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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 18 May 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection due to the addition of the Brookes reference as detailed below.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-7 10-12, 15, 16, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garrod et al. US 2010/0060512 and Brookes US 2019/0055835.
Regarding claim 1, Garrod teaches a computer system and method for monitoring a water level in a water source (river, fig. 4), comprising at least one processor 54 in communication with at least one memory device and at least one sensor 35, the at least one processor configured to receive water data from the at least one sensor located at the water source (fig. 4 illustrates a sensor 35 located at a river 64), wherein the water data is generated by the at least one sensor using signals that the at least one sensor transmits (36) to and receives from (34) the water source, and wherein the signals detect or measure the water level in the water source (paragraph 0029). The processor then analyzes the received data to determine one or more water levels of the water source (paragraph 0030), and determines whether the water in the water source includes an anomalous water level (if the water level rises above the norm, paragraph 0029), in determination that the water level includes the anomalous water level, an alert is generated (paragraph 0029) indicating that the water includes the anomalous water level (is above the norm), and the alert is transmitted via wireless communication (paragraph 0029). Garrod teaches the processing as being performed within the sensor at the site of the water source rather than via a server remote from the water source and transmitting the alert, but does not explicitly disclose transmitting it to one or more client devices associated with at least one user of the water source as claimed.
Brookes discloses a system for monitoring a water level in a source such as a well (paragraph 0002) in which a remote sensor transmits sensor data to a server comprising processing means in the form of a remote server which can process data to determine a water level in an environment (paragraphs 0148-0149). Brookes further teaches transmitting the data to a client device 16 (fig. 1).Brookes is considered to be analogous art to that of Garrod in the field of liquid level detection and it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the processing and transmission means of Brookes with the level sensing device of Garrod in order to monitor a water source for flooding or other rising water and to transmit the detection alerts to users’ mobile devices to provide warning of potential danger in the area.
Regarding claim 2, the system of Garrod teaches detecting an overflowing condition when the river rises above the norm.
Regarding claim 3, the alert of Garrod includes the water level since it is generated when the norm is exceeded.
Regarding claim 6, Garrod teaches determining a water level above the norm which would require comparing the water data to a threshold as claimed.
Regarding claim 7, the water source of Garrod is a river as claimed (paragraph 0029).
Regarding claim 10, Garrod teaches a computer system and method for monitoring a water level in a water source (river, fig. 4), comprising at least one processor 54 in communication with at least one memory device and at least one sensor 35, the at least one processor, the method comprising receiving water data from the at least one sensor located at the water source (fig. 4 illustrates a sensor 35 located at a river 64), wherein the water data is generated by the at least one sensor using signals that the at least one sensor transmits (36) to and receives from (34) the water source, and wherein the signals detect or measure the water level in the water source (paragraph 0029), analyzing the received data to determine one or more water levels of the water source (paragraph 0030), and determining whether the water in the water source includes an anomalous water level (if the water level rises above the norm, paragraph 0029). In response to determination that the water level includes the anomalous water level, an alert is generated (paragraph 0029) indicating that the water includes the anomalous water level (is above the norm), and the alert is transmitted via wireless communication (paragraph 0029). Garrod teaches the processing as being performed within the sensor at the site of the water source rather than via a server remote from the water source and transmitting the alert, but does not explicitly disclose transmitting it to one or more client devices associated with at least one user of the water source as claimed.
Brookes discloses a system for monitoring a water level in a source such as a well (paragraph 0002) in which a remote sensor transmits sensor data to a server comprising processing means in the form of a remote server which can process data to determine a water level in an environment (paragraphs 0148-0149). Brookes further teaches transmitting the data to a client device 16 (fig. 1).Brookes is considered to be analogous art to that of Garrod in the field of liquid level detection and it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the processing and transmission means of Brookes with the level sensing device of Garrod in order to monitor a water source for flooding or other rising water and to transmit the detection alerts to users’ mobile devices to provide warning of potential danger in the area.
Regarding claim 11, the system of Garrod teaches detecting an overflowing condition when the river rises above the norm.
Regarding claim 12, the alert of Garrod includes the water level since it is generated when the norm is exceeded.
Regarding claim 15, Garrod teaches determining a water level above the norm which would require comparing the water data to a threshold as claimed.
Regarding claim 16, the water source of Garrod is a river as claimed (paragraph 0029).
Regarding claim 19, Garrod teaches a computer system and method for monitoring a water level in a water source (river, fig. 4) which would be stored on a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for operation on the processor, comprising at least one processor 54 in communication with at least one memory device and at least one sensor 35, the at least one processor configured to receive water data from the at least one sensor located at the water source (fig. 4 illustrates a sensor 35 located at a river 64), wherein the water data is generated by the at least one sensor using signals that the at least one sensor transmits (36) to and receives from (34) the water source, and wherein the signals detect or measure the water level in the water source (paragraph 0029). The processor then analyzes the received data to determine one or more water levels of the water source (paragraph 0030), and determines whether the water in the water source includes an anomalous water level (if the water level rises above the norm, paragraph 0029), in determination that the water level includes the anomalous water level, an alert is generated (paragraph 0029) indicating that the water includes the anomalous water level (is above the norm), and the alert is transmitted via wireless communication (paragraph 0029). Garrod teaches the processing as being performed within the sensor at the site of the water source rather than via a server remote from the water source and transmitting the alert, but does not explicitly disclose transmitting it to one or more client devices associated with at least one user of the water source as claimed.
Brookes discloses a system for monitoring a water level in a source such as a well (paragraph 0002) in which a remote sensor transmits sensor data to a server comprising processing means in the form of a remote server which can process data to determine a water level in an environment (paragraphs 0148-0149). Brookes further teaches transmitting the data to a client device 16 (fig. 1).Brookes is considered to be analogous art to that of Garrod in the field of liquid level detection and it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the processing and transmission means of Brookes with the level sensing device of Garrod in order to monitor a water source for flooding or other rising water and to transmit the detection alerts to users’ mobile devices to provide warning of potential danger in the area.
Regarding claim 20, the system of Garrod teaches detecting an overflowing condition when the river rises above the norm.
Claim(s) 4 and 5 and claims 13 and 14 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garrod and Brookes as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Walbert US 2018/0089981.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Garrod and Brookes teach the claimed invention but do not explicitly disclose the processor as generating a user list based on user data previously received from the client devices as claimed. Walbert teaches a system for detecting rising water levels and alerting users to potentially hazardous conditions. Paragraph 0069 of Walbert teaches generating a user list and contacting the users via client devices such as cell phones which have been previously entered into the system. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the teachings of Walbert with those of Garrod and Brookes in order to contact users via cellphone who may be in danger due to the rising water levels.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Garrod and Brookes teach the claimed invention but do not explicitly disclose the processor as generating a user list based on user data previously received from the client devices as claimed. Walbert teaches a system for detecting rising water levels and alerting users to potentially hazardous conditions. Paragraph 0069 of Walbert teaches generating a user list and contacting the users via client devices such as cell phones which have been previously entered into the system. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the teachings of Walbert with those of Garrod and Brookes in order to contact users via cellphone who may be in danger due to the rising water levels.
Claim(s) 8 and 17 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garrod and Brookes as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Vaskovic US 7,417,552.
Regarding claim 8, Garrod and Brookes teach the claimed invention but do not explicitly disclose the processor configured to in response to determining that the water source includes an anomalous water level, transmit drainage instructions to the water depth controller and cause the water depth controller to drain the water source based on the transmitted draining instructions. Vaskovic discloses a flood alarm system which operates in a sump basin 20 and comprises a level sensor and pump means 24 for initiating drainage when an anomalous water level is reached. Vaskovic further comprises a processor (column 2, lines 46-60) which notifies a user of a potential flood when detected. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the teachings of Vaskovic with those of Garrod and Brookes in order to provide similar flood reduction means in the form of a pump system or similar to allow for draining and potential flood prevention as it was known in the art at the time of filing to use such systems in flood-prone locations.
Regarding claim 17, Garrod and Brookes teach the claimed invention but do not explicitly disclose the processor configured to in response to determining that the water source includes an anomalous water level, transmit drainage instructions to the water depth controller and cause the water depth controller to drain the water source based on the transmitted draining instructions. Vaskovic discloses a flood alarm system which operates in a sump basin 20 and comprises a level sensor and pump means 24 for initiating drainage when an anomalous water level is reached. Vaskovic further comprises a processor (column 2, lines 46-60) which notifies a user of a potential flood when detected. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the teachings of Vaskovic with those of Garrod and Brookes in order to provide similar flood reduction means in the form of a pump system or similar to allow for draining and potential flood prevention as it was known in the art at the time of filing to use such systems in flood-prone locations.
Claim(s) 9 and 18 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garrod and Brookes as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Kusumoto et al. US 2018/0356221.
Regarding claim 9, Garrod and Brookes teach the claimed invention but do not explicitly disclose the use of an unmanned vehicle (UV), wherein the processor receives topography data from the UV including imagery information indicative of one or more water levels in the water source, and determines based upon the topography data, whether water in the water source includes the anomalous water level. Kusumoto discloses a system and method for monitoring a water level in a water source such as river or lake (paragraph 0042) using an unmanned vehicle (fig. 1, paragraph 0044) which records imagery information of one or more water levels of the water source (water level gauge 200 is recorded with a camera 160, paragraph 0044), and natural formation data (water levels) or manmade formation data (the gauge is considered to be a manmade formation) and a water level of the water source is determined via processing means (fig. 7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the teachings of Kusumoto with those of Garrod and Brookes in order to provide a visual confirmation of a water level in the water source to safely verify the correct level is being recorded prior to transmitting an alert.
Regarding claim 18, Garrod and Brookes teach the claimed invention but do not explicitly disclose the use of an unmanned vehicle (UV), wherein the processor receives topography data from the UV including imagery information indicative of one or more water levels in the water source, and determines based upon the topography data, whether water in the water source includes the anomalous water level. Kusumoto discloses a system and method for monitoring a water level in a water source such as river or lake (paragraph 0042) using an unmanned vehicle (fig. 1, paragraph 0044) which records imagery information of one or more water levels of the water source (water level gauge 200 is recorded with a camera 160, paragraph 0044) and natural formation data (water levels) or manmade formation data (the gauge is considered to be a manmade formation), and a water level of the water source is determined via processing means (fig. 7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the teachings of Kusumoto with those of Garrod and Brookes in order to provide a visual confirmation of a water level in the water source to safely verify the correct level is being recorded prior to transmitting an alert.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mark A. Shabman whose telephone number is (571)272-8589. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:30 EST.
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, Laura Martin can be reached at 571-272-2160. 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.
/MARK A SHABMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights