DETAILED ACTION 1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 2. Claims 1-20 are pending and presented for examination. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 3. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. 4. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to FILLIN "Identify whether the claim(s) are directed to a law of nature; a natural phenomenon; or an abstract idea." \* MERGEFORMAT an abstract idea without significantly more. The representative claim 9 recites: A system for real-time leak detection in a water distribution network, comprising: at least one processor and a memory, the memory storing instructions to cause the at least one processor to perform: extracting acoustic leak signals using ultrasonic sensing; and performing one or more of the following operations: identifying acoustic noise signals generated by a leak, wherein the acoustic noise signals are analyzed to localize and determine a location of the leak; acoustic sensing in a water meter using a plurality of independent acoustic sensors, wherein acoustic data generated by the plurality of independent acoustic sensors is analyzed for leak detection data associated with the leak; and measuring water pressure, wherein pressure data generated as a result of measuring the water pressure is analyzed for leak detection data associated with the leak. The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”. Under step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claims are considered to be in a statutory category (process). Under Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitation that fall into/recite abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter that, when recited as such in a claim limitation, covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) and/or mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion. Next, under Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitations in the claim are only: at least one processor and a memory, the memory storing instructions to cause the at least one processor to perform…acoustic sensing in a water meter using a plurality of independent acoustic sensors, wherein acoustic data generated by the plurality of independent acoustic sensors…; and measuring water pressure, wherein pressure data generated as a result of measuring the water pressure. T he limitations “ at least one processor and a memory, the memory storing instructions to cause the at least one processor to perform ” are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a computer structures performing a generic computer function of processing and storing information) such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. T he limitations “ acoustic sensing in a water meter using a plurality of independent acoustic sensors, wherein acoustic data generated by the plurality of independent acoustic sensors…; and measuring water pressure, wherein pressure data generated as a result of measuring the water pressure ” are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., gathering or collecting data using sensors) such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic sensors. Finally, under Step 2B, we consider whether the additional elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 9 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as noted above, the additional limitations recited at a high level of generality (i.e., gathering data using generic sensors, processing and storing data using a generic computer components) . Further, the additional elements are conventional in the art, as evidenced by the art of record (see, Kristensen et al. US 2025/0130134 (hereinafter, Kristensen), ([0040], [0048]), and Al-Sayed Wahba US 2015/0153243 (hereinafter, Al-sayed Wahba), (Abstract, [0118]) . Therefore, claim 9 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible. Independent claims 1 and 17 , the claims are rejected with the same rationale as in claim 9 as explained above. Dependent claims 3, 5-8, 11, 13-16, and 20, add further details of the identified abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible. Dependent claims 2, 10, and 18, recite addition element of “ wherein the ultrasonic sensing involves deploying ultrasonic sensors in a water distribution network to capture acoustic signals associated with leaks ” . However, this limitation is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., gathering or collecting data using sensors) such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic sensors. Further, the additional element is conventional in the art, as evidenced by the art of record (see, Kristensen, ([0017]), and Brennan, JR. et al. US 2017/0307466 (hereinafter, Brennan) ([0032]) . Therefore, claims 2, 10, and 18, are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims are not patent eligible. Dependent claims 4 and 12, recite addition element of “ generating alerts or notifications based on the identified patterns ”. However, this limitation is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., transmitting or notifying information) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. Further, the additional element is conventional in the art, as evidenced by the art of record (see, Al-sayed Wahba, ([0010]), and Brennan ([0033]) . Therefore, claims 4 and 12 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims are not patent eligible. Dependent claim 19, recites the limitations “ a head-end system that receives and analyzes the acoustic signals for identifying patterns indicative of leaks, alerts or notifications are generated based on the identified patterns .” Under Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitation that fall into/recite abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter that, when recited as such in a claim limitation, covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) and/or mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion. Next, under Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitation in the claim is only: alerts or notifications are generated based on the identified patterns. However, this limitation is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., transmitting or notifying information) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. Finally, under Step 2B, we consider whether the additional elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 19 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as noted above, the additional limitation recited at a high level of generality (i.e., transmitting or notifying information using a generic computer component) . Further, the additional element is conventional in the art, as evidenced by the art of record (see, Al-sayed Wahba, ([0010]), and Brennan ([0033]) . Therefore, claim 9 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible. Drawings 5. The drawings are objected to because Figures. 1-5 of the filed drawings is of a very poor quality, and therefore is unreadable. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 6. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AlA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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 of this title, 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. 7. Claims 1-5, 7-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kristensen et al. US 2025/0130134 (hereinafter, Kristensen), in view of Al-Sayed Wahba US 2015/0153243 (hereinafter, Al-sayed Wahba). 8. Regarding claim 1, Kristensen discloses a method for leak detection in a water distribution network ([0001]), comprising: extracting acoustic leak signals using ultrasonic sensing ([0017], [0025], [0041]); and performing one or more of the following operations: identifying acoustic noise signals generated by a leak, wherein the acoustic noise signals are analyzed to localize and determine a location of the leak; acoustic sensing in a water meter using a plurality of independent acoustic sensors, wherein acoustic data generated by the plurality of independent acoustic sensors is analyzed for leak detection data associated with the leak; and measuring water pressure, wherein pressure data generated as a result of measuring the water pressure is analyzed for leak detection data associated with the leak ([0031]- [0035] : a leak detection system for identifying leak indication in a utility distribution system which includes a pipe network for supplying a utility to a multitude of service connections. The leak detection system is characterized by comprising: a plurality of acoustic sensors mounted at the service connections and configured to establish one or more first noise indicators and second noise indictors; a back-end system for receiving the one or more first noise indicators and second noise indicators from the plurality of acoustic sensors ; a signal provider providing a signal to the back-end system about a change in fluid pressure, wherein said back-end system is configured for correlating the fluid pressure with the one or more first noise indicators established before the change in fluid pressure and the one or more second noise indicators established after the change in fluid pressure in order to identify service connections subject to leak indications) , which corresponds to the limitation “acoustic sensing in a water meter using a plurality of independent acoustic sensors, wherein acoustic data generated by the plurality of independent acoustic sensors is analyzed for leak detection data associated with the leak,” within the claim. Kristensen discloses acoustic indicators established by an acoustic sensor can be send continuously to the back-end system or stored locally and send to the back-end system in data packages containing multiple measurements (see, [0097], [0104]). Kristensen does not disclose: real-time leak detection in a water distribution network. However, Al-sayed Wahba discloses: real-time leak detection in a water distribution network ([0051]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kristensen to use real-time leak detection in a water distribution network as taught by Al-Sayed Wahba . The motivation for doing so would have been in order to provide real-time leakage information data ( Al-Sayed Wahba , [0051]). 9. Regarding claims 9 and 17, the claims are rejected with the same rationale as in claim 1 . 10. Regarding claim 2, Kristensen in view of Al-sayed Wahba disclose the method of claim 1, as disclosed above. Kristensen further discloses wherein the ultrasonic sensing involves deploying ultrasonic sensors in a water distribution network to capture acoustic signals associated with leaks ([0017]). 11. Regarding claims 10 and 18, the claims are rejected with the same rationale as in claim 2 . 12. Regarding claim 3, Kristensen in view of Al-sayed Wahba disclose the method of claim 1, as disclosed above. Kristensen further discloses employing a head-end system to receive and analyze the acoustic signals for identifying patterns indicative of leaks ([0039], [0101]-[0102]). 13. Regarding claim 11, the claim is rejected with the same rationale as in claim 3 . 14. Regarding claim 4, Kristensen in view of Al-sayed Wahba disclose the method of claim 3, as disclosed above. Kristensen does not disclose: generating alerts or notifications based on the identified patterns. However, Al-sayed Wahba discloses: generating alerts or notifications based on the identified patterns ([0010], [0087]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kristensen to use generating alerts or notifications based on the identified patterns as taught by Al-Sayed Wahba . The motivation for doing so would have been in order to send a notification information about leakage detection ( Al-Sayed Wahba , [0010]). 15. Regarding claim 12, the claim is rejected with the same rationale as in claim 4 . 16. Regarding claim 5, The method of claim 1, further comprising: comparing the pressure data with baseline pressure values to identify anomalies indicative of a leak ( Examiner’s Note: Claim 5 depends on independent claim 1. Claim 1 listed one or more operations (i.e., identifying acoustic noise signals generated by a leak, …; acoustic sensing in a water meter using a plurality of independent acoustic sensors, …; and measuring water pressure, …), and require selecting one of the operations. For examination purpose, the Examiner select one from the alternative lists, that is the limitation “acoustic sensing in a water meter using a plurality of independent acoustic sensors, wherein acoustic data generated by the plurality of independent acoustic sensors is analyzed for leak detection data associated with the leak” to address claim 1 . However, claim 5 is drawn from one of the alternatives operations, that is the limitation “measuring water pressure, wherein pressure data generated as a result of measuring the water pressure is analyzed for leak detection data associated with the leak” which were not selected for examination. Therefore, limitation of claim 5 does not distinguish patentability over the prior art applied). 17. Regarding claims 13 and 20, the claims are rejected with the same rationale as in claim 5 . 18. Regarding claim 7, The method of claim 1, further comprising: localizing the leak using comparative signal analysis and an intrinsic valve closure ( Examiner’s Note: Claim 7 depends on independent claim 1. Claim 1 listed one or more operations (i.e., identifying acoustic noise signals generated by a leak, …; acoustic sensing in a water meter using a plurality of independent acoustic sensors, …; and measuring water pressure, …), and require selecting one of the operations. For examination purpose, the Examiner select one from the alternative lists, that is the limitation “acoustic sensing in a water meter using a plurality of independent acoustic sensors, wherein acoustic data generated by the plurality of independent acoustic sensors is analyzed for leak detection data associated with the leak” to address claim 1 . However, claim 7 is drawn from one of the alternatives operations, that is the limitation “identifying acoustic noise signals generated by a leak, wherein the acoustic noise signals are analyzed to localize and determine a location of the leak” which were not selected for examination. Therefore, limitation of claim 7 does not distinguish patentability over the prior art applied). 19. Regarding claim 15, the claim is rejected with the same rationale as in claim 7 . 20. Regarding claim 8, The method of claim 1 further comprising localizing the leak using comparative signal analysis and an intrinsic valve closure in association with device-to-device communication comprising communications between one or more water meters in the water distribution network ( Examiner’s Note: Claim 8 depends on independent claim 1. Claim 1 listed one or more operations (i.e., identifying acoustic noise signals generated by a leak, …; acoustic sensing in a water meter using a plurality of independent acoustic sensors, …; and measuring water pressure, …), and require selecting one of the operations. For examination purpose, the Examiner select one from the alternative lists, that is the limitation “acoustic sensing in a water meter using a plurality of independent acoustic sensors, wherein acoustic data generated by the plurality of independent acoustic sensors is analyzed for leak detection data associated with the leak” to address claim 1 . However, claim 8 is drawn from one of the alternatives operations, that is the limitation “identifying acoustic noise signals generated by a leak, wherein the acoustic noise signals are analyzed to localize and determine a location of the leak” which were not selected for examination. Therefore, limitation of claim 8 does not distinguish patentability over the prior art applied). 21. Regarding claim 16, the claim is rejected with the same rationale as in claim 8 . 22. Regarding claim 19, Kristensen in view of Al-sayed Wahba disclose the sensor of claim 17, as disclosed above. Kristensen further discloses a head-end system that receives and analyzes the acoustic signals for identifying patterns indicative of leaks ([0039], [0101]-[0102]). Kristensen does not disclose: alerts or notifications are generating based on the identified patterns. However, Al-sayed Wahba discloses: alerts or notifications are generating based on the identified patterns ([0010], [0087]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kristensen to use alerts or notifications are generating based on the identified patterns as taught by Al-Sayed Wahba . The motivation for doing so would have been in order to send a notification information about leakage detection ( Al-Sayed Wahba , [0010]). 23. Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kristensen , in view of Al-Sayed Wahba, in further view of Brennan, JR. et al. US 2017/0307466 (hereinafter, Brennan ). 24. Regarding claim 6, Kristensen in view of Al-sayed Wahba disclose the method of claim 1, wherein extracting acoustic leak signals using ultrasonic sensing as disclosed above. Kristensen further discloses extracting of an acoustic signal indicative of the leak using one or more ultrasonic transducers operating in a frequency range ([0017], [0053]: an acoustic sensor is included in a smart utility meter such as an ultrasonic flow meter, which meter is mounted at a service connection, typically in a residential home, and uses ultrasonic transducers as an acoustic sensor for establishing first noise indicators and second noise indicators… Furthermore, the correlation step may include analysis in the frequency domain. As an alternative or supplement to the noise threshold, a frequency threshold may be applied. For example frequency peaks in the frequency spectrum below 100 Hz may be monitored and if these change 5%, 10% or more it indicates that the noise is due to a leak….[Further], [0074], [0076]: the acoustic sensor is one or more electrical signals, either analog or digital. To suppress undesired frequencies (such as the mains frequency) or focus on a specific frequency band, like 10-1000 Hz… the bandwidth of the ADC is 2 kHz but other bandwidths, such as 200 Hz-5 kHz may be applied). Further, Al-sayed Wahba discloses sounds with frequencies from roughly 20 to 20,000 Hz, and the sound is mainly in the range 300 to 3,000 Hz (see, [0066]) . Kristensen in view of Al-sayed Wahba does not disclose extracting 4 KHz-40 KHz of an acoustic signal . However, extracting 4 KHz-40 KHz of an acoustic signal would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art based on the teaching of Kristensen and Al-sayed Wahba as disclosed above. Kristensen in view of Al-sayed Wahba does not disclose: one or more ultrasonic transducers operating in a 1 MHz-2 MHz frequency range. However, Brennan discloses: “an increase in noise amplitude is indicative of a leak. Also, if the amplitude is fairly continuous but the frequency decreases, this may indicate that the leak is getting larger. It has been found that higher frequencies dominate in small leaks, but frequencies decrease as leaks grow. The transducers' 30 transfer function and performance characteristics preferably are taken into account in the foregoing process. Ultrasonic transducers 30 typically operate optimally within a defined bandwidth around a particular center frequency 46. For example, an ultrasonic meter sensor 47 typically uses a transducer 30 with a best operating frequency (resonance 48) between 500 kHz and several megahertz, but the piezoelectric effect that produces the transducer readings extends to lower frequencies. Noise having a frequency near the center frequency 46 is more accurately captured than noise having a frequency beyond the optimal bandwidth of the transducer 30. This may result in the transducer 30 capturing the amplitude of frequencies of the noise signal well beyond the transducer's optimal bandwidth. However, this is repeatable and can be corrected or otherwise taken into account in analyzing the frequency content of the signal.” (see, ([0032]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kristensen in view of Al-sayed Wahba to use one or more ultrasonic transducers operating in a 1 MHz-2 MHz frequency range as taught by Brennan . The motivation for doing so would have been in order to improve the performance of ultrasonic transducers ( Brennan , [0032]). 25. Regarding claim 14, the claim is rejected with the same rationale as in claim 6 . Conclusion 26. Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers, and/or paragraphs, and/or pages in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. 27. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT EYOB HAGOS whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-3508 . The examiner can normally be reached on FILLIN "Work schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 8:30-5:30PM . If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Shelby Turner can be reached on 571-272-6334 . The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of 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://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /Eyob Hagos/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857