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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments received 22 January 2026, have been fully considered. Claims 1-13 and 15 remain pending. Claims 1, 5, 7, 9, 11, and 15 have been amended.
Applicant’s efforts to amend the specification are satisfactory, therefore all objections to the specification are withdrawn. The examiner notes their mistake of referencing paragraph numbers where none exist and is grateful to the applicant for making the necessary amendments.
Applicant’s efforts to amend the claim language to address claim objections are satisfactory, therefore all claim objections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s efforts to fix issues under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are satisfactory, therefore all 112(b) rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s efforts to fix issues under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) are satisfactory, therefore all 112(d) rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments regarding prior art rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered.
The examiner does not agree that Romer in view of Edwards does not teach or suggest “wherein the at least partial closing of the valve includes closing the valve by a predetermined closing level, which is a function of a parameterizable threshold.” Romer teaches that a valve may be closed by some increment, such as 2 degrees (¶21), and that the increment size can be changed i.e. is a function of a parameterizable threshold (¶27).
The examiner agrees that Romer in view of Edwards does not explicitly teach all the features of the amended claim 1, specifically that the predetermined closing level “defines a percentage of a total closing of the valve.” Romer does describe closing a valve in increments until a maximum flow rate limit is reached (¶21: “Adjustment of the valve position has the purpose of limiting the maximum flow rate to match the maximum flow rate limit. This may be performed in a number of steps where the valve position is changed in increments of varying size”) but does not explicitly describe predetermining a total closing percentage for reaching that maximum flow rate limit. Edwards does not suggest this teaching either.
However, in light of the amended claim language, new grounds of rejection are given. See 103 rejections 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.
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.
Claims 1-8, 11-13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rømer (US 20200011721 A1; hereinafter “Romer”) in view of Edwards (US 20160041565 A1) and Arpaia (“Proof-of-principle demonstration of a virtual flow meter-based transducer for gaseous helium monitoring in particle accelerators cryogenics”).
Regarding claim 1, Romer discloses a water meter (Abstract: a water utility meter) comprising:
a measuring device arranged to produce measurements of a water consumption (Abstract: “The water utility meter comprises a flow sensor for measuring a flow rate through the water utility meter”) of an installation (Abstract: the water utility meter is “arranged to register and manage the amount of water delivered to a consumption site”);
a valve, or first means for communicating with a cutoff box located outside of the meter and integrating a valve (Abstract: “the water utility meter comprises…a valve for limiting the flow rate from the distribution network to the consumption site);
a processing unit (Abstract: “the water utility meter comprises…a controller unit”) arranged for:
analyzing the measurements of the water consumption to produce predefined parameter measurements relating to water consumption (¶34: the controller unit 300 comprises a flow analyser 301; ¶36: flow analyser 301 “receives flow data from the flow sensor and processes the data to obtain metrics”), and detecting, from said predefined parameter measurements, if the water consumption exceeds a predetermined threshold (¶36: the metrics are used “for evaluating if the rules are breached” (the rules being conditions to which water consumption is limited, see ¶33)), and if so, at least partially closing the valve for a predetermined time to limit a current water flow rate supplied to the installation (Abstract: “the controller unit is further configured to monitor the flow rate using the flow sensor, to verify if the flow rate exceeds a maximum flow rate limit or does not exceed a minimum flow rate limit and if the limits are exceeded adjust the valve position to change the maximum flowrate”; ¶18: the meter is not increased until the flow rate has stayed below the minimum flow rate for a “second time duration” which may be “12 hours to 1 week”),
wherein the at least partial closing of the valve consists in closing the valve by a predetermined closing level, which is a function of a parameterizable threshold, the water meter comprising second communication means for parameterizing the parameterizable threshold (¶21: “for a ball valve having a ball element which may be adjusted by rotation between 0 and 180 degrees an increment size of 2 degrees may be chosen, resulting in 90 increments/decrements between the two outer positions”; ¶27: “The water utility meter may further comprise a communication interface arranged to receive and transmit data messages from a communication partner and whereby…increment size [and] decrement size can be changed by the communication partner”).
Romer does not explicitly disclose that the predefined parameter measurements are used to detect operating phases of at least one predetermined system of the installation, nor that for each predetermined system, during each phase of operation of said predetermined system, if the water consumption exceeds a predetermined threshold associated with said predetermined system, the processor at least partially closes the valve for a predetermined time. Finally, Romer does not explicitly disclose that the predetermined closing level defines a percentage of a total closing of the valve.
Edwards discloses a control module which can identify irregularities in the flow of water through a pipe and, in response to the identified irregularities, shut off the water flow (Abstract). A method of the invention involves detecting “one or more water flow characteristics” and comparing them to “a database of water flow fingerprints” to check for discrepancies (¶11). A “fingerprint” is associated with normal water flow of an appliance (¶10). Furthermore, “information relating to…the use of water through a particular water use appliance that is associated with a sub-module” can be accessed and compared to the database of fingerprints to detect irregular water flow (¶29). Edwards discloses that the sub-modules may include a bathroom tub (¶28) and a shower (¶59: “database 180 may store information with the fingerprint of a shower”).
Romer states that one motivation for its invention is to “[improve] water management capabilities” and provide “a more efficient, accurate and reliable mechanism for limiting the water usage, while not causing unneeded or undesired inconvenience to the consumers” (¶9). Edwards states that a motivation for its invention is to prevent water damage and to more closely monitor water usage, which can provide benefits to property owners and managers (¶21). Edwards’ invention can also be used to control water usage for a specific sub-module (¶67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Edwards with the invention of Romer by collecting and using predefined parameter measurements to detect operating phases of at least one predetermined system of the installation, and to, for each predetermined system, during each phase of operation of said predetermined system, if the water consumption exceeds a predetermined threshold associated with said predetermined system, cause the processor to at least partially close the valve for a predetermined time. By monitoring the water use at the appliance or sub-module level, one may provide a more accurate and detailed account of water usage, one may provide a more detailed estimate of the source of a leak, and one may encourage consumer water management at the appliance or sub-module level.
Romer in view of Edwards does not explicitly teach that the predetermined closing level defines a percentage of a total closing of the valve.
Arpaia teaches a relationship between valve opening percent and flow rate as a percent of maximum flow rate for a number of common valve types (see Fig. 2 depicting bijective relationships between valve opening % and flow rate % for ball and butterfly valves among others). Note also that Romer describes that the valve in question may be a ball or butterfly valve (¶15). This suggests that, if a maximum flow rate limit is desired, one may determine a particular valve opening/closing percentage that would satisfy the desired flow rate limit.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Arpaia with the invention of Romer in view of Edwards by closing the valve by a predetermined closing level defined as a percentage of a total closing of the valve. Doing so would enable one to restrict flow to a desired maximum flow rate limit.
Regarding claim 5, the limitations of claim 5 are found in claim 1, therefore claim 5 is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 recites “a non-transitory storage medium…on which a computer program is stored,” which program causes a processing unit of a water meter to execute the method outlined in claim 1. As stated in the rejection of claim 1, Romer includes a processing unit (Abstract: controller unit) which implements the method outlined in claim 1. Romer also states that its invention may be implemented as software running on one or more processors (¶50). While Romer in view of Edwards and Arpaia does not explicitly disclose a non-transitory storage medium storing software which, when run by the controller unit, causes the method of claim 1 to be performed, it would have been obvious to provide such software on such a medium to enable the processing unit to perform its functions.
Regarding claims 2 and 6, Romer in view of Edwards and Arpaia teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 5, and Romer further discloses that the predefined parameters comprise a water draw time and/or an average water flow rate and/or a volume of water consumed (¶36: “The flow analyser calculates: the flow rate, the accumulated volume; the maximum flow; the minimum flow and other metrics”).
Regarding claim 3, Romer in view of Edwards and Arpaia teaches the limitations of claim 1. Romer in view of Edwards and Arpaia further teaches that the at least one predetermined system comprises a shower and a bath (see rejection of claim 1 and ¶28 and ¶59 of Edwards, where the sub-modules of Edwards may be a bathtub and shower).
Regarding claim 4, Romer in view of Edwards and Arpaia teaches the limitations of claim 1, and Romer further discloses that the valve may be a ball valve (¶15: “The valve may be any kind of suitable valve such as a: ball valve”).
Regarding claim 7, Romer in view of Edwards and Arpaia teaches the limitations of claim 6. Romer further discloses a maximum volume limit, and that maximum volume is calculated over some period (¶35). Romer also discloses that average flow rate is calculated over some time period and compared to a limit, where if average flow exceeds the limit, the valve is at least partially closed (¶17: “It may be advantageous to calculate the average flow over a time period to have a water utility meter wherein the valve position is adjusted by the controller unit to reduce the flow rate if the average flow rate measured over a first time duration exceeds the maximum flow rate limit”). Romer further discloses that “peak flows of short duration have a very limited influence on the total water consumption…[thus it] may be advantageous in that short bursts of high flow rate [are] disregarded.” (¶17). Therefore Romer discloses calculating average flow over during an interval from a starting time to a first time threshold, where if average flow over the interval exceeds a limit, the valve is at least partially closed (¶17).
Romer does not explicitly disclose detecting a start of a water draw nor starting a timer, nor that an operating phase and upcoming overconsumption of a first predetermined system is detected. However, Romer’s teachings above suggest use of a timer to record duration from some defined temporal origin. Furthermore, Edwards teaches detecting water flow from a particular sub-module (¶29: “information relating to…the use of water through a particular water use appliance that is associated with a sub-module” can be accessed). In addition, it would be useful to start a timer when detecting the start of a water draw in order to monitor the water consumption from a particular appliance or sub-module.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art practicing the invention of Romer in view of Edwards and Arpaia to:
detect a start of a water draw (of a particular system/sub-module);
start a timer;
if the water draw is still in progress while a time measured by the timer is greater than a first time threshold:
evaluate a first average water flow rate and a first volume of water consumed during an interval from said starting the time to the first time threshold;
perform a first detection step consisting of checking whether the first average water flow rate belongs to a first predetermined flow rate interval (is below the flow rate limit) and whether the first volume of water consumed is greater than a first predetermined volume threshold and, if these conditions are both met, detecting an operating phase and an upcoming overconsumption of a first predetermined system, then at least partially closing the valve for the predetermined time.
Doing so would enable one to restrict flow if a particular appliance or sub-module draws too much water, thus reducing water loss through the appliance or sub-module while ignoring sufficiently short periods of high flow rate.
Regarding claim 8, Romer in view of Edwards and Arpaia teaches the limitations of claim 7, and Romer in view of Edwards and Arpaia further teaches that the first predetermined system may be a shower (see rejection of claim 1 and ¶59 of Edwards).
Regarding claim 11, Romer in view of Edwards and Arpaia teaches the limitations of claim 7, and further teaches that the at least partial closure of the valve consists in closing the valve by a predetermined closing level (see rejection of claim 1). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art practicing the invention of Romer in view of Edwards and Arpaia to cause the monitoring method toe further comprise the step, following the predetermined time during which the valve is at least partially closed, of checking whether the water draw is still in progress and, if so, of increasing the predetermined closing level by a predetermined value. This just describes restricting flow even more if after the predetermined time the water still flows from the first predetermined system. This would have been useful to reduce water loss from e.g. a shower if after a period of restricted flow the shower still has not been turned off.
Regarding claim 12, Romer in view of Edwards and Arpaia teaches the limitations of claim 11. Furthermore, Edwards teaches that water volume limits may be set for particular sub-modules (¶36). A water volume limit would naturally correspond to some time period, and one natural choice would be to establish a daily use limit for a particular sub-module. Thus at the start of a new day, it would make sense to reopen the valve completely as all of the previous day’s restrictions have been reset.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Edwards with the invention of Romer in view of Edwards and Arpaia by resetting the predetermined closing level at the end of each day.
Regarding claim 13, Romer in view of Edwards and Arpaia teaches the limitations of claim 7. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art practicing the invention of Romer in view of Edwards and Arpaia to, following the predetermined time during which the valve is at least partially closed, check whether the water draw is still in progress and, if so, keep the valve closed for an additional time greater than the predetermined time. This just describes continuing to restrict flow for a greater amount of time if after the predetermined time water still flows from the first predetermined system. This would have been useful to mitigate water loss from e.g. a shower for a long time if after a period of restricted flow the shower still has not been turned off.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Romer (US 20200011721 A1) in view of Edwards (US 20160041565 A1) and Arpaia (“Proof-of-principle demonstration of a virtual flow meter-based transducer for gaseous helium monitoring in particle accelerators cryogenics”), and further in view of Huang (US 20170252764 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Romer in view of Edwards and Arpaia teaches the limitations of claim 7. The limitations of claim 9 describe continuing to check water draw until a second threshold time if the conditions of claim 7 are not met. Then, an evaluation and comparison of average flow rate and/or volume consumed is performed again. If the conditions are met this time, a second sub-module is detected and a valve is at least partially closed.
It would have been obvious to check water draw after a second threshold time and perform another evaluation if the conditions of the first detection step (of claim 7) are not all met. Doing so would be useful because water consumption from an appliance may vary over time, therefore although after a first threshold the amount of water consumption may not warrant restricting flow, it may be that subsequent water consumption does warrant restricting flow. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art practicing the invention of Romer in view of Edwards and Arpaia to, if the conditions of the first detection step are not all met, cause the method to comprise the steps of:
checking whether the water draw is still in progress while a time measured by the timer is greater than a second time threshold;
if this is the case:
evaluating a second average water flow rate and/or a second volume of water consumed until the second time threshold is reached;
performing a second detection step consisting of checking whether the second average water flow rate belongs to a second predetermined flow rate interval and/or whether the second volume of water consumed is greater than a second predetermined volume threshold greater than the first predetermined volume threshold and, if these conditions are all met, detecting an operating phase and an upcoming overconsumption of a predetermined system, then at least partially closing the valve for the predetermined time.
Romer in view of Edwards and Arpaia does not explicitly disclose that, after the second detection step, if the conditions have been met, an operating phase and an upcoming overconsumption of a second predetermined system is detected.
However, Edwards does teach that different sub-modules have individual flow characteristics (¶11). Furthermore, Huang teaches that baths typically use more water than showers (¶5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Huang and Edwards with the invention of Romer in view of Edwards and Arpaia by causing the method to include, after the second detection step, if the conditions have been met, detecting an operating phase and an upcoming overconsumption of a second predetermined system. Appliances and sub-modules such as showers and baths may be associated with different flow characteristics like typical volume consumed. It would therefore be useful to identify a second appliance or sub-module based on the results of the second evaluation in order to incorporate information about the second appliance when taking steps to mitigate water consumption.
Regarding claim 10, Romer in view of Edwards and Arpaia and Huang teaches the limitations of claim 9. Romer in view of Edwards and Arpaia and Huang further teaches that the second predetermined system is a bath (see rejection of claim 1 and ¶28 and ¶59 of Edwards, where the sub-modules of Edwards may be a bathtub and shower).
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 ETHAN WESLEY EDWARDS whose telephone number is (571)272-0266. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30am-5pm.
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.
ETHAN WESLEY EDWARDS
Examiner
Art Unit 2857
/E.W.E./ Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/ANDREW SCHECHTER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857