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 .
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 6, 8-12, 14-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Solomon et al. [Solomon] (US PGPub 2021/0388950) in view of Bunker et al. [Bunker] (US PGPub 2020/0018664).
As to claim 1
Solomon discloses a computer-implemented method for detecting status changes to fluid flow devices, the method comprising:
receiving, from a sensor (vibration detector 106, see Fig. 1A) disposed proximate to a fluid flow device (pipe network part(s) 104, see Fig. 1A), a vibration signal (vibration signals; see paragraph 0090, line 7)(Step S2, see Fig. 1B);
determining, by one or more processors (processors 202,210; see Fig. 2A), a current flow rate (part operation and condition parameter values 112, see Fig. 2A) within the fluid flow device based upon the vibration signal (Step S3, see Fig. 1B);
detecting, by the one or more processors, a status change of the fluid flow device based upon a comparison between the current flow rate and a prior flow rate (see paragraph 0063, lines 5-12 and paragraph 0093, lines 5-12);
determining, by the one or more processors, a recommended remediation action (remediation selection algorithm) to adjust the current flow rate to the prior flow rate (Steps S8 and S9; see Fig. 1B); and
generating, by the one or more processors, an alert signal (leak alert) indicating the status change and the recommended remediation action (Step S10, see Fig. 1B).
However, Solomon fails to specifically disclose the computer-implemented method comprising:
determining, by the one or more processors, an estimated occupancy of a structure corresponding to the fluid flow device based at least in part upon the vibration signal.
Bunker discloses a computer-implemented method for detecting status changes to fluid flow devices, the method comprising:
determining, by one or more processors (processing module 405, see Fig. 4), an estimated occupancy of a structure (occupancy of the home; see paragraph 0073, lines 11-12) corresponding to the fluid flow device (water sources, see paragraph 0070, line 9) based at least in part upon a vibration signal (audio feedback; see paragraph 0072, line 10) (Steps 810 and 815, see Fig. 8; also see paragraph 0072, lines 9-21 and paragraph 0073, lines 1-12); and
generating, by the one or more processors, an alert signal indicating the status change (notices to a home owner or third party concerning a water leak or potential water leak condition in the home; see paragraph 0043, lines 4-6) and the estimated occupancy (Step 820, see Fig. 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Solomon’s invention with Bunker’s in order to determine occupancy in Solomon’s pipe network parts, since doing so would be useful since water usage associated with a home are dependent on occupancy (see Bunker paragraph 0025, lines 6-8).
As to claim 2
Solomon discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein detecting the status change of the fluid flow device further comprises:
determining, by the one or more processors, a difference value by subtracting the current flow rate from the prior flow rate;
comparing, by the one or more processors, an absolute value of the difference value to a flow rate threshold corresponding to the fluid flow device; and
detecting, by the one or more processors, the status change of the fluid flow device based upon the absolute value of the difference value exceeding the flow rate threshold (see paragraph 0066, lines 1-6 and paragraph 0095, lines 1-11).
As to claim 3
Solomon discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the fluid flow device is disposed within a structure having a water supply valve, and the method further comprises:
responsive to determining that the status change is representative of an emergency condition, causing, by the one or more processors, the water supply valve to close (see paragraph 0100, lines 11-19).
As to claim 5
Solomon discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving, at the one or more processors, external environment data representative of an external environmental condition; and
determining, by the one or more processors, the status change of the fluid flow device based upon a second comparison between the current flow rate, the external environment data, and the prior flow rate (see paragraph 0068, lines 1-9).
As to claim 6
Solomon discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the sensor is a vibrational sensor disposed proximate to the fluid flow device, and the method further comprises:
receiving, from a sound sensor (acoustic sensors 301, 302; see Fig. 3A), a sound signal (acoustic signals; see paragraph 0019, line 3);
determining, by the one or more processors, a second current flow rate within the fluid flow device based upon the sound signal; and
detecting, by the one or more processors, the status change of the fluid flow device based upon a second comparison between the current flow rate, the second current flow rate, and the prior flow rate (see paragraph 0019, lines 1-5; paragraph 0066, lines 1-6; and paragraph 0095, lines 1-11).
As to claim 8
Solomon discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the recommended remediation action includes at least one of (i) patching a portion of the fluid flow device, (ii) unblocking a portion of the fluid flow device, or (iii) adjusting a configuration of the fluid flow device (see paragraph 0072, lines 1-5 and paragraph 0074, lines 1-7).
As to claim 9
Solomon discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving, from a user computing device, a verification signal;
generating, by the one or more processors, recommended information for a remediation service; and
initiating, by the one or more processors, contact between the user computing device and a remediation service computing device (see paragraph 0074, lines 1-7).
As to claim 10
Solomon discloses a system for detecting status changes to fluid flow devices, comprising:
one or more processors (processors 202,210; see Fig. 2A); and
a non-transitory computer-readable memory coupled to the one or more processors, the memory storing instructions thereon that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:
receive, from a sensor (vibration detector 106, see Fig. 1A) disposed proximate to a fluid flow device (pipe network part(s) 104, see Fig. 1A), a vibration signal (vibration signals; see paragraph 0090, line 7)(Step S2, see Fig. 1B),
determine a current flow rate (part operation and condition parameter values 112, see Fig. 2A) within the fluid flow device based upon the vibration signal (Step S3, see Fig. 1B),
detect a status change of the fluid flow device based upon a comparison between the current flow rate and a prior flow rate (see paragraph 0063, lines 5-12 and paragraph 0093, lines 5-12),
determine a recommended remediation action (remediation selection algorithm) to adjust the current flow rate to the prior flow rate (Steps S8 and S9; see Fig. 1B), and
generate an alert signal (leak alert) indicating the status change and the recommended remediation action (Step S10, see Fig. 1B).
However, Solomon fails to specifically disclose the system comprising:
causing the one or more processors to:
determine an estimated occupancy of a structure corresponding to the fluid flow device based at least in part upon the vibration signal.
Bunker discloses system for detecting status changes to fluid flow devices, comprising:
causing one or more processors (processing module 405, see Fig. 4) to:
determine an estimated occupancy of a structure (occupancy of the home; see paragraph 0073, lines 11-12) corresponding to the fluid flow device (water sources, see paragraph 0070, line 9) based at least in part upon a vibration signal (audio feedback; see paragraph 0072, line 10) (Steps 810 and 815, see Fig. 8; also see paragraph 0072, lines 9-21 and paragraph 0073, lines 1-12); and
generate an alert signal indicating the status change (notices to a home owner or third party concerning a water leak or potential water leak condition in the home; see paragraph 0043, lines 4-6) and the estimated occupancy (Step 820, see Fig. 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Solomon’s invention with Bunker’s in order to determine occupancy in Solomon’s pipe network parts, since doing so would be useful since water usage associated with a home are dependent on occupancy (see Bunker paragraph 0025, lines 6-8).
As to claim 11
Solomon discloses the system of claim 10, wherein the instructions, when executed, further cause the one or more processors to detect the status change of the fluid flow device by:
determining a difference value by subtracting the current flow rate from the prior flow rate;
comparing an absolute value of the difference value to a flow rate threshold corresponding to the fluid flow device; and
detecting the status change of the fluid flow device based upon the absolute value of the difference value exceeding the flow rate threshold (see paragraph 0066, lines 1-6 and paragraph 0095, lines 1-11).
As to claim 12
Solomon discloses the system of claim 10, wherein the fluid flow device is disposed within a structure having a water supply valve, and the instructions, when executed, further cause the one or more processors to:
responsive to determining that the status change is representative of an emergency condition, cause the water supply valve to close (see paragraph 0100, lines 11-19).
As to claim 14
Solomon discloses the system of claim 10, wherein the instructions, when executed, further cause the one or more processors to:
receive external environment data representative of an external environmental condition; and
determine the status change of the fluid flow device based upon a second comparison between the current flow rate, the external environment data, and the prior flow rate (see paragraph 0068, lines 1-9).
As to claim 15
Solomon discloses the system of claim 10, wherein the sensor is a vibration sensor disposed proximate to the fluid flow device, and the instructions, when executed, further cause the one or more processors to:
receive, from a sound sensor (acoustic sensors 301, 302; see Fig. 3A), a sound signal (acoustic signals; see paragraph 0019, line 3);
determine a second current flow rate within the fluid flow device based upon the sound signal; and
detect the status change of the fluid flow device based upon a second comparison between the current flow rate, the second current flow rate, and the prior flow rate (see paragraph 0019, lines 1-5; paragraph 0066, lines 1-6; and paragraph 0095, lines 1-11).
As to claim 16
Solomon discloses a tangible non-transitory machine-readable medium comprising instructions for detecting status changes to fluid flow devices that, when executed, cause a machine to at least:
receive, from a sensor (vibration detector 106, see Fig. 1A) disposed proximate to a fluid flow device (pipe network part(s) 104, see Fig. 1A), a vibration signal (vibration signals; see paragraph 0090, line 7)(Step S2, see Fig. 1B);
determine a current flow rate (part operation and condition parameter values 112, see Fig. 2A) within the fluid flow device based upon the vibration signal (Step S3, see Fig. 1B);
detect a status change of the fluid flow device based upon a comparison between the current flow rate and a prior flow rate (see paragraph 0063, lines 5-12 and paragraph 0093, lines 5-12);
determine a recommended remediation action (remediation selection algorithm) to adjust the current flow rate to the prior flow rate (Steps S8 and S9; see Fig. 1B); and
generate an alert signal (leak alert) indicating the status change and the recommended remediation action (Step S10, see Fig. 1B).
However, Solomon fails to specifically disclose causing a machine to at least:
determine an estimated occupancy of a structure corresponding to the fluid flow device based at least in part upon the vibration signal.
Bunker discloses causing a machine to at least:
determine an estimated occupancy of a structure (occupancy of the home; see paragraph 0073, lines 11-12) corresponding to the fluid flow device (water sources, see paragraph 0070, line 9) based at least in part upon a vibration signal (audio feedback; see paragraph 0072, line 10) (Steps 810 and 815, see Fig. 8; also see paragraph 0072, lines 9-21 and paragraph 0073, lines 1-12); and
generate an alert signal indicating the status change (notices to a home owner or third party concerning a water leak or potential water leak condition in the home; see paragraph 0043, lines 4-6) and the estimated occupancy (Step 820, see Fig. 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Solomon’s invention with Bunker’s in order to determine occupancy in Solomon’s pipe network parts, since doing so would be useful since water usage associated with a home are dependent on occupancy (see Bunker paragraph 0025, lines 6-8).
As to claim 17
Solomon discloses the tangible non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 16, wherein the instructions, when executed, further cause the machine to at least detect the status change of the fluid flow device by:
determining a difference value by subtracting the current flow rate from the prior flow rate;
comparing an absolute value of the difference value to a flow rate threshold corresponding to the fluid flow device; and
detecting the status change of the fluid flow device based upon the absolute value of the difference value exceeding the flow rate threshold (see paragraph 0066, lines 1-6 and paragraph 0095, lines 1-11).
As to claim 18
Solomon discloses the tangible non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 16, wherein the fluid flow device is disposed within a structure having a water supply valve, and the instructions, when executed, further cause the machine to at least:
responsive to determining that the status change is representative of an emergency condition, cause the water supply valve to close (see paragraph 0100, lines 11-19).
As to claim 20
Solomon discloses the tangible non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 16, wherein the sensor is a vibration sensor disposed proximate to the fluid flow device, and the instructions, when executed, further cause the machine to at least:
receive, from a sound sensor (acoustic sensors 301, 302; see Fig. 3A), a sound signal (acoustic signals; see paragraph 0019, line 3);
determine a second current flow rate within the fluid flow device based upon the sound signal; and
detect the status change of the fluid flow device based upon a second comparison between the current flow rate, the second current flow rate, and the prior flow rate (see paragraph 0019, lines 1-5; paragraph 0066, lines 1-6; and paragraph 0095, lines 1-11).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 7, 13, and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Solomon and Bunker, individually or in combination, fail to specifically disclose the method and system wherein the fluid flow device is a gutter disposed on a structure exterior, and the method further comprises:
determining, by the one or more processors, that the gutter is unable to distribute water a threshold distance away from the structure exterior;
determining, by the one or more processors, an estimated location of a blockage of the gutter based upon the vibration signal; and
wherein the recommended remediation action includes the estimated location of the blockage (in regards to dependent claims 4, 13, and 19). Accordingly, claims 4, 13, and 19 include allowable subject matter.
Further, Solomon and Bunker fail to specifically disclose the method wherein the fluid flow device is (i) a sink or (ii) a toilet disposed within a structure, and the method further comprises:
aggregating, by the one or more processors, vibration signals corresponding to the fluid flow device during a time period; and
determining, by the one or more processors, an estimated occupancy of the structure based upon the vibration signals aggregated during the time period (in regards to dependent claim 7). Accordingly, claim 7 includes allowable subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 12/4/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-3, 5, 6, 8-12, 14-18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Solomon et al. [Solomon] (US PGPub 2021/0388950) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of claim(s) 1-3, 5, 6, 8-12, 14-18, and 20 which is/are now rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Solomon et al. [Solomon] (US PGPub 2021/0388950) in view of Bunker et al. [Bunker] (US PGPub 2020/0018664).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael J. Brown whose telephone number is (571)272-5932. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday from 5:30am-4:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas Lee can be reached at (571)272-3667. 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.
/Michael J Brown/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115