Prong Two. If the claim does not recite a judicial exception (a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea), then the claim cannot be directed to a judicial exception (Step 2A: NO), and thus the claim is eligible at Pathway B without further analysis. Abstract ideas can be grouped as, e.g., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes.
Prong Two asks does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? If the additional elements in the claim integrate the recited exception into a practical application of the exception, then the claim is not directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A: NO) and thus is eligible at Pathway B. This concludes the eligibility analysis. If, however, the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception (Step 2A: YES), and requires further analysis under Step 2B.
Claims 2-8, 11-15, and 18-24 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.
Regarding claim 2, Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? Yes.
Step 2A: Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea (judicially recognized exceptions)? Yes (see analysis below).
Prong one: Whether the claim recites a judicial exception? (Yes). The claim recites:
2. A method comprising:
determining, by a monitoring system comprising one or more computers, that a property is unoccupied;
requesting, by the monitoring system, water consumption data from a water meter configured to monitor combined water consumption of a plurality of water consuming appliances at the property;
receiving, by the monitoring system, water consumption data from the water meter;
maintaining, by the monitoring system, two or more water usage profiles that each indicate an expected time-varying water usage of a respective water consuming appliance of the plurality of water consuming appliances during operation of the respective water consuming appliance;
determining, by the monitoring system, whether the water consumption data satisfies similarity criteria for matching any water usage profile of the two or more water usage profiles;
determining, by the monitoring system and using a result of the determination of whether the water consumption data satisfies the similarity criteria for matching any water usage profile, that a particular water consuming appliance of the plurality of water consuming appliances is operating while the property is unoccupied; and
in response to determining that the particular water consuming appliance of the plurality of water consuming appliances is operating while the property is unoccupied, automatically controlling the operation of the particular water consuming appliance.
These above bold-faced limitations are directed to mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations; and/or mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (or with a pen and paper).
Prong two: Whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception? (No). The claim recites additional elements as underlined above. The monitoring system comprising one or more computers is merely to invoke a generic computer to facilitate the data processing based on the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The requesting, receiving, and maintaining certain data are insignificant extra-solution activities, recited at a high level of generality, to collect the data for the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The automatically controlling the operation of the particular water consuming appliance is recited at a high level of generality that it encompasses a broad range of controlling the operation, such that it can be merely an insignificant extra-solution activity of generally controlling the operation based on the result of the abstract idea. Accordingly, the additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements (other than the judicial exception) that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No (see analysis below).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to make the claim significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two above, the additional element(s) in the claim are insignificant extra-solution activities (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) and to invoke a generic computer for its computing power to facilitate the application of the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Considered as a whole, the claim does not amount to more the abstract idea.
Claims 14 and 21 are similarly rejected by analogy to claim 2.
Dependent claims 3-8, 11-13, 15, 18-20 and 22-24 when analyzed as a whole respectively are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they either extend (or add more details to) the abstract idea or the additional recited limitation(s) (if any) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea., as discussed below: there is no additional element(s) in the dependent claims that sufficiently integrates the claims into a practical application of, or makes the claims significantly more than, the judicial exception (abstract idea). The additional element(s) (if any) are mere instructions to apply an except, field of use, and/or insignificant extra-solution activities (applied to Step 2A_Prong Two and Step 2B; see MPEP 2016.05(f)-(h)) and/or well-understood, routine, or conventional (applied to Step 2B; see MPEP 2106.05(d)) to facilitate the application of the abstract idea.
On the other hand, claim 25 is eligible under 35 UC 101, because it recites “wherein automatically controlling the operation of the particular water consuming appliance comprises automatically turning the particular water consuming appliance off.” This makes the claimed invention a practical application for identifying the particular appliance that is operating while the property is unoccupied, and turning it off automatically to prevent waste of water.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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.
Claims 2-8, 11-15, and 18-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Devereaux et al. (US 10526771 B1; hereinafter “Devereaux”) in view of Farag (US 10132061 B1).
Regarding claim 2, Devereaux teaches a method comprising:
determining, by a monitoring system comprising one or more computers (i.e., “The flow monitoring system also includes a processor”; see col. 1, lines 45-46), that a property is unoccupied (i.e., “when the alarm system was set or the property occupants otherwise provided notice to system 500 of their absence from the property”; see col. 15, lines 3-6);
requesting, by the monitoring system, water consumption data from a water meter (i.e., “a flow sensor”) configured to monitor combined water consumption of a plurality of water consuming appliances at the property (i.e., “The flow monitoring system includes a flow sensor configured to detect flow data of a flow of water within a conduit configured to fluidly couple to the appliance”; see col. 1, lines 42-45; see, also, FIG. 5; note that requesting is implied or obvious for data communications);
receiving, by the monitoring system, water consumption data from the water meter (i.e., “The flow monitoring system includes a flow sensor configured to detect flow data of a flow of water within a conduit configured to fluidly couple to the appliance”; see col. 1, lines 42-45; see, also, FIG. 5);
maintaining, by the monitoring system, two or more water usage profiles that each indicate an expected time-varying water usage of a respective water consuming appliance of the plurality of water consuming appliances during operation of the respective water consuming appliance (i.e., “where the plurality of reference flow patterns correspond with expected water flow patterns to one or more appliance of the appliances”; see col. 1, lines 49-51; “expected flow patterns (i.e., "flow signatures") of certain appliances of the residential or commercial setting may be input”; see col. 3, line 45-47; “These learned water flow patterns/signatures may then be stored in a database or memory component”; col. 5, lines 20-21);
determining, by the monitoring system, whether the water consumption data satisfies similarity criteria for matching any water usage profile of the two or more water usage profiles (i.e., “ determine whether a reference flow pattern (of a plurality of reference flow patterns) is present in the flow data (where the plurality of reference flow patterns correspond with expected water flow patterns to one or more appliance of the appliances)”; see col. 1, lines 47-51; “If the detected input flow of water over time (e.g., a flow rate of the input flow of water plotted against time, or the “actual flow pattern/signature”) matches one of the reference flow patterns/signatures”; see col. 4, lines 42-45; “compare the data for this period to each of the appliance flow signatures to determine the closest matching pattern… Based on the flow differential data, the appliance with smallest flow differential is identified”; see col. 17, lines 9-20);
determining, by the monitoring system and using a result of the determination of whether the water consumption data satisfies the similarity criteria for matching any water usage profile (i.e., “compare actual flow parameters (or patterns) of detected input flow (e.g., via sensors) with the reference flow patterns/signatures”; see col. 4, lines 1-4), that a particular water consuming appliance of the plurality of water consuming appliances is operating (i.e., “determine identification of an appliance type (e.g., toilet, faucet, dishwasher, etc.) based upon the determined water flow usage pattern”; see col. 14, lines 42-44) while the property is unoccupied (i.e., “when the alarm system was set or the property occupants otherwise provided notice to system 500 of their absence from the property for a certain time period)”; see col. 15, lines 3-6); and
Devereaux does not explicitly disclose:
in response to determining that the particular water consuming appliance of the plurality of water consuming appliances is operating while the property is unoccupied, automatically controlling the operation of the particular water consuming appliance.
But Farag teaches:
in response to determining that the particular water consuming appliance of the plurality of water consuming appliances is operating while the property is unoccupied, automatically controlling the operation of the particular water consuming appliance (i.e., “shutting off the main water valve in the event of such a pressure drop. (Such a pressure drop might be due to a leaking or failed pipe or appliance, or to an unauthorized individual stealing water—as, for example, by “tapping into” the line by a garden hose and outdoor spigot.)”; see col. 9, lines 52-57).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Devereaux in view of Farag to incorporate the step: in response to determining that the particular water consuming appliance of the plurality of water consuming appliances is operating while the property is unoccupied, automatically controlling the operation of the particular water consuming appliance, as claimed. The rationale would be to stop unauthorized use of water and conserve water.
Regarding claim 3, Devereaux further teaches:
wherein determining that the property is unoccupied comprises determining that a user device traversed a geofence (i.e., “the ability to detect occupancy of the residence either through intentional action (similar to alarm system mode states), or by passive inference from proxy measurements (detecting motion, noise, electricity usage, presence of personal devices MAC address or UDID)”; see col. 15, lines 35-39; note that the geofence is defined by the local network, or would have been obvious for detecting the presence of the personal devices).
Regarding claim 4, Devereaux further teaches:
wherein determining that the property is unoccupied comprises determining that the user device is associated with a user who was a sole occupant of the property prior to traversing the geofence (i.e., “the ability to detect occupancy of the residence either through intentional action (similar to alarm system mode states), or by passive inference from proxy measurements (detecting motion, noise, electricity usage, presence of personal devices MAC address or UDID)”; see col. 15, lines 35-39; note that it is necessary, or obvious, for the person of the personal device to be the last person leaving the proper, so as to judge that the property is unoccupied after the person leaves the property).
Regarding claim 5, Devereaux further teaches:
transmitting by the monitoring system, a notification to the user device (i.e., “Notification device 330 is preferably configured and operative to provide information (e.g., via a GUI, text message, email and the like) to a user (e.g., homeowner, building manager or other designated individuals) regarding determined operational characteristics for the one or more appliances 300”; see col. 10, lines 35-40).
Regarding claim 6, Devereaux further teaches:
wherein determining that the property is unoccupied comprises:
obtaining, by the monitoring system, motion sensor data from one or more motion sensors configured to detect motion at the property (i.e., “the ability to detect occupancy of the residence either through intentional action (similar to alarm system mode states), or by passive inference from proxy measurements (detecting motion, noise, electricity usage, presence of personal devices MAC address or UDID)”; see col. 15, lines 35-39); and
determining, by the monitoring system and using the motion sensor data, that the property is unoccupied (i.e., “the ability to detect occupancy of the residence either through intentional action (similar to alarm system mode states), or by passive inference from proxy measurements (detecting motion, noise, electricity usage, presence of personal devices MAC address or UDID)”; see col. 15, lines 35-39).
Regarding claim 7, Devereaux further teaches:
wherein determining that the particular water consuming appliance is operating comprises:
determining, using the water consumption data, a water usage at the property (i.e., “actual flow parameters ( or patterns) of detected input flow (e.g., via sensors)”; see col. 4, lines 2-4); and
selecting combinations of appliances for inclusion in a set of appliance combinations that are candidates for using water, each selected combination of appliances including two or more appliances for which a combination of the respective water usage profiles matches the water usage within a threshold difference (i.e., “searches for a combination of nominal appliance flow rates that is similar to the currently measured water flow”; see col. 17, lines 63-64; note that within a threshold difference is implied or obvious for the similarity determination),
wherein the selected combinations of appliances include the particular water consuming appliance (i.e., “searches for a combination of nominal appliance flow rates that is similar to the currently measured water flow”; see col. 17, lines 63-64; note that when the combination is found, the individual appliances that make up the combination is also found).
Regarding claim 8, Devereaux further teaches:
wherein determining that the particular water consuming appliance is operating comprises:
obtaining, by the monitoring system, sensor data generated by a sensor at the property (i.e., “other optional sensor signals such as multiple pressures, electrical current, occupancy, etc., can be included in the data acquisition”; see col. 16, lines 49-51; “the sensor 1017 may be a pressure sensor, a temperature sensor, and/or a flow sensor (e.g., flow rate sensor) configured to detect a pressure of the fluid, a temperature of the fluid, a flow rate of the fluid, a flow volume of the fluid, a flow duration of the fluid, or a combination thereof”; see col. 22, lines 58-63); and
identifying, by the monitoring system and using the sensor data (i.e., “the measured water flow rate is corrected for differences in current water pressure and reference water pressure”; see col. 16, lines 64-65; “the measured flow rates may be corrected again for the additional decrease in pressure related to operating two outlets at the same time”; see col. 17, lines 56-58), a particular combination of appliances from the set of appliance combinations that is using water (i.e., “searches for a combination of nominal appliance flow rates that is similar to the currently measured water flow”; see col. 17, lines 63-64),
wherein the particular combination of appliances includes the particular water consuming appliance (i.e., “searches for a combination of nominal appliance flow rates that is similar to the currently measured water flow”; see col. 17, lines 63-64; note that when the combination is found, the individual appliances that make up the combination is also found).
Regarding claim 11, Devereaux further teaches:
wherein determining that the particular water consuming appliance is operating comprises:
determining, using the water consumption data, a time-varying amplitude of water consumption at the property (i.e., “actual flow parameters ( or patterns) of detected input flow (e.g., via sensors)”; see col. 4, lines 2-4; “detected input flow of water over time”; see col. 4, line 39); and
selecting combinations of appliances for inclusion in a set of appliance combinations that are candidates for using water, each selected combination of appliances including two or more appliances for which a combination of the respective water usage profiles matches the time-varying amplitude of water consumption at the property within a predetermined amount of error (i.e., “searches for a combination of nominal appliance flow rates that is similar to the currently measured water flow”; see col. 17, lines 63-64; note that within a predetermined amount of error is implied or obvious for the determination of similarity),
wherein the selected combinations of appliances include the particular water consuming appliance (i.e., “searches for a combination of nominal appliance flow rates that is similar to the currently measured water flow”; see col. 17, lines 63-64; note that when the combination is found, the individual appliances that make up the combination is also found).
Regarding claim 12, Devereaux further teaches:
wherein determining that the particular water consuming appliance is operating comprises:
obtaining, by the monitoring system, sensor data generated by a sensor at the property (i.e., “other optional sensor signals such as multiple pressures, electrical current, occupancy, etc., can be included in the data acquisition”; see col. 16, lines 49-51; “the sensor 1017 may be a pressure sensor, a temperature sensor, and/or a flow sensor (e.g., flow rate sensor) configured to detect a pressure of the fluid, a temperature of the fluid, a flow rate of the fluid, a flow volume of the fluid, a flow duration of the fluid, or a combination thereof”; see col. 22, lines 58-63); and
identifying, by the monitoring system and using the sensor data (i.e., “the measured water flow rate is corrected for differences in current water pressure and reference water pressure”; see col. 16, lines 64-65; “the measured flow rates may be corrected again for the additional decrease in pressure related to operating two outlets at the same time”; see col. 17, lines 56-58), a particular combination of appliances from the set of appliance combinations that is using water (i.e., “searches for a combination of nominal appliance flow rates that is similar to the currently measured water flow”; see col. 17, lines 63-64),
wherein the particular combination of appliances includes the particular water consuming appliance (i.e., “searches for a combination of nominal appliance flow rates that is similar to the currently measured water flow”; see col. 17, lines 63-64; note that when the combination is found, the individual appliances that make up the combination is also found).
Regarding claim 13, Devereaux further teaches:
wherein requesting the water consumption data from the water meter comprises transmitting, by the monitoring system to the water meter, a message that instructs the water meter to transmit the water consumption data to the monitoring system using a network (i.e., “the processor (or a different processor, such as a remote cloud-based processor communicatively coupled to the system) may monitor the input flow of water over time”; see col. 3, lines 49-52 “The monitor module 200 (or components thereof) may be used with one or more embodiments described herein, e.g., as one of the nodes shown in the network 100. As explained above, in different embodiments these various devices are configured to communicate with each other in any suitable way, such as, for example, via the communication network 100”; see col. 7, lines 34-40; “The monitor module 200 may be practiced in distributed data processing environments where tasks are performed by remote processing devices that are linked through a communications network. In a distributed data processing environment, program modules may be located in both local and remote computer system storage media including memory storage devices”; see col. 8, lines 2-8).
Regarding claim 14, the claim recites the same substantive limitations as claim 2 and is rejected by applying the same teachings .
Regarding claim 15, the claim recites the same substantive further limitations as claim 3 and is rejected by applying the same teachings.
Regarding claim 18, the claim recites the same substantive further limitations as claim 6 and is rejected by applying the same teachings.
Regarding claim 19, the claim recites the same substantive further limitations as claim 7 and is rejected by applying the same teachings. Note that Devereaux further teaches:
obtaining one or more water usage profiles (i.e., “expected flow patterns (i.e., "flow signatures") of certain appliances of the residential or commercial setting may be input”; see col. 3, line 45-47), wherein each water usage profile of the one or more water usage profiles indicates water usage of a respective appliance (i.e., “where the plurality of reference flow patterns correspond with expected water flow patterns to one or more appliance of the appliances”; see col. 1, lines 49-51).
Regarding claim 20, the claim recites the same substantive further limitations as claim 8 and is rejected by applying the same teachings.
Regarding claim 21, the claim recites the same substantive limitations as claim 2 and is rejected by applying the same teachings.
Regarding claim 22, the prior art applied to the preceding linking claim(s) teaches the features of the linking claim(s).
Devereaux does not explicitly disclose:
wherein requesting the water consumption data from the water meter is responsive to the determining that the property is unoccupied.
However, since Devereaux allows a remote user to interact with the monitoring module (see col. 8, lines 64-67), It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Devereaux in view of Farag, such that requesting the water consumption data from the water meter is responsive to the determining that the property is unoccupied, as claimed. The rationale would be to allow the user to remotely check water usage status when the user is away on an ad hoc basis.
Regarding claim 23, the claim recites the same substantive further limitations as claim 13 and is rejected by applying the same teachings.
Regarding claim 24, Devereaux further teaches:
wherein determining, by the monitoring system and using a result of the determination of whether the water consumption data satisfies the similarity criteria for matching any water usage profile, that a particular water consuming appliance of the plurality of water consuming appliances is operating while the property is unoccupied comprises:
determining that the water consumption data satisfies the similarity criteria for matching the water usage profile of the particular water consuming appliance (i.e., “If the detected input flow of water over time (e.g., a flow rate of the input flow of water plotted against time, or the “actual flow pattern/signature”) matches one of the reference flow patterns/signatures”; see col. 4, lines 42-45; “compare the data for this period to each of the appliance flow signatures to determine the closest matching pattern… Based on the flow differential data, the appliance with smallest flow differential is identified”; see col. 17, lines 9-20).
Regarding claim 25, the prior art applied to the preceding linking claim(s) teaches the features of the linking claim(s).
Devereaux does not explicitly disclose:
wherein automatically controlling the operation of the particular water consuming appliance comprises automatically turning the particular water consuming appliance off.
However, smart appliances such as smart washer, smart dishwasher, and smart sprinkler are well-known. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the method in an environment that has smart water-consumption appliances, such that the automatically controlling the operation of the particular water consuming appliance comprises automatically turning the particular water consuming appliance off, as claimed. The rationale would be to stop unauthorized use of water or to conserve water by automatically turn of the identified smart appliance.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s request to withdraw rejections under 35 USC 101 based on the amendment was noted. However, the issue under 35 USC 101 still remains, as indicated in the rejections above.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to rejections under 35 USC 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN C KUAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7066. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00AM-5:30PM.
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, Andrew Schechter can be reached at (571)272-2302. 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.
/JOHN C KUAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857