DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Instances in the claims such as ‘data model’, ‘water mass balancer’, and ‘hydraulic model’ are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as incorporating software in accordance with the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 2 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
With regard to claim 2, this claim recites ‘an advanced metering infrastructure system’ and is thus indefinite because ‘advanced’ is a relative term and it is not clear what the metes and bounds are of an ‘advanced’ metering infrastructure; see MPEP 2173.05.
With regard to claim 11, this claim recites similar limitations to claim 2 and is rejected under the same rationale.
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.
Claim(s) 1-9 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The claimed subject matter of claims 1-9 is rejected under 35 USC 101 for being "software per se". “Software per se” is non-statutory under 35 USC 101 because it is merely a set instructions. See MPEP 2106.03.
Independent claims 1 and 19 are each directed to ‘A hydraulic analysis platform’ that is configured to either generate an anomalous event notification or generate one or more signals and comprises ‘a data model’, ‘a water mass balancer’ and ‘a hydraulic model’ that may be interpreted as software; see at least paragraph 0059 of the instant specification/PGPub and, for example, Tulsidas U.S. Patent Publication No. 20240183134 [e.g. 0008-0013], and Wallace U.S. Patent Publication No. 20230124088 [0063-0064].
Dependent claims 2-9 and 20 do not recite features that preclude a similar interpretation to independent claims 1 and 19 and are thus similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim(s) 10-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to the abstract idea (mental process) of determining an anomalous event based on data, performing simulations and identifying a location based on data.
Claim 10 recites a method for managing a hydraulic distribution network of a water utility, i.e. a process, which is a statutory category of invention.
The claim recites:
determining a presence of an anomalous event based on a metered amount of water flowing into the zone of the water utility and a metered amount of water flowing out of the zone of the water utility; and
performing a plurality of simulations at multiple locations of the zone of the water utility when the anomalous event is present by generating simulated data for one or more hydraulic sensors within the zone of the water utility based on the data received from the plurality of hydraulic sensors located at the boundary zone of the water utility and a difference between the metered amount of water flowing into the zone of the water utility and the metered amount of water flowing out of the zone of the water utility; and
identifying a location of the anomalous event based on the simulated data for the one or more hydraulic sensors being closest to the data received from the plurality of hydraulic sensors located at the boundary zone of the water utility that may be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. Thus the claim recites an abstract idea (mental processes), see MPEP 2106.04(a).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements, i.e. a hydraulic distribution network of a water utility with pressure and flow sensors (generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h)) and receiving data from a plurality of hydraulic sensors located at a boundary zone of the water utility, the plurality of hydraulic sensors including at least one pressure sensor and at least one flow meter (insignificant extra-solution elements – mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05 I A, MPEP 2106.05(g) MPEP 2106.05(d))) do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Note that hydraulic distribution networks of a water utility with pressure and flow sensors are well-understood, routine and conventional, see for example Karnachev et al. U.S. Patent Publication No. 20210148781, Rasekh et al. U.S. Patent Publication No. 20180196399 and Barker et al. U.S. Patent Publication No. 20180195926 and the other references cited herein.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, a hydraulic distribution network of a water utility with pressure and flow sensors (generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h)) and receiving data from a plurality of hydraulic sensors located at a boundary zone of the water utility, the plurality of hydraulic sensors including at least one pressure sensor and at least one flow meter (insignificant extra-solution elements – mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05 I A, MPEP 2106.05(g) MPEP 2106.05(d))) are not considered significantly more. Considering the additionally elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 11 recites ‘receiving data from the plurality of hydraulic sensors via an advanced metering infrastructure system’ (insignificant extra-solution elements – mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05 I A, MPEP 2106.05(g) MPEP 2106.05(d))). Thus this claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 12 recites ‘causing the data received from the plurality of hydraulic sensors and the location of the anomalous event to be rendered to a display device’ (insignificantly extra-solution activity — see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III A regarding displaying information and MPEP 2106.05(d)). Thus this claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 13 recites ‘receiving a network input model describing a plurality of different characteristics of multiple elements comprising the zone of the water utility (insignificant extra-solution elements – mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05 I A, MPEP 2106.05(g) MPEP 2106.05(d)); and generating one or more pressure and/or flow indications for one or more elements comprising the zone of the water utility (mental process). Thus this claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 14 recites ‘generating training data’ (mental process) ‘to train a machine learning model that predicts water flow rates and water pressures for a plurality of elements comprising the zone of the water utility’ (intended use). Also note that generic machine learning is merely applying the exception with generic computer technology, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C, using a known algorithm. Thus this claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 15 recites ‘generating one or more signals’ (instructions to apply the exception using a technique recited at a high level of generality, see MPEP 2106.05(f)) ‘to control one or more valves of the zone of the water utility based on the identification of the anomalous event’ (intended use). Thus this claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 16 merely defines the type of anomalous event as a water leak. Thus this claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 17 merely defines the type of anomalous event as an impulse event. Thus this claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 18 recites ‘the difference between the metered amount of water flowing into the zone of the water utility and the metered amount of water flowing out of the zone of the water utility excludes an amount of water flowing into one or more storage vessels’ (specifies details to the mental process). Thus this claim recites an abstract idea.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Meseguer et al. ‘Model-based monitoring techniques for leakage localization in distribution water networks’ Procedia Engineering 119 ( 2015 ) 1399 – 1408, published 2015.
Perez et al. ‘Leak Localization in Water Networks’ IEEE CONTROL SYSTEMS MAGAZINE, August 2014, pages 24-36, published 2014.
Note that any citations to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BERNARD G. LINDSAY whose telephone number is (571)270-0665. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8:30 AM to 5:30 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mohammad Ali can be reached on (571)272-4105. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant may call the examiner or use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/BERNARD G LINDSAY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2119